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

Tell me how wrote: »

You do realise that Greta has probably the largest volume if academic reference to support her mindset which you refer to as 'irrational panic attacks'.

I think it's not understanding that which must be seen as irrational at this point.

hey tell me how, im putting forward potential solutions to the overpopulation problem which you run from every time its brought up.

you also havent, as far as i can recall, ever responded to any querying of gretas claims about 2030 during her tantrum address.

i dont think you're well set to snipe about what is and isnt irrational about her behaviour while you evade the issues like that

SaintLeibowitz

[Deleted User] wrote: »

always amuses me, this transplantation of any criticism of a public figure on a message board to make it somehow parallel to actually addressing them as if they were a poster.

its not realllllly how it works, is it?

Your 'arguments' are ad hominems. Think about that for little bit. I know you think your reply comes across as smart, but in reality it's not.

SaintLeibowitz wrote: »

Your 'arguments' are ad hominems. Think about that for little bit. I know you think your reply comes across as smart, but in reality it's not.

ill go back and check which part of posh, white, swedish, irrational is inaccurate or unfair

but thanks for your concern, i'll think about what i said x

SaintLeibowitz

Tell me how wrote: »

You do realise that Greta has probably the largest volume if academic reference to support her mindset which you refer to as 'irrational panic attacks'.

I think it's not understanding that which must be seen as irrational at this point.

Very good point. Ad hominems are not equal to scientific knowledge.

Wibbs

Tell me how wrote: »

You do realise that Greta has probably the largest volume if academic reference to support her mindset which you refer to as 'irrational panic attacks'.

There is a huge chunk of proper scientific data that supports global climate change and the need to address it. That's in no doubt(and frankly if anyone doubts that I consider them a moron). However bugger all of it is within spitting distance of the hysterics of some like Greta and her supporters.

SaintLeibowitz wrote: »

Very good point. Ad hominems are not equal to scientific knowledge.

if you were half as bothered by the ad hom sniping from your side of the debate throughout the thread id be more inclined not to see your position as rhetorical and opportunistic

alas

Deleted User wrote: »

hey tell me how, im putting forward potential solutions to the overpopulation problem which you run from every time its brought up.

you also havent, as far as i can recall, ever responded to any querying of gretas claims about 2030 during her tantrum address.

i dont think you're well set to snipe about what is and isnt irrational about her behaviour while you evade the issues like that

Yes I have. Several times. The exact timeframe is pretty much irrelevant to me at this point given that we know damage is being done and we are dealing with the consequences of this already.

Without a line in the sand, people tend to put any thoughts of action on the long finger and hence, out of their mind. It doesn't feel real without a date.
I don't know whether she is correct or not about 2030, but I know we are a lot better off to treat it as if that is a critical date and start to act immediately.

Where have I run from your 'solutions' to the over population? Anything I have seen you post belongs more in Gozunda's category of 'a light hearted take' with a sinister twist maybe more so than something meaningful.

Wibbs wrote: »

There is a huge chunk of proper scientific data that supports global climate change and the need to address it. That's in no doubt(and frankly if anyone doubts that I consider them a moron). However bugger all of it is within spitting distance of the hysterics of some like Greta and her supporters.

Sure Wibbs. What hysterics has she gone on with that yourself and others are so affected by?

SaintLeibowitz

[Deleted User] wrote: »

if you were half as bothered by the ad hom sniping from your side of the debate throughout the thread id be more inclined not to see your position as rhetorical and opportunistic

alas

Scientific knowledge trumps your ad hominems.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

You do realise that Greta has probably the largest volume if academic reference to support her mindset which you refer to as 'irrational panic attacks'.
I think it's not understanding that which must be seen as irrational at this point.

Pity she doesn't use any of them tbh. Appears she would rather use doomsdayism and personal histrionics in the stead of any informed logic. This was posted - perhaps you missed it?

According to greta:

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"There is no mention of only 12 years left in the IPCC report.

That seems comes from greta thunbergs unique take on climate change and the end of civilisation apparently ...

In contrast is what one of the IPCC scientists said:

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.

Verdict: I'm with the IPCC scientist on this. Greta is definitely not.

Note: None of that denies climate change btw.

And no - no one needs to believe in Saint greta to understand any of that.

Tell me how wrote: »

Yes I have. Several times. The exact timeframe is pretty much irrelevant to me at this point given that we know damage is being done and we are dealing with the consequences of this already.

