EvaOdland

Greta

Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

It's much simpler than that. We (humans) are merely deer in a park with no wolves.

And what happens in a park when there are no wolves?  We have examples.  Please read what Michael Crichton had to say about deer, wolves, parks, and climate change.  Uh-Oh.  Original link is now broken!  It looks like someone has tried to silence Michael's voice posthumously.  This is one of the big problems with the climate "scientific debate", the manipulation and/or suppression of information.  I very much doubt Michael's wish was to be silenced, and his voice and message replaced by an uneducated child's.

Fortunately, the Internet can "route around" this kind of human failing, thinking it a good idea to gag an author.  Here is a link to the Internet Archive's capture of Michael's speech, from 2005: 
Fear, Complexity, & Environmental Management in the 21st Century

Just above this is a link to the Internet Archive.  It doesn't take long to read.  Please read it, everyone.  We *must* embrace complexity, else we fail as a species.
 

In the speech linked below, Michael rails against the bastardization and politicization of "science", and fallback to "consensus" with respect to climate. 

http://s8int.com/crichton.html

Even if one is the most ardent Greta-fan, or her greatest detractor, these two speeches are IMHO mandatory reading.  Know thine self, know thine enemy.

Randumb, I have you on igg now, but I know you care about messengers.  You would do well to read what Crichton writes, and see if you can wrap your head around what he says, and why he says it.  He was a very bright guy: a scientist, a medical doctor, and someone who cared a great deal about us and our world, perhaps as much or more than little Greta.

(Edit: PS those first few pics from the first link above should look familiar to LB15, Random, Hoppy, and others... :-)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This here is worth a quotation, from the second link, above:

Quote

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, bacq2bacq said:

And what happens in a park when there are no wolves?  We have examples.  Please read what Michael Crichton had to say about deer, wolves, parks, and climate change.  Uh-Oh.  Original link is now broken!  It looks like someone has tried to silence Michael's voice posthumously.  This is one of the big problems with the climate "scientific debate", the manipulation and/or suppression of information.  I very much doubt Michael's wish was to be silenced, and his voice and message replaced by an uneducated child's.

Fortunately, the Internet can "route around" this kind of human failing, thinking it a good idea to gag an author.  Here is a link to the Internet Archive's capture of Michaels speech, from 2005: 
Fear, Complexity, & Environmental Management in the 21st Century

That just above is a link to the Internet Archive.  It doesn't take long to read.  Please read it, everyone.
 

In the speech linked below, Michael rails against the bastardization and politicization of "science", and fallback to "consensus" with respect to climate. 

http://s8int.com/crichton.html

Randumb, I have you on igg now, but you would do well to read what Crichton writes, and see if you can wrap you head around what he says.  He was a very bright guy: a scientist, a medical doctor, and someone who cared a great deal about us and our world, perhaps as much or more than little Greta.

Even if you are the most ardent Greta-fan, or her greatest detractor, these two speeches are mandatory reading.  Know thine self, know thine enemy.

Only one excerpt worth mentioning in the present context:

 

"One complex system that most people have dealt with is a child.  If so, you've probably experienced that when you give the child an instruction, you can never be certain what response you will get. Especially if the child is a teenager. And similarly, you can’t be certain that an identical interaction on another day won’t lead to spectacularly different results. "

AMEN.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael was doing pretty well until he made the fatal eerror of conflating number of parts with complexity. Oh well so much for analogs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hoppy said:

just filling in the back story 

 

 

Geeze hoppy, you are  a one  Bitter ,Rude ,Misogynistic , Bullying CUNT .

You  do realize you are dissing a 16 year old girl, right?

Your:

Not funny.

Not clever.

Just a CUNT ACT

  • Like 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MRS OCTOPUS said:

Geeze hoppy, you are  a one  misogynistic , bullying CUNT 

So you like to stick your head up your arse rather than realise that there is more than just an innocent story behind it all. 

