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

Gynoid wrote: »

Why stop at Amazon? Or, if they stop at Amazon the protesters are ideologically inconsistent. Which is in fact what they are anyway, well off people with many foreign trips in their past when 80% of the world have never been on a plane.
So they should protest supermarkets to stop bananas, coffee, scallions, peppers, cereals, sauces, tea, wines, pretty much most of the contents of the shops being supplied as most of it is freighted from abroad and many of them from abusive situations. They should picket appliance and technology shops because ditto plus the dreadful mining of rare elements. They should protest outside furniture shops, in fact is there a single shop they should not picket?
They are going to have their sustainably produced vegan shoe soles worn away to nothing..

Well, leaving aside that a lot of your post is just random conjecture with little or no basis given you don't know the lives or experiences of those involved in the protest, Amazon have become a symbol for the rampant consumerism which exists in the world (or a very big portion of it) today.

They're treatment of staff while Bezos has become one of the wealthiest men on the planet has also exacerbated how they are viewed.

You're all or nothing argument is empty as it ignores the fact that people must survive in the world and travel and use delivery services and so on. You're suggesting that no one can say something is wrong unless they are living without any CO2 contributing products or services whatsoever is akin to suggesting that anyone who wears a poppy can never protest against armed conflict.

YFlyer

gozunda wrote: »

Solutions for Klimatet Change
Greta would agree!

Change! #237

Some good ideas there. Doesn't need to be all or nothing.

jackboy wrote: »

There have been many many civilizations pressured and destroyed by climate change. This includes civilizations all over the world such as America, the Middle East and Asia like the Indus.

Then we have events like the ice age. Do you think the current climate change that we are experiencing will be worse than an ice age?

That's a false equivalency. There is a difference between something which we have no control over, and something which we are ensuring occurs due to our behaviour.

Just because we all are going to die eventually, doesn't mean we should drink and drive every day.

Tuisceanch

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-50613054

Brazil's Bolsonaro says DiCaprio gave cash 'to set Amazon on fire'.

He developed into a great actor but this is simply unforgiveable. Perhaps he became deranged when shooting 'Shutter Island'. Only speculating mind.

Oh my god it gets even worse

One Brazilian created a webpage to attribute blame for the South American country’s various ills to a cast of Hollywood stars.

In it Tom Hanks was blamed for Brazil’s high taxes, Penélope Cruz for unemployment, Daniel Radcliffe for impunity, Johnny Depp for deforestation and Kate Winslet for its education crisis.

What have Hollywood got against that poor man doing his job.

YFlyer wrote: »

Some good ideas there. Doesn't need to be all or nothing.

True. But no I can't take credit for whoever put that together. I've posted this previously - some good ideas in it as well. See the second half of the article for a list of 20 fairly comprehensive 'energy diet principles'

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-03-21/a-modest-suggestion-for-the-worlds-climate-strikers/

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111904922&postcount=7036

Akrasia wrote: »

It’s not just ‘that proposition’,You don’t agree with any proposition to tackle climate change. You may or may not be denying climate change, but by criticizing all proposals to tackle it without putting forward any credible alternative, you are in exactly the same camp as the climate change deniers

No idea who or what you are referring to there tbh - but that simply comes across as directed at the poster and not the post. No worries though I think you may have missed this ...

As for the deranged idea that those on a thread about gretas travels across the globe must provide solutions to climate change is risable. And the logic that anyone who fails to agree with that proposition are in effect deniers is hilarious.

As the term 'denier' - posted this earlier

Thelonious Monk

Greens get another seat in Dublin in by election, the Greta effect in action! Good to see Dubliners are getting their priorities right.

Micky 32

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Greens get another seat in Dublin in by election, the Greta effect in action! Good to see Dubliners are getting their priorities right.

Don’t get too excited they’ll never get in power.

Thelonious Monk

Micky 32 wrote: »

Don’t get too excited they’ll never get in power.

More seats equals a bit more sway. Although they’ll not amount to much I’m sure.

Micky 32 wrote: »

Don’t get too excited they’ll never get in power.

They last time they made a right royal horlix of it. From their current form I dont hold out too much hope tbh...

Tea drinker

gozunda wrote: »

Solutions for Klimatet Change
Greta would agree!

Change! #237

Well if someone is serious about the climnate emergency why on Earth would they have kids? Isn't overpopulation one of the biggest problems?
If they have kids already they should have a serious discussion about sterilization - anything less is "do as I say not as I do."

easypazz

The greens will get enough seats to prop up another party. Then get blamed for everything and crash at next election.

Rinse and repeat.

Professor Genius

Can anyone confirm if she is back on her meds?

Micky 32

easypazz wrote: »

The greens will get enough seats to prop up another party. Then get blamed for everything and crash at next election.

Rinse and repeat.

Especially if they try to control people and take away the freedoms that hardworking people deserve.

jackboy

Tell me how wrote: »

That's a false equivalency. There is a difference between something which we have no control over, and something which we are ensuring occurs due to our behaviour.

My point is catastrophic climate change is guaranteed no matter what we do. Obsessing about carbon is a distraction. We need to prepare for the conditions that we know the planet will throw at us. Such preparation would highly likely indirectly reduce our carbon output anyway. Policies focusing on carbon will leave us wide open to the dangers of natural climate change.

