Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

hetuzozaho · 08-10-2019 5:40pm

Anyway enough of Beata Thunberg and back on topic...

I believe Greta is up for the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday (?)

Details of the announcement - "The Nobel Peace Prize for 2019 will be announced at a press conference on Friday 11 October 11:00 am (CEST), at the Norwegian Nobel Institute, Henrik Ibsens gate 51, Oslo." (I've always in enjoyed my trips to Oslo)

That would be some achievement!

Will be keeping an ear out myself anyway.

gozunda · 08-10-2019 5:49pm

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Anyway enough of Beata Thunberg and back on topic...

I believe Greta is up for the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday (?)

Details of the announcement - "The Nobel Peace Prize for 2019 will be announced at a press conference on Friday 11 October 11:00 am (CEST), at the Norwegian Nobel Institute, Henrik Ibsens gate 51, Oslo." (I've always in enjoyed my trips to Oslo)
That would be some achievement!
Will be keeping an ear out myself anyway.

Indeed. Beata and Greta share more than a surname evidently. Pushy parents ? I wonder do the parents have any influence with the Nobel prize Committee as well (Joke). The prize would be a great boost to gretas career for sure.

Gretas distant relative - Svante Arrhenius who effectively 'discovered' greenhouse warming by carbon dioxide also won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1903. Bizarre such a coincidence. Two in the family - that would be a coup indeed ...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

hetuzozaho · 08-10-2019 5:56pm

gozunda wrote: »

That would be a great boost to gretas career for sure ...

Indeed.

I see Time have handful of the "favourites" and a bit about them.https://time.com/5691777/nobel-peace-prize-predictions-2019/

Interesting read - the things people devote their time to.

Thelonious Monk · 08-10-2019 6:15pm

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/08/climate-change-food-global-heating-livestock

You guys will love this article lol.

Perhaps the biggest problem: livestock. They use a third of global cropland and contribute 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions. A recent New Yorker articlenoted that “[every] 4lbs of beef you eat contributes to as much global warming as flying from New York to London – and the average American eats that much each month.”

Professor Moriarty · 08-10-2019 6:15pm

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Anyway enough of Beata Thunberg and back on topic...

I believe Greta is up for the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday (?)

Details of the announcement - "The Nobel Peace Prize for 2019 will be announced at a press conference on Friday 11 October 11:00 am (CEST), at the Norwegian Nobel Institute, Henrik Ibsens gate 51, Oslo." (I've always in enjoyed my trips to Oslo)

That would be some achievement!

Will be keeping an ear out myself anyway.

Go Greta!

hetuzozaho · 08-10-2019 6:22pm

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/08/climate-change-food-global-heating-livestock

You guys will love this article lol.

Thelonious you're killing me with the beef facts. I love a burger! I'm praying I like this Impossible Foods Burger, or I'm screwed!

lleti · 08-10-2019 6:28pm

Where are her parents?

I can't imagine a 16 year old autist being so happy to be aware from her parents for so long.

Thelonious Monk · 08-10-2019 6:35pm

lleti wrote: »

Where are her parents?

I can't imagine a 16 year old autist being so happy to be aware from her parents for so long.

I met a German girl who worked in a bank the other night but her really passion was in photography and she kept telling me that at heart she was an autist.

Jimmy Garlic · 08-10-2019 6:44pm

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I met a German girl who worked in a bank the other night but her really passion was in photography and she kept telling me that at heart she was an autist.

What happened next?

Tell me how · 08-10-2019 6:45pm

Anyway getting back on topic and away from the various **** slinging episodes from those who believe greta is god or wtte and shouldn't be under discussion. I came across the following which details the singing career of Beata Thunberg - gretas sister. Why is this relevant I hear you say - bare (sic) with me...

Double whammy here.

A - You spend the day telling people things should only be discussed if they are referenced in the thread title, which, in your view excludes discussion of those publishing misinformation relating to the climate issue, but apparently Greta's sisters singing career is acceptable. Ross didn't pivot as much in that episode of Friends as you are doing here.

