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

jackboy

Akrasia wrote: »

There is no more natural climate change, human influence has already overwhelmed natural forcing,

That is a big claim.

Fr_Dougal

CrankyHaus wrote: »

That's just NGO's shaking the donations can to keep the executive salaries covered. They always do it more on the lead up to Christmas as they depend on Christmas goodwill to balance the books. The only difference this time is that they can add the hip climate change angle to the retro 80s starving children footage.

If they cared so much about the environment why don’t they amalgamate with other organisations that have the same function. That would decrease waste and ensure that more of the funds raised go to their intended recipients.

Nope, it’s a business.

gozunda

Looks like greta missed the opening of the Climate conference in Madrid. ETA arrival estimated sometime tmrw.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-02/greta-thunberg-late-cop25-climate-meeting-madrid/11758518

Thelonious Monk

Tea drinker wrote: »

Human population is almost doubling every few decades, and if anthropogenic global warming is the problem we are trying to control....
a large number of people not having kids is the only answer, but climate activists are just denying and hiding their heads in the sand.

The population thing is a lazy excuse by people who refuse to change anything about their consumption and lifestyle. Even if we halved the population we are still consuming at a suicidal rate. We all need to spend less, fly less, eat less stuff, drive less, all these things you snowflakes cant even imagine doing. There's no easy way out im afraid.

Akrasia

gozunda wrote: »

A banker? Mark Carney. So Yet more climate 'experts'?

Some interesting tweets below that piece ...

Businesses going bust? Sure will ...

Yup that should set us to rights :rolleyes:

China and elsewhere will be laughing all the way to the bank for sure ...

You forgot to post a picture of yourself in there seeing as you think you know more than all of the worlds foremost scientists on this subject

Tell me how

Akrasia wrote: »

You forgot to post a picture of yourself in there seeing as you think you know more than all of the worlds foremost scientists on this subject

He's back in post #7035

Bit ironic, that poster accuses several others of not being able to debate an argument and yet resorts to memes to make a point.

Eric Cartman

why does there seem to be no climate activists or alam bell scientists who could be described as fiscal conservatives / classic liberals / libertarians / conservatives, or hell even just A-political.

it seems like you take almost anyone saying this is an urgent matter and youre one or two searches away from finding them endorsing / retweeting etc... left wing political interests.

Its a genuine question, is there anybody on the right or a-political spectrum who is a credible opinion on this.

Akrasia

jackboy wrote: »

That is a big claim.

The earth is at about the right part of the Milankovich cycle to begin returning to another ice age, human CO2 emissions are much more powerful forcing that more than match the natural cooling trend. Good news is we can prevent ice ages, bad news is we are preventing it too much and the last time CO2 was at this level was over 3 million years ago when oceans were 20 meters higher and temperatures were 2c warmer than pre industrial times

Micky 32

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

The population thing is a lazy excuse by people who refuse to change anything about their consumption and lifestyle. Even if we halved the population we are still consuming at a suicidal rate. We all need to spend less, fly less, eat less stuff, drive less, all these things you snowflakes cant even imagine doing. There's no easy way out im afraid.

Well fortunately i won’t be flying less ( i have 3 booked trips to usa for 2020) i won’t be driving less ( i do a 1000km necessary for work and visiting friends) and i love my food and will eat what i want.

AlekSmart

Sloppy_Joe wrote: »

US gearing up for record Cyber Monday sales. I see Greta had a great effect on them.

The reality is many don't actually give a flying flúich about Greta or her campaign.

Equally,humans can be contrarian,and when endlessly hectored by the likes of the Thunberg campaign,often resort to the only response allowed to them individually.....Ignore the caterwauling and carry on as before !

This will doubtless annoy,and perhaps even disturb Greta herself,but I'm confident those on her coat-tails will already have a plan B ready.

Somebody mentioned the Mark Carney UN appointment as being that of a Banker being recruited to oversee how the Carbon-Tax dollars can be manipulated,as it's a new revenue stream,all the more necessary since the real Donald Trump began paring back the United States's bankrolling of the U.N.

All to play for,Holmes,the games afoot !!! :eek:

gozunda

Eric Cartman wrote: »

why does there seem to be no climate activists or alam bell scientists who could be described as fiscal conservatives / classic liberals / libertarians / conservatives, or hell even just A-political.

it seems like you take almost anyone saying this is an urgent matter and youre one or two searches away from finding them endorsing / retweeting etc... left wing political interests.

Its a genuine question, is there anybody on the right or a-political spectrum who is a credible opinion on this.

It would also appear that many of those pushed as 'climate experts' are anything but. The meme above while tongue in cheek underlines your point imo. With even bankers now getting in on the act - it would appear the vultures are now circling having detected some good fiscal opportunities.

