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

Tell me how wrote: »

3 words for you.

Rate. Of. Change.

It is demonstrably proven human behaviours are affecting the planet at a rate beyond any natural event other than something exceptional.

The temperature has gone up 1 degree since the industrial revolution. Really scary!

If it was the extra CO2 from burning fossil fuels that caused this then any further increases in CO2 emissions won't have much of an effect because it is not a linear relationship, but rather a logarithmic one.

So, why not just type:

Adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere will increase the temperature.

?

I agree.

Bit of a non-sequitur from my original post that you quoted, and not sure why the need for a confrontational tone...

JJayoo wrote: »

This is the problem, you have decided that there are two sides, and anyone who isn't 100% on your side has to be 100% wrong, I mean a few posts ago you were complaining about a throw away comment I made about fencing posts, questioning me on forestry just for the sake of replying. You had zero knowledge about the topic yet had to question everything I said since supposedly I am 100% wrong because I'm not 100% on your side.

Even my last post in which I said I would rather hear from people with a scientific pedigree you had to reply critizing it for some reason even tho I thought you were all for science.

And it isn't just you it's how all these discussions go, people become tribal, my side Vs your side, for me to be right you have to be wrong.

Zero knowledge? About a throwaway comment? I actually worked out using your logic that we'd need over 1M KMs of fencing posts to get to to the few hundred M you spoke about. And that was only using 200M as your proposed number of posts but I said I'd let you off with your plan.

I disagreed with your last post. Tough.

I don't care whether I am seen as right or wrong, I am here to repeat the message that we need to act, to support the idea that Greta is doing something worthwhile and to reiterate the idea that we must listen to the scientists.

You don't like that? What do you want to do? PM you my content before I post it and get your approval?

I honestly believed you were genuine for for a while, Tell Me Now...

I am here TO REPEAT THE MESSAGE that we need to act, to support the idea that Greta is doing something worthwhile and to reiterate the idea that WE MUST LISTEN TO THE SCIENTISTS.

* That worked out well for Germany and the rest of the world in 30s/40s.

Rockbeast2 wrote: »

I honestly believed you were genuine for for a while, Tell Me Now...

I am here TO REPEAT THE MESSAGE that we need to act, to support the idea that Greta is doing something worthwhile and to reiterate the idea that WE MUST LISTEN TO THE SCIENTISTS.

* That worked out well for Germany and the rest of the world in 30s/40s.

Hey, if your position is that climate scientists are comparable to those who tried to advance the 3rd Reich, that's your prerogative.

I'm not going to go near it it's so ludicrous.

"climate scientist"

A new discipline, I'm sure.

I've read and heard your type of language before.

You should read up more on the past before you repeat it.

Tell me how wrote: »

...
The events where she speaks are not workshops or academic conferences, both places where the scientists are active. She has raised awareness. Very successfully. She is a figurehead of the movement and it is not at all uncommon for such people to speak in that way. Ellen McArthur does it in a similar fashion in relation to the circular economy.

She is clearly a created figurehead backed by some very powerful interests. The fact she has continuously pushed a bs alarmist message that civilisation is going to end in 10 years shows she is not listening to the scientists at all.

The crossing the Atlantic PR stunt alone did significant harm to what she is claiming with the fact that the voyage + flights generated a bigger carbon footprint than if she and her father had simply bought two flights to get to the US.

And now presently galavanting around the Americas increasing that footprint with even more PR stunts. Though tbh it was her tantrum at the UN conference and blaming all the adults for her allegedly crappy childhood which put the nail in the coffin imo.

Rockbeast2 wrote: »

"People in general tire of repetitive holier than thou slogan chanters very quickly. Even the Nazis jazzed it up a little and didn't just repeat - "listen to the scientists, we must kill the Jews" ... they had science (eugenics) backing their theories too."

*Not disparaging Tell Me How in any way.

As Daddy Rockbeast once said:

"You can always pay a scientist to agree with you."

There's a bang of cult off greta & her super-friends.

Yes, we've had enough of experts.

"A scientist told me to do it."

The Greta Defence?

"Denier"

"Unbeliever"

Hmmnn...?

Once those words are being thrown, you can bet your bottom dollar it was a Cult that threw them.

* If everyone cleaned up their own mess, then there would be no mess to clean up.

#Environment

At this stage, you just have to laugh.

"Greta" was a fallacious fraud.

The planet will continue.

* I will remove myself from this thread now, as I have personal experience with cults and how they can change people you care about.

** Who will be the one to resurrect this thread in 11 YEARS after the World has not ended? Again.

Tell me how wrote: »

Zero knowledge? About a throwaway comment? I actually worked out using your logic that we'd need over 1M KMs of fencing posts to get to to the few hundred M you spoke about. And that was only using 200M as your proposed number of posts but I said I'd let you off with your plan.

No I meant the A/B/C of questions you posed which demonstrated that you had zero knowledge of forestry or how it actually works, didn't stop you assuming it was wrong tho....

And the above comment about the 1 million km of wire. There are over 100,000km of roads in Ireland, this doesn't count small lane ways or roads to people's houses. If the only wire/posts in the entire country was only erected to fence off the roads you would have over 200,000 km of wire and posts. Have you seen Ireland? It is a patchwork of fields divided, there would be easily 40+million miles of fencing and that is an incredibly conservative estimate.

But it's a great example of the point I made, a constant need to reply and try and put down every point made by one of the 'other team'.

When you do stuff like that the majority of people, who are in the middle of the two sides, will just discredit the good stuff you say.

Damn he kicked that lad right in the head, not gonna end well.

I think these protests are beyond stupid, oh let's target public transport....what?

But at the same time I think banning the protests is absolutely ridiculous, why not allow protests in parks/open spaces? Surely a middle ground is better than is nonsense