Without a line in the sand, people tend to put any thoughts of action on the long finger and hence, out of their mind. It doesn't feel real without a date.
I don't know whether she is correct or not about 2030, but I know we are a lot better off to treat it as if that is a critical date and start to act immediately.

Where have I run from your 'solutions' to the over population? Anything I have seen you post belongs more in Gozunda's category of 'a light hearted take' with a sinister twist maybe more so than something meaningful.

im afraid, and look its just my opinion but i think many might share it, that you saying

"i dont care whether what greta says is accurate or not"

mayyyyyy

just mayyyyyyy

look rather shabby after 700 posts where you rather dismissively tell any and everyone to "listen to the science"

Deleted User wrote: »

im afraid, and look its just my opinion but i think many might share it, that you saying

"i dont care whether what greta says is accurate or not"

mayyyyyy

just mayyyyyyy

look rather shabby after 700 posts where you rather dismissively tell any and everyone to "listen to the science"

That's the problem with the naysayers, they presume that anyone agreeing with Greta's action believe every word out of her mouth is gospel and you can set your watch by it. Ye think that a lot more than we do.

If you can't differentiate between the relevant message and going so far as to taking everything literally, I don't know what to say to you.

That's the problem with cynical stunts like this

there were about three elements of greta thunbergs performance that actually landed front-and-centre on mainstream news, six-one and what have you

- 2030, world ends
- HOW DARE YOU
- Ragey performance

now, again you want to handwave away the point with naysayer, denier, whatever.

id like you to consider a very serious point here

when these are the three big attention grabbers, and its bull****, amateur dramatics, personality based and confrontational then as soon as people- having had their attention grabbed- spot this:

**it damages the credibility of the underpinning argument**

you cant draw attention to a policy paper by performing a dirty protest in the dail then telling people to ignore how you got the attention

it doesn't work. youre treating people with contempt. its juvenile. its a bait-and-switch.

doubling down by immediately swinging for anyone who says "hang on a minute, this isnt the way to achieve anything" is an aggressive, counterproductive tactic that likewise doesnt give you any right nor advantage when you then wave a policy document in their faces

you dont get it, but lookit thats not my fault.

if everyone is stupid except you........i mean, even if thats true, its functionally absolutely useless if your challenge is to influence people.

now, go on. give me another volley of "denier" because i think the greta stunt is a massive misstep for the environmental cause.

Wibbs

Tell me how wrote: »

Sure Wibbs. What hysterics has she gone on with that yourself and others are so affected by?

The end is nigh stuff. The "you've ruined my future" stuff. Talk about a lack of tone when at least a quarter of the world's children will go to bed tonight hungry, if they have a bed. I don't doubt her fervour, but...

Like I mused with someone earlier Greta and her movement is just another example of a middle class import your own organic muesli hoodie from Tibet, bandwagoning guilt trip to feel better about themselves while burning through CO2 to beat the band. I wonder how many smart phones her family and her supporters have "upgraded" to since the iphone first came out? This is not expecting sainthood, but there's a point where you have to walk the walk.

Never mind her mammy living out the fame through her child. Common enough with stage mammies of various persuasions and always bloody suspect.

That and she's like a fidget spinner, a short lived fad that has everyone going for a while with the media egging it on on both sides. Will it actually help with the global climate crisis? Highly doubtful and the next fad will wheel itself on for the Twitterati to fight over.

Which is a bloody pity, but I don't see any decent alternative. Take our own Green party. A bunch of utter morons and useless with it. Big industry gives two hoots for being "green" for all the guff they tell us and sell us in ever increasing levels of plastic coated shiny packaging with a green leaf on the box. World economics is entirely based on increasing the number of consumers and consumer products in a boom bust cycle to keep us hitting the Buy button like lab rats looking for their next hit of cocaine. And that's the mostly rich part. The US and Chinese big biz give even fewer hoots and actively fight the notion of climate change as a thing. Wait until the poorer parts of the world quite naturally want their share.

Yes the planet is looking down the barrel of some major changes over the next few centuries, but from what I can see we as a species will have to almost completely change our lives and economic model to shift it and Greta and similar are nothing but a small screeching too small release valve on a boiler that needs a complete refit, but the noise will keep us happy for a time.

Wibbs wrote: »

There is a huge chunk of proper scientific data that supports global climate change and the need to address it. That's in no doubt(and frankly if anyone doubts that I consider them a moron). However bugger all of it is within spitting distance of the hysterics of some like Greta and her supporters.

If scientists are saying we should have begun acting on this at a massive scale decades ago, and we're still not doing that, then what's an appropriate level of hysterics?

