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

Tuisceanch wrote: »

You brought up the subject of bushfires with me when I hadn't even commented on it so I'm only replying.That's allowed isn't it? You said:

Clearly your assertion,in bold, does not accord with what the BOM state in their report. (I assumed you had read it). Clearly they are of the opinion that climate change is a contributing factor. In fact they are quite unequivocal on that point.

From the same report:

"Fire weather is largely monitored in Australia using the Forest Fire Danger Index (FFDI). This index estimates the fire danger on a given day based
on observations of temperature,rainfall, humidity and wind speed. The annual 90th percentile of daily FFDI (i.e., the most extreme 10 per cent
of fire weather days) has increased in recent decades across many regions of Australia, especially in southern and eastern Australia. There has been an
associated increase in the length of the fire weather season. Climate change,including increasing temperatures,is contributing to these changes.
Considerable year‑to‑year variability also occurs, with La Niña years, for example 2010–2011 and 1999–2000,generally associated with a lower
number of days with high FFDI values."

Did you post a link that stated they had actually said that because these are the only three links I saw that you had posted on the subject and they don't make any assertion about 'The conditions that have led to their severity and duration are due to a 100% natural phenomenon, as explained in great detail by learned meteorologists'. You have to admit that's a potential source of confusion. I'm sure you must have been referring to something else and if not the report I mentioned then perhaps a missing link?

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/iod/#tabs=Positive-IOD-impacts
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/outlooks/#/overview/summary/
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/tropical-note/

As to the cause of the latest bushfires:

"In Victoria, there are at least 60 blazes burning. The exact number is not known as new fires have been sparked by lightning strikes during this afternoon’s storm."

"The Yorketown fire in South Australia was caused by a power network fault, AAP reports:"

https://tinyurl.com/rrk3z5z

Not exactly hysterical reporting.

As to the underlying conditions which you mentioned and linked to it http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/iod/#tabs=Positive-IOD-impacts, it also seems relevant to mention the report from 2018.

It is also relevant to quote from the following article from the very same organization in relation to one of the above mentioned causes:

"In relation to fire ignition, there is some indication that climate change could influence the risk of ignitions from dry-lightning (i.e., lightning that occurs without significant rainfall) while noting relatively large uncertainties in currently available model representations of this phenomenon. Additionally, there has recently been a number of devastating fire events in Australia associated with extreme pyroconvection (including thunderstorm development in a fire plume), with recent research indicating a long-term trend towards increased risk factors associated with pyroconvection in southeast Australia. Bushfire weather conditions in future years are projected to increase in severity for many regions of Australasia, including due to more extreme heat events, with the rate and magnitude of change increasing with greenhouse gas concentrations (and emissions)."

http://www.bom.gov.au/weather-services/fire-weather-centre/bushfire-weather/index.shtml

A further note on pyroconvection from a scientific paper published on 11/07/2019 and funded by the National Environmental Science Program of the Australian Government.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-46362-x

"Extreme wildfires have recently caused disastrous impacts in Australia and other regions of the world, including events with strong convective processes in their plumes (i.e., strong pyroconvection). Dangerous wildfire events such as these could potentially be influenced by anthropogenic climate change, however, there are large knowledge gaps on how these events might change in the future."

I think the abusive part of your post is best ignored as it doesn't speak well of your bona fides and was surely an error in judgement on your part.

Again, nowhere have I disputed any of this, despite what you've been implying. If you look at all my posts on climate over different threads you'll see that my main issue is with the instant attribution of single events as "due to man-made climate change". This is done without a second thought. All I'm pointing out is that in many cases

a)there are natural causes, and/or

b)what is being claimed is not true at all. For example, the Arctic has not lost any ice in over a decade. That's a fact. Likewise Greenland. Its melt has leveled off over the past several years. Both of these, plus many other conditions, such as European temperatures, US drought, Atlantic hurricane activity, etc., seem to be most strongly linked to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, a natural change in Atlantic sea temperatures that occurs over decades. Again, none of this is ever pointed out. That's all I'm saying, backing it up with the data (both earlier in this thread and in the Weather forum).The reaction from you and others (especially KyussB, who is behaving like the chemtrail crowd I deal with every day) is understandable, as it's fairly hard to believe that these things get ignored, so I must be making it up, but there you have it.

