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

joseywhales wrote: »

Jesus how many years were you going to wait with your little knife for her to take a flight?

Lol. De wut?

If she and others are preaching this ****e - then pointing out that there's hypocrisy there is absolutly nothing like daft hyperbole of you throwing 'little knife(s)'

gozunda wrote: »

Lol. De wut?

If she and others are preaching this ****e - then pointing out that there's hypocrisy there is absolutly nothing like daft hyperbole of you throwing 'little knife(s)'

I didn't know speech impediments translated to text, intriguing.

joseywhales wrote: »

I didn't know speech impediments translated to text, intriguing.

Are you going to continue to make odd personal remarks or explain your bizarre and frankly daft comments?

As for 'wut'

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wut&amp=true&defid=2650928

I could only assume that using english to communicate was a problem for you rather than a choice, apologies if you have decided to be ignorant, I didn't give you the credit.

As for explanation of
"Jesus how many years were you going to wait with your little knife for her to take a flight?"

It is commentary on the fact that your disapproval of this girl is so ingrained that I believe you would have waited for years if necessary to vindicate your position by pointing out the hypocrisy of her taking a flight. She was obviously going to take a flight out of necessity at some point, I am not sure her message is "ground all flights", so I don't see this action as hypocritical to her message.

joseywhales wrote: »

I could only assume that using english to communicate was a problem for you rather than a choice, apologies if you have decided to be ignorant, I didn't give you the credit.As for explanation of
"Jesus how many years were you going to wait with your little knife for her to take a flight?"
It is commentary on the fact that your disapproval of this girl is so ingrained that I believe you would have waited for years if necessary to vindicate your position by pointing out the hypocrisy of her taking a flight. She was obviously going to take a flight out of necessity at some point, I am not sure her message is "ground all flights", so I don't see this action as hypocritical to her message.

So what you wrote is rubbish in other words. Understood.

Take a read of the thread. No one had to 'wait 'for years' btw. This comment was made now - when Greta and her party are galavanting around the US, Canada and South America and the issue is relevant. I'm sorry you don't appear to understand that.

Please note I did not refer to any 'flight' whatsoever. So get that little tirade in order before 'flying' off the handle and making such idiotic comments.

It is hypocritical simply because what she preaches to others. Her various travels by all means do not marry with these preachings. It's not difficult to understand.

splinter65 wrote: »

Has the number of people dying from natural disasters dropped by 95% in 100 years or not.
Spoiler: the leader of Extinction Rebellion agrees that it has.

Except that wasn't the point NB was using the chart to make.

gozunda wrote: »

So what you wrote is rubbish in other words. Understood.

Take a read of the thread. No one had to 'wait 'for years' btw. This comment was made now - when Greta and her party are galavanting around the US, Canada and South America and the issue is relevant. I'm sorry you don't appear to understand that.

Please note I did not refer to any 'flight' whatsoever. So get that little tirade in order before 'flying' off the handle and making such idiotic comments.

It is hypocritical simply because what she preaches to others. Her various travels by all means do not marry with these preachings. It's not difficult to understand.

So what you wrote is rubbish in other words. Understood.

jackboy wrote: »

There is no message. Which is exactly why she was allowed to speak in those places.

Listen to the scientists.
Enable and enforce positive action.

Pretty clear message.

jackboy

Tell me how wrote: »

Listen to the scientists.
Enable and enforce positive action.

Pretty clear message.

I don’t see how it could be less clear. It’s just waffle.

gozunda wrote: »

So what you wrote is rubbish in other words. Understood.

Take a read of the thread. No one had to 'wait 'for years' btw. This comment was made now - when Greta and her party are galavanting around the US, Canada and South America and the issue is relevant. I'm sorry you don't appear to understand that.

Please note I did not refer to any 'flight' whatsoever. So get that little tirade in order before 'flying' off the handle and making such idiotic comments.

It is hypocritical simply because what she preaches to others. Her various travels by all means do not marry with these preachings. It's not difficult to understand.

What were you implying when you tried to raise doubts about her mode of transport around the US?

jackboy wrote: »

I don’t see how it could be less clear. It’s just waffle.

Waffle backed up by thousands of scientists from 120 countries as outlined in the IPCC report.

You really are showing yourself to have no argument other than the Victor Meldrew approach.

jackboy

Tell me how wrote: »

Waffle backed up by thousands of scientists from 120 countries as outlined in the IPCC report.

You really are showing yourself to have no argument other than the Victor Meldrew approach.

How many of these thousands of scientists are agreeing with Greta that we have 12 years to save the world? I don’t here many of them making that claim. Is there any?

jackboy wrote: »

How many of these thousands of scientists are agreeing with Greta that we have 12 years to save the world? I don’t here many of them making that claim. Is there any?

So, your only issue is her use of 2030 as a line in the sand?

Because that's fine if that's your issue but it's like someone telling you your roof will collapse in March next year and you refuse to act because you're not sure if it will be March.

jackboy

Tell me how wrote: »

So, your only issue is her use of 2030 as a line in the sand?

