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

Deleted User wrote: »

^^^^ "nonsense"

Is that your opinion?

What does your friend say?

Tell me how wrote: »

The reality is, Greta has garnered so much attention because she has demonstrated her commitment to a critical message and drawn attention to this with first, her persistent protesting with a simple clear message, on a topic which has had growing attention and yet has reached a critical level due to inappropriate levels of action.

Her age, the fact that she has Asperger's and is a girl and was was initially protesting on her own, did, at first, with respect to a topic which was already increasing in global awareness, to some degree help to garner media attention which is frequently looking for unique headlines but since then, her manner, her consistent sensible message, her support of logic and science has been recognized leading to many millions echoing her call and her being invited to speak at some of the worlds most influential organisations and groupings.
On top of this, her humour, her passion and her intent to practise what she preaches has impressed many millions more leading them to further support her message.

Now, as I have answered your friends question, maybe you would ask them to answer this or you might take a stab at it yourself.

Why does your friend have such an issue with Greta and the message she is communicating at a time when the catastrophic influence of the non-sustainable use of resources and materials has been scientifically proven and the effects of such are drastically impacting so many and which is expected to increase in severity and frequency?

firstly, "^^^ nonsense"

secondly, you didnt answer my friend's question.

who is platforming greta, and what influence over democratically elected governments are they seeking?

i dont need the back of her book regurgitated. possibly the question is better answered from someone not in her PR dept, idk....?

edit: response 404'd on me previous, hence repost/delete

apologies to tell me how, who i would hate to inconvenience in having them respond without any point :-)

is_that_so

Tell me how wrote: »

Let's just see what snoopsheeps friend comes back with. I suspect plenty more Monty Python phrases will be appropriate.

Maybe something from the skit of the Judean Peoples Front. A lot of people are very aggrieved at the attention a 17 year old girl is getting.

Well, when we see a whole lot of cultlike behaviour it's absolutely no surprise.

Fr_Dougal

Deleted User wrote: »

Just came across this on reddit..

Quote by Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: "It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."

Quote by Jim Sibbison, public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency: "We routinely wrote scare stories...Our press reports were more or less true...We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment."

Quote by emeritus professor Daniel Botkin: "The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."

Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president: "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are"

Quote by Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ.: "That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

Quote by Sir John Houghton, lead editor of first three IPCC reports: “If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster.”

Quote from Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist: "The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty."

Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models.”

Quote by David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University: “Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.”

Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change gives the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Quote by Timoth Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former Democrat Senator: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Quote by Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat: "A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."

Nice selection of scientists in the mix there. We’re always being told to “Listen to the scientists”. Well there you have it, scientists are even saying that most of the information is fiction and doomsday type scenarios.

Of course the climate alarmists will have their fingers in their ears now shouting ‘ la la la, I can’t hear you, SCIENTISTS LISTEN TO THE OThER SCIENTISTS’.

Tell me how wrote: »

That's just another way of saying listening to someones message.

No that's the equivalent of attempting to claim stuff like Mein Kampf are serious pieces of literature

Deleted User wrote: »

firstly, "^^^ nonsense"

secondly, you didnt answer my friend's question.

who is platforming greta, and what influence over democratically elected governments are they seeking?

i dont need the back of her book regurgitated. possibly the question is better answered from someone not in her PR dept, idk....?

I didn't refer to who is platforming her because I don't believe she is acting at the behest of any individual or body. i definitely expect she has support of people but that is not to say she is speaking for anyone other than herself.

Who said anything about wanting influence over democratically elected governments. What they want is democratically elected governments to act in the interest of sustainability and if not that those governments are democratically replaced with governments who will. Do you understand that such a concept is in support of democracy, not undermining it?

Maybe your friends questions would be more at home in the conspiracy forum. Reality and truth receive more of a light finger touch their I'm told.

nobody questioned her sincerity in her beliefs at all.

everybody on this planet holds sincere beliefs about things.

please don't misrepresent my friend in order to dodge the question- which (as someone who is on record in this thread as being in favour of greater action on climate change, which tbh one would get tired of pointing out in the face of the gretamob) is in my friend's opinion the only interesting and relevant question in this thread-

who is platforming this young lady's sincere beliefs all the way to the world's media and the UN?

again- please, no leaflets about her divinity, her purity and the righteousness of her cause.

the platform. the platform. the platform.