Was I wrong to say 100% natural for this fire? In hindsight, yes. I'll give you that. Meteorology and most certainly climatology are not exact sciences, so let me instead use the language of the IPCC and say it's virtually certain .

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/nov/19/global-heating-supercharging-indian-ocean-dipole-climate-system

KyussB wrote: »

No I'm fine, thanks I'm just fairly direct in posting style, and like to rip through all of the (usually blindingly obvious) conflicts of interest in sources people cite.

You made fairly strong claims to being just interested in the science - so the past frequent refernce to the Bates guy, I thought was a very good indication of the opposite - given how discreditable he is.

He is linked to the GWPF - which itself is linked to Koch funding - and the Koch's are some of the biggest propagandists on the planet - funding propaganda on everything from climate change denial, denial of the negative health effects of tobacco, support for racist apartheid in South Africa, mass-privatization-of-literally-everything, stripping workers rights, supporting child labour etc etc..

Pretty much every single source involved with climate change denial, is easly linked back to think tanks they fund - that's why they come up pretty much unendingly.

It would appear that your natural response to everything is not to respond to what is being said but only who's saying it. It says a lot about you. I have no idea who Bates is "linked" to, if indeed he's linked to anyone other than UCD, but any past reference I made to his paper was done purely on its content. I don't care who writes a paper.

KyussB

When someone has easily established links to world-wide-notorious propagandists who promote all sorts of science denial, then that's pretty relevant in commenting on their credibility.

If a source is so discreditable, then it's fair for posters to say that people should come up with credible sources, before they even bother addressing arguments put forward.

Nearly all denialists have a habit of shitting out one discreditable source after another - in a train of bullshit that is expressly designed to overburden the other side of the debate, with demands to address/rebut propaganda.

Posters make efforts to address the arguments put forward anyway, despite the obvious links to propagandists - yet you can't complain about being skewered for your lack of credible sources, in addition to that.

That is expressly what denialists try to remove from debate: Focus on the discreditability of their sources - even when it comes in addition to refuting their main arguments.

The current stage of denialism, is to try and muddy the waters by introducing weather systems like the IOD/MJO/AMO etc. - while leaving out the context that these dynamic weather systems are becoming more extrme because of climate change - and that is presently the position your arguments are at, to try and tamp down the urgency of dealing with climate change:

...Recent research suggests ocean heat has risen dramatically over the past decade, leading to the potential for warming water in the Indian Ocean to affect the Indian monsoon, one of the most important climate patterns in the world.

“There has been research suggesting that Indian Ocean dipole events have become more common with the warming in the last 50 years, with climate models suggesting a tendency for such events to become more frequent and becoming stronger,” Ummenhofer said.

She said warming appeared to be “supercharging” mechanisms already existing in the background. “The Indian Ocean is particularly sensitive to a warming world. It is the canary in the coalmine seeing big changes before others come to other tropical ocean areas.”

Australian climatologists have pointed to this year’s dipole as at least one of the contributing factors in the bushfires. Jonathan Pollock, of Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, said this dipole was “up there as one of the strongest” on record.
...

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

When someone has easily established links to world-wide-notorious propagandists who promote all sorts of science denial, then that's pretty relevant in commenting on their credibility.If a source is so discreditable, then it's fair for posters to say that people should come up with credible sources, before they even bother addressing arguments put forward.Nearly all denialists have a habit of shitting out one discreditable source after another - in a train of bullshit that is expressly designed to overburden the other side of the debate, with demands to address/rebut propaganda.
Posters make efforts to address the arguments put forward anyway, despite the obvious links to propagandists - yet you can't complain about being skewered for your lack of credible sources, in addition to that.That is expressly what denialists try to remove from debate: Focus on the discreditability of their sources - even when it comes in addition to refuting their main arguments.The current stage of denialism, is to try and muddy the waters by introducing weather systems like the IOD/MJO/AMO etc. - while leaving out the context that these dynamic weather systems are becoming more extrme because of climate change - and that is presently the position your arguments are at, to try and tamp down the urgency of dealing with climate change:
...Recent research suggests ocean heat has risen dramatically over the past decade, leading to the potential for warming water in the Indian Ocean to affect the Indian monsoon, one of the most important climate patterns in the world.“There has been research suggesting that Indian Ocean dipole events have become more common with the warming in the last 50 years, with climate models suggesting a tendency for such events to become more frequent and becoming stronger,” Ummenhofer said.
She said warming appeared to be “supercharging” mechanisms already existing in the background. “The Indian Ocean is particularly sensitive to a warming world. It is the canary in the coalmine seeing big changes before others come to other tropical ocean areas.”Australian climatologists have pointed to this year’s dipole as at least one of the contributing factors in the bushfires. Jonathan Pollock, of Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, said this dipole was “up there as one of the strongest” on record.
...
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/nov/19/global-heating-supercharging-indian-ocean-dipole-climate-system