Because that's fine if that's your issue but it's like someone telling you your roof will collapse in March next year and you refuse to act because you're not sure if it will be March.

It’s an example of her waffle. She says listen to the scientists. Then she ignores the scientists and spouts nonsense about 12 years to save the world.

So in 12 years will civilisation end in Ireland? Like should I start prepping now???

jackboy wrote: »

It’s an example of her waffle. She says listen to the scientists. Then she ignores the scientists and spouts nonsense about 12 years to save the world.

You're being selective there. Her only offering to the US House of Congress meeting was to submit the IPCC report.
Every one of her key speeches include the phrase 'Unite behind the science'.

If you agree there is a problem in terms of the longevity of the planet in
a habitable manner, why wouldn't you be supportive of anyone who is advocating for that in such a forceful way.

Even given her age, and her lack of formal education she is a lot more informed than a lot of commentators on the topic but she is being vilified for trying to do something positive.

JJayoo wrote: »

So in 12 years will civilisation end in Ireland? Like should I start prepping now???

Who said any such thing?

I would tell you to read the thread, but why not read just the posts from the last few hours.

Thelonious Monk

Its mad how certain posters who ive noticed are god botherers, immigration haters, welfare recipient loathers, are the same ones who foam at the mouth when it comes to anything to do with protecting nature or climate change. Id hate to be so narrow minded and unadaptive to change.

I mean you are hardly going to win them over by insinuating that they are just useless human beings. Unfortunately this is your family, like them or loathe them

Tell me how wrote: »

JJayoo wrote: »

So in 12 years will civilisation end in Ireland? Like should I start prepping now???

Who said any such thing?

I would tell you to read the thread, but why not read just the posts from the last few hours.

Greta said it

"Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it"

Oh sorry 10 years from now....

JJayoo wrote: »

Greta said it

"Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it"

Oh sorry 10 years from now....

That's quite different from life ending in 10 years now isn't it.

Key elements of the statement.

where we set off an irreversible chain reaction - 10 years time is only the start of the chain reaction
beyond human control - we will no longer be able to avert the outcome through our actions.
that will most likely lead - given scientific indicators, it is most probable
to the end of our civilisation as we know it - not that the planet will die, but that humans will not be able to exist as we currently do.

Do you see the difference between you and others statements and that which is actually being said?

splinter65

Tell me how wrote: »

Except that wasn't the point NB was using the chart to make.

So you agree that the deaths have decreased by 95%. That’s all I wanted to know. Now where is the emergency?

splinter65 wrote: »

So you agree that the deaths have decreased by 95%. That’s all I wanted to know. Now where is the emergency?

Lets be clear, I made the points that Niall Boylan erroneously used the chart to support his statement that natural disaster occurrences had fallen.
You implied his reason for using it was to discuss the number of deaths. It wasn't.

On your point above.
In the same 100 years, do you think improvements in forecasting, building security, emergency services, hospital services and medication have had any influence in reducing the numbers who actually died?

If you read the thread on the tweet posted, you'd see that the number of serious weather occurrences which happened had increased.

This is not just about the numbers who die in serious events. If you think it is, I don't know what to say to you at this point.

splinter65 wrote: »

Tell me how wrote: »

Except that wasn't the point NB was using the chart to make.

So you agree that the deaths have decreased by 95%. That’s all I wanted to know. Now where is the emergency?

In 10 years time you are gonna feel like a right dummy as civilisation begins to crumble.

splinter65

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Its mad how certain posters who ive noticed are god botherers, immigration haters, welfare recipient loathers, are the same ones who foam at the mouth when it comes to anything to do with protecting nature or climate change. Id hate to be so narrow minded and unadaptive to change.

Yes absolutely. People who are intelligent and clear thinking enough to know that socialism has never and will never be anything but evil simply can’t stand a bunch of champagne socialists lying in the middle of the road preventing them from going about their lawful business as free people living in a free country.

splinter65

JJayoo wrote: »

In 10 years time you are gonna feel like a right dummy as civilisation begins to crumble.

Yeah, well the problem with that is we heard that 10 years ago...oh and 10 years before that....and 10 years before that. You get the picture.

The guy who glued himself to the top of the plane, is this a good approach to helping the climate?

I could glue myself to a tractor or a cow or something if that would help.

Thelonious Monk

splinter65 wrote: »

Yes absolutely. People who are intelligent and clear thinking enough to know that socialism has never and will never be anything but evil simply can’t stand a bunch of champagne socialists lying in the middle of the road preventing them from going about their lawful business as free people living in a free country.

Go say some hail marys love

I would think that this guy should be a role model for people wanting to actually do something beneficial, but then again if he was to live stream on social media himself blocking traffic or sitting in a big pink boat......

https://youtu.be/-foEwcAu_zw

I can never embed this video's, anyhow can someone actually embed this, all nonsense aside, it's actually very inspiring.