AlekSmart you bet me to it

jackboy

Akrasia wrote: »

The earth is at about the right part of the Milankovich cycle to begin returning to another ice age, human CO2 emissions are much more powerful forcing that more than match the natural cooling trend. Good news is we can prevent ice ages, bad news is we are preventing it too much and the last time CO2 was at this level was over 3 million years ago when oceans were 20 meters higher and temperatures were 2c warmer than pre industrial times

So we must have elevated carbon levels to prevent ice age but too much carbon will overheat planet. We have to somehow judge the appropriate levels.

I think our knowledge is lacking by far to make such judgements.

Akrasia

Eric Cartman wrote: »

why does there seem to be no climate activists or alam bell scientists who could be described as fiscal conservatives / classic liberals / libertarians / conservatives, or hell even just A-political.

it seems like you take almost anyone saying this is an urgent matter and youre one or two searches away from finding them endorsing / retweeting etc... left wing political interests.

Its a genuine question, is there anybody on the right or a-political spectrum who is a credible opinion on this.

The vast majority of scientists are not politically active

Almost all of the UK Conservative party agree that climate change needs to be tackled

The problem is that ‘pro business’ ideologies don’t like the implications of accepting that we need to act. It results in them having to choose between their ideology and actions we need to take to tackle climate change. Low tax, low regulation free market economics are not compatible with a world where trillions of dollars of oil and Coal needs to be left in the ground while new technologies need state support to develop and roll out fast enough to make a difference.

Not to mention the fact that very often these conservatives are being very well paid by vested interests who have an awful lot to lose if their industry is regulated or taxed out of existence

Akrasia

jackboy wrote: »

So we must have elevated carbon levels to prevent ice age but too much carbon will overheat planet. We have to somehow judge the appropriate levels.

I think our knowledge is lacking by far to make such judgements.

We didn’t elevate the greenhouse effect to stop an ice age on purpose, it was an unintended consequence. There was no danger from an impending ice age because it would have taken hundreds of years to shift, unlike the few decades its taking for us to raise global temperatures by an entire degree Celsius and climbing

Tell me how

Micky 32 wrote: »

Well fortunately i won’t be flying less ( i have 3 booked trips to usa for 2020) i won’t be driving less ( i do a 1000km necessary for work and visiting friends) and i love my food and will eat what i want.

How do you think you would feel when chatting to your grandchildren about their difficulty in dealing with the consequences of disastrous climate events which were the result of mans impact on the environment.

Akrasia

gozunda wrote: »

It would also appear that many of those pushed as 'climate experts' are anything but. The meme above while tongue in cheek underlines your point imo. With even bankers now getting in on the act - it would appear the vultures are now circling having detected some good fiscal opportunities.

How often have you pushed these non experts to the fore while pointing that they’re not experts?

compare that with how often you make any reference to the actual experts on climate change?

Non experts are perfectly capable of talking about climate change as long as they back up their positions with reference to the actual experts published scientific articles, or by referring to statements from organizations like the IPCC who release reports that assess the science on behalf of us non experts

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

It would also appear that many of those pushed as 'climate experts' are anything but. The meme above while tongue in cheek underlines your point imo. With even bankers now getting in on the act - it would appear the vultures are now circling having detected some good fiscal opportunities.

If you cannot see the merit in someone of Mark Carney's standing getting involved in a discussion such as this, you really don't understand anything of which is being discussed.

Businesses are going to have to see how they can/must react to the climate crisis and if they do so correctly, they can reap the benefits of doing so or if they don't they will leave themselves open to suffering the consequences and they are much likely listen to the words of a former governor of the Bank of England (and the Bank of Canada) than a scientist in this respect.

[Deleted User]

Tell me how wrote: »

How do you think you would feel when chatting to your grandchildren about their difficulty in dealing with the consequences of disastrous climate events which were the result of mans impact on the environment.

im not having any.

#1 thing you can do, yknow, to help cut emissions

if i did, i spose id tell them that my grandad didnt hand me a perfect world neither, thats life hey.

Beasty

Akrasia wrote: »

You forgot to post a picture of yourself in there seeing as you think you know more than all of the worlds foremost scientists on this subject

Tell me how wrote: »

He's back in post #7035

Bit ironic, that poster accuses several others of not being able to debate an argument and yet resorts to memes to make a point.

Attack the post, not the poster

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

im not having any.

#1 thing you can do, yknow, to help cut emissions

if i did, i spose id tell them that my grandad didnt hand me a perfect world neither, thats life hey.

Ahhh dont talk sense. You might upset the apple cart

Micky 32

Tell me how wrote: »

How do you think you would feel when chatting to your grandchildren about their difficulty in dealing with the consequences of disastrous climate events which were the result of mans impact on the environment.

Lol. I’m 49 years old and i chose not to marry and have kids so i won’t be having any grandkids. The fact that i won’t be having kids or grandkids will make my carbon footprint overall rather small.

Tell me how

Micky 32 wrote: »

Lol. I’m 49 years old and i chose not to marry and have kids so i won’t be having any grandkids. The fact that i won’t be having kids or grandkids will make my carbon footprint overall rather small.

Why lol?