KyussB wrote: »

If scientists are saying we should have begun acting on this at a massive scale decades ago, and we're still not doing that, then what's an appropriate level of hysterics?

None, because nothing gets done through hysterics.

Wibbs wrote: »

The end is nigh stuff. The "you've ruined my future" stuff. Talk about a lack of tone when at least a quarter of the world's children will go to bed tonight hungry, if they have a bed. I don't doubt her fervour, but...

Like I mused with someone earlier Greta and her movement is just another example of a middle class import your own organic muesli hoodie from Tibet, bandwagoning guilt trip to feel better about themselves while burning through CO2 to beat the band. I wonder how many smart phones her family and her supporters have "upgraded" to since the iphone first came out? This is not expecting sainthood, but there's a point where you have to walk the walk.

Never mind her mammy living out the fame through her child. Common enough with stage mammies of various persuasions and always bloody suspect.

That and she's like a fidget spinner, a short lived fad that has everyone going for a while with the media egging it on on both sides. Will it actually help with the global climate crisis? Highly doubtful and the next fad will wheel itself on for the Twitterati to fight over.

Which is a bloody pity, but I don't see any decent alternative. Take our own Green party. A bunch of utter morons and useless with it. Big industry gives two hoots for being "green" for all the guff they tell us and sell us in ever increasing levels of plastic coated shiny packaging with a green leaf on the box. World economics is entirely based on increasing the number of consumers and consumer products in a boom bust cycle to keep us hitting the Buy button like lab rats looking for their next hit of cocaine. And that's the mostly rich part. The US and Chinese big biz give even fewer hoots and actively fight the notion of climate change as a thing. Wait until the poorer parts of the world quite naturally want their share.

Yes the planet is looking down the barrel of some major changes over the next few centuries, but from what I can see we as a species will have to almost completely change our lives and economic model to shift it and Greta and similar are nothing but a small screeching too small release valve on a boiler that needs a complete refit, but the noise will keep us happy for a time.

That is exactly what Greta is saying.

"I am not traveling like this because I want everyone to do so," Thunberg explained to reporters Tuesday. "I'm doing this to sort of send the message that it is impossible to live sustainable today, and that needs to change. It needs to become much easier."

And yet, you have a problem with her message?
Why is that?

You don't see anyone else acting to bring about the change which you say is needed and yet one person (not the only person by the way) who is making it a worldwide conversation at the moment, you refer to as screeching.

is_that_so wrote: »

None, because nothing gets done through hysterics.

Greta's aim isn't to personally solve climate change - she is bringing greater attention/focus to the issue of climate change, and its urgency.

How can you get anything done, unless you get people to pay attention to the issue and generate the necessary level of public awareness and politcal pressure, first?

KyussB wrote: »

Greta's aim isn't to personally solve climate change - she is bringing greater attention/focus to the issue of climate change, and its urgency.

How can you get anything done, unless you get people to pay attention to the issue, first?

Screaming doesn't work. It makes people look away. In the case of kids you wait until they've come back to earth and are ready to deal with the world.

Then why is everyone looking to her - and to the issues and urgency of climate change (because of her...) - at a far greater level among the public than ever before?

Deleted User wrote: »

That's the problem with cynical stunts like this

there were about three elements of greta thunbergs performance that actually landed front-and-centre on mainstream news, six-one and what have you

- 2030, world ends
- HOW DARE YOU
- Ragey performance

now, again you want to handwave away the point with naysayer, denier, whatever.

id like you to consider a very serious point here

when these are the three big attention grabbers, and its bull****, amateur dramatics, personality based and confrontational then as soon as people- having had their attention grabbed- spot this:

**it damages the credibility of the underpinning argument**

you cant draw attention to a policy paper by performing a dirty protest in the dail then telling people to ignore how you got the attention

it doesn't work. youre treating people with contempt. its juvenile. its a bait-and-switch.

doubling down by immediately swinging for anyone who says "hang on a minute, this isnt the way to achieve anything" is an aggressive, counterproductive tactic that likewise doesnt give you any right nor advantage when you then wave a policy document in their faces

you dont get it, but lookit thats not my fault.

if everyone is stupid except you........i mean, even if thats true, its functionally absolutely useless if your challenge is to influence people.

now, go on. give me another volley of "denier" because i think the greta stunt is a massive misstep for the environmental cause.