FWIW my partner, the mother of my daughter was reading through Swedish news and blog sites to supply me with the information I am providing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MRS OCTOPUS said:

Geeze hoppy, you are  a one  misogynistic , bullying CUNT .

Not funny.

Not clever.

Just a CUNT

Just facts....

 

Although the FASD is an observation base on an analysis of behaviour and appearance, which is how it is diagnosed 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If we want to manage complexity, we must eliminate fear.  Fear may draw a television audience. It may generate cash for an advocacy group. It may support the legal profession.  But fear paralyzes us.  It freezes us.  And we need to be flexible in our responses, as we move into a new era of managing complexity. So we have to stop responding to fear" Michael Chrichton

Well fuck me dead. Chricton was saying precisely how I feel back two decades ago. 

 

Lower pollution, work on new energy sources, but the sky isn't falling. "Is this the end of the world?  No: this is the world." -MC

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, fastyacht said:

Nope. That's not it. I don't "fear" my shitty little car. I just don't see where you are going to make all these changes economically. I mean, let's see. The politicians in my state are pushing "renewables" while they are also in a budget disaster, can't pay for the road repairs, school stuff, tolls proposed, all sorts of dumbfuckery. But yeah, let's legislate that instead of 20c per kWH it should be 30. And what else, are we going to legislate some kind of insulation? And who will pay? I will. Or some special assessment tax. OK so I pay.

Or we just float along.

For years I've found it absolutely absurd that 99.44% of all new houses are not passive solar. That tech worked great in 1975. We added what? 60 million? I dunno. My house is 60 years old. It will be here a long time. Oh, do you want me to tear it down and build a superefficient one? OK. Give me some money....

I have yet to see any detailed concrete A to B of how this transformation happens. There's just a lot of hand-waving. Hell, I'm waving my hand. That's my point. Fuck, I sail. My moboat hasn't run in 6 years. Maybe 7. And I built the thing! What blood do I give? And who is going to get to do the bloodletting? Trump? Pocahantas?

I didn't think you feared your car, more that you're already naturally sacrificing to reduce expenses and therefore carbon, so what now? You point out some real issues I think, and the points you raise are the debates that need to begin in earnest. But, there are massive reductions to be had that are not going to impact individuals' incomes in a huge way and that have additional benefits of reducing smog, like tailpipe emissions standards that manufactures wanted to comply with, can comply with, and likely will continue to work toward.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@bodega87, I am glad that at least one person has followed my links above, read the content, understood it, and been inspired by (what remains of!) Michael's clear thinking and writing about all this.  There are too few rational and independent voices out there with fairly accurate views of what is happening who are able to share as eloquently as Crichton did. 

10 hours ago, dash34 said:

[Greta is quoted]: "And when I say that I want you to panic I mean that we need to treat the crisis as a crisis. When your house is on fire you don’t sit down and talk about how nice you can rebuild it once you put out the fire. If your house is on fire you run outside and make sure that everyone is out while you call the fire department. That requires some level of panic."

No, Greta, it requires calm thought and action under intense pressure, the exact opposite of panic. 

Crichton, far older and wiser than Greta, correctly points out that fear is the enemy.  Greta, far too young to have formed much independent critical thought, necessarily regurgitates what she has been told.  The very last thing we should be doing is listening to panicky, immature people who are absent the wisdom needed to overcome the politicization of science.  Michael Crichton was 16 once.  I have been 16.  Greta has not been 40, 50, 60...  wisdom and good judgement takes time to develop.  I now know that it would have been foolish to trust the 16-year-old version of me, on many issues.

Michael Crichton was doing good - exposing the lack of scientific rigour in much of the climate "science"; communicating that the classical views of How Things Work are in fact only bad approximations of the underlying complex systems in Nature; emphasizing the importance of calm, rational discussion.

Greta is doing the opposite - discouraging critical thought; embracing flawed understanding of complex systems, advocating panic.  Sorry, but what an idiot.

All: please read Crichton's links, above.  Support freedom of the Internet and web.archive.org.  Above all: THINK!