I see no denialism tbh just rampant head in the sandism from a small minority who would use alarmism as a battering ram

^^^ The Guardian - a newspaper which receives funding from a number of 'think tanks' such as the Open Philanthropy Project and other industry based investment interests. Not a credible source by your own criteria.

KyussB wrote: »

When someone has easily established links to world-wide-notorious propagandists who promote all sorts of science denial, then that's pretty relevant in commenting on their credibility.

If a source is so discreditable, then it's fair for posters to say that people should come up with credible sources, before they even bother addressing arguments put forward.

Nearly all denialists have a habit of shitting out one discreditable source after another - in a train of bullshit that is expressly designed to overburden the other side of the debate, with demands to address/rebut propaganda.

Posters make efforts to address the arguments put forward anyway, despite the obvious links to propagandists - yet you can't complain about being skewered for your lack of credible sources, in addition to that.

That is expressly what denialists try to remove from debate: Focus on the discreditability of their sources - even when it comes in addition to refuting their main arguments.

Speaking of streams of bull****, the above is a prime example. And the bit in bold is not quite applicable to yourself up to now. The only way you deal with things is to come in with foul-mouthed personal attacks based purely on the source. It's clear you don't have enough of an understanding of the science - or anything - to allow you to give a measured judgement on any topic. You most likely don't have a clue what's in the Bates paper, but saw his name and called BULL****!

If you have a reason why the observed average global temperatures to date have been well lower than the consensus projections for the RCP4.5 business-as-usual scenario then by all means lets be having it. You probably didn't even know that this is the case.

The current stage of denialism, is to try and muddy the waters by introducing weather systems like the IOD/MJO/AMO etc. - while leaving out the context that these dynamic weather systems are becoming more extrme because of climate change - and that is presently the position your arguments are at, to try and tamp down the urgency of dealing with climate change:
...Recent research suggests ocean heat has risen dramatically over the past decade, leading to the potential for warming water in the Indian Ocean to affect the Indian monsoon, one of the most important climate patterns in the world.

“There has been research suggesting that Indian Ocean dipole events have become more common with the warming in the last 50 years, with climate models suggesting a tendency for such events to become more frequent and becoming stronger,” Ummenhofer said.

She said warming appeared to be “supercharging” mechanisms already existing in the background. “The Indian Ocean is particularly sensitive to a warming world. It is the canary in the coalmine seeing big changes before others come to other tropical ocean areas.”

Australian climatologists have pointed to this year’s dipole as at least one of the contributing factors in the bushfires. Jonathan Pollock, of Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, said this dipole was “up there as one of the strongest” on record.
...
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/nov/19/global-heating-supercharging-indian-ocean-dipole-climate-system

Wow, the Guardian. But taking the point being made, something which again, I have not denied, neither you nor anyone else is able to prove that this year's IOD is anything more than natural variability, yet the first response of literally everyone is that yes, it is.

You may scorn at the mention of these natural climate drivers, as you probably never heard of them until now, but their signal is behind much of the global temperature trends. So go off and do your research and come up with the data to show e.g. no correlation between say the Arctic/Greenland melts and the AMO, which is not showing any record highs or lows. Our overall understanding of longterm natural ocean processes is still in its infancy,

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Again, nowhere have I disputed any of this, despite what you've been implying. If you look at all my posts on climate over different threads you'll see that my main issue is with the instant attribution of single events as "due to man-made climate change". This is done without a second thought.

Yes I got your point about media sensationalism a good while back. The media is in the business of selling their content so no surprises there. It's good that you provide interesting links on which you base your opinions so I thank you for that.If you have time to link to a source that explicitly supports your specific assertion then that would be of interest to me. If on the other hand you really meant to say that you're virtually certain that your opinion holds water then fair enough. Nothing wrong in having confidence in yourself. I'm not sure that you should state your opinions as being fact though,in relation to the Cryosphere and the AMO. There is a lot of uncertainty regarding the specifics of the processes involved and qualified scientists have no issue stating that fact.