[Deleted User]

very, very worrying to see posters talking about "deniers" in "camps".

we really cannot allow this type of language to pass unopposed.

Deleted User wrote: »

very, very worrying to see posters talking about "deniers" in "camps".

we really cannot allow this type of language to pass unopposed.

Wow, if it is the post I think you are referring to, you really a stretching to allow the common use of a term in this context to affect you in this way.

What do you suggest doing to oppose this type of language? Assuming of course you have already reported the post for its heinous nature.

jackboy wrote: »

My point is catastrophic climate change is guaranteed no matter what we do. Obsessing about carbon is a distraction. We need to prepare for the conditions that we know the planet will throw at us. Such preparation would highly likely indirectly reduce our carbon output anyway. Policies focusing on carbon will leave us wide open to the dangers of natural climate change.

But is it guaranteed? Within the time frame which it will happen in if humans continue as they are doing?

Deleted User wrote: »

very, very worrying to see posters talking about "deniers" in "camps".

we really cannot allow this type of language to pass unopposed.

Don't worry. You've misunderstood the point due to an inability to comprehend basic English. That's all.

Micky 32 wrote: »

Especially if they try to control people and take away the freedoms that hardworking people deserve.

What are these freedoms you think everyone should have access to as a reward for their efforts at work?

jackboy wrote: »

My point is catastrophic climate change is guaranteed no matter what we do. Obsessing about carbon is a distraction. We need to prepare for the conditions that we know the planet will throw at us. Such preparation would highly likely indirectly reduce our carbon output anyway. Policies focusing on carbon will leave us wide open to the dangers of natural climate change.

In what way and at what rate is natural climate change occurring?

Eric Cartman

Tell me how wrote: »

What are these freedoms you think everyone should have access to as a reward for their efforts at work?

keeping their hard earned income and the freedom to use their private car or have a turf fire

Eric Cartman wrote: »

keeping their hard earned income and the freedom to use their private car or have a turf fire

....and their freedom to destroy their grandchildren's lives.

jackboy

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

In what way and at what rate is natural climate change occurring?

We don’t know, there is a very large knowledge gap. We know that such climate change has happened repeatedly. It would not be logical to assume that the climate has now stabilized, for the first time in earths history, and there will be no more major shifts.

jackboy wrote: »

We don’t know, there is a very large knowledge gap. We know that such climate change has happened repeatedly. It would not be logical to assume that the climate has now stabilized, for the first time in earths history, and there will be no more major shifts.

But you said this:

My point is catastrophic climate change is guaranteed no matter what we do. Obsessing about carbon is a distraction. We need to prepare for the conditions that we know the planet will throw at us. Such preparation would highly likely indirectly reduce our carbon output anyway. Policies focusing on carbon will leave us wide open to the dangers of natural climate change.

It is clear that we need to focus on carbon immediately due to the catastrophic and imminent danger of climate change. If "there is a very large knowledge gap" regarding natural climate change, how can focusing on carbon leave us "wide open to the dangers of natural climate change"?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

keeping their hard earned income and the freedom to use their private car or have a turf fire

Okay there are 3 points in there.

keeping their hard earned income

We already pay taxes on all our income.

freedom to use a private car

Is nowhere near being banned, and in a country like Ireland, I don't think it ever will given the rural population and how the numbers aren't there for public transport in all cases. But, use of the car impacts on others, pollution (CO2 and particulate in cities) and in blocking roadways in circumstances where there are large volumes of people travelling and moving most of them to public transport and/or cycling would lead to benefits for the vast majority (health, journey time, cost).

freedom to have a turf fire

I love a turf fire, the warmth, look of it and the smell of it. I love saving turf, it is healthy, rewarding and traditional. But, just because I enjoy something, doesn't mean I can do it eternally. Again, the premise is that we try to reduce fossil fuse to only when it is absolutely necessary and we try to promote alternative options to ensure it isn't. I know the argument is that what difference does a trailer of turf do a year when China is burning x amount of coal a minute but the principle should be, we do what we can, where we can. I don't want to see turf cutting being banned while we continue to promote car use and import coal but if it is part of a larger green drive, then I will see it as being part of the greater good.
In the past, people were allowed to hunt as they wished but then it was realised that it was unnecessary for sustenance and that the impact it had on certain wild animal populations was such that it had to be curtailed. And so it was. And people have learned to become accustomed to that.

Tell me how wrote: »

Wow, if it is the post I think you are referring to, you really a stretching to allow the common use of a term in this context to affect you in this way.
What do you suggest doing to oppose this type of language? Assuming of course you have already reported the post for its heinous nature.

It's overt personalisation which bears no relation to the discussion. But you already know that.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Don't worry. You've misunderstood the point due to an inability to comprehend basic English. That's all.

The tem 'bollox' is just as much 'basic' English as 'denier'*. Doesn't mean its anymore acceptable when describing someone ...

* Edited

jackboy wrote: »

We don’t know, there is a very large knowledge gap. We know that such climate change has happened repeatedly. It would not be logical to assume that the climate has now stabilized, for the first time in earths history, and there will be no more major shifts.

Who do you think might know?

Scientists? Does working meteorology?

The IPCC had contributors from 120 countries of people working in these fields and they have said that there needs to be action because human behaviours are excessively impacting on any natural climate cycles in a negative manner.

Same with the 11,000 scientists who recently signed a letter saying the same thing.