Deleted User wrote: »

im not having any.

#1 thing you can do, yknow, to help cut emissions

if i did, i spose id tell them that my grandad didnt hand me a perfect world neither, thats life hey.

Applies to both posters.
Are you saying you choose not to have have kids because of the environment? How very conscientious of you.

Or, are you just using your circumstance to validate your decision to not change any of your behaviour?

Micky 32

Tell me how wrote: »

Why lol?

Are you saying you choose not to have have kids because of the environment? How very conscientious of you.

Or, are you just using your circumstance to validate your decision to not change any of your behaviour?

Er no, i’m just not the marrying kind and i never had kids. I’m not using my circumstances to validate anything i’d still eat, fly and drive even if i did had kids.

Tell me how

Micky 32 wrote: »

Er no, i’m just not the marrying kind and i never had kids. I’m not using my circumstances to validate anything i’d still eat, fly and drive even if i did had kids.

I figured as much.

[Deleted User]

Tell me how wrote: »

Why lol?

Applies to both posters.
Are you saying you choose not to have have kids because of the environment? How very conscientious of you.

Or, are you just using your circumstance to validate your decision to not change any of your behaviour?

i suppose id offer it as a defence against a trite demand that this generation must sacrifice every or anything for the good of future generations, which has been used to exhort all manners of self destruction from the biddable masses from time immemorial.

its also true. white, wealthy, gluttonous western european adults have no business reproducing if one believes that the world will end as a result of the habits of that exact set.

will you address the point or just ask me again to explain it to you?

Tuisceanch

Eric Cartman wrote: »

why does there seem to be no climate activists or alam bell scientists who could be described as fiscal conservatives / classic liberals / libertarians / conservatives, or hell even just A-political.

it seems like you take almost anyone saying this is an urgent matter and youre one or two searches away from finding them endorsing / retweeting etc... left wing political interests.

Its a genuine question, is there anybody on the right or a-political spectrum who is a credible opinion on this.

In answer to your question:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/youth-climate-activists/story?id=65721725

Benji Backer breaks the mold of youth climate activist -- he’s a conservative. Backer would like to change climate activism from not being associated with the GOP. To him, climate change is a bipartisan issue.

In his testimony submitted to Congress, he said, "The health of the environment affects all of us, regardless of where we live, our background or political affiliation."

Also this:

https://www.usclimatealliance.org/alliance-principles

The United States Climate Alliance is a bipartisan coalition of governors committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement.

gozunda

Micky 32 wrote: »

Er no, i’m just not the marrying kind and i never had kids. I’m not using my circumstances to validate anything i’d still eat, fly and drive even if i did had kids.

Tbh I find it strange that in general the discussion seems to have devolved to questioning posters personal bona fides regarding their 'beliefs'

for sure no one expects the Spanish Inquisition. Just be careful you dont get accused of heresy ...

Akrasia

Micky 32 wrote: »

Er no, i’m just not the marrying kind and i never had kids. I’m not using my circumstances to validate anything i’d still eat, fly and drive even if i did had kids.

Not being personal but
This is the reason we need governments to act. It should not be economical viable for an individual to drive so much and take so many transatlantic flights. If everyone consumed resources at this rate we wouldn’t stand a chance.

But it’s not even individual behavior that is the problem. There is so much more that industry could to to reduce the environmental impact of the products they make but they don’t do it because regulations don’t demand it, and it’s not economically competitive to voluntarily adopt higher regulatory standards than your competitors.

We’re all liable to party and enjoy the good times not worrying about the hangover the next day.

[Deleted User]

Akrasia wrote: »

Not being personal but
This is the reason we need governments to act. It should not be economical viable for an individual to drive so much and take so many transatlantic flights. If everyone consumed resources at this rate we wouldn’t stand a chance.

But it’s not even individual behavior that is the problem. There is so much more that industry could to to reduce the environmental impact of the products they make but they don’t do it because regulations don’t demand it, and it’s not economically competitive to voluntarily adopt higher regulatory standards than your competitors.

We’re all liable to party and enjoy the good times not worrying about the hangover the next day.

should people not have kids

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

i suppose id offer it as a defence against a trite demand that this generation must sacrifice every or anything for the good of future generations, which has been used to exhort all manners of self destruction from the biddable masses from time immemorial.

its also true. white, wealthy, gluttonous western european adults have no business reproducing if one believes that the world will end as a result of the habits of that exact set.

will you address the point or just ask me again to explain it to you?

What point? Your second paragraph?

That completely misses the point. It supposes that nothing is going to change. Ultimately, as humans, (as with all species) we are focused on maintaining our species existence so saying not having children is just ridiculous. The point is that it doesn't have to be all or nothing, a glutinous population, or extinction so as to preserve the environment.

Also, your first paragraph, which is a bit manic is also missing the point. No one is suggesting that everything must be sacrificed, what is being advocated for is optimising the resources which we have while understanding that society is going to want to live with certain standards and experiences.