You lot are under performing, beaten by a teenager.

[sasguru]

If things that she's saying are simply Green propaganda, then why do I not see credible, fact based counter arguements? rse.

Because the gammon are thick as mince. See previous post by OPM for an example.

[JohntheBike]

I do love this rhetoric, which you see a lot in climate-change-denying groups. She can't just be passionate and wrong, she MUST be a puppet. Probably says more about their lack of ambition and bitterness a teenager has done more in a few months than they ever will in their lives.

She is CLEARLY genuine. She's somewhat autistic and we know that autistic people get really single-mindedly obsessed with topics... Dr. Who, Dinosaurs, whatever. She started her protests at a grass-root level before anyone knew who she was and got media coverage. Clearly she is well-read on the subject and not being fed scripts.

She might be talking nonsense but it is certainly her own view if so. The movement has latched on to her as movements do latch on to popular/charismatic figureheads all the time, of course.

In terms of someone who has genuinely influenced the world in the last year, it's pretty notable.

the only question I can ask you is do you believe that she has not received any coaching on giving public speeches?

In terms of someone who has genuinely influenced the world in the last year

and what influence might that be? She is naive in the extreme. Nothing gets done in this World unless someone makes a buck out of it.

Given that some of the richest organisations, e.g. Shell/BP etc are directly involved in activities which are counter to the global warming philosophy, then clearly the global warming brigade have an uphill task.

Government legislation is only paying lip service to the issue. If governments were truly influenced, then we should be hearing about returning to dispensing all liquids in glass bottles and not plastic one. But there's the rub, plastic is a product of the petro chemical industry, so fat chance that this will happen.

The only question I ask, is by how much is human activity accelerating global warming? Scientists are advising that we are still emerging from the last ice age, and these periods can take millions of years. In the early 1960's scientists were warning of another mini ice age and global cooling. I do wish they'd make up their minds.

We are told that there is oil in Antarctica, which would mean that it must have been tropical at one time, millions of years before humans existed. Also, I read that at one point, the Earth was almost completely covered in ice, due to an axis shift. I guess we humans would have no remedy for such circumstances again.

A sobering fact. When the red lady of Paviland was alive the sea shore was some way South West of Ireland. This was 40000 years ago when there was no CO2 being generated by humans other than by breathing. I still maintain that the focus is wrong. I believe we are more likely to see issues as a result of human effluent polluting the oceans, than we are from accelerated global warming. But perhaps there isn't as much money available for proponents of that theory.

[sasguru]

the only question I can ask you is do you believe that she has not received any coaching on giving public speeches?



and what influence might that be? She is naive in the extreme. Nothing gets done in this World unless someone makes a buck out of it.

Given that some of the richest organisations, e.g. Shell/BP etc are directly involved in activities which are counter to the global warming philosophy, then clearly the global warming brigade have an uphill task.

Government legislation is only paying lip service to the issue. If governments were truly influenced, then we should be hearing about returning to dispensing all liquids in glass bottles and not plastic one. But there's the rub, plastic is a product of the petro chemical industry, so fat chance that this will happen.

The only question I ask, is by how much is human activity accelerating global warming? Scientists are advising that we are still emerging from the last ice age, and these periods can take millions of years. In the early 1960's scientists were warning of another mini ice age and global cooling. I do wish they'd make up their minds.

We are told that there is oil in Antarctica, which would mean that it must have been tropical at one time, millions of years before humans existed. Also, I read that at one point, the Earth was almost completely covered in ice, due to an axis shift. I guess we humans would have no remedy for such circumstances again.

A sobering fact. When the red lady of Paviland was alive the sea shore was some way South West of Ireland. This was 40000 years ago when there was no CO2 being generated by humans other than by breathing. I still maintain that the focus is wrong. I believe we are more likely to see issues as a result of human effluent polluting the oceans, than we are from accelerated global warming. But perhaps there isn't as much money available for proponents of that theory.

Have you ever considered that you might be too thick for this debate? I strongly suggest it's a distinct possibility.

[meridian]

the only question I can ask you is do you believe that she has not received any coaching on giving public speeches?

How is that in any way relevant? Should we discount the opinion of anyone that has had any coaching in public speaking (which would mean nearly anyone in the public arena)?

My oldest has had “coaching” (ie the teacher gave a class on it once), does that count?

[JohntheBike]

Have you ever considered that you might be too thick for this debate? I strongly suggest it's a distinct possibility.

flattery will get you everywhere!

[JohntheBike]

How is that in any way relevant? Should we discount the opinion of anyone that has had any coaching in public speaking (which would mean nearly anyone in the public arena)?

My oldest has had “coaching” (ie the teacher gave a class on it once), does that count?

"coaching" could in some ways be considered as "brainwashing"

[meridian]

"coaching" could in some ways be considered as "brainwashing"

You said “coaching on giving speeches”, not coaching on the content of those speeches.

Not that either one is relevant.

[original PM]

The US has unilaterally pulled out of the deal agreed by all countries, you fooking idiot, that's why.
The Chinese are well aware of what climate change and pollution are doing to their own country - unfortunately their economy is not post-industrial yet.

Yes but the emissions from the US have gone down in the last 20 years - just because they have pulled out of a deal agreed by all countries it does not mean that as a country they will not continue to decrease emissions.

And when will China become post industrial and will that mean they will continue to increase their emissions for the next 10/20/30 years which will completely offset any efforts made by any other country or block of countries.

[sasguru]

Yes but the emissions from the US have gone down in the last 20 years - just because they have pulled out of a deal agreed by all countries it does not mean that as a country they will not continue to decrease emissions.

And when will China become post industrial and will that mean they will continue to increase their emissions for the next 10/20/30 years which will completely offset any efforts made by any other country or block of countries.

Don't know what your argument is, other than the usual low IQ blunt knife ranting.

First of all, US emissions per head are still much higher than China. They're the highest in the word, per capita.
True they've been coming down slightly, but if the US abandons its attempts that's not likely to last, is it?
And China have committed to reduce emissions - its a complex issue but at least they're trying. They're not stupid, they can see the damage to their country already and know its unsustainable.

[woohoo]

I do wonder if the makers of the Blue Planet have had more impact on our attitudes than Greta.