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

nthclare

Every time I see this thread Pop up, that owl and the pussy cat story comes to mind.

Even the heading is like some story your school teacher would read to you in junior infant's in 1981...

Tell me how

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I think they meant your not old enough to know it's rubbish, some of us were sold this pup before a few times, Greta doesn't know this she's just a young school drop out.
In 20yrs you'll understand.

(*you're)

Is 40 not old enough to understand?

She's not a school drop out either, she's on a gap year. Quite a difference between someone doing what she has done and heading off to EU, UN, US Senate to speak to them and someone who drops out to because they were threatened with being disciplined for smoking in the bathrooms or whatever.

Kermit.de.frog

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I think they meant your not old enough to know it's rubbish, some of us were sold this pup before a few times, Greta doesn't know this she's just a young school drop out.
In 20yrs you'll understand.

[Deleted User]

Tea drinker wrote: »

• only once from 1872 to 1950;

• about once every 5 to 10 years in the late 20th century;

• and—ominously—10 times in just the last two decades, including this week’s event.

^from the other posters linked article

But, from the article also, mostly NOT from rising sea level

easypazz

BourbonWhiskey wrote: »

I have yet to see any convincing scientific evidence to support the catastrophic consequences people are predicting.

CO2 levels have doubled in the last 150 years or so.

Sea levels have risen by 8 inches in 100 years or so and now rise 3.5mm a year

Global temperatures have risen by about 1 degree in this period.

The trend is well established now of rising global temperatures leading to rising sea levels.

I am a bit sceptical about 400mm sea increase by 2050 but we shall know soon enough, it needs to increase rapidly from 3.5mm per year in the next decade for predictions to be proven correct.

Beasty

Beasty wrote: »

FreudianSlippers and gozunda, do not post in this thread again. I will not get a chance to properly review your posts yet but will do so later. I may then issue further sanctions (or indeed allow one or both if you to post again)

Following discussion with the user, gozunda's threadban is now lifted

Overheal

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Mad props to the girl but I can see why all the F-150 drivers find her visage unsettling.

sonic85

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49759626

So in order to satisfy demand for cobalt, mining companies are considering mining the ocean floor. Admitting that anything in front of these machines will be destroyed and theres a huge risk that plumes of silt kicked up will smother animals and organisms that have adapted to clear calm waters. Just so people can feel great cruising around in their "eco friendly" electric car. Is there anything humans can turn their hand to that wont fcuk up the planet? What a joke

Kermit.de.frog

ancapailldorcha

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I know plenty of people with third level education that aren't very intelligent. Greta would be far more educated than them already. Either that or its the incredibly rich that benefit massively by ignoring climate change and spouting lies that the less intelligent people will believe.

And as a scientist the deniers of clear scientific evidence are usually the least intelligent people I meet.

Denying climate change is good sign that someone can be ignored.

jackboy

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Denying climate change is good sign that someone can be ignored.

Bringing religious language into a scientific debate may be considered when evaluating credibility also.

KyussB

It's the act of denying that's religious - it's literally opposition to science, in this case - not the word.

Mike9832

sonic85 wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49759626

So in order to satisfy demand for cobalt, mining companies are considering mining the ocean floor. Admitting that anything in front of these machines will be destroyed and theres a huge risk that plumes of silt kicked up will smother animals and organisms that have adapted to clear calm waters. Just so people can feel great cruising around in their "eco friendly" electric car. Is there anything humans can turn their hand to that wont fcuk up the planet? What a joke

I'm an EV fan, but that's awful

They'll dig up half the earth getting 6 billion transported by batteries

jackboy

KyussB wrote: »

It's the act of denying that's religious - it's literally opposition to science, in this case - not the word.

No, its religious language which has consistently been used in this thread for the purpous of shutting down debate, which is what religions do.

The extent of human impact on the climate has not been accurately determined yet, not even close. There is almost nobody in this thread claiming that man is having no impact on the climate. Yet some are actually saying that the science is settled, you are deniers we have 12 years to save the world.

easypazz

jackboy wrote: »

No, its religious language which has consistently been used in this thread for the purpous of shutting down debate, which is what religions do.

The extent of human impact on the climate has not been accurately determined yet, not even close. There is almost nobody in this thread claiming that man is having no impact on the climate. Yet some are actually saying that the science is settled, you are deniers we have 12 years to save the world.

Where in this thread are people saying we have 12 years to save the world?

Thelonious Monk

Mike9832 wrote: »

I'm an EV fan, but that's awful

They'll dig up half the earth getting 6 billion transported by batteries

they're doing it already with fracking for oil. We need to move away from private cars.

KyussB

jackboy wrote: »

No, its religious language which has consistently been used in this thread for the purpous of shutting down debate, which is what religions do.