B - Your incorrect use of the word 'bare' above allows me to give you an example of the correct way to use the (sic) principle which I have added for your benefit. Glad to help.

gozunda · 08-10-2019 6:54pm

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/08/climate-change-food-global-heating-livestockYou guys will love this article lol.

Problems with that is that it can be filed under r for rubbish. The Guardian is certainly not known for its impartial reporting.btw.

Fact is that the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases are the energy and transport sector amounting to approx 70 % of all greenhouse gases worldwide.

I believe you were saying you are flying back from Switzerland tomorrow no? No concern over your carbon footprint?

At least food feeds people. Yeah and we know Thelonious you dont like meat and we should only grow trees and get rid of everyone living in the countryside. One thing for sure that would certainly reduce the population here. You ever heard of Trevelyan by any chance

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/was-this-the-most-wicked-man-in-irish-history-26367449.html

gozunda · 08-10-2019 7:05pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Double whammy here.A - You spend the day telling people things should only be discussed if they are referenced in the thread title, which, in your view excludes discussion of those publishing misinformation relating to the climate issue, but apparently Greta's sisters singing career is acceptable. Ross didn't pivot as much in that episode of Friends as you are doing here.
B - Your incorrect use of the word 'bare' above allows me to give you an example of the correct way to use the (sic) principle which I have added for your benefit. Glad to help.

Chxrst your comments are fairly desperate lol. Greta and Beata obviously do have a lot in common - both being directed by (pushy) parents into media careers - even if you like to deny that - funny that. And yes greta in the US is referred to in that post. And no I did not refer to Beata's singing career as 'acceptable'. Check again if you dont believe me. You are quoting Friends! as source material now? Brilliant.

Aha even more grammar nazi action :pac: and yes I do know that 'bare' means “to reveal” or “to uncover.” T'was simply a small play on words - min lilla vän. Reckon you'd get the knickers in a twist over that and I was right again

Btw - Still dont believe that 'sic' is used to denote faulty logic or reasoning?

Here's an educational text book reference for you. You just might believe that. See: P125 #6.
https://books.google.ie/books?id=NwXMZ07Jp7UC&lpg=PA125&ots=0CBr3yDrYS&dq=sic%20faulty%20logic&pg=PA125#v=onepage&q=sic%20faulty%20logic&f=false
Happy now?

Beasty · 08-10-2019 9:57pm

Some posters who have contributed to this thread today are getting perilously close to a threadban, or worse

Keep it civil, and in particular cut out the bickering[

Any questions, PM me

Thanks

KyussB · 10-10-2019 2:32am

Well, the thread seems to have died...not entirely a bad thing imo, as it had become a pain in the arse tbh.

Still. The general topic of combating climate change, which Greta has done a fantastic job at bringing to the fore of public attention, is an important one. It'd be a shame to see the potential for useful discussion on the topic die (assuming the point of useful discussion can be reached at all...).

Taking solutions to climate change as being 'on topic', since discussion of this is what Greta promotes, here was an interesting article on how carbon in the atmosphere can be converted into useful fuel, which can be directly substituted for fossil fuels when combined with hydrogen generation:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/10/08/carbon-engineering-taking-co2-right-out-of-the-air-to-make-gasoline/

Capturing of carbon like this, combined with generation of hydrogen to produce hydrocarbons, can (from what I can tell) both be done using electricity - which means that converting our economies to being carbon-neutral, involves generating enough renewable energy to both power our immediate energy demands - combined with charging enough energy storage for the times when renewables can't provide the needed supply - and producing enough hydrocarbons from renewable energy for sectors of our economy which will be dependent on hydrocarbons for the foreseeable future - if you combine all of these basic things, then you effectively solve climate change by creating economies which are not just carbon neutral, but have the potential to be carbon negative (by taking more carbon from the atmosphere, than is released into the atmosphere).

The primary constraints to rolling out mass-production of the above energy generation and storage are rare-earths. If we can substitute rare-earths for both energy generation from renewables (already lots of promising avenues for this), and for energy storage (again lots of promising avenues for this), then we resolve the basic resource constraints that make cracking the issue of climate change difficult.

