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

24-01-2020 1:20pm

BluePlanet wrote: »

Public transport and cycling are the obvious solutions.
Your 'right' to use public space to store your large metal box will probably wane in near future. Space ceded to sustainable transport.

This is good because you're tipping your hand.
Your car IS the important bit, and it's your main worry about climate action.

lol

im pretty sure that paddy has consistently been tweaking noses in this thread, i mean i may be wrong but ......

Paddygreen · 24-01-2020 1:22pm

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

You and the other denialists are holding up the full implementation of climate action. I suggest that internment for the greater good would be a way to deal with you people during this emergency. Extreme maybe, but possibly necessary.

gozunda · 24-01-2020 1:34pm

BluePlanet wrote: »

No she doesn't gave the precise number of years that civilization goes "tits up".This is just your inability to grasp language. It obviously IS skin off your nose, after all you're here on an internet forum dedicating your time and effort to propagandize about her.Greta communicates that she is being alarmist because she wants that alarm to spur action.So is it really the alarmism that you don't like and not the 'action'?
I think you are being dishonest.It's the action that has you worried.

To paraphrase the tone of that comment - is just an inability not to be deliberatly obtuse or something?

This is the direct quote:

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.”

So on one hand we have the use of 'around' and then we are given the exact number of days to D Day and counting lol...

And there are the facts in black and white. Not your 'nuances' or whatever other imaginings. And that type of alarmism bears bugger all resemblence to any of the IPCC science.

But as said you can believe what you want. Others pointing out the problems with regard to alarmism such as the IPCC scientist quoted - seems to be something strange to you? Yes its a discussion btw - posters discuss things. Not a new concept by any means. Does that 'worry' you?

Fr_Dougal · 24-01-2020 1:40pm

Paddygreen wrote: »

You and the other denialists are holding up the full implementation of climate action. I suggest that internment for the greater good would be a way to deal with you people during this emergency. Extreme maybe, but possibly necessary.

You should have a beer, maybe a Budweiser. It’s that Beechwood aging process that makes it so popular.

BluePlanet · 24-01-2020 1:52pm

gozunda wrote: »

To paraphrase the tone of that comment - is just an inability not to be deliberatly obtuse or something?

This is the direct quote:

So on one hand we have the use of 'around' and then we are given the exact number of days to D Day and counting lol...

And there are the facts in black and white. Not your 'nuances' or whatever other imaginings. And that type of alarmism bears bugger all resemblence to any of the IPCC science.

But as said you can believe what you want. Others pointing out the problems with regard to alarmism such as the IPCC scientist quoted - seems to be something strange to you? Yes its a discussion btw - posters discuss things. Not a new concept by any means. Does that 'worry' you?

it is amusing that you cannot grasp this concept in language.

Question: What does Greta say will occur in 10 years - is it the end of civilization?
No.
Answer: "A chain reaction" occurs.
This is an independent clause in the paragraph.

The following sentence is a dependent clause: "will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it".
She does not stipulate when civilization ends, nor even how long a process that ending may be; only that the process begins.

Tell me how · 24-01-2020 1:59pm

AllForIt wrote: »

But any stupid fool could suggest that. Scientists have invented ways to create energy. They didn't set about to do it such a way to create emissions deliberately. The ways we make energy are the only ways we know how to do it. We still can't harness wind or solar to the levels of nuclear reactors or by burning coal, and we haven't got any portable energy source for vehicles that's as good as oil. If we make more electric cars we still have the problem of producing even more electricity than we use now.

If you invented a new way to create energy that was viable to be mass produced you'd be a multi-billionaire overnight. Even if the creation of it resulted in emissions. And if you did it in such a way there there were no emissions you'd be a billionaire and a considered a God.

So the idea that all it takes is to demand the worlds governments to put their heads together to invent some new non-polluting alternative energy sources - is just so painfully naive and it's no wonder she's being ridiculed for it. She's demanding the impossible.

.

The first law of thermodynamics would beg to differ.

gozunda · 24-01-2020 2:00pm

BluePlanet wrote: »

it is amusing that you cannot grasp this concept in language.
Question: What does Greta say will occur in 10 years - is it the end of civilization?
No.Answer: "A chain reaction" occurs.
This is an independent clause in the paragraph.
The following sentence is a dependent clause: "will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it".She does not stipulate when civilization ends, nor even how long a process that ending may be; only that the process begins.

Lol. Still dont get it? First it was 'nuanced' now its down to language and grammar!

As detailed the issue is certainly the use of alarmist 'language' such as "end of our civilisation as we know it" and the cold war type countdown of exactly - "10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now" for a supposed 'chain reaction' leading to the end. I'm certainly not the only one who has this pointed out this as pure alarmism. But hey if you like that kind of stuff.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Tell me how · 24-01-2020 2:04pm

gozunda wrote: »

Lol. Still dont get it? Fair enough
As detailed its is the use of alarmists language such as "end of civilisation as we know it and the cold war type countdown of exactly "10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now".
I'm certainly not the only one who has this pointed out as pure alarmism. But hey if you like that kind of stuff.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Insert smoker analogy here. Again.

