nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Jimmy Garlic

Climate saint Greta Trunburg is settling sail for UN climate talks in New York to demand that governments socially engineer and tax the little people into oblivion to save the planet. Accompanied by her film maker father who lives vicariously through her, a filthy rich aristocrat from Monaco and some German bloke the trip will no doubt vastly increase the wattage of her halo before she lectures us all about impending climate Armageddon in New York. Hopefully snaps from the trip will make it into Hello! Magazine.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

KyussB

Tell me how wrote: »

Seems to me to be more like a plan to undermine future reports.

'Sure anyone can have an impact on what goes in to that, I even signed up and I know nothing about the science'.

Well played.

Yea it's like his implied aim of undermining such a document is meant to make his - already blatantly propagandistic - posting in this thread more credible somehow, rather than just showing/confirming a penchant for fraudulent/deceitful behaviour...

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Keep in mind the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) are a committee they are not experts on climate and their remit is ONLY to report on climate change that can be attributed to humans, meaning there is bias in their reports.

The shoddy methods and antics of the IPCC process are described in the book The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert. I am registered as a reviewer for Working Group I of the future IPCC AR6 reports and you can be too. You have until the 13th December if you want to get in on working group II.

I had to agree to this

Oh look, a book from another bullshit artist with ties to Koch-funded think tanks - who has penchant for pretending that issues, long since settled by climate scientists, are still current...

If the IPCC's review process is so open, that even a propagandist like yourself can get on the review working group - then that's just an argument in favour of their openness to being critiqued - I'm sure they'll make short work of your review contributions...

You are going to contribute to the review, right? Seeing as you have so much to offer them with your 'expertise'...

Tell me how

JJayoo wrote: »

That's some comparison.....

You think people saw Rosa in that light in 1955?
I am 100% sure that many of the personalities railing against Greta here would have been lined up to rant about her not knowing her place.

JJayoo

Tell me how wrote: »

She has a year put in to her demonstrations.
She didn't win the Nobel Prize.

If you were around in the 50's, you'd probably have been complaining that Rosa Parks was getting a lot of attention for just sitting on her ar*e.

That's some comparison.....

rafatoni

Has Veruca Salt got her golden egg yet?

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

You're now posting quotes from her which undermine your earlier posts. Keep going.

You're Funny . Exact same quotes from greta etc as previous. But hey you also know that.

Tell me how

biko wrote: »

Nigel Farage vs Extinction Rebellion protester Sarah Lunnon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vOxgzIeSt4

Did you actually watch/listen to that?

Nigel was simply coming out with the same rhetoric which we have seen on this thread. Very interesting where she asked him to come and meet climate scientists and he refused to say he would meet, unless there are scientists representing both sides. She correctly pointed out that there aren't many scientists on his side but he's thinking is that if we get 1 scientist from either side, at least we can pretend it's a 50/50 argument. It isn't.

Also, his comment on planting loads of trees was interesting. This is a guy who suggested that the whole of northern UK is sitting on a goldmine of natural gas and should carry out wholesale fracking and here he is lamenting that the environment is different to what it was in the past.

It was funny when he had to question the purpose of the extinction rebellion but agreed with her that the reason she is on the show is because the rebellion has created awareness leading to her being invited on.

Reading the comments on it were not too dissimilar to reading this thread. Lot's of blase statements without any consideration of reality.

Oh, not to mention, Nigel Farage........ hardly a bastion of society and advocate for common good.

Thanks for posting it, it said a lot.

Hal3000

Tell me how wrote: »

She has a year put in to her demonstrations.
She didn't win the Nobel Prize.

If you were around in the 50's, you'd probably have been complaining that Rosa Parks was getting a lot of attention for just sitting on her ar*e.

Oh sorry a year... my mistake. She totally deserves it now.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Lol. And yet the same kid and others are blathering on about the sixth mass extinction as if it has just been discovered by climate alarmists!