This is low hanging fruit, I'm confident this can be done, if undertaken on a big enough scale. The scale requried, can't be done using for-profit-based private industry - it can only be done through government R&D projects, undertaken worldwide.

I believe this is a pan-ideological issue. It can be undertaken by Capitalist governments and Socialist/Communist governments both (and it needs to be undertaken by both - it require the whole planets combined efforts). I think the R&D projects advocated by Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (who Greta has met with and is supportive of) and Bernie Sanders, under the Green New Deal, are ideal for this - since they advocate massive government investment in the needed R&D, and massive government investment in the infrastructural changes needed (based on that R&D).

My view, that this is achievable by 2030 with the necessary government-led R&D and infrastructural investment, is an optimistic one. If it's taken seriously enough, though - I do believe it's completely possible - but it needs rapid/urgent effort, not just in the US but worldwide, starting immediately.

Tell me how · 10-10-2019 3:01am

KyussB wrote: »

My view, that this is achievable by 2030 with the necessary government-led R&D and infrastructural investment, is an optimistic one. If it's taken seriously enough, though - I do believe it's completely possible - but it needs rapid/urgent effort, not just in the US but worldwide, starting immediately.

I expected to see posts on the thread earlier today after the budget adding climate affiliated taxes yesterday.

Greta's message of the need for climate action is a necessary one, and it is going to have to be taken up by many more.

I was frustrated to see no significant action on positive steps towards helping people cut down on car use. 9M for cycling infrastructure is less than €2 per person for the year. A pittance.

That is what is frustrating, to see people deny the climate issue and say government are only going to raise taxes but not act, it shows how far we have to move to get positive action. If everyone was on the same page that there is a problem then we would be able to motivate/enforce a government who will act, people not even seeing a problem, or detracting from Greta's message is giving the government an out in not acting.

Seanachai · 10-10-2019 8:13am

Tell me how wrote: »

I expected to see posts on the thread earlier today after the budget adding climate affiliated taxes yesterday.

Greta's message of the need for climate action is a necessary one, and it is going to have to be taken up by many more.

I was frustrated to see no significant action on positive steps towards helping people cut down on car use. 9M for cycling infrastructure is less than €2 per person for the year. A pittance.

That is what is frustrating, to see people deny the climate issue and say government are only going to raise taxes but not act, it shows how far we have to move to get positive action. If everyone was on the same page that there is a problem then we would be able to motivate/enforce a government who will act, people not even seeing a problem, or detracting from Greta's message is giving the government an out in not acting.

'and it is going to have to be taken up by many more', we don't have to take up any message we don't want to take up, we do however have to pay taxes. What's the point of Thunberg's campaign if we're just going to have to put up and shut up anyway? Ordinary people have to pay whatever taxes the gov conjures up, they have sfa choice in the matter. We could do without the lecturing and patronisation though.

How many on here are actually denying climate change? It seems to be mostly issues with Thunberg being used as a proxy to shove an agenda down people's throats. Hardly anybody is denying that there is actually a problem, it's opposition to the belief that punitive measures on ordinary people will slow or reverse climate change. Much more emphasis should be placed on plastics and pollution as well as soil erosion, things we can actually realistically do something about.

lleti · 10-10-2019 8:14am

Wonder what Greta thinks about the power shutoff in Cali.

Dirty fossil fuels not being used to power homes is great for the climate. Would love to see Greta tell the people affected what a great thing it is.

https://www.rte.ie/news/newslens/2019/1010/1082273-california-power-outages-wildfires/

hetuzozaho · 10-10-2019 8:43am

lleti wrote: »

Wonder what Greta thinks about the power shutoff in Cali.

Best place for information regarding Greta is her twitter account. FYI

KyussB · 10-10-2019 9:31am

Tell me how wrote: »

I expected to see posts on the thread earlier today after the budget adding climate affiliated taxes yesterday.

Greta's message of the need for climate action is a necessary one, and it is going to have to be taken up by many more.