[edit to add Crichton's links again]: 
Fear, Complexity, & Environmental Management in the 21st Century
http://s8int.com/crichton.html

 

  • Like 6
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, IPLore said:

Okay, I'll bite. Why does the fake ferry with snow capped mountains in the background fly the Puerto Rico flag?

It's the Norled Flag, the Norwegian ferry company, not Puerto Rico. Ampere is registered Norway.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The blatant corruption of Trump and his henchmen is truly astounding on so many levels:

EPA Tells California It Has The ‘Worst Air Quality’ In America, Threatens Highway Funds  (09/24/2019)
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/epa-california-highway_n_5d89a6c1e4b0d269465370d6

Quote

Andrew Wheeler, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said in a letter to California’s Air Resources Board this week that the state had failed to address a backlog of air pollution control plans mandated by federal law. Unless the state takes action on about 130 plans, Wheeler said the EPA would begin a “disapproval process” that could impact billions in funding for its highways.

“Since the 1970s, California has failed to carry out its most basic tasks under the Clean Air Act,” Wheeler wrote in a letter dated Sept. 24, which was first reported by The Sacramento Bee. “California has the worst air quality in the United States.”
[...]
Last week, the Trump administration said it would revoke California’s legal authority to set its own auto emissions standards, part of its effort to roll back strict emissions standards set by the Obama administration as a key part of its effort to tackle climate change.
[...]
The New York Times reported early Tuesday that Trump has been angered by California’s efforts to circumvent his administration’s rollbacks of environmental rules. The outlet said that in response, the White House has focused on efforts to punish the state.
[...]
“Our foremost concern must be ensuring clean air for all Americans,” [Wheeler] wrote. “That is our goal.”

This criminality must stop.  ALL Trump supporters have shit for brains.

 

Background on Andrew Wheeler:

This coal lobbyist is now running EPA  (July 5, 2018)
https://www.edf.org/blog/2018/07/05/coal-lobbyist-now-running-EPA

Quote

Here’s the bottom line: Andrew Wheeler running the EPA would go far beyond having an administrator overly influenced by lobbyists. We would have an actual energy industry lobbyist in charge.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hoppy said:

just filling in the back story 

 

 

Playing off the health and abilities of children in service of your politics is par for the course for a pitiful, disgusting troll.  

Ban this asshole.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@huey 2, I can't force you but I am curious what I write or what Crichton writes,  and with which you disagree, to cause you to downvote a reasonable post.  "bing!" said my browser.  What a surprise to see that on post 445, above!

- do you think we should have the power to remove someone's writings from the internet, so the Archive is in fact a Bad Thing?
- did you read Crichton's two speeches to which I posted links and disagree with him?
- do you think it is possible for 16-year-olds to possess wisdom beyond their years?
- is it that panic is superior to calm, reasoned thought and action?

What an odd post to downvote!

@ProaSailor, @Left Shift, @hoppy, @lasal, @MRS OCTOPUS, you all should have had time to see the links to Michael Crichton's thoughts.  No comment?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear God this thread is a complete shit show. 

For shits and giggles, let's just take this entire issue on a risk management basis.  

Climate change, even viewed through an econometric lens, is going to (already is starting to) wreck havoc on society, governments, health, infrastructure, cities, and nationstate stability. Short term and barely existent gains in petrochemical, fossil fuels, and other industries accelerating the green housing of the Earth are not in any way shape or form worth the long-term impact of increased disease vectors, flooded coastal cities, destroyed housing, and consistently accelerating emergency expenditures and activities. In my humble opinion, it's time to stop toeing whatever party line each of us subscribes to and find a way to cooperate to lead the  the world to a sustainable future.  