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Yes I got your point about media sensationalism a good while back. The media is in the business of selling their content so no surprises there...

I'm not only talking about the media. We have your man Professor Sweeney from Maynooth and many others doing exactly that too.

jackboy

Tuisceanch wrote: »

I'm not sure that you should state your opinions as being fact though,in relation to the Cryosphere and the AMO. There is a lot of uncertainty regarding the specifics of the processes involved and qualified scientists have no issue stating that fact.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Our overall understanding of longterm natural ocean processes is still in its infancy,

There is a lot more science to be done. Scientists still have a poor understanding of the factors regarding natural climate change. Until we understand natural climate change well it will be extremely difficult to understand and quantify man caused climate change.

We do not have the ability to accurately predict the climate in 10 or 20 years, we just don't have the knowledge yet.

SaintLeibowitz

gozunda wrote: »

Ditto ...
At least I know I have a dodgy keyboard

That's fine if you want to blame your limitations on your keyboard. I don't think anybody will disagree about your limitations.

Tell me how

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Thank you. You've finally admitted that's what I was talking about. Took a while to get there...

Wow, that's a noble opinion to have of yourself.

Want to be seen as an expert while focusing on a pedantic issue as outlined previously and later admitting maybe you were not 100% right in doing so.

So, what, you (or me) won't be around to suffer the grossest consequences of the inaction, who cares after that right?

Maybe if you crave the attention of being a noted commentator on the topic, get off the anonymous threads and go publish your work like the scientists you are decrying.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

I see no denialism tbh just rampant head in the sandism from a small minority who would use alarmism as a battering ram

^^^ The Guardian - a newspaper which receives funding from a number of 'think tanks' such as the Open Philanthropy Project and other industry based investment interests. Not a credible source by your own criteria.

People can see the conflict of interest with oil oligarchs with a long history of proven lies/propaganda, funding science denialism - particularly climate change denial, given how directly that relates to their business interests. Where is the conflict of interest, in what you cite?

Tell me how wrote: »

Wow, that's a noble opinion to have of yourself.

Want to be seen as an expert while focusing on a pedantic issue as outlined previously and later admitting maybe you were not 100% right in doing so.

So, what, you (or me) won't be around to suffer the grossest consequences of the inaction, who cares after that right?

Maybe if you crave the attention of being a noted commentator on the topic, get off the anonymous threads and go publish your work like the scientists you are decrying.

Who said anything about being an expert or craving attention? Anyone can point out glaring facts that seem to go unreported. That's all I'm doing. You don't seem to have an issue with KyussB's style of posting, I note.

If you want to misquote me then that's your problem. My point was finally acknowledged. That's not being pedantic. And if you missed my irony in the 100% admission then I'm sorry, nothing I can do about that. I will continue to post what I see as important information that is not being as circulated as it should be, so sue me, or stick me on Ignore if you don't want to see it.

KyussB

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Speaking of streams of bull****, the above is a prime example. And the bit in bold is not quite applicable to yourself up to now. The only way you deal with things is to come in with foul-mouthed personal attacks based purely on the source. It's clear you don't have enough of an understanding of the science - or anything - to allow you to give a measured judgement on any topic. You most likely don't have a clue what's in the Bates paper, but saw his name and called BULL****!

If you have a reason why the observed average global temperatures to date have been well lower than the consensus projections for the RCP4.5 business-as-usual scenario then by all means lets be having it. You probably didn't even know that this is the case.

Wow, the Guardian. But taking the point being made, something which again, I have not denied, neither you nor anyone else is able to prove that this year's IOD is anything more than natural variability, yet the first response of literally everyone is that yes, it is.

You may scorn at the mention of these natural climate drivers, as you probably never heard of them until now, but their signal is behind much of the global temperature trends. So go off and do your research and come up with the data to show e.g. no correlation between say the Arctic/Greenland melts and the AMO, which is not showing any record highs or lows. Our overall understanding of longterm natural ocean processes is still in its infancy,

The very post you're replying to takes down your IOD argument, yet you're complaining about your argument not being addressed...