I was frustrated to see no significant action on positive steps towards helping people cut down on car use. 9M for cycling infrastructure is less than €2 per person for the year. A pittance.

That is what is frustrating, to see people deny the climate issue and say government are only going to raise taxes but not act, it shows how far we have to move to get positive action. If everyone was on the same page that there is a problem then we would be able to motivate/enforce a government who will act, people not even seeing a problem, or detracting from Greta's message is giving the government an out in not acting.

In Ireland the main duopoly parties have demonstrated that they are openly contemptuous of the public - they aren't going to respect anything less than a general strike or such, that brings the capital to a standstill for a prolonged period (and if the rental/housing crisis hasn't led to that, nothing will) - trying to influence politics through public awareness and political persuasion is a waste of time with them.

Until the public are convinced and motivated that political action outside of the ballot box and lobbying is needed - and that the political action is going to have to involve temporary widespread disruption of a significant percentage of the countries GDP-generating potential - then there is zero chance of having any political effect.

To force the government to act, you have to...force them

You can't persuade/lobby parties that are so contemptuous of the public, into the necessary action, when it's so against their interests.

Ireland is tiny in the large scale of things, too - what really needs to happen is EU-level reform, because the economic structure of the EU and e.g. budget rules and stuff, directly hampers the necessary scale of action on climate issues - that's an even more difficult one to crack (the solutions are all known, but how to get them enacted politically is unknown), which the above is useless for.

gozunda · 10-10-2019 10:07am

lleti wrote: »

Wonder what Greta thinks about the power shutoff in Cali.
Dirty fossil fuels not being used to power homes is great for the climate. Would love to see Greta tell the people affected what a great thing it is.

https://www.rte.ie/news/newslens/2019/1010/1082273-california-power-outages-wildfires/

Perhaps somewhat ironic - that it is the power company responsible some of Californias most serious fires in recent times who are shutting down supply

The Company That's Caused California Wildfires Is Cutting Off Power to 2 Million People to Avoid Another One

The state of California allowed PG&E to start charging customers billions more so it could upgrade its grid. The company still hasn't.

The utility giant responsible for deadly California wildfires announced Tuesday that it would shut off power to about 2.4 million people for several days to avoid another round of catastrophic blazes. Some 500,000 Californians are already without power.

The company, PG&E, filed for bankruptcy in January after coming under a barrage of lawsuits relating to its role in the fires in California in the last two years. The utility’s equipment failures were responsible for several deadly wildfires. Most recently, the Camp Fire killed 85 people in Paradise, California, when a live wire broke loose from one of the company’s towers. PG&E’s own guidelines put the tower 25 years beyond its useful life, according to the New York Times.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9kezje/the-company-thats-caused-california-wildfires-is-cutting-off-power-to-2-million-people-to-avoid-another-one

As for all r&d advocated to become carbon neutral by 2030. Complete and utter horrlicks. I'd suggest 3030 as a more realistic date. It is evident that existing upgrades like the one detailed in this article cant be achieved even with huge prices hikes and yet we are expected to swallow the same type of tax increases here. Governments love any excuse for a new tax - and isn't it great that they now have a bunch of day dreamers who think this is a great idea altogether.

But wait not all is lost! It would seem that if we invoke the holy name of greta many times - then all this will magically happen :rolleyes:

KyussB · 10-10-2019 10:45am

Governments aren't funded 1:1 from taxes - that's a right-wing myth. Governments have never worked that way. Governments can afford anything the available labour, skills and physical resources in an economy can provide - which, on a European scale (and even moreso on a worldwide scale) is more than enough for the necessary R&D and infrastructural redevelopment.

The main thing we need is substitution of rare earths in renewable energy generation and storage - then that removes the main resource constraint which would impede the necessary scale of mass production, to be on the way to achieving these goals by 2030.

Harvey Weinstein · 10-10-2019 11:57am

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/08/climate-change-food-global-heating-livestock

You guys will love this article lol.

