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

hetuzozaho · 01-10-2019 3:20pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

.
At the same time, we don't burn down rainforest to rear our cattle.

Presumably we got rid of it all at some stage for all our cattle?

There was someone on the radio about how we in Europe removed massive forests for farming (centuries ago?) and are now looking at others and saying, how dare you!

I must read up on it myself. If anyone has any links would be an interesting read.

ToBeFrank123 · 01-10-2019 3:23pm

baaba maal wrote: »

I don't get this point of view at all to be honest- she is a kid that started taking action, realised it was gaining traction and has followed through on the issues as a teenage activist. She isn't preventing anyone else from quietly (or loudly) playing their part as well. Iwould say that both approaches are necessary.

And for the love of everything holy, please don't quote Clarkson as somebody whose opinion should be valued on this subject at all!!

Like him or loathe him, he at least cuts through the PC bullsh*t and snowflakery. I don't agree with him on much but he made some good points on this.

If you think the Chinese or Russians give a damn about what a 16 year old girl thinks you are naïve. They just laugh at people like that.

Professor Moriarty · 01-10-2019 3:25pm

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Presumably we got rid of it all at some stage for all our cattle?

There was someone on the radio about how we in Europe removed massive forests for farming (centuries ago?) and are now looking at others and saying, how dare you!

I must read up on it myself. If anyone has any links would be an interesting read.

Cad a dhéanfaimid feasta gan adhmad?
Tá deireadh na gcoillte ar lár

Thelonious Monk · 01-10-2019 3:26pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Like him or loathe him, he at least cuts through the PC bullsh*t and snowflakery. I don't agree with him on much but he made some good points on this.

If you think the Chinese or Russians give a damn about what a 16 year old girl thinks you are naïve. They just laugh at people like that.

So we should just carry on as is because Russia and China? If we changed our ways China wouldn't have as many people to sell their rubbish to would they?

ToBeFrank123 · 01-10-2019 3:27pm

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

So we should just carry on as is because Russia and China? If we changed our ways China wouldn't have as many people to sell their rubbish to would they?

Clarkson made the point her boat was expensively manufactured carbon fibre with a backup diesel engine. Hardly the greenest.

In fact, it would have been far greener of her to fly by airplane.

baaba maal · 01-10-2019 3:31pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Like him or loathe him, he at least cuts through the PC bullsh*t and snowflakery. I don't agree with him on much but he made some good points on this.

If you think the Chinese or Russians give a damn about what a 16 year old girl thinks you are naïve. They just laugh at people like that.

I didn't say the Chinese or Russians would listen to her- and that isn't who she is speaking to. She cannot be expected to reach seven billion people to be fair. I think people (not necessarily you) are deliberately conflating her trying to bring focus to the problem, with her somehow becoming personally responsible for fixing the problem.

And if you are suggesting Clarkson is worth listening to on this, you might highlight all the things he is doing to fix the problem- oh wait, he is the guy that is paid to drive around in gas guzzlers telling us how great V12 engines are. So no, Clarkson isn't making any good points on this because he is effectively a spokesman for the automotive and fossil fuel lobby.

Thelonious Monk · 01-10-2019 3:34pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Clarkson made the point her boat was expensively manufactured carbon fibre with a backup diesel engine. Hardly the greenest.

In fact, it would have been far greener of her to fly by airplane.

Right but she did it raise awareness, which she managed to do very successfully. As someone previously said, air travel has gone down 4% in Sweden because of the Greta effect. So regardless of how the boat was made, she's already made quite a difference.

Veritas Libertas · 01-10-2019 3:34pm

KyussB wrote: »

Rapidly solving these low-hanging-fruit problems allows worldwide mass-production of this tech, for a rapid transfer of all economies to renewable energy.

These are not low hanging fruit problems. Take for example energy storage. Which is absolutely a necessary part of the GND. If you knew anything about basic physics(energy density) you would know batteries currently hold 1/100 the energy density of gas per kilogram.
You would need to improve batteries by about 100x times.
What does this mean? We'll probably never have battery powered flight.
Batteries continue to produce a lot of carbon emissions, continue to have short life(large amounts of waste)

You know this though, as it's been said so many times already - and you only go on about Star-Trek level tech, because your argument is rhetorical - aiming to make R&D seem impractical.

Well now you know that the tech you've proposed isn't 'low hanging fruit' either.

The sheer breadth of R&D that can be done, across all areas of our economy, is staggering - absolutely enormous, there is no lack of useful research to do - but the private sector is limited to doing research on a for-profit basis, which means it simply can not scale - we need government funded R&D, to scale it up several orders of magnitude.