If a known bullshitter is putting out something that looks a lot like bullshit, while associating with organzations known for putting out bullshit, with funding from people notorious for promoting all manner of discreditable bullshit - then you don't really have any recourse when people point that out, you've only got yourself to blame for promoting the work of bullshitters.

As a saying other posters are fond of - except in their case for misattributing certain political ideologies, with zero evidence showing a link:
"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, is a member of a think-tank named 'we are ducks', funded by known duck supporters...etc."

Eh, there are climate scientists quoted right there, saying the IOD has been significantly affected by climate change, worsening environmental disasters...

Tuisceanch wrote: »

1. She was responding to a question about the message she has for world leaders so her stating that "You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words." is certainly using poetic license in personalizing the issue but the accusation of empty words is not without merit. You can't, however,infer from that she is blaming all adults for her crappy life as you put it. Anyway you're an adult so you can forgave her that I imagine. Far more interesting and substantive was the subsequent

"For more than 30 years, the science has been crystal clear. How dare you continue to look away and come here saying that you're doing enough, when the politics and solutions needed are still nowhere in sight.

You say you hear us and that you understand the urgency. But no matter how sad and angry I am, I do not want to believe that. Because if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil. And that I refuse to believe.

"The popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50% chance of staying below 1.5 degrees [Celsius], and the risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control."

Is there some reason do you think that justifies not taking action and why the people who are invested with the authority to act to mitigate the risk have not done so? She talk's of the risk which is cemented in the reports that they commissioned. What's you're problem with somebody voicing such an opinion besides them being a 16 year old? Democracy is OK or do you not think so?

2. Why are you quoting from a previous poster if not to make a point? To be honest I can understand why people might take exception to the words of a 16 year old but at least she is coherent.

BTW you can use the 'insert link' icon when posting links. Saves some time when responding to posts

1. No she wasn’t. She was making a speech to the UN, not doing a Q&A. When she did a Q&A and didn’t have a script with her she couldn’t answer what message she had for the world leaders.

Graces7

weldoninhio wrote: »

1. No she wasn’t. She was making a speech to the UN, not doing a Q&A. When she did a Q&A and didn’t have a script with her she couldn’t answer what message she had for the world leaders.

That is not unusual for speakers in public and has no sinister overtones. Many folk can give a speech but cannot speak ad lib.

Ironicname

Graces7 wrote:

That is not unusual for speakers in public and has no sinister overtones. Many folk can give a speech but cannot speak ad lib.

That's actually very unusual. If you have very specific and reasoned opinions, you should've able to answer questions.

If you can't, then your opinion is either flawed or not thought out or alternatively, you don't know enough about the subject to be taken seriously

The view that she shouldn't be expected to answer questions is bizarre if we are expected to listen to what she says

weldoninhio wrote: »

1. No she wasn’t. She was making a speech to the UN, not doing a Q&A. When she did a Q&A and didn’t have a script with her she couldn’t answer what message she had for the world leaders.

No you're quite wrong. If you read the link you would have read that she was answering a question posed to her by the moderator and if you had watched the video you would have that confirmed to you with your own eyes. The science of climate change is very complex and it would be understandable if you were unable to read a scientific paper and understand its meaning but there's not much excuse for not being able to read a simple newspaper article. Please don't respond to me unless you have something substantive to say about climate change as I'm not interested in puerile discussions about character assassinations of a 16 year old. If you think you can do better than her well put your money where your mouth is and go and agitate for your opinion and see how you get on.

Tell me how

Ironicname wrote: »

That's actually very unusual. If you have very specific and reasoned opinions, you should've able to answer questions.

If you can't, then your opinion is either flawed or not thought out or alternatively, you don't know enough about the subject to be taken seriously

The view that she shouldn't be expected to answer questions is bizarre if we are expected to listen to what she says

She's 16 years of age.

Her message is that action is needed, listen to the scientists. She is not alone with this message and her success has been proven in A, the numbers who have replicated her stance and B, the organisations and bodies which have commended her for it.

Expecting her to defend this with scientific depth is unreasonable, particularly as she has also said that she does not have the answers. How could she.

Graces7 wrote: »

That is not unusual for speakers in public and has no sinister overtones. Many folk can give a speech but cannot speak ad lib.

You're quite right. It can be very daunting having to speak in front of people,especially unscripted, as I know from my own experience. I know for sure that I couldn't do what she is doing at her age. Very admirable and even if one doesn't agree with her message it would be churlish not to at least recognize her obvious qualities.