And yet the EU have committed to importing 100k tonnes of beef from South America...and not a peep from environmentalists

Thelonious Monk · 10-10-2019 12:01pm

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

And yet the EU have committed to importing 100k tonnes of beef from South America...and not a peep from environmentalists

Environmentalists want a huge reduction in the amount of meat we eat, regardless of where it comes from, everyone knows this, they've been peeping about it for years.

Jimmy Garlic · 10-10-2019 12:03pm

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Environmentalists want a huge reduction in the amount of meat we eat, regardless of where it comes from, everyone knows this, they've been peeping about it for years.

What protein should take its place in peoples diets?

Thelonious Monk · 10-10-2019 12:04pm

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

What protein should take its place in peoples diets?

eating less meat doesn't mean no protein. I don't eat red meat, I eat seafood a couple of times a week and maybe turkey once a week. I am fit and healthy and strong.
It's a very new thing to us to be eating as much meat as we do.

gozunda · 10-10-2019 12:45pm

TheloniousMonk wrote: »

Environmentalists want a huge reduction in the amount of meat we eat, regardless of where it comes from, everyone knows this, they've been peeping about it for years.

No certainly its not the 'environmentalists' saying that. The 'no meat' / reduction rubbish is mainly coming from the screamers in the plant food lobby - like the now discredited EAT Lancett report. And no 'everyone' does not know this. Some people simply need to start thinking for themselves

Here's the issues discussed without hype

https://chriskresser.com/the-real-environmental-impact-of-red-meat-part-1/

Eric Cartman · 10-10-2019 12:48pm

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Environmentalists want a huge reduction in the amount of meat we eat, regardless of where it comes from, everyone knows this, they've been peeping about it for years.

They want a lot of mad things that are never going to happen.

Eat red meat, drive a V8 car, smoke cigarettes, live in the countryside , be happy

ELM327 · 10-10-2019 12:51pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

They want a lot of mad things that are never going to happen.

Eat red meat, drive a V8 car, smoke cigarettes, live in the countryside , be happy

Exactly, and no amount of screeching from the great hunberg is going to change it.

Tell me how · 10-10-2019 1:54pm

ELM327 wrote: »

Exactly, and no amount of screeching from the great hunberg is going to change it.

Do you think there needs to be change?
Greta does, and so she is trying to promote it.
If you have a problem with that, you either think there is no need for the change she is talking about, or you are annoyed that it is Greta getting the message out there.

What is it?

ELM327 · 10-10-2019 1:56pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you think there needs to be change?
Greta does, and so she is trying to promote it.
If you have a problem with that, you either think there is no need for the change she is talking about, or you are annoyed that it is Greta getting the message out there.

What is it?

There needs to be change.
The shrieking of a child being fed lines from ecomentalists is not how to go about it.

When I was young and children screeched they were punished. Not humored at a meeting of the UN.

Tell me how · 10-10-2019 2:02pm

ELM327 wrote: »

There needs to be change.
The shrieking of a child being fed lines from ecomentalists is not how to go about it.

Has set an example by which at least 10M people have followed in protesting and calling for change.
Are you an ecomentalist given you too think there needs to be change?

ELM327 wrote: »

T
When I was young and children screeched they were punished. Not humored at a meeting of the UN.

Thankfully society has moved on where the merits of an argument are judged rather than people playing the 'I'm older, I'm right' card.

ELM327 · 10-10-2019 2:03pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Has set an example by which at least 10M people have followed in protesting and calling for change.
Are you an ecomentalist given you too think there needs to be change?

Thankfully society has moved on where the merits of an argument are judged rather than people playing the 'I'm older, I'm right' card.

Listening to the screeches of a child being fed lines by ecomentalists is not a demarcation of "better".

I am not an ecomentalist. Far from it.

Tell me how · 10-10-2019 2:05pm

ELM327 wrote: »

Listening to the screeches of a child being fed lines by ecomentalists is not a demarcation of "better".

I am not an ecomentalist. Far from it.

So, how come you are not, but Greta's angle of listen to the scientists deems her to be?

Also, if you do see the need for change, why are you so motivated to dislike the person who has done more for bringing the conversation in to the public space than anyone else. Surely you would be supportive of someone who wants what you want?