Greta is certainly no better than anyone else claiming to live in a manner which helps reduce the use of scare resources. Something she evidently needs to learn about...

Re the end of civilisation - this is what the teenager has been claiming

This been highlighted as complete bolloxology by one if the IPCC scientists.

Even a cursory reading of the IPCC report will backs this up. But bizarrely you know that already

You're now posting quotes from her which undermine your earlier posts.
Keep going.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Fair play to Greta for being a vegan so. Now, did she say civilisation is going to end in 10 years, or that beyond that time the damage will be irreparable?Big difference and I think you know the answer. I know you've been told it at least.

Lol. And yet the same kid and others are blathering on about the sixth mass extinction as if it has just been discovered by climate alarmists!

Greta is certainly no better than anyone else claiming to live in a manner which helps reduce the use of scare resources. Something she evidently needs to learn about imo.

Re the end of civilisation - this is what the teenager has been claiming

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"

This been highlighted as complete bolloxology by one of the IPCC scientists.

Please stop saying something globally bad is going to happen in 2030. Bad stuff is already happening and every half a degree of warming matters, but the IPCC does not draw a “planetary boundary” at 1.5°C beyond which lie climate dragons.

Even a cursory reading of the IPCC report will back this up. But bizarrely you know that already

Tell me how

Hal3000 wrote: »

Stuff had to be earned years back. Now a few posts on social media can get you a Nobel prize.

She has a year put in to her demonstrations.
She didn't win the Nobel Prize.

If you were around in the 50's, you'd probably have been complaining that Rosa Parks was getting a lot of attention for just sitting on her ar*e.

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

This is the key part "According to the media and statements from Michael Mann and his lawyer . ." What about Timothy Balls opinion? He was also awarded costs by the court which should be a strong indicator why Mann lost his case. I've been following this since its inception in 2011. This case was an attempt by Michael Mann and his lawyers using a technique known as strategic lawsuit against public participation against Timothy Ball.

Breaking: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann

Mann lost his own case because of his own obstruction and has been ordered by the court to pay Tim Balls legal costs. You can read the judges opinion here. The judge took factors such as Mr. Balls age and the death of witnesses on Mr. Balls behalf into account in his dismissal, that was not the primary reason.

Michael Mann also has a case against Mark Steyn that has been dragging on for several years as well. He does not seem to be in a hurry to settle that one either. That will rumble on for a while as well.

Manns work is discredited because his Hockey Stick model wiped out both the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age, both of which were well documented in history, literature, art and science. His unwillingness to release his data and model so others could attempt to duplicate his results took this from the realm of science to mere political activity.

As I said about Ball before:

Dr. Ball is the one who began suing other people, and lost the case. Then when he got sued for defamation, the judge let him off, because the article he wrote was so discreditable to himself, that the average person was unlikely to believe his claims - thus they didn't meet the criteria of being defamotory (i.e. basically being such an obvious and massive bullshitter, and having a reputation as such, bizarrely transformed his claims from defamatory, to not-defamatory). In the latest case, Ball's defamatory writing was retracted and an apoloy issued, but because the court case ran so long, there was no judgement on the defamation, and it was struck out with costs awarded to Ball, due to the delays.

The guy is a serial bullshitter - with a reputation as such.

He completely lacks any credibility.

The hockey stick graph was a non-issue, down to wide margins of error - multiple different independent datasets, compiled by different people, replicated very similar temperature findings - it's a non-issue among scientists, only propagandists/doubt-peddlers go on about it still.

biko

Nigel Farage vs Extinction Rebellion protester Sarah Lunnon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vOxgzIeSt4

Hal3000

Tell me how wrote: »

Well, given she's been at it every week for over a year and pretty much full time for the last few minutes, the 10 minutes is hardly accurate.

Also, she gets more attention because she has motivated people on a global scale.
It is very likely that there are a great many more acting at a local scale because of the awareness which she brought.

Stuff had to be earned years back. Now a few posts on social media can get you a Nobel prize.