There are a few scientists who think humans are not responsible and are unable to alter the vector we are on. The overwhelming majority believe climate change, as we are experiencing it now and the trajectory we are on, is a by-product of human use of hydrocarbon fuels. You can disagree with the majority, but let me ask this, what if the over-whelming majority is right and we do nothing? And alternatively, what if they are wrong, but we act by reducing fossil fuel dependencies and we aggressively embrace renewable energy sources and reduce carbon emissions globally? In a risk based assessment, acting, even if you disagree with the central premise, creates significantly less catastrophic risk potential and results in economic growth and an accelerated state of innovation. If the overwhelming majority of scientists are right, and we do nothing, the impact is catastrophic, expensive, and difficult, if not impossible, to recover from. So, which do you choose?

Regarding Greta, she is on the spectrum and speaks what she thinks. If you know any 16 year olds on the spectrum, then you know they are not easily manipulated into anything. What she said yesterday was purely her reasoned opinion of truth. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bacq2bacq said:

@huey 2, I can't force you but I am curious what I write or what Crichton writes,  and with which you disagree, to cause you to downvote a reasonable post.  "bing!" said my browser.  What a surprise to see that on post 445, above!

- do you think we should have the power to remove someone's writings from the internet, so the Archive is in fact a Bad Thing?
- did you read Crichton's two speeches to which I posted links and disagree with him?
- do you think it is possible for 16-year-olds to possess wisdom beyond their years?
- is it that panic is superior to calm, reasoned thought and action?

What an odd post to downvote!

@ProaSailor, @Left Shift, @hoppy, @lasal, @MRS OCTOPUS, you all should have had time to see the links to Michael Crichton's thoughts.  No comment?

Comments?  OK.

Michael Crichton has cobbled together a collection of anecdotes to support his predetermined thesis.  He made a living putting together scientifically dubious novels designed to instill the human fear response as an amusement.   Why do you put so much weight on the writings of a fabulist?   His reference to Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb" is classic misdirection.  The book was "wrong" because it was written after certain pattern changes began?  Is Crichton's point that world didn't need to be nudged into further understanding of what continued population growth might mean?  Is global population is no longer a problem?   Are there a couple of billion people more on earth now than when Ehrlich wrote that book?  Is India running out of fresh water?

I love this one liner from Imdb:  Michael Crichton was born in Chicago, Illinois, but grew up in Roslyn, New York. His father was a journalist and encouraged him to write and to type.

And for the record:

Greta Thunberg has never claimed wisdom, she has claimed, rightly, that the "adults" in the room are ignoring warnings.  As always, is it better to prepare for the unknown or to assume it won't happen and blithely proceed?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

Greta Thunberg has never claimed wisdom, she has claimed, rightly, that the "adults" in the room are ignoring warnings.  As always, is it better to prepare for the unknown or to assume it won't happen and blithely proceed?

This ^

If your mechanic tells you your brakes have 2% of their surface left before they fail, you listen. If you are skeptical and think the mechanic may have an ulterior motive, you get a second opinion. If the second mechanic tells you the same thing, you get new brakes. You don't cook up the idea that your brakes wearing out is a conspiracy constructed by 99% of mechanics so they can get rich. 

Greta never claimed to be a master mechanic. She's just pointing out (rightly) that we've been told by a lot of mechanics that our brakes are shitty and we are speeding towards a brick wall.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bacq2bacq said:

@huey 2, I can't force you but I am curious what I write or what Crichton writes,  and with which you disagree, to cause you to downvote a reasonable post.  "bing!" said my browser.  What a surprise to see that on post 445, above!

- do you think we should have the power to remove someone's writings from the internet, so the Archive is in fact a Bad Thing?
- did you read Crichton's two speeches to which I posted links and disagree with him?
- do you think it is possible for 16-year-olds to possess wisdom beyond their years?
- is it that panic is superior to calm, reasoned thought and action?

What an odd post to downvote!

@ProaSailor, @Left Shift, @hoppy, @lasal, @MRS OCTOPUS, you all should have had time to see the links to Michael Crichton's thoughts.  No comment?