Ironicname wrote: »

That's actually very unusual. If you have very specific and reasoned opinions, you should've able to answer questions.

If you can't, then your opinion is either flawed or not thought out or alternatively, you don't know enough about the subject to be taken seriously

The view that she shouldn't be expected to answer questions is bizarre if we are expected to listen to what she says

At the Q and A you are referring to she was deflecting attention away from herself to allow the other activists the opportunity to speak. If you had watched the whole session you would have observed that all the questions were being directed at her and that was unfair and disrespectful of both the other activists and the subject matter. She showed great maturity in handling the situation which it's a pity more people wouldn't emulate.

KyussB wrote: »

Eh, there are climate scientists quoted right there, saying the IOD has been significantly affected by climate change, worsening environmental disasters...

And if you'd care to read my posts properly you'd see that I've repeatedly said I haven't denied any of that. Have another read of what I said.

Now, did you find anything on why temperatures are not rising as quickly as the RCP4.5 projection consensus? I note you've conveniently ignored that bit.

Ironicname

Tell me how wrote:

She's 16 years of age.

Exactly.

I don't normally change my views about anything based on the opinion of a sixteen year old who crumbles under questioning.

I guess that's me being a bigot?

Professor Moriarty

Ironicname wrote: »

Exactly.

I don't normally change my views about anything based on the opinion of a sixteen year old who crumbles under questioning.

I guess that's me being a bigot?

Nah. That's you missing the bigger picture.

Ironicname

Professor Moriarty wrote:

Nah. That's you missing the bigger picture.

Yay. Teach me.

How is thrusting an autistic child into the spotlight beneficial?

What bigger picture have I missed?

Professor Moriarty

Ironicname wrote: »

Yay. Teach me.

How is thrusting an autistic child into the spotlight beneficial?

What bigger picture have I missed?

See, there's this thing called 'Climate Change'. Look it up.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

And if you'd care to read my posts properly you'd see that I've repeatedly said I haven't denied any of that. Have another read of what I said.

Hold on if you don't deny that but maintain that your sole focus is highlighting the role of media in not sufficiently reporting the facts and then claim:

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Was I wrong to say 100% natural for this fire? In hindsight, yes. I'll give you that. Meteorology and most certainly climatology are not exact sciences, so let me instead use the language of the IPCC and say it's virtually certain .

So you admit you're wrong but not really, because you were only being ironic, and then admit subsequently that you you don't deny the evidence presented to you, that completely contradicts your position, but you still prefer your own opinion, even if it's not substantiated by your own sources. What sort of logic is that? How can you expect anybody to understand your position? Imagine if you wrote a scientific paper and presented your argument like that and submitted it for peer review and then told the reviewers that you'd rather discuss something else. Doubly baffling considering your umbrage with the media and their shoddy covering of the facts.

Tell me how

Ironicname wrote: »

Yay. Teach me.

How is thrusting an autistic child into the spotlight beneficial?

What bigger picture have I missed?

Be honest, you don't want to be taught anything in this respect do you.

It's not that complicated and yet you are here, nearly 7k posts in to a discussion on the topic suggesting you don't understand why Greta is to be at the very least respected for her efforts if not applauded.

Graces7 wrote: »

That is not unusual for speakers in public and has no sinister overtones. Many folk can give a speech but cannot speak ad lib.

She’s travelling the world for this “cause” and when asked what message would you like to send to the worlds leaders she stumbled, stuttered and passed the question to someone else because she had no idea what to say. She wasn’t asked something difficult or multilayered. It was probably the simplest question she could have been asked. She’s a puppet

Tuisceanch wrote: »

No you're quite wrong. If you read the link you would have read that she was answering a question posed to her by the moderator and if you had watched the video you would have that confirmed to you with your own eyes. The science of climate change is very complex and it would be understandable if you were unable to read a scientific paper and understand its meaning but there's not much excuse for not being able to read a simple newspaper article. Please don't respond to me unless you have something substantive to say about climate change as I'm not interested in puerile discussions about character assassinations of a 16 year old. If you think you can do better than her well put your money where your mouth is and go and agitate for your opinion and see how you get on.

It’s a discussion board buddy, don’t like being called out on your nonsense you can block me.