Tell me how

Hal3000 wrote: »

I don’t understand society anymore. Everything is so so fickle. We award Greta for the 10 minutes of Environmental work she has done and been involved in, we ignore those who have been campaigning and volunteering tirelessly in our communities for years. Why ? Because we love a good bandwagon and the Lord Mayor just climbed all over one...

Well, given she's been at it every week for over a year and pretty much full time for the last few minutes, the 10 minutes is hardly accurate.

Also, she gets more attention because she has motivated people on a global scale.
It is very likely that there are a great many more acting at a local scale because of the awareness which she brought.

Hal3000

I don’t understand society anymore. Everything is so so fickle. We award Greta for the 10 minutes of Environmental work she has done and been involved in. We now totally ignore those who don’t seek the limelight and who have been campaigning and volunteering tirelessly to improve our communities for years. Why do we do this ? Because it’s easier, and we just love a good bandwagon. Well Mr Lord Mayor of Dublin just climbed all over one. What a shambles of an award.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Greta is evidently little more than a teenager scared by populist doomsday ideas such as her bizarre belief that civilisation is going to end in 10 years time. Those ideas are helping nothing.

......

The thing is that what's referred to as the 'sixth great extinction' has been ongoing for quite a while. And overpopulation and overconsumption has already been firmly targeted as the principal agent ...

Fair play to Greta for being a vegan so.

Now, did she say civilisation is going to end in 10 years, or that beyond that time the damage will be irreparable?
Big difference and I think you know the answer. I know you've been told it at least.

youknowitstrue

gozunda wrote: »

Greta is evidently little more than a teenager scared by populist doomsday ideas such as her bizarre belief that civilisation is going to end in 10 years time. Those ideas are helping nothing.

And overpopulation and overconsumption has already been firmly targeted as the principal agent ...

The best thing Greta and her followers could do is get their tubes tied/Vasectomy./s
Nothing will change as long as the west keeps feeding the naturally unsustainable population growth in certain African and Asian countries, the West can eliminate carbon emission completely and all go Vegan, wont matter a jot with families of 10 being the norm in certain African/Asian countries.
#savetheplanetdontdonatetocharities

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Greta is doing something productive. She is drawing attention to the issue on a global scale.
If you believe so much is wrong, why do you have a problem with someone doing what they can, trying to live by example and encouraging others to do the same.

A world wildlife report recently detailed the loss of animal numbers, largely because of human action. When are we going to say 'oh, let's do something.'? when it is in fact too late?

This thread has now developed in to a lot of people saying 'well yes, there's a problem', but at the same time decrying Greta for trying to promote action. Think about that, it really is bizarre.

Greta is evidently little more than a teenager scared by populist doomsday ideas such as her bizarre belief that civilisation is going to end in 10 years time. Those ideas are helping nothing.

'Loss of animal numbers '? I take it that is the same 'loss of animal numbers' which has been hijacked by extinction rebellion and similar such as greta et al?

The thing is that what's referred to as the 'sixth great extinction' has been ongoing for quite a while. And overpopulation and overconsumption has already been firmly targeted as the principal agent ...

Heres an article from 2017 - BG (before greta)

Scientists analysed both common and rare species and found billions of regional or local populations have been lost. They blame human overpopulation and overconsumption for the crisis ...

Nearly half of the 177 mammal species surveyed lost more than 80% of their distribution between 1900 and 2015

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/10/earths-sixth-mass-extinction-event-already-underway-scientists-warn

Why yes, there's a 'problem', but it has nothing to with gretas doomsday rantings. Bizarre that some think it does.

youknowitstrue

She has a book coming out just in time for Christmas, i imagine there will be many disappointed children getting that turkey for a present.

JJayoo

Tell me how wrote: »

See Jjayoo, this is what I said.

I didn't say you said it. If you can't understand the difference or why I used that example, then I can't help you.

Similar thing with Greta, people deliberately unable to understand her message.

