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

mandrake04

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/11312694

Worth a read. The drought conditions in Australia are nothing new. Drought is the normal there. Difference is of the federation drought occurred today it would be worse. Not because if climate change but because of increased agriculture and population. But it's easier to say it's our fault and we should pay more taxes rather than point out endless population growth and the wasteful consumer economy

Bushfires are very important to Australia's ecosystem it helps with biological diversity, many species depend on fire to regenerate that wouldn't thrive without burning the top cover. Fire depends on climatic conditions (dry/drought) and the weather (hot/wind). This is natural cycle that happens every so often, sometimes small fires sometimes large fires. But by nature a lot of species of plants are very combustible.

If you didn't have drought then you don't have favorable conditions for bushfire's, if you don't have fires they you have an ecosystem that is out of kilter. Been going on for '000s if not millions of years.

Bushfires are bad, but bushfires are also good... got to respect nature.

[Deleted User]

mandrake04 wrote: »

As far as bushfires go it doesn't discriminate.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/11312694

Worth a read. The drought conditions in Australia are nothing new. Drought is the normal there. Difference is of the federation drought occurred today it would be worse. Not because if climate change but because of increased agriculture and population. But it's easier to say it's our fault and we should pay more taxes rather than point out endless population growth and the wasteful consumer economy

mandrake04

sk8erboii wrote: »

500,000 million animals dead so far. Im sure thats all natural

As far as bushfires go it doesn't discriminate.

Lillydee

Go Greta!

sk8erboii

mandrake04 wrote: »

These bushfires are nothing new, current fires have burned through 3.6 million Hectares over the last 5-6 weeks.

Black Thursday 1851 burned 5 million Hectares in a single day, that was 1/4 of Victoria and killed 1 million sheep and '000s of cattle. (4 people I think died) gone overnight.

The biggest problem is fuel load, a wet winter followed by hot dry summer and then missed opportunities to reduce the Hazard due to warm winds. People are quick to exploit politics suit themselves but it really comes down to it it was poor timing and the horse had bolted before it was managed.

500,000 million animals dead so far. Im sure thats all natural

mandrake04

These bushfires are nothing new, current fires have burned through 3.6 million Hectares over the last 5-6 weeks.

Black Thursday 1851 burned 5 million Hectares in a single day, that was 1/4 of Victoria and killed 1 million sheep and '000s of cattle. (4 people I think died) gone overnight.

The biggest problem is fuel load, a wet winter followed by hot dry summer and then missed opportunities to reduce the Hazard due to warm winds. People are quick to exploit politics suit themselves but it really comes down to it it was poor timing and the horse had bolted before it was managed.

[Deleted User]

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Agree and I say that as a paid up member of the climate change debate, unfortunately those who seek to make ideological capital out of this matter are greatly undermining their own cause. The article is what it is and nothing else.

Rather more pressing is the here and now rather than prognostication about the future or arguments about whether an ice core is truly representative of climate at previous juncture.

To wit - is Australia about to become the first developed economy to be made measurably poorer by climate change induced weather events. The whole continent is now tinder dry and will be until our summer/their winter at the earliest. By which point whole swaths of the most populated/income generating part of the country could be smoldering with populations uprooted and economic chains disrupted (esp with regard to the tourist trade - come to Australia and breath the smoke!)

Australia was drier during the federation drought 100 years ago. It's just more populated now

[Deleted User]

AlekSmart wrote: »

The Scientific "debate" on the Climate Change issue has long been happening,and continues to happen,at it's own rather stately Scientific level.

Climate Change debate has been going on long before Greta Thunberg was born,and it will continue long after she,and the rest of us,depart this world.

However,Ms Thunberg's particular contention appears to be, that this debate has continued for long enough,and the time has come to guillotine it and move on to her particular forms of direct action.

Ms Thunberg herself,for a variety of reasons,prefers a lecture style of interaction and does not appear comfortable with debating her views to any great degree.

As her father points out,her condition alows her a degree of comprehension and appreciation somewhat different to other participants in the debate,but that same condition also dismisses contrarians and their views almost offhandedly.

Mainstream politics is littered with the remains of "Outside the box" thinkers,Scientific,Social and Political,many of whom simply did'nt have the understanding of basic Human Nature required to keep their views afloat and functioning.