Why not specifically point me to some R&D that is only moments away...

The principle problem is this: The private sector can never scale to the level of effort that governments can, simply because governments have whole-economy-scale spending power, that nobody in the private sector will ever have - that's why you need governments to undertake projects/missions, that are of unusually large scale, like this.

The Iphone was developed in the US. Do you think North Korea would ever develop an IPhone? Even given it thousands of years, do you think it would ever happen?

It's just something the private sector is completely incapable of doing in a timely manner - simply down to the way our economies are built, and the constraints on the private sector.

This is you just saying words without meaning. The private sector is responsible for pretty much every single great advancement.. ever. Sure you can point to the manhattan project, but that was feasible because fission had already been discovered. What technology(Akin to fission) will enable better batteries?????

In the meantime, there is still a metric shitload of work to do even while developing new tech - such as retrofitting every single building out there, to maximize energy efficiency - massive expansions of public transport infrastructure - retrofitting energy infrastructure to support the adaptation of renewable energy storage/generation - etc..

Isn't Greta saying tipping point will be reached in 12 years? All pie in the sky dreams. If you or the GND have a solution... you need to outline it. Or else we're back to replicators and transporters.

There is completely no lack of useful work to be done - the scale of available useful work, is enormous.

What useful work can be done specifically? That's what I'm asking you to outline.

ToBeFrank123 · 01-10-2019 3:37pm

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Right but she did it raise awareness, which she managed to do very successfully. As someone previously said, air travel has gone down 4% in Sweden because of the Greta effect. So regardless of how the boat was made, she's already made quite a difference.

Knowing the Swedes, they are very responsive to this kind of thing and eager to do their bit. They are almost unique in that regard. Most other countries are not like that.

Look at all the social media influencers in this country. They fly out to sunnier climes 10 times a year and post photos of themselves somewhere fancy. If a couple of them made a conscious decision to cut back on that, it might make a difference.

A 4% drop in air travel is not got going to make a significant difference.

KyussB · 01-10-2019 3:37pm

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

You did not contest why the explanations they gave were wrong so I must conclude they are correct in their assessment or you either did not read those links or failed to comprehend what they said and you instead resorted to attacking the messengers.

For background Richard Tol agrees with the AGW hypothesis and was involved with previous IPCC reports, however he fell out of favour when he disagreed with the many unsupported claims of the climate alarmists and asked for his name to be removed from the IPCC reports.

[noparse]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8lCWDeoWzo
[/noparse]

If you are a scientist or even economist who wishes to disagree with the IPCC reports, you will pay a high price professionally and you will be targeted by university administrations, lawfare plus will be smeared by activist organisations like Greenpeace, SKS and desmog blog. Understandably scientists and economists are human and have families to care for, they have seen the intimidation tactics visited on those individuals who dare to disagree and have wisely decided to keep their heads down. In the long term of course the facts prevail and the scares will just be added to decades of climate scares.

As an example Dr. Tim Ball was a retired Canadian who was targeted 3 times with strategic lawsuits against public participation. In the process he and his wife lost their entire life savings contesting these. He was lucky that a wealthy sponsor who was also a scientist came to his aid, it took several years but they prevailed and won defending against Dr. Micheal Mann of the discredited hockeystick fame. Defending against these lawfare cases cost over $1 million.

A current case in Australia involves Dr. Peter Ridd, which has cost Mr. Ridd and his wife AU$200,000 of their life savings and their ordeal is not over as James Cook University is appealing with the intention knowing that Dr. Ridd does not have the resources to continue this fight without huge personal sacrifice.

Dr. Tim Ball? You keep filling the thread with yet more easily discredited shite. The one silver lining in it being, that doing brief research on the sources you cite, leads to learning more and more about tidbits about climate propagandists and the people/science which refutes them.

Dr. Ball is the one who began suing other people, and lost the case. Then when he got sued for defamation, the judge let him off, because the article he wrote was so discreditable to himself, that the average person was unlikely to believe his claims - thus they didn't meet the criteria of being defamotory (i.e. basically being such an obvious and massive bullshitter, and having a reputation as such, bizarrely transformed his claims from defamatory, to not-defamatory). In the latest case, Ball's defamatory writing was retracted and an apoloy issued, but because the court case ran so long, there was no judgement on the defamation, and it was struck out with costs awarded to Ball, due to the delays.