You quoted my post, which had no mention of Gretta or her boat. If you are going to take a post of mine and argue every word then argue against the actual content of the post and not things that other people have said.

But I suppose that's the 'my side Vs your side'
mentality.

Tell me how

JJayoo wrote: »

You do love a good strawman

Twice now you have mentioned a motor on a boat in reply to me, why? When have I ever mentioned rubbish like this or talking about toilets on boats.

When you have to make up stuff to complain about that should be a little warning sign that maybe you're talking shooiiittteee

See Jjayoo, this is what I said.

Tell me how wrote: »

that's the same BS approach people used suggesting there was an outboard engine used to manoeuvre the yacht she was on in the harbour.
?

I didn't say you said it. If you can't understand the difference or why I used that example, then I can't help you.

Similar thing with Greta, people deliberately unable to understand her message.

JJayoo

Tell me how wrote: »

Exactly like the BS about the outboard motor or wondering about there not being a toilet on the yacht.

You just rant. That's it. Empty vessels and so on.

P.S. We have the internet on phones now.

You do love a good strawman

Twice now you have mentioned a motor on a boat in reply to me, why? When have I ever mentioned rubbish like this or talking about toilets on boats.

When you have to make up stuff to complain about that should be a little warning sign that maybe you're talking shooiiittteee

Tell me how

JJayoo wrote: »

You recycle and take the bus wow really putting in the effort for the cause, don't forget to mention sitting in front of the computer 24/7 to reply to every post, that's definitely gonna help.

"You going to ask the same question of people who say that they know there is a problem but everything Greta is saying is wrong?"

If you point them out and if they are virtue signalling little ****s then ya of course.

Exactly like the BS about the outboard motor or wondering about there not being a toilet on the yacht.

You just rant. That's it. Empty vessels and so on.

P.S. We have the internet on phones now.

JJayoo

You recycle and take the bus wow really putting in the effort for the cause, don't forget to mention sitting in front of the computer 24/7 to reply to every post, that's definitely gonna help.

"You going to ask the same question of people who say that they know there is a problem but everything Greta is saying is wrong?"

If you point them out and if they are virtue signalling little ****s then ya of course.

Tell me how

JJayoo wrote: »

I didn't mention Greta once in my post....but hey don't let that stop you from making stuff up to complain about lol

Ok, so sometimes the argument is 'this thread is about Greta, we can't discuss anything else' and more times its 'Who's talking about Greta'

JJayoo wrote: »

When I said I hate virtue signalling people who just complain and do nothing productive I was on about people who spend their entire days posting sh1te on social media /forums constantly bitching....

Annoying isn't it! (Have a good read of the thread there till you see the b*tching posts)

JJayoo wrote: »

Actually since you have brought up Greta and how you find her inspiring what have you done to positively contribute to the environment/climate?

This isn't about me but, that's the same BS approach people used suggesting there was an outboard engine used to manoeuvre the yacht she was on in the harbour.

But, as you asked, and because you'll try to suggest I shouldn't have an opinion if I don't somehow practice it;
I recycle to a very high degree.
I hold on to goods for as long as possible (radio is 19 years old, TV is 13)
I use public transport and cycle a lot.
I have done a thesis on the excessive use of materials in a certain aspect of today's society.

You going to ask the same question of people who say that they know there is a problem but everything Greta is saying is wrong?

JJayoo

Tell me how wrote: »

Greta is doing something productive. She is drawing attention to the issue on a global scale.
If you believe so much is wrong, why do you have a problem with someone doing what they can, trying to live by example and encouraging others to do the same.

A world wildlife report recently detailed the loss of animal numbers, largely because of human action. When are we going to say 'oh, let's do something.'? when it is in fact too late?

This thread has now developed in to a lot of people saying 'well yes, there's a problem', but at the same time decrying Greta for trying to promote action.
Think about that, it really is bizarre.