It remains to be seen whether the adult Greta Thunberg will develop this understanding,and perhaps refine her view of greater Human Society to encompass the diversity and disparity levels which are a prerequisite for reasoned debate,scientific or otherwise ?

excellently put

[Deleted User]

offered and answered manys the time in this thread

this thread focuses on why greta was chosen (and it's transparent to many that she *is* the choice of those directing this movement, this fantasy of her as an organic figurehead is balderdash) and any attempt to question which characteristics of hers made her suitable for this role is habitually shouted down in the manner above.

the steering of the thread into arguments about communism/free money/denialism & purity tests/"how could you, she's A CHILD/AUTISTIC/JUST WANTS TO SAVE THE WORLD/JUST POINTS TO THE SCIENCE" seem to me to be just as transparent in their attempts to remove focus on this important question.

20Cent

jackboy wrote: »

Greta has never debated anyone on the science.

Maybe debate was the wrong word. Mean argue against her points rather than a formal type debate.

AlekSmart

20Cent wrote: »

They can't debate Greta on the science so have to attack her personally.

The Scientific "debate" on the Climate Change issue has long been happening,and continues to happen,at it's own rather stately Scientific level.

Climate Change debate has been going on long before Greta Thunberg was born,and it will continue long after she,and the rest of us,depart this world.

However,Ms Thunberg's particular contention appears to be, that this debate has continued for long enough,and the time has come to guillotine it and move on to her particular forms of direct action.

Ms Thunberg herself,for a variety of reasons,prefers a lecture style of interaction and does not appear comfortable with debating her views to any great degree.

As her father points out,her condition alows her a degree of comprehension and appreciation somewhat different to other participants in the debate,but that same condition also dismisses contrarians and their views almost offhandedly.

Mr Thunberg said. Greta was diagnosed with Asperger's - a form of autism - aged 12, something she has said allows her to "see things from outside the box".

Mainstream politics is littered with the remains of "Outside the box" thinkers,Scientific,Social and Political,many of whom simply did'nt have the understanding of basic Human Nature required to keep their views afloat and functioning.

It remains to be seen whether the adult Greta Thunberg will develop this understanding,and perhaps refine her view of greater Human Society to encompass the diversity and disparity levels which are a prerequisite for reasoned debate,scientific or otherwise ?

jackboy

20Cent wrote: »

They can't debate Greta on the science so have to attack her personally.

Greta has never debated anyone on the science.

20Cent

They can't debate Greta on the science so have to attack her personally.

AlekSmart

Deleted User wrote: »

You're not making a great case as to why people should be harangued into paying attention to the girl.

Maybe her condition would be better managed by not placing her as the focus of a slick, shadily-funded and tightly-managed publicity campaign.....oh

I have personal and very close familial experience of Aspbergers,and I share your concerns at how Ms Thunberg's highly individual state of mind is being utilised to push the agenda which she herself fixated upon over 5 years ago.

Mr Thunberg's BBC interview allows a small chink of light to shine upon the issue of his daughter's preoccupation with the Climate.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50901789

Speaking to Husain as part of the show, Mr Thunberg said his daughter had struggled with depression for "three or four years" before she began her school strike.

"She stopped talking... she stopped going to school," he said.

He added that it was the "ultimate nightmare for a parent" when Greta began refusing to eat.

To help her get better, Mr Thunberg spent more time with Greta and her younger sister, Beata, at their home in Sweden. Greta's mother, opera singer and former Eurovision Song Contest participant Malena Ernman, cancelled contracts so the whole family could be together.

With Ms Thunberg's direct action beginning in September 2018,it would seem that her overall mental state was very fragile for quite a substantial period before fame was brought into play.

It appears that the Aspbergers diagnosis was seperate to her depression.

Whilst Depression and Aspbergers are not necessarily complimentary with each other,but it would be of interest to know what specific factors contributed towards Greta's depression.

There is a telling,and possibly foreboding quote from Mr Thunberg towards the end of the BBC interview...

He added that as Greta turns 17 soon, she will no longer need to be accompanied on her travels.

"If she needs me there, I'll try to do it," he said. "But I think she'll be, more and more, going to do it by herself which is great."

It is open to conjecture whether the influence of her parents has been a deciding factor in Ms Thunberg's campaign,but it is also now somewhat clearer that political groupings are very much embedded in the Skolstrejk för klimatet movement.