This makes no sense. Literally none.
You selected what you see as the 3 big attention grabbers. You designated them as such.
Greta, and the scientists are saying the key message is 'Listen to the science'. How did you miss that?

We have known that there is a problem with a long time. Those responsible for the problem have known even longer and yet we have not taken sufficient action.

Suggesting that Greta is a misstep for the climate cause is some sort of about turn to appear conscientious yet still want to undermine someone who is being proactive in trying to bring about change. It's BS.

KyussB wrote: »

Then why is everyone looking to her - and to the issues and urgency of climate change (because of her...) - at a far greater level among the public than ever before?

I think people have begun to ignore her. This, we are led to believe, is what she wants anyway.

Okey - so her efforts so far have been undebatably very effective at generating public attention/awareness of the issues/urgency of climate change - and people are only concerned about how effective her future efforts will be, yes?

171170

Amusing to note that the leader of the Irish Greens has four kids, the party's deputy leader has 3 as too has the clown who was elected TD for Fingal last week! Evidently none of them gives much of a fukc about global overpopulation!

Is Do what I say, not what I do the new slogan of the Irish Greens?

PS Does anyone know how many sprogs Green MEP Ciaran Cuffe has?

KyussB wrote: »

Okey - so her efforts so far have been undebatably very effective at generating public attention/awareness of the issues/urgency of climate change - and people are only concerned about how effective her future efforts will be, yes?

I think some people have found themselves a new Messiah. By her own admission she has nothing to say really and I wonder how long it will be before we move on from her unique perspectives on the world.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Then why is everyone looking to her - and to the issues and urgency of climate change (because of her...) - at a far greater level among the public than ever before?

Thats the thing - no one is . That was simply another part of gretas histrionics when she tried to claim that the adults in the room 'were looking to the young people for hope' or wtte at the UN conference in New York. But the problem with that - frankly it's garbage. No one is looking to greta or anyone else she dragged in for anything. Well apart from maybe some greta worshippers - but i reckon they can be excused to some degree eitherway.

Tell me how wrote: »

This makes no sense. Literally none.
You selected what you see as the 3 big attention grabbers. You designated them as such.
Greta, and the scientists are saying the key message is 'Listen to the science'. How did you miss that?

We have known that there is a problem with a long time. Those responsible for the problem have known even longer and yet we have not taken sufficient action.

Suggesting that Greta is a misstep for the climate cause is some sort of about turn to appear conscientious yet still want to undermine someone who is being proactive in trying to bring about change. It's BS.

ive long since disregarded your opinion of what makes sense, seeing as you commonly disregard entire posts with this type of handwave.

i called out out your "listen to the science" hypocrisy a few posts back. you cannot bridge the gap between when you want people to listen to greta and when you dont, or when accuracy matters and when it doesnt, because your whole case is built on an entirely incorrect premise that any attention is good attention.

it isnt.

and you doubling down on people who dont react the way you demand by lecturing/scolding them for any reason you feel like making up wont help your cause either.

ive set it all out in that post, as i said if you cannot see it or will not see it, that's not my problem.

but hush down barking at me and anyone else you feel like taking the high horse route with, thanks.

gozunda wrote: »

Thats the thing - no one is . That was simply another part of gretas histrionics when she tried to claim that the adults in the room 'were looking to the young people for hope' or wtte at the UN conference in New York. But the problem with that - frankly it's garbage. No one is looking to greta or anyone else she dragged in for anything. Well apart from maybe some greta worshippers - but i reckon they can be excused to some degree eitherway.

So are you claiming that public attention to the issue/urgency of climate change, hasn't exploded since Greta's efforts at bringing attention to it?

Only a couple of months ago, there were the biggest climate protests ever, widely credited to Greta.

I mean - did she or did she not generate a massive worldwide amount of attention to the issue of climate change?

KyussB wrote: »

Okey - so her efforts so far have been undebatably very effective at generating public attention/awareness of the issues/urgency of climate change - and people are only concerned about how effective her future efforts will be, yes?

"creating awareness" is not an indisputably positive value

if this thread hasnt demonstrated that, I'd be surprised!

a lot of the awareness created is "that young wan is talking ****e, I don't believe that about 2030, why isn't she in school and how many 15 years old have millionaire friends with yachts"

I know many people think you can take that and magically turn it into millions of people changing their approach to living because of a policy paper greta points to, but i have serious doubts that this is the case.

the idea that those people are doing so *because of greta* is tbh, entirely unmeasurable but i would definitely just roll my eyes at anyone who tried to tell me that she has "influenced" "millions"