Thousands of scientists say action is needed.
You are amongst of a group of people trying to detract from that message by saying the prediction of a critical time limit is unlikely to be true.

PopePalpatine · 24-01-2020 2:14pm

Breakerz wrote: »

If her achievement was to polarise the climate change debate then she has successfully managed that. Like Al Gore the hyperbole and demands don't work, which is a massive shame as it's very clear that countries need to do more but now political leaders will get away with it because a little girl is shouting at everyone.

Some expert, in the mould of a Carl Sagan, needs to lead this debate otherwise it's very easy to dismiss Greta and her well oiled machine.

The problem is that Sagan 2.0 would face the same howls of derision. Instead of "that brat is going to take away my daily steak dinner and my car!" it'll be "that geek is going to take away my daily steak dinner and my car!"

KyussB · 24-01-2020 2:33pm

gozunda wrote: »

Oh so you can read gretas mind now? Is that it?

If not then provide a Link to the 'tipping point'in the relevant IPCC report regarding civilisation ending etc or get out the door with the usual rubbish pontificating common here

The action of pointing at something and screaming 'I'm right' or wtte thankfully does not make a valid argument.

You're only repeating the claim out of wilful, deliberate ignorance - as this has been pointed out to you multiple times in the thread: (direct quote from Greta)

I have some good news and some bad news regarding the climate emergency. I will start with the good news.

The world, as a small number of people have been saying lately, will not end in 11 years.

The bad news, however, is that around the year 2030, if we continue with business as usual, we will likely be in a position where we may pass a number of tipping points. And then we might no longer be able to undo the irreversible climate breakdown.

https://awpc.cattcenter.iastate.edu/2019/12/02/speech-at-the-national-assembly-in-paris-july-23-2019/

Even though you have direct proof here, that she is talking about tipping points and not a 'drop dead' date where the world ends - you, like other posters, will continue to perpetuate the false claim of the latter.

If you're unable to admit being wrong here - unable to admit that she is talking about tipping points, not a 'drop dead' date - then thereafter you only demonstrate to posters, that you are wilfully lying about what she is saying. Same goes for all the posters backing the deliberate misrepresentations that you post.

It's funny how nobody criticizing Greta, criticizes what she actually says - everyone who criticizes her transforms her statements, into a far stricter form than she actually said, in order to create a straw man and make them easy to bat down.

gozunda · 24-01-2020 2:39pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Insert smoker analogy here. Again.Thousands of scientists say action is needed.
You are amongst of a group of people trying to detract from that message by saying the prediction of a critical time limit is unlikely to be true.

Ignoring the ball and kicking the player(s) eh?
Gretas 'messsge' lol.
Greta is not a scientist. Most of her rabbitings have nothing to do with any science. And the above is nothing to do with gretas imagined timeline - its the alarmism she employs. Simple really.

gozunda · 24-01-2020 2:58pm

KyussB wrote: »

You're only repeating the claim out of wilful, deliberate ignorance - as this has been pointed out to you multiple times in the thread: (direct quote from Greta)I have some good news and some bad news regarding the climate emergency. I will start with the good news.The world, as a small number of people have been saying lately, will not end in 11 years.The bad news, however, is that around the year 2030, if we continue with business as usual, we will likely be in a position where we may pass a number of tipping points.[And then we might no longer be able to undo the irreversible climate breakdown.[/indent]
https://awpc.cattcenter.iastate.edu/2019/12/02/speech-at-the-national-assembly-in-paris-july-23-2019/Even though you have direct proof here, that she is talking about tipping points and not a 'drop dead' date where the world ends - you, like other posters, will continue to perpetuate the false claim of the latter.If you're unable to admit being wrong here - unable to admit that she is talking about tipping points, not a 'drop dead' date - then thereafter you only demonstrate to posters, that you are wilfully lying about what she is saying. Same goes for all the posters backing the deliberate misrepresentations that you post.It's funny how nobody criticizing Greta, criticizes what she actually says - everyone who criticizes her transforms her statements, into a far stricter form than she actually said, in order to create a straw man and make them easy to bat down.

Lol. Sorry to disappoint but no - whoever is repeating rubbish out of "wilful, deliberate ignorance" - tis certainly not me thanks. That said there are definitely a whole bunch of posters comments which certainly match that criteria. And yes I am most definitely criticizing what she actually says. See the quotes detailed if you are in any doubt.

Btw you keep telling posters your version of reality doesnt make for a reasoned argument btw - just in case you forgot again.