Deleted User wrote: »

nobody questioned her sincerity in her beliefs at all.

everybody on this planet holds sincere beliefs about things.

please don't misrepresent my friend in order to dodge the question- which (as someone who is on record in this thread as being in favour of greater action on climate change, which tbh one would get tired of pointing out in the face of the gretamob) is in my friend's opinion the only interesting and relevant question in this thread-

who is platforming this young lady's sincere beliefs all the way to the world's media and the UN?

again- please, no leaflets about her divinity, her purity and the righteousness of her cause.

the platform. the platform. the platform.

I do not believe she is working on anyone's platform above the strength of her own belief and message.

I've even put it in bold for you to try to ensure you read it. That is your friends question answered, don't keep posting that you are waiting for an answer just because it isn't the one you want.

Now, your turn. Sorry, your friends turn.

lol

you are doing it again

your beliefs are noted, you think greta has done it all herself because she is a pure being of light and energy

my friend's question remains open, my friend will probably decide for themselves when its been answered- as pointed out, they wont be consulting with you about it.

Deleted User wrote: »

lol

you are doing it again

your beliefs are noted, you think greta has done it all herself because she is a pure being of light and energy

my friend's question remains open, my friend will probably decide for themselves when its been answered- as pointed out, they wont be consulting with you about it.

Thanks for such a concise example of your inability to accept an answer you don't like.

Your friends question has been answered. You don't like it, tough.
Now, it's your friends turn.

feargale wrote: »

...
Martin Luther King and his followers have been vindicated. The Northern Civil Rights mostly young protesters have been vindicated. So will Greta Thunberg and the other wonderful young people. If you are still around and the planet hasn't fried, how will you respond when your grandchildren ask you where you stood? At least, you should acknowledge the inconvenient truth.

A protest by virtue of being a protest does not give it moral authority. Plenty of examples of dubious and populist protests movements out there tbh.

In short some are good - some not so. History is generally the arbitrator on that subject. And on the subject of overpopulation and where activists are really serious about human impact on the planet - they wont be having grandchildren.

An "Inconvient Truth"? I believe Al Gore got egg all over his face with his particular brand of 'Inconvenient Truth" when it was ruled as being littered with scientific errors. Something still ignored by many of his fans

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3310137/Al-Gores-nine-Inconvenient-Untruths.html

Tell me how wrote: »

Thanks for such a concise example of your inability to accept an answer you don't like.

Your friends question has been answered. You don't like it, tough.
Now, it's your friends turn.

golly, my friend will continue to ask the question regardless, thanks.

oh, your question? my friend has no problem with Greta. just wonders about the platform.

weldoninhio

Tell me how wrote: »

The reality is, Greta has garnered so much attention because she has demonstrated her commitment to a critical message and drawn attention to this with first, her persistent protesting with a simple clear message, on a topic which has had growing attention and yet has reached a critical level due to inappropriate levels of action.

Her age, the fact that she has Asperger's and is a girl and was was initially protesting on her own, did, at first, with respect to a topic which was already increasing in global awareness, to some degree help to garner media attention which is frequently looking for unique headlines but since then, her manner, her consistent sensible message, her support of logic and science has been recognized leading to many millions echoing her call and her being invited to speak at some of the worlds most influential organisations and groupings.
On top of this, her humour, her passion and her intent to practise what she preaches has impressed many millions more leading them to further support her message.

Now, as I have answered your friends question, maybe you would ask them to answer this or you might take a stab at it yourself.

Why does your friend have such an issue with Greta and the message she is communicating at a time when the catastrophic influence of the non-sustainable use of resources and materials has been scientifically proven and the effects of such are drastically impacting so many and which is expected to increase in severity and frequency?

Where to start with such nonsense.

Why isn’t she committed to staying in school/college where she could study and perhaps discover a ‘solution’ to such a vast problem?? She’s decided that the Homer Simpson “can’t someone else do it” approach is best.

Her “sensible message” that the world is going to die in ten years?? The one that the IPCC have slapped down numerous times??

Her humour? That’s a new one on me. Practicing what she preaches? How many people have had to fly around the world to pilot these yachts she’s used??

20Cent

Greta: "We will be beyond the point of repairing the climate in ten years"
Deniers, "world will be destroyed in ten years"

Greta: "we need to cut down on fossil fuels"
Deniers: "she wants us to live naked in a cave eating grass"

And they call climate scientists alarmist!!!

weldoninhio wrote: »

Where to start with such nonsense.