Chrichton's piece is unconvincing. He is pushing several bad analogies to reach unrelated conclusions. His claim that Indians hunted large mammals to near extinction as a land management tool is not only totally wrong, it's silly. Chernoble is nuclear power disaster, and so what if some nuclear scientists overestimated the death toll, which is quite horrible already not to mention an entire city was abandoned and thousands of lives upended with displacement and survived cancers. The reaction to the melt down was the same, some responders will have to give their lives to cap it, and the city and huge surrounding area will have to be abandoned. I fail to see any point at all there. Y2K was ignored, almost totally ignored. What another silly analogy. That article would get Chrichton an F in a econ class or logic class, and only a C- in a creative writing class.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2019 at 9:37 AM, Vee said:

 

You do know that Bill Nye has an mech engineering degree, worked for Boeing, started doing standup comedy, quit Boeing to focus on his comedy, then got into television, first locally, then with “Bill Nye the Science Guy”

He’s not actually a “scientist” and holds no advanced degrees or degrees in science....

Edit: I’m not saying he’s incorrect, nor that he isn’t knowledgeable on scientific matters...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, frostbit said:

You can disagree with the majority, but let me ask this, what if the over-whelming majority is right and we do nothing? And alternatively, what if they are wrong, but we act by reducing fossil fuel dependencies and we aggressively embrace renewable energy sources and reduce carbon emissions globally? In a risk based assessment, acting, even if you disagree with the central premise, creates significantly less catastrophic risk potential and results in economic growth and an accelerated state of innovation. If the overwhelming majority of scientists are right, and we do nothing, the impact is catastrophic, expensive, and difficult, if not impossible, to recover from. So, which do you choose?

Regarding Greta, she is on the spectrum and speaks what she thinks. If you know any 16 year olds on the spectrum, then you know they are not easily manipulated into anything. What she said yesterday was purely her reasoned opinion of truth. 

If we had listened to the climate scientists in the 70s looking for ways to melt the polar ice caps where would be today?

 

Its beyond naive to think Greta is some genius; and doing so completely of her own volition. She’s a high school dropout. She’s never known world without smart phones. She’s never worked a day in her life or struggled for anything.  When in the fuck did this become some credible source?! 

  • Like 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Left Shift You ask a bunch of strawmen questions that Crichton answered in the speeches, just read again.  He points out that very frequently people scream a lot for central action by some authority about things that are already getting fixed organically.  Read it again.

Oh dear.  "...prepare for the unknown"??? WTF???   Seriously: THINK!  OMG.

The whole point about the unknown is that it cannot be prepared-for, since we don't know what it is!  If the unknown didn't happen, how would I know? 

And ajbram, your sig says "scientist" and you agree with such a piece of illogic?  Oh dear.  Whither "science" if scientists can't parse a simple contradiction.

And lasal, you seem to miss the main point that Crichton is trying to make in the first linked article, that the fear industry is alive and well, but should be ignored.  It is a reading-comprehension class that is being failed here, lasal: you seem to miss the entire point of the speech, being too focused on the minutiae.  Complexity is a forest, I fear you are seeing only trees.  Y2K was ignored?  Not on the planet where I live. 

The simple synopsis of the first speech (from memory from reading years ago) is:
- our biases exist.  Fail to acknowledge this at your peril.
- we are extremely biased towards linear, classical thinking, and simple narratives
- recently we have been discovering that Nature is not linear, and does not follow simple classical models, but is in fact complex, in which causal relationships are hard to identify, and may change over time
-  there is an entire industry built around inducing, cultivating, and profiting from fear.  Don't be a part of it.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, bacq2bacq said:

@Left Shift You ask a bunch of strawmen questions that Crichton answered in the speeches, just read again.  He points out that very frequently people scream a lot for central action by some authority about things that are already getting fixed organically.  Read it again.

Oh dear.  "...prepare for the unknown"??? WTF???   Seriously: THINK!  OMG.

The whole point about the unknown is that it cannot be prepared-for, since we don't know what it is!  If the unknown didn't happen, how would I know? 