Personally,as somebody who has shared an Aspbergers life,I would be VERY reluctant to take any Political involvement at face value.
I would be quite fearful for an adolescent Aspbergers person's wellbeing as they move into truly independent adulthood being clasped ever closer to a Political bosom.

It may well be that Greta's preoccupation with Climate Change was totally random,or then again,was her known intellectual predisposition targetted and manipulated so she could become the "Face" of Climate Activism ?

gozunda

Harry Palmr wrote: »

edit - I just saw you reply above. suicide_circus

This, unfortunately is the sort of reporting that gives everyone a bad name.
...
it is deliberately framed as a "worst case" scenario but the Guardian/Observer doesn't make that clear at all, indeed it quite obviously states that the events will happen.

They should have been pulled up on this article at the time.

I would agree tbh. And thats the type of 'worst case scenarios' the Guardian regularly comes up with

It remains the Guardian is one of the principle climate alarmist media sources out there. I would take anything they report on with a bucket of salt. And no that's not denying climate change btw.

Notably a Guardian editorial in 2019 announced they were altering their use of climate related language allegedly to be more "scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue

Phrases mandated for use in Guardian media articles include:

global heating instead of global warming

greenhouse gas emissions instead of carbon dioxide emissions

fish populations instead of fish stocks

And my favourite

wildlife instead of biodiversity

Because they felt that "wildlife is a much more accessible word and is fair to use in many stories, and is a bit less clinical when talking about all the creatures with whom we share the planet."

Excuse my french but that's as scientifically precise as my rear end.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/16/guardian-language-changes-climate-environment

hetuzozaho

Her New Year tweet. She has had quite the year! Some cool pictures

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1212105430215860224

Unite behind the science!

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Not everything is just an opinion. The validity of climate science, for one, is not just an opinion - it's earned scientific credibility and has an entire fields research worth of evidence and work put in to back it as valid.

It would be rather a waste of time if this thread was just a restatement of peoples individual opinions again and again - without ridiculous opinions being invallidated through debate and discarded.

Indeed.

Well this thread is about greta and her travels across the world and the various opinions she is espousing.

And we know that greta reckons that civilisation is going belly up in a decade , a position not supported by the science. She also reckons all the adults in the room ruined her childhood or wtte - a position which does not hold up to scrutiny. Ironic she then advocates others to 'unite behind the science' ...
.

So apparently those screamers are allowed to hold 'opinions' but the rest of us poor scmucks are not allowed to and most tow the party line? Oh and no criticisism of any of that either?

Yup sounds legit ...

Ironicname

suicide_circus wrote:

i felt the posting of the 2004 article was legitimate and pertinent in this case

And my mentioning of transgenderism was to highlight that science is often ignored when it suits people.

Mr E

Beasty wrote: »

Professor Moriarty - do not post in this thread again

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If you know it's misleading then you know the truth. In your own time...

Mod: See you in a fortnight.

suicide_circus

KyussB wrote: »

We're kind of in the realm of an opinion being restated again and again without evidence, here.

I think everyone in the thread can agree that merely restating an opinion again and again, when it requires evidence, is a bit of a waste of time - so can some evidence be provided, of how these 'external forces' or conflicts of interest, are affecting the field of climate science?

I mean, religious zealotry is precisely involved with feverously restating opinions which don't have any evidence backing them or which have been debunked - so it's a bit odd that you do exactly that, in arguments insinuating religous zealotry.

yes certainly, a two way street would be entirely in keeping with the metaphor; reformation and counter reformation.

[Deleted User]

I'm not asking you to prove anything..you're the one asking for evidence..I'm asking you what makes you think the climate industry is immune from manipulation, and why don't they realistically look at nuclear, in your opinion?

Tuisceanch

KyussB wrote: »

I think everyone in the thread can agree that merely restating an opinion again and again, when it requires evidence, is a bit of a waste of time - so can some evidence be provided, of how these 'external forces' or conflicts of interest, are affecting the field of climate science?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/28/climate/trump-administration-war-on-science.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

WASHINGTON — In just three years, the Trump administration has diminished the role of science in federal policymaking while halting or disrupting research projects nationwide, marking a transformation of the federal government whose effects, experts say, could reverberate for years.