10-10-2019 2:09pm

tell me bow wow wow:

1: do you seriously contend that with another candidate selected by her backers that the number wouldnt have been 10m or close

or that the number would have been zero without a greta figurehead

2: is lecturing people who have not asked for you to lecture them something you think works, or is it just something you enjoy doing

KyussB · 10-10-2019 2:19pm

gozunda wrote: »

No certainly its not the 'environmentalists' saying that. The 'no meat' / reduction rubbish is mainly coming from the screamers in the plant food lobby. And no 'everyone' does not know this. Some people simply need to start thinking for themselves

Here's the issues discussed without hype

https://chriskresser.com/the-real-environmental-impact-of-red-meat-part-1/

That guy is a woo pedller, anti-vaxxer etc.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Chris_Kresser

Tell me how · 10-10-2019 2:41pm

Seanachai wrote: »

'and it is going to have to be taken up by many more', we don't have to take up any message we don't want to take up, we do however have to pay taxes. What's the point of Thunberg's campaign if we're just going to have to put up and shut up anyway? Ordinary people have to pay whatever taxes the gov conjures up, they have sfa choice in the matter. We could do without the lecturing and patronisation though.

How many on here are actually denying climate change? It seems to be mostly issues with Thunberg being used as a proxy to shove an agenda down people's throats. Hardly anybody is denying that there is actually a problem, it's opposition to the belief that punitive measures on ordinary people will slow or reverse climate change. Much more emphasis should be placed on plastics and pollution as well as soil erosion, things we can actually realistically do something about.

Surprising this has to be explained.
One of two things would happen if the majority agreed and supported Greta's message.
Either the government would change its focus, or the people would change the government to one with a preferred focus.

It's baffling to see people say they don't disagree with climate change and then work so hard to undermine the message that something needs to be done.

topper75 · 10-10-2019 2:53pm

KyussB wrote: »

In Ireland the main duopoly parties have demonstrated that they are openly contemptuous of the public.

They have perhaps. But nobody is barring you or anyone else going on a ballot paper. Get a mandate and you can do stuff. If you don't you are merely a political extremist.

I don't think people in Ireland really want this stuff anyway. They simply don't have it as a real-world priority. We saw the 'green wave'. What percentage of the vote was that again? It stands forever now as a joke on media wishful thinking - the 2019 euro and local elections.

Myself I'm not interested. I live the way I live regarding transport/food/enjoying life. I live better than the people who came before me. The ones who come after have to accept that challenge and rise just the same. To stop me doing that, you'd have to kill me. Maybe that is a challenge to the extremists!

jimgoose · 10-10-2019 2:57pm

topper75 wrote: »

...We saw the 'green wave'. What percentage of the vote was that again?...D

I was talking to Simon Coveney that night in City Hall - he told me (quietly) that he was a lot happier with that than a resurgence from a load of SF boot-boys and leftie-loopers. :pac:

gozunda · 10-10-2019 3:02pm

KyussB wrote: »

That guy is a woo pedller, anti-vaxxer etc.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Chris_Kresser

Ah 'Rational Wkiki' lol

RationalWiki

Online wiki devoted to propagating left-wing ideals without explicitly stating so. The title "Rational Wiki" is deliberately misleading, as it implies a logical, unbiased, emotionally detached approach when the site reads like a hotly opinionated liberal blog.

According to RationalWiki, "reality has a liberal bias," not them.

From an equally on the level source ...

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=RationalWiki

And just because the left wingers dont like some of his ideas does nor mean everything he says is wrong. Seems to be quite a bit of 'woo' in this thread from the climate alarmists for sure

And no I'm not an anti-vaxer

hetuzozaho · 10-10-2019 4:46pm

gozunda wrote: »

Ah 'Rational Wkiki' lol

RationalWiki

From an equally on the level source ...

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=RationalWiki

And just because the left wingers dont like some of his ideas does nor mean everything he says is wrong. Seems to be quite a bit of 'woo' in this thread from the climate alarmists for sure

And no I'm not an anti-vaxer

Chris is though is he?