Why isn’t she committed to staying in school/college where she could study and perhaps discover a ‘solution’ to such a vast problem?? She’s decided that the Homer Simpson “can’t someone else do it” approach is best.

Why become just another scientist in another 6-8 years who nobody listens to when you can get the ear of the UN, EU, US Congress and HoC along with every media worldwide.

Her “sensible message” that the world is going to die in ten years?? The one that the IPCC have slapped down numerous times??

More so the message that time is running out (It is)
And that action is needed. (It is)
And that the scientists should be listened to (They should be)

Her humour? That’s a new one on me.

Her changing of twitter handle to reflect tweets by Trump (I know you are a fan of his so maybe that is why you didn't like that) and then the celebrity MM question was indeed humorous.

Practicing what she preaches? How many people have had to fly around the world to pilot these yachts she’s used?

That's a simplistic focus on one element (even so, if she and those with her had flown, would that would likely have been more CO2 cost than just those to return the yacht)
She has travelled throughout europe on bus/train/ferry.
She doesn't consumer meat.

weldoninhio

Tell me how wrote: »

Why become just another scientist in another 6-8 years who nobody listens to when you can get the ear of the UN, EU, US Congress and HoC along with every media worldwide.

More so the message that time is running out (It is)
And that action is needed. (It is)
And that the scientists should be listened to (They should be)

That's a simplistic focus on one element (even so, if she and those with her had flown, would that would likely have been more CO2 cost than just those to return the yacht)
She has travelled throughout europe on bus/train/ferry.
She doesn't consumer meat.

Just another scientist? Imagine what a world we’d live in if other scientists like Pastuer, Curie etc had decided not to bother with the aul science.

“Those with her” - by her tweets etc you’d get the impression it’s only her and her father. Why does she need such a large entourage of PR people, photographers, videographers etc with her?? The worlds press are already reporting on every tantrum she throws.

weldoninhio wrote: »

Just another scientist? Imagine what a world we’d live in if other scientists like Pastuer, Curie etc had decided not to bother with the aul science.

Interesting you mention Curie. In 1903, she was originally not nominated for the Nobel prize in physics while her male colleagues were. A Nobel committee member stepped in and she was rightfully included in the nomination.

Some similarities for both ladies in many not wanting to acknowledge the value of their efforts.

I'd say the pages of boards would have been full of the same 'PC gone mad' posts we see today had it been around then.

Also, you do realise that Greta still has time to achieve an undergraduate degree by a similar age to both Curie and Pasteur.

20Cent wrote: »

Greta: "We will be beyond the point of repairing the climate in ten years

"Deniers, "world will be destroyed in ten years"

Greta: "we need to cut down on fossil fuels"
Deniers: "she wants us to live naked in a cave eating grass"

And they call climate scientists alarmist!!!

At least try not to imagine what you think greta might be saying ...

And no as far as I can see your 'deniers' are not referring to the scientists as 'alarmists' - just the usual screamers

Greta on the end of civilisation.

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."

This is what one of the scientists responsible for the IPCC report 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.

Greta on keeping fossil fuels in the ground

We need to keep the fossil fuels in the ground

Alarmists making stuff up ...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

And none of that denies climate change btw

^^^^
Still getting preoccupied on the time frame. As before.

Tell me how wrote: »

Dr - You have cancer, you need to stop smoking and start treatment immediately.
Patient with Gozunda mentality - Is it serious?
Dr - Definitely. Yes.
Patient - How serious?
Dr - It could be terminal.
Patient - How long have I?
Dr - Maybe 6 months. Maybe a year.
Patient - I'm sorry, if you can't tell me exactly, I'm going to continue smoking and not start treatment.
Dr - All the consulting team agree you need treatment. Immediately.
Patient - Save it Doc, I saw a post on Facebook saying cancer is curable with a combination of carrot juice and cranial massage therapy.
Dr - Best of luck.

And you now agree climate change is a problem, but are intent on undermining the person doing must to ensure it remains in the public consciousness at this point in time. Your little confused guy is baffled at your logic.

Tell me how wrote: »

^^^^
Still getting preoccupied on the time frame. As before.And you now agree climate change is a problem, but are intent on undermining the person doing must to ensure it remains in the public consciousness at this point in time. Your little confused guy is baffled at your logic.

Still quoting yourself as an authority I see

...