The guy is a serial bullshitter - with a reputation as such. Much like yourself tbh - with the evidence for that being, you repeatedly cite easily descreditable sources in almost every post, and very frequently straight from oil-industry funded think-tanks with a known history of propaganda.

It's astroturfing in the same vein as the Libertarians from most of a decade ago - and from a lot of the same sources.

Tony EH · 01-10-2019 3:39pm

Clarkson may say the funny ha ha thing to appeal to people who like his faux straight talk, but he has no real place in this discussion.

It's like asking Oscar the Grouch from Sesame Street to give his opinion municipal waste collection. You know what he's going to say before he even thinks it and there will be absolutely zero nuance to any of his points.

Thelonious Monk · 01-10-2019 3:39pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Knowing the Swedes, they are very responsive to this kind of thing and eager to do their bit. They are almost unique in that regard. Most other countries are not like that.

Look at all the social media influencers in this country. They fly out to sunnier climes 10 times a year and post photos of themselves somewhere fancy. If a couple of them made a conscious decision to cut back on that, it might make a difference.

A 4% drop in air travel is not got going to make a significant difference.

no but it's a start isn't it? It isn't fair to say Greta isn't making a difference. For one 16 year old girl to affect flying habits in Sweden is amazing.
I know people giving up meat for environmental reasons for example, some people are willing to change.

ToBeFrank123 · 01-10-2019 3:41pm

baaba maal wrote: »

I didn't say the Chinese or Russians would listen to her- and that isn't who she is speaking to. She cannot be expected to reach seven billion people to be fair. I think people (not necessarily you) are deliberately conflating her trying to bring focus to the problem, with her somehow becoming personally responsible for fixing the problem.

And if you are suggesting Clarkson is worth listening to on this, you might highlight all the things he is doing to fix the problem- oh wait, he is the guy that is paid to drive around in gas guzzlers telling us how great V12 engines are. So no, Clarkson isn't making any good points on this because he is effectively a spokesman for the automotive and fossil fuel lobby.

Look, it doesn't matter who made the point. Its the point that's important not who said it.

She made a massive deal about sailing to America on a yacht rather than flying. It was about as hypocritical as you can get. A carbon fibre yacht is likely very damaging to the environment to manufacture. It would have been much greener to fly there.

Or more to the point, it would have been better still to video call in.

She wasn't leading by example. She's just part of the climate change circus of people travelling around the world to fancy locations to tell us all to stop travelling around the world.

baaba maal · 01-10-2019 3:47pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Clarkson made the point her boat was expensively manufactured carbon fibre with a backup diesel engine. Hardly the greenest.

In fact, it would have been far greener of her to fly by airplane.

Ah come on- did she get the boat made specially for the journey? No, this 17 year old got a lift on an already-manufactured boat.

And yes, if she had flown what would the Clarksons of the world have said about that? Are you suggesting you should sit at home for the rest of her life doing nothing so she maintains a zero carbon balance? She is probably more aware of her carbon footprint than you are and this was a way of hertrying to reduce it.

This ridiculous obsession in looking for the hypocrisy that is apparently inherent in all the environmental types is really just a deflection- the science (as she and others keep saying) on climate change is the important bit. Looking for human flaws in humans is self-defeating, we are all flawed and we are all complicit in climate change.

If you want to start talking about hypocrisy on a meaningful scale, let's start talking about the hypocrisy of the billionaires at the top of our globalised capitalist system visibly supporting charitable causes while knowingly colluding in destroying large parts of the planet's ecosystems.

Veritas Libertas · 01-10-2019 3:50pm

Tony EH wrote: »

Colour me unsurprised that that ginger cunt would want to get in on the clickbait frenzy. :rolleyes:

Tony EH wrote: »

Clarkson may say the funny ha ha thing to appeal to people who like his faux straight talk, but he has no real place in this discussion.

Thank god we have you around so we all know who to listen to and who is a cvnt.

KyussB · 01-10-2019 4:02pm

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

These are not low hanging fruit problems. Take for example energy storage. Which is absolutely a necessary part of the GND. If you knew anything about basic physics(energy density) you would know batteries currently hold 1/100 the energy density of gas per kilogram.
You would need to improve batteries by about 100x times.
What does this mean? We'll probably never have battery powered flight.
Batteries continue to produce a lot of carbon emissions, continue to have short life(large amounts of waste)

Well now you know that the tech you've proposed isn't 'low hanging fruit' either.

Why not specifically point me to some R&D that is only moments away...

The Iphone was developed in the US. Do you think North Korea would ever develop an IPhone? Even given it thousands of years, do you think it would ever happen?