KyussB · 10-10-2019 4:54pm

topper75 wrote: »

They have perhaps. But nobody is barring you or anyone else going on a ballot paper. Get a mandate and you can do stuff. If you don't you are merely a political extremist.

I don't think people in Ireland really want this stuff anyway. They simply don't have it as a real-world priority. We saw the 'green wave'. What percentage of the vote was that again? It stands forever now as a joke on media wishful thinking - the 2019 euro and local elections.

Myself I'm not interested. I live the way I live regarding transport/food/enjoying life. I live better than the people who came before me. The ones who come after have to accept that challenge and rise just the same. To stop me doing that, you'd have to kill me. Maybe that is a challenge to the extremists!

It's very far to the authoritarian end of the politically extreme, to say that political activity should be limited to the ballot box.

hetuzozaho · 10-10-2019 4:57pm

topper75 wrote: »

Myself I'm not interested. I live the way I live regarding transport/food/enjoying life. I live better than the people who came before me. The ones who come after have to accept that challenge and rise just the same.

What do you mean rise just the same? Rise just the same as the scientists who made things better for you, who are now asking for people to listen to science?

James Brown · 10-10-2019 4:59pm

Deleted User wrote: »

tell me bow wow wow:

1: do you seriously contend that with another candidate selected by her backers that the number wouldnt have been 10m or close

or that the number would have been zero without a greta figurehead

2: is lecturing people who have not asked for you to lecture them something you think works, or is it just something you enjoy doing

All I know about her is she's giving out about the environment and being a great role model to kids. Since day one Boards has been rife with talk about her backers and the people using her and her mental health.
Can't say I've heard more than a few sentences out of her, so what ever nefarious message her backers have in mind missed me I think.
She's a kid drawing more attention to climate change. That's about it.

KyussB · 10-10-2019 5:03pm

gozunda wrote: »

And just because the left wingers dont like some of his ideas does nor mean everything he says is wrong. Seems to be quite a bit of 'woo' in this thread from the climate alarmists for sure

And no I'm not an anti-vaxer

If the stuff he says is accurate, then it can be found from a source that doesn't spout anti-vax nonsense, and which is generally more credible.

It's always the climate 'skeptic' end of the discussion here demanding people waste time taking dodgy sources credibly.

10-10-2019 5:23pm

KyussB wrote: »

If the stuff he says is accurate, then it can be found from a source that doesn't spout anti-vax nonsense, and which is generally more credible.

It's always the climate 'skeptic' end of the discussion here demanding people waste time taking dodgy sources credibly.

if what greta says is accurate then it can be found from a source that doesnt claim an end date of 2030, lay outrageous accusations at all adults, has scientific credentials and can answer questions in public

Tell me how · 10-10-2019 5:34pm

Deleted User wrote: »

if what greta says is accurate then it can be found from a source that doesnt claim an end date of 2030, lay outrageous accusations at all adults, has scientific credentials and can answer questions in public

So you are in agreement with the scientists who contributed to the IPCC report then? Cool. Progress.

(You can ignore the fact that that is ultimately what Greta is saying to do.)

10-10-2019 5:36pm

Tell me how wrote: »

So you are in agreement with the scientists who contributed to the IPCC report then? Cool. Progress.

(You can ignore the fact that that is ultimately what Greta is saying to do.)

still telling posters what they think?

again, dyou find this stuff works?

KyussB · 10-10-2019 5:39pm

Deleted User wrote: »

if what greta says is accurate then it can be found from a source that doesnt claim an end date of 2030, lay outrageous accusations at all adults, has scientific credentials and can answer questions in public

Are you agreeing that people should aim to use credible sources? Or is that a 'tu quoque' aimed at justifying use of non-credible sources?

10-10-2019 5:40pm

tu quoque is as tiresome as any other shorthand ill-applied "i saw this on twitter" non-argument that has ever existed.

10-10-2019 5:42pm

i mean

folks

if you find yourselves constantly circling ready to say anything, and i mean *anything* that even vaguely resembles

"AHA! so you DO agree with me!"

you need to stop and consider your own dignity

Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

Comments