Tell me how- no matter how much you try to paint everyone you dont agree with as a 'DENIER' it does not wash.

And yes Indeed climate change has been my position since day 1. That not suit your Alarmism no? Ah well ...

You taking the mickey is not an argument or even discussion. Its drivel - nothing more.

The one who is obsessed with a 'timeframe' is your greta apparently. No one else.

My comment was simply in reply to the previous poster who quoted gretas claims incorrectly btw. So yes her imaginations are irrelevant and wrong as is pointed out by that IPCC scientist above. Now excuse me if I believe him over the various deranged ramblings in this thread

Thats Shrugman btw and he is reacting to the repeated nonsense in the comment above
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Eric Cartman

Tell me how wrote: »

Dr - You have cancer, you need to stop smoking and start treatment immediately.
Patient with Gozunda mentality - Is it serious?
Dr - Definitely. Yes.
Patient - How serious?
Dr - It could be terminal.
Patient - How long have I?
Dr - Maybe 6 months. Maybe a year.
Patient - I'm sorry, if you can't tell me exactly, I'm going to continue smoking and not start treatment.
Dr - All the consulting team agree you need treatment. Immediately.
Patient - Save it Doc, I saw a post on Facebook saying cancer is curable with a combination of carrot juice and cranial massage therapy.
Dr - Best of luck.

Dr - You have cancer, you need to stop smoking and start treatment immediately.
Patient with Gozunda mentality - Is it serious?
Dr - Definitely. Yes.
Patient - How serious?
Dr - It could be terminal.
Patient - How long have I?
Dr - Maybe 6 months. Maybe a year.
Patient - I moved on to nicotine patches years ago, occasionally I mess up and have a cigarette but my chinese, indian and african housemates all insist on smoking 20 a day each in my room with the windows closed.
Dr - Its you having that occasional cigarette thats really doing the damage here.
Patient - Wait a minute, you look like a 16 year old girl , do you have a medical degree
Dr - I never told you to do anything, listen to another doctor, you racist, stop attacking a child.

would be a more accurate depiction of how its going down.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Dr - You have cancer, you need to stop smoking and start treatment immediately.
Patient with Gozunda mentality - Is it serious?
Dr - Definitely. Yes.
Patient - How serious?
Dr - It could be terminal.
Patient - How long have I?
Dr - Maybe 6 months. Maybe a year.
Patient - I moved on to nicotine patches years ago, occasionally I mess up and have a cigarette but my chinese, indian and african housemates all insist on smoking 20 a day each in my room with the windows closed.
Dr - Its you having that occasional cigarette thats really doing the damage here.
Patient - Wait a minute, you look like a 16 year old girl , do you have a medical degree
Dr - I never told you to do anything, listen to another doctor, you racist, stop attacking a child.

would be a more accurate depiction of how its going down.

That's seems to be the general attitude here all right ...

I wouldnt mind but I dont even smoke

Thelonious Monk

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Patient - I moved on to nicotine patches years ago, occasionally I mess up and have a cigarette but my chinese, indian and african housemates all insist on smoking 20 a day each in my room with the windows closed.

You do realise that Irish people such as ourselves pollute far more than Africans and Indians? Not sure about Chinese.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/05/britain-annual-carbon-emissions-overtake-africa-two-weeks-oxfam

I would assume we have a similar footprint to the Brits.

suicide_circus

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

You do realise that Irish people such as ourselves pollute far more than Africans and Indians? Not sure about Chinese.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/05/britain-annual-carbon-emissions-overtake-africa-two-weeks-oxfam

I would assume we have a similar footprint to the Brits.

we'd better hope the Africans and Indians stay poor so!

Thelonious Monk

suicide_circus wrote: »

we'd better hope the Africans and Indians stay poor so!

I'd prefer a better distribution of wealth globally

Fr_Dougal

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

You do realise that Irish people such as ourselves pollute far more than Africans and Indians? Not sure about Chinese.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/05/britain-annual-carbon-emissions-overtake-africa-two-weeks-oxfam

I would assume we have a similar footprint to the Brits.

You can’t just quote articles then make up the content.

Since when is Irish British? You can’t go making stuff up and assuming this or that.

From the article you quoted:

Britons reach Africans’ annual carbon emissions in just two weeks

This further demonstrates the misinformation being wheeled out by the climate alarmists.

suicide_circus

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I'd prefer a better distribution of wealth globally

we can all be the 1%