Political appointees have shut down government studies, reduced the influence of scientists over regulatory decisions and in some cases pressured researchers not to speak publicly. The administration has particularly challenged scientific findings related to the environment and public health opposed by industries such as oil drilling and coal mining. It has also impeded research around human-caused climate change, which President Trump has dismissed despite a global scientific consensus.

KyussB

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, like, if you understand it happens in certain fields, what makes you think climate is immune from it..in reality there's a massive climate change industry that has developed around it.. There's a lot of money involved..The answer we keep hearing is "more taxes on everybody" and pushing solutions that aren't really viable while ignoring the one that probably is, nuclear..why is that, do you think?

Feels close to asking me to prove a negative. If people are insinuating that climate science has been corrupted by irrecoverable conflicts of interest - they need to provide evidence...

Science isn't perfect, it's a human endeaver etc. and people have flaws - but it's not all just bullshit - and when there is something wrong with a scientific field (e.g. even fields like theoretical physics have a lot wrong, with e.g. string theory being a 'not even wrong' theory), then some evidence needs to be provided to show the problem...

Otherwise we're just wasting time hypothesizing over nothing, over completely made up conspiracies etc..

KyussB

suicide_circus wrote: »

but i dont deny the science necessarily, just stating that its subject to external forces like everything else. and as someone who studied european history for 4 years, i can't help getting a medieval religious zealot vibe off some people when it comes to climate change, not you personally, i dont know you. all my own perceptions, thats all.

We're kind of in the realm of an opinion being restated again and again without evidence, here.

I think everyone in the thread can agree that merely restating an opinion again and again, when it requires evidence, is a bit of a waste of time - so can some evidence be provided, of how these 'external forces' or conflicts of interest, are affecting the field of climate science?

I mean, religious zealotry is precisely involved with feverously restating opinions which don't have any evidence backing them or which have been debunked - so it's a bit odd that you do exactly that, in arguments insinuating religous zealotry.

[Deleted User]

KyussB wrote: »

Can we see the evidence for this in the field of climate science?

Certainly, that is true for fields such as e.g. economics - which is riddled with that kind of bias - along with other scientific fields, but it requires evidence to show this.

Well, like, if you understand it happens in certain fields, what makes you think climate is immune from it..in reality there's a massive climate change industry that has developed around it.. There's a lot of money involved..The answer we keep hearing is "more taxes on everybody" and pushing solutions that aren't really viable while ignoring the one that probably is, nuclear..why is that, do you think?

Professor Moriarty

jackboy wrote: »

Those commonly shown temperature trendlines are misleading. That statement is not controversial. Do you believe they are highly accurate?

So your alternative science is?

suicide_circus

KyussB wrote: »

Not everything is just an opinion. The validity of climate science, for one, is not just an opinion - it's earned scientific credibility and has an entire fields research worth of evidence and work put in to back it as valid.

It would be rather a waste of time if this thread was just a restatement of peoples individual opinions again and again - without ridiculous opinions being invallidated through debate and discarded.

but i dont deny the science necessarily, just stating that its subject to external forces like everything else. and as someone who studied european history for 4 years, i can't help getting a medieval religious zealot vibe off some people when it comes to climate change, not you personally, i dont know you. all my own perceptions, thats all.

KyussB

jackboy wrote: »

Integrity of data is a massive concern in all of science and issues are common place. If you are assessing old data then the concerns are greater.

Those temperature trend graphs commonly shown don’t usually show the margins of error. The old data is treated the same as new data with pencil thin trendlines going back hundreds of years. It is misleading.

What you express isn't a concern with the integrity of data, but with how it's presented.

I can pretty much guarantee you that there is no scientist out there who doesn't deal with margins of error - it's basic statistics that's fundamental to almost all scientific research.

jackboy

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If you know it's misleading then you know the truth. In your own time...

Those commonly shown temperature trendlines are misleading. That statement is not controversial. Do you believe they are highly accurate?

KyussB

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not saying it's conflicts of interest..I'm saying the system is set up in such a way that if you want to apply for funding/grants you can only do it with a certain viewpoint in mind..

Can we see the evidence for this in the field of climate science?

Certainly, that is true for fields such as e.g. economics - which is riddled with that kind of bias - along with other scientific fields, but it requires evidence to show this.