This is you just saying words without meaning. The private sector is responsible for pretty much every single great advancement.. ever. Sure you can point to the manhattan project, but that was feasible because fission had already been discovered. What technology(Akin to fission) will enable better batteries?????

Isn't Greta saying tipping point will be reached in 12 years? All pie in the sky dreams. If you or the GND have a solution... you need to outline it. Or else we're back to replicators and transporters.

What useful work can be done specifically? That's what I'm asking you to outline.

You don't need battery powered flight - you need carbon neutral flight - which means you need aviation fuel entirely generated from sequestered carbon - which is already possible, but needs further R&D to make it scalable. There is loads of low-hanging fruit, including the things I've already mentioned.

Energy storage is primarily a grid problem. Once rare-earths are substituted (progress already being made, just not fast enough) - that's it ready to scale.

As an example of tech which, when perfected, can expand solar power generation massively and reduce the environmental cost, Iron - one of the most abundant elements on Earth - can eventually replace rare earths in solar power generation:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181130111640.htm

You mention the iPhone there, while claiming the private sector is responsible for all technological advancements, yet the iPhone and the computer you're on right now, and the Internet networks you're communicating through, wouldn't exist without NASA and CERN - massive government organizations, in charge of monolithic large projects that the private sector could never undertake without government help - the entirety of the Internet-based tech industry exists, because of those government organizations.

You're just playing blind to all of the work that I've already pointed out, which needs doing - deliberately, for rhetorical effect.

Pa ElGrande · 01-10-2019 4:18pm

KyussB wrote: »

. . . .

Dr. Ball is the one who began suing other people . . . .

I won't quote all you have said and what you have written is from an alternate reality. For those of you who want you can listen to Dr. Ball speak here and outline what both he and his wife have gone through.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUKXa1pldD8

For your information I've been following the climate scam for over a decade you are wrong if you think I've not been reading the literature or watching these videos.

SafeSurfer · 01-10-2019 4:25pm

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Clarkson made the point her boat was expensively manufactured carbon fibre with a backup diesel engine. Hardly the greenest.

In fact, it would have been far greener of her to fly by airplane.

Right but she did it raise awareness, which she managed to do very successfully. As someone previously said, air travel has gone down 4% in Sweden because of the Greta effect. So regardless of how the boat was made, she's already made quite a difference.

How do you know air travel decreased by 4% because of the Greta effect? It’s statements like this that make people sceptical.

Thelonious Monk · 01-10-2019 4:30pm

SafeSurfer wrote: »

How do you know air travel decreased by 4% because of the Greta effect? It’s statements like this that make people sceptical.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/04/stayontheground-swedes-turn-to-trains-amid-climate-flight-shame

ok so 3% in 2018 but I read somewhere else it was 4% so far this year, this is domestic, still a good achievement

01-10-2019 4:33pm

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Right but she did it raise awareness, which she managed to do very successfully. As someone previously said, air travel has gone down 4% in Sweden because of the Greta effect. So regardless of how the boat was made, she's already made quite a difference.

That's unsubstantiated nonsense.

It has gone down because of a govt tax brought in in April 2018.

Thelonious Monk · 01-10-2019 4:35pm

Deleted User wrote: »

That's unsubstantiated nonsense.

It has gone down because of a govt tax brought in in April 2018.

Well even better, hopefully we can carbon tax the f*ck out of flights in the next budget.

Tony EH · 01-10-2019 4:36pm

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Thank god we have you around so we all know who to listen to and who is a cvnt.

You're welcome. Because clearly you need a bit of help in that dept.

randd1 · 01-10-2019 4:43pm

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/04/stayontheground-swedes-turn-to-trains-amid-climate-flight-shame

ok so 3% in 2018 but I read somewhere else it was 4% so far this year, this is domestic, still a good achievement

So they replaced planes with trains. Fair play. But which one is heavier and requires more fuel again?

In terms of fuel economy per passenger, a plane is actually better, not by much, but better.

It's just another example of hype over reality. And the danger of deifying a young girl as a sort of climate prophet to be worshipped.

There was a recent article about a new type of plane that had the potential to get from London to Australia in 4 hours. The fuel was hydrogen/oxygen based and would give off far less pollution.

www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/jet-to-australia-in-four-hours-by-the-2030s-as-hypersonic-engine-set-to-slash-flight-times-38532497.html

Seems like an obvious technology to try and get going given the rate of air travel and the impact emissions have on the atmosphere.