The extent of human impact on the climate has not been accurately determined yet, not even close. There is almost nobody in this thread claiming that man is having no impact on the climate. Yet some are actually saying that the science is settled, you are deniers we have 12 years to save the world.

There is nothing religious about using the word denial: What other word would you propose people use, when people pour doubt on a well established and settled scientific consensus?

It fits the definitiion of Denial, perfectly. There is nothing religious about it.

Look up the word Denial in the dictionary - does it make any reference to religion? No - because that is a stupid concept.

[Deleted User]

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

they're doing it already with fracking for oil. We need to move away from private cars.

Cars are NOT a major part of the problem.

The entire resolution could be done if we limited couples to one child for the next 50 years. Too many people is the only issue

[Deleted User]

easypazz wrote: »

CO2 levels have doubled in the last 150 years or so.

Sea levels have risen by 8 inches in 100 years or so and now rise 3.5mm a year

Global temperatures have risen by about 1 degree in this period.

The trend is well established now of rising global temperatures leading to rising sea levels.

I am a bit sceptical about 400mm sea increase by 2050 but we shall know soon enough, it needs to increase rapidly from 3.5mm per year in the next decade for predictions to be proven correct.

There is no doubt humans are impacting, but these trends have been ongoing for 1000s of years. We are between ice ages, when the planet naturally warms.

Thelonious Monk

Deleted User wrote: »

Cars are NOT a major part of the problem.

The entire resolution could be done if we limited couples to one child for the next 50 years. Too many people is the only issue

consumption is the issue

easypazz

Deleted User wrote: »

There is no doubt humans are impacting, but these trends have been ongoing for 1000s of years. We are between ice ages, when the planet naturally warms.

The trend is now over 50 or 100 years that co2 levels have doubled. Different to thousands of years of evolution.

The population has gone from about 1 billion to 8 billion in 200 years are so.

Its a totally different scenario now where massive changes will be seen in a couple of generations rather maybe 10000 years.

jackboy

KyussB wrote: »

There is nothing religious about using the word denial: What other word would you propose people use, when people pour doubt on a well established and settled scientific consensus?

Can you not see the issue with the term ‘settled scientific consensus’? A consensus implies that all the facts are not known and therefore cannot be settled.

The word denial is not on its own religious, the way it is used in this thread is.

Kermit.de.frog

Greta must be in line for a Nobel Prize at this stage surely?

Kermit.de.frog

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Denying climate change is good sign that someone can be ignored.

Censorship is the way to go for people who don't subscribe to the hysterical doctrine.

Professor Moriarty

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Greta must be in line for a Nobel Prize at this stage surely?

Could do a lot worse. I'd be happy to see that.

ancapailldorcha

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Censorship is the way to go for people who don't subscribe to the hysterical doctrine.

I never mentioned censorship.

Tell me how

Surprised this hasn't appeared on the thread yet.

Youth Assembly recommendations on climate change announced

RECOMMENDATIONS
From your corner store to your super market, we call on the house to incentivise and obligate the installation of glass doors on open refrigerators

For Ireland to ban the importation of fracked gas and invest solely in renewables.

Implementing measures that will allow that Irish goods be both eco- sustainable and affordable in todays' Irish Market.

Implement a tiered Tax on Emissions from large companies including those under capital ETS. This tax must be increased every year while threshold decreases, shifting the burden from individuals to corporations.

Investment in industrial hemp processing facilities to provide a viable, sustainable and alternative land use for farmers as well as employment in rural Ireland.

A labelling and pricing system showing the climate impact of food products based on criteria such as impact of packaging and distance travelled.

Ireland to outlaw acts of ecocide – being the widespread and systematic loss of ecosystems, including climate and cultural damage.

Protect existing forests and make compulsory that at least 10% of all land owned for agricultural uses is dedicated to forestry.

A targeted nationwide Information campaign to educate the population about the climate crisis regarding the causes, the effects and the solutions.

Mandatory "Sustainability" education from primary level to the workplace including a new compulsory Junior Cycle & optional Leaving Certificate subject.

Has been well received.

https://twitter.com/marklittlenews/status/1195340849326022656

https://twitter.com/ConorSheehan93/status/1195313522948952064

https://twitter.com/boucherhayes/status/1195289358171090944

https://twitter.com/Mark_Coughlan/status/1195353373584834560

For those itching to say, these kids should be in school, what do they know, they should leave it to the adults. Time passes so quickly, these are going to be heading in to college and industry in a very short time and will also be voting in future elections if not contesting them.

Dr. Bre

How many brown envelopes did they go home with?

Kermit.de.frog

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I never mentioned censorship.

You just imply it.

ancapailldorcha

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

You just imply it.

No I don't. That's just your victimhood narrative.