And btw wheres the link to the IPCC report re tippings points which matches with gretas end of civilisation speech. No? Grand so. As for your link to yet another of gretas speeches- Nice bit of backtracking on her part- obviously too many people pointed out what she claimed re end of civilisations yada yada didnt stand up to scrutiny.

If you're unable to admit being wrong - no worries. But for sure Greta has the cart and ass thing backwards. If you want to start a discussion this other greta speech which you linked and her sidestepping- then please work away.

BluePlanet · 24-01-2020 2:58pm

gozunda wrote: »

Ignoring the ball and kicking the player(s) eh?
Gretas 'messsge' lol.
Greta is not a scientist. Most of her rabbitings have nothing to do with any science. And the above is nothing to do with gretas imagined timeline - its the alarmism she employs. Simple really.

You're still not being honest.
If it's the alarmist language that you don't like, WHAT specifically about her alarmism is it that winds you up?
Your side also uses alarmist language like "but it will destroy the entire economy."

Naw, look deeper, it's the actions that you can't stomach.
You don't want to change your lifestyle to accommodate a low carbon future.

gozunda · 24-01-2020 3:06pm

BluePlanet wrote: »

You're still not being honest.If it's the alarmist language that you don't like, WHAT specifically about her alarmism is it that winds you up?
Your side also uses alarmist language like "but it will destroy the entire economy."
Naw, look deeper, it's the actions that you can't stomach.

Very funny post lol. Though good that at least you admit she is an alarmist!

My points on her repeated alarmism is the exact same as the IPCC scientist detailed. Stop with the bs.

Btw I dont have a 'side'. But you probably dont that not having evidently read the thread. So no bother.

Nah look deeper- nah dont bother. Tbh your comment is about as deep as a puddle ...

BluePlanet · 24-01-2020 3:15pm

gozunda wrote: »

You're a very funny poster lol. Though good that at least you admit she is an alarmist!

My points on her repeated alarmism is the exact same as the IPCC scientist detailed. Stop with the bs.

Btw I dont have a 'side'. But you probably dont that not having evidently read the thread. So no bother.

Nah look deeper- nah dont bother. Tbh your comment is about as deep as a puddle ...

She admits to using alarmist language FFS.

BluePlanet · 24-01-2020 3:22pm

Here is some of one of her speeches:

Adults keep saying: “We owe it to the young people to give them hope.” But I don’t want your hope. I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act.

I want you to act as you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if our house is on fire. Because it is.

So the question still remains, is it the alarmism that has you worried?
Or is it really the action.

blinding · 24-01-2020 3:23pm

Why not just party ourselves into oblivion . I believe Fianna Fail are on their way back in Ireland !

Fr_Dougal · 24-01-2020 3:27pm

BluePlanet wrote: »

She admits to using alarmist language FFS.

alarmist
/əˈlɑːmɪst/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: alarmist; plural noun: alarmists
someone who exaggerates a danger and so causes needless worry or panic.
"the problem is a fabrication by alarmists"

BluePlanet · 24-01-2020 4:20pm

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

alarmist
/əˈlɑːmɪst/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: alarmist; plural noun: alarmists
someone who exaggerates a danger and so causes needless worry or panic.
"the problem is a fabrication by alarmists"

Is man-induced climate change a needless worry?

Tell me how · 24-01-2020 4:35pm

gozunda wrote: »

Ignoring the ball and kicking the player(s) eh?
Gretas 'messsge' lol.
Greta is not a scientist. Most of her rabbitings have nothing to do with any science. And the above is nothing to do with gretas imagined timeline - its the alarmism she employs. Simple really.

It seems you view any disagreement as a personal attack. Might explain the reluctance to engage in any conversation about implementing real change.

Any alarmism coming from Greta is echoed (indeed originated) by noted bodies, scientists, naturalists and environmental experts.

gozunda · 24-01-2020 5:03pm

Tell me how wrote: »

It seems you view any disagreement as a personal attack. Might explain the reluctance to engage in any conversation about implementing real change.
Any alarmism coming from Greta is echoed (indeed originated) by noted bodies, scientists, naturalists and environmental experts.

Nope. Wrong again. :pac: How you managed that amazing leap frog of logic is frankly astounding.

Greta 'alarmism' has fek all to do with the actual science or anything else for that matter. And real scientists do not engage in that type of hyperbole she and some others are noted for - no matter how some would like them to

Edit:
Two interesting articles on this subject and why it matters (by the same author) - if you have an open mind ...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/12/04/why-climate-alarmism-hurts-us-all/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/#2ab21fb412d6

Mortelaro · 24-01-2020 6:58pm

Indeed

Here are some facts about cattle Methane While we are at it that maybe George Lee
Could do with

http://ifa.newsweaver.com/1veb1tebr9/16q7ia2j6o18gi3ckgpe9j?email=true&a=11&p=4684468

24-01-2020 7:02pm

BluePlanet wrote: »

Is man-induced climate change a needless worry?