KyussB · 01-10-2019 4:45pm

Also, here is a good article today outlining why now is the perfect time to expand public transport - a principle component of the GND - backing up the description of national debt dynamics I described way back, which people were contesting:

Eurostat has done a huge amount of work on demographics. The EU numbers have two implications for Ireland. The first is that we need to build ceaselessly and the second is that the cost of borrowing within the euro zone will continue to be extremely low, allowing the State to ramp up borrowing right now and not worry about the national debt.

Now I realise not worrying about the national debt may sound cavalier, but it is nothing to stress about when interest rates are so low and are likely to remain so. In fact, not borrowing to build now is a dereliction of national duty.
...
“Interest only” is the way countries finance their national debt. No country pays off the principal.
...
Thanks to the EU’s older population, today’s rate of interest for government long-term borrowing is less than 1 per cent, which means Ireland could roll out €200 billion of transport infrastructural spending without any hassle.
This is in fact far more than we need, but you can see how everything could be financed easily from current revenue.

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/if-i-were-paschal-donohoe-here-is-what-i-would-do/

Exactly what I was saying, earlier, in describing how government spending doesn't map 1:1 to taxes - how debt dynamics completely change this, allowing massively amplified spending, in order to boost GDP.

That amount of money could be put into not just public transport projects, but into other GND-type goals as well - and with the right EU-level reforms, many trillions can be unlocked continent-wide.

Professor Moriarty · 01-10-2019 4:47pm

randd1 wrote: »

So they replaced planes with trains. Fair play. But which one is heavier and requires more fuel again?

In terms of fuel economy per passenger, a plane is actually better, not by much, but better.

No. In fact, travelling by train is far better than flying.

lleti · 01-10-2019 4:53pm

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Right but she did it raise awareness, which she managed to do very successfully. As someone previously said, air travel has gone down 4% in Sweden because of the Greta effect. So regardless of how the boat was made, she's already made quite a difference.

This "raised awareness" thing is such a cop out. Anyone who could be made aware of climate change is aware of it. Those who are not will never be made aware of it.

You might as well say she sailed across in aid of breast cancer awareness.

As for the reduced flying:

The much-discussed concept of flygskam, meaning 'shame linked to flying', was touted as one possible reason for the change, but 2018 also saw an exceptionally weak krona and a weeks-long record heatwave, two further factors encouraging Swedish residents to stay at home for the summer.

KyussB · 01-10-2019 4:54pm

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

I won't quote all you have said and what you have written is from an alternate reality. For those of you who want you can listen to Dr. Ball speak here and outline what both he and his wife have gone through.

[noparse]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUKXa1pldD8
[/noparse]

For your information I've been following the climate scam for over a decade you are wrong if you think I've not been reading the literature or watching these videos.

James Delingpole? Another Libertarian bullshitter, with links to Koch/oil-oligarch funded think tanks.

It's like a Russian Doll defence of one bullshitter, using yet another bullshitter, with probably a third to defend the next one etc..

They are all demonstrably propagandists - and you're no better, yourself.

Tell me how · 01-10-2019 6:02pm

gozunda wrote: »

You surprise me

Gretas 'message'
• Civilisation is going to end in 10 years, 3 months and 90 days.
• Adults have personally destroyed my childhood and future
• How dare you!

BS indeed. You deliberatly ignore that greta is certainly not deferring to the scientists and instead is coming up with her own bs doomsday message / scenarios and speeches on how her childhood / future has been ruined by 'adults' yada yada. And It's because people have placed the teenager on a pedestal of their own making and refuse to allow any criticism.

Truely a case of the emperors new clothes. I reckon it's certainly not going to end well and I'm not talking about climate change ...

Swing and a miss. Strike 134.
Her only submission to the US congress was the IPCC report on climate change.

weldoninhio · 01-10-2019 6:17pm

Tony EH wrote: »

Clarkson may say the funny ha ha thing to appeal to people who like his faux straight talk, but he has no real place in this discussion.

It's like asking Oscar the Grouch from Sesame Street to give his opinion municipal waste collection. You know what he's going to say before he even thinks it and there will be absolutely zero nuance to any of his points.

So, sorta the same as expecting a sixteen year old with Aspergers to be the voice of a scientific phenomena she has no clue about??

Tell me how · 01-10-2019 6:20pm

weldoninhio wrote: »

So, sorta the same as expecting a sixteen year old with Aspergers to be the voice of a scientific phenomena she has no clue about??

Nobody is expecting that, only those giving out that people are expecting that.

Let's try again.
'Listen. to. the. science.'

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

Comments