I didn't mention Greta once in my post....but hey don't let that stop you from making stuff up to complain about lol

I have zero problem with Greta, I don't use Twitter or live on Facebook so the last time I saw or heard from her was the how dare you speech a few weeks ago that was on the news.

When I said I hate virtue signalling people who just complain and do nothing productive I was on about people who spend their entire days posting sh1te on social media /forums constantly bitching....

Actually since you have brought up Greta and how you find her inspiring what have you done to positively contribute to the environment/climate?

Tell me how

JJayoo wrote: »

"NASA scientist James Hansen, widely considered the doyen of American climate researchers"

"Hansen, who heads NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies"

Said in 2006

''the world has a 10-year window of opportunity to take decisive action on global warming and avert catastrophetunity to take decisive action on global warming and avert catastrophe"

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14834318/ns/us_news-environment/t/warming-expert-only-decade-left-act-time/

I remember 2006 with Al Gore and manbearpig and the surge in Climate activity and how the exact same "we are all doomed" sh1te was thrown around.

This is why I roll my eyes when I see the scaremongering stuff in the media.

Do I think mankind is playing a role in global warming...well obviously.

Am I worried about the temperature increasing? Not really, I would be far more worried about air quality from all the sh1te that is being pumped into the atmosphere. Hundreds of millions of people spending their entire lives in big cities breathing in sh1t.

And when I see all these protesters on the news I wonder why they are so worried about something that might happen in the future when so many things in the world at the moment are in a heap. Virtue signalling really annoys me. Do something productive.

Greta is doing something productive. She is drawing attention to the issue on a global scale.
If you believe so much is wrong, why do you have a problem with someone doing what they can, trying to live by example and encouraging others to do the same.

A world wildlife report recently detailed the loss of animal numbers, largely because of human action. When are we going to say 'oh, let's do something.'? when it is in fact too late?

This thread has now developed in to a lot of people saying 'well yes, there's a problem', but at the same time decrying Greta for trying to promote action.
Think about that, it really is bizarre.

JJayoo

"NASA scientist James Hansen, widely considered the doyen of American climate researchers"

"Hansen, who heads NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies"

Said in 2006

''the world has a 10-year window of opportunity to take decisive action on global warming and avert catastrophetunity to take decisive action on global warming and avert catastrophe"

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14834318/ns/us_news-environment/t/warming-expert-only-decade-left-act-time/

I remember 2006 with Al Gore and manbearpig and the surge in Climate activity and how the exact same "we are all doomed" sh1te was thrown around.

This is why I roll my eyes when I see the scaremongering stuff in the media.

Do I think mankind is playing a role in global warming...well obviously.

Am I worried about the temperature increasing? Not really, I would be far more worried about air quality from all the sh1te that is being pumped into the atmosphere. Hundreds of millions of people spending their entire lives in big cities breathing in sh1t.

And when I see all these protesters on the news I wonder why they are so worried about something that might happen in the future when so many things in the world at the moment are in a heap. Virtue signalling really annoys me. Do something productive.

Tell me how

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

You are basing your claim on consensus rather than science. You should also be aware that the so called 97% consensus has been discredited these are the list of papers that John Cook (an activist behind the website skepticalscience) used, and of the of the 11,944 abstracts that Cook et al examined, only 64 claimed explicitly that humans are the main cause of global warming. NASA have been asked to remove that claim.

If you want to be pedantic over consensus rather than science I will freely accept that I am basing my claim on the consensus of scientists.

There are very few scientific fields which do not contain outliers, we saw it in the abortion debate here where the majority of experts advocated for it but there were still those who were qualified medical professionals who disagreed.
I also reckon you are being a bit cute when suggesting only 64 claimed explicitly given the very nature of science is to not claim specifically and that it still does not dispute NASA's statement that human activity is extremely likely to be a cause of climate warming trends.

Just because there is not unanimous support, does not invalidate the argument.

Until you can show me, an, in any way, comparable level of consensus denying the impact of humans on the climate, I am going to go with the view that action is needed.