PERSON induced climate change please.

(Mental how they never complain about the word 'man' when it is connected to something negative.)

Tell me how · 24-01-2020 7:15pm

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. Wrong again. :pac: How you managed that amazing leap frog of logic is frankly astounding.

Greta 'alarmism' has fek all to do with the actual science or anything else for that matter. And real scientists do not engage in that type of hyperbole she and some others are noted for - no matter how some would like them to

Edit:
Two interesting articles on this subject and why it matters (by the same author) - if you have an open mind ...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/12/04/why-climate-alarmism-hurts-us-all/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/#2ab21fb412d6

You are continuously detracting from the reality that actions need to be taken by focusing on the accuracy of a time span.

Also, your link is from an author who has long argued for against the scientists in the cause and impact of climate damage while advocating for the environment yet similarly to Greta, being uneducated in the field.

To use your own phraseology, strange that you accept his view on something but not hers.

gozunda · 24-01-2020 7:31pm

Tell me how wrote: »

You are continuously detracting from the reality that actions need to be taken by focusing on the accuracy of a time span.Also, your link is from an author who has long argued for against the scientists in the cause and impact of climate damage while advocating for the environment yet similarly to Greta, being uneducated in the field. To use your own phraseology, strange that you accept his view on something but not hers.

You mean gretas 'reality' :pac: But wrong again. Not focusing on timespan in that comment - simply the use and abuse of alarmism by a small number.

And pointing out that alarmism does not make anyone a detractor or any other aspersion being thrown

Yeah and nothing quite like trying to shoot the messenger when what they are pointing out is the exaggerations and hyperbole does not equal science.

And on that point the author clearly accepts climate change as a reality but highlights and warns of the dangers of the usual type nutters screaming that the end is nigh or wtte

Tell me how · 24-01-2020 11:42pm

gozunda wrote: »

You mean gretas 'reality' :pac: But wrong again. Not focusing on timespan in that comment - simply the use and abuse of alarmism by a small number.

And pointing out that alarmism does not make anyone a detractor or any other aspersion being thrown

Yeah and nothing quite like trying to shoot the messenger when what they are pointing out is the exaggerations and hyperbole does not equal science.

And on that point the author clearly accepts climate change as a reality but highlights and warns of the dangers of the usual nutters screaming that the end is nigh or wtte

Do you see the hypocrisy here? You have spent the thread attacking the messenger that human action needs to change in order to protect the environment. You have used or at least agreed with several different angles trying to undermine the message which Greta is communicating.

Child welfare.
She's a puppet.
She's looking for attention.
Her parents are looking for attention.
She should be in school
There's no issue.
Some scientists disagree with her.
Because she is using 2030, as a focal point everything is invalid.
This is only so taxes can be brought in.
This is pointless while China and the US continue doing what they are doing.

Positive action needs to happen.
That is Greta's message.
Maybe stop trying to shoot the messenger yourself.

blinding · 24-01-2020 11:49pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you see the hypocrisy here? You have spent the thread attacking the messenger that human action needs to change in order to protect the environment. You have used or at least agreed with several different angles trying to undermine the message which Greta is communicating.
Child welfare.

She's a puppet.

She's looking for attention.

Her parents are looking for attention.

She should be in school

There's no issue.

Some scientists disagree with her.

Because she is using 2030, as a focal point everything is invalid.

This is only so taxes can be brought in.

This is pointless while China and the US continue doing what they are doing.

Positive action needs to happen.
That is Greta's message.
Maybe stop trying to shoot the messenger yourself.

Greta is pretty profligate with her own machine gun.

Machine Gun Greta to follow in the machine gun shots of Machine Gun Kelly

24-01-2020 11:56pm

whats gretas username

the self-appointed defender role that behaves as if each criticism of greta is justification for actual adhom in this thread is really strange behaviour imo

AlekSmart · 25-01-2020 11:13am

BluePlanet wrote: »

Here is some of one of her speeches:

Adults keep saying: “We owe it to the young people to give them hope.” But I don’t want your hope. I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act.

I want you to act as you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if our house is on fire. Because it is.

So the question still remains, is it the alarmism that has you worried?
Or is it really the action.

I'd be more "worried about the Mental Health of this young lady to be honest,or more correctly how that issue is effecting this "campaign" that she fronts-up.

There are far more demanding and immediate issues for Ms Thunberg than the environmental one's that her focus has been directed to...:(

Wanderer78 · 25-01-2020 11:14am

AlekSmart wrote:

There are far more demanding and immediate issues for Ms Thunberg than the environmental one's that her focus has been directed to...

I'd say the way we re fcuking up the planet is fairly serious tbh

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

Comments