And ajbram, your sig says "scientist" and you agree with such a piece of illogic?  Oh dear.  Whither "science" if scientists can't parse a simple contradiction.

And lasal, you seem to miss the main point that Crichton is trying to make in the first linked article, that the fear industry is alive and well, but should be ignored.  It is a reading-comprehension class that is being failed here, lasal: you seem to miss the entire point of the speech, being too focused on the minutiae.  Complexity is a forest, I fear you are seeing only trees.  Y2K was ignored?  Not on the planet where I live. 

The simple synopsis of the first speech (from memory from reading years ago) is:
- our biases exist.  Fail to acknowledge this at your peril.
- we are extremely biased towards linear, classical thinking, and simple narratives
- recently we have been discovering that Nature is not linear, and does not follow simple classical models, but is in fact complex, in which causal relationships are hard to identify, and may change over time
-  there is an entire industry built around inducing, cultivating, and profiting from fear.  Don't be a part of it.

 

Yeah, Y2K was almost totally ignored. Simple date bug that was tested. Governments put up some warnings about possible issues. The private sector to next to no action. A few survivalists got their schadenfreude on and bought some canned food and some ammo. Chrichton is full of it, throughout that piece. Yeah, never believe anything or believe whatever you want to. The fear in this thread is all about unintended consequences of reducing C02 because the oil industry has pushed that narrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, bacq2bacq said:

@Left Shift You ask a bunch of strawmen questions that Crichton answered in the speeches, just read again.  He points out that very frequently people scream a lot for central action by some authority about things that are already getting fixed organically.  Read it again.

Oh dear.  "...prepare for the unknown"??? WTF???   Seriously: THINK!  OMG.

The whole point about the unknown is that it cannot be prepared-for, since we don't know what it is!  If the unknown didn't happen, how would I know? 

And ajbram, your sig says "scientist" and you agree with such a piece of illogic?  Oh dear.  Whither "science" if scientists can't parse a simple contradiction.

And lasal, you seem to miss the main point that Crichton is trying to make in the first linked article, that the fear industry is alive and well, but should be ignored.  It is a reading-comprehension class that is being failed here, lasal: you seem to miss the entire point of the speech, being too focused on the minutiae.  Complexity is a forest, I fear you are seeing only trees.  Y2K was ignored?  Not on the planet where I live. 

The simple synopsis of the first speech (from memory from reading years ago) is:
- our biases exist.  Fail to acknowledge this at your peril.
- we are extremely biased towards linear, classical thinking, and simple narratives
- recently we have been discovering that Nature is not linear, and does not follow simple classical models, but is in fact complex, in which causal relationships are hard to identify, and may change over time
-  there is an entire industry built around inducing, cultivating, and profiting from fear.  Don't be a part of it.

 

Oh lord, you are special aren't you.  Whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, bodega87 said:

If we had listened to the climate scientists in the 70s looking for ways to melt the polar ice caps where would be today?

 

Its beyond naive to think Greta is some genius; and doing so completely of her own volition. She’s a high school dropout. She’s never known world without smart phones. She’s never worked a day in her life or struggled for anything.  When in the fuck did this become some credible source?! 

I didn't say she was a genius. Neither did she. She said to listen to the scientists. I agree with that statement. 

The scientific consensus on this is very clear. My post suggested viewing the question through a risk management lens. If they are right, and we don't act it's a disaster. If they are wrong and we act, limited impact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, frostbit said:

You can disagree with the majority, but let me ask this, what if the over-whelming majority is right and we do nothing? And alternatively, what if they are wrong, but we act by reducing fossil fuel dependencies and we aggressively embrace renewable energy sources and reduce carbon emissions globally? In a risk based assessment, acting, even if you disagree with the central premise, creates significantly less catastrophic risk potential and results in economic growth and an accelerated state of innovation

Its an interesting question, but I'm not sure you are correct.  There is no factual data that shows the long term impact to the environment of shifting to renewable energy sources.  What we have are projections and models, and hypothesis that say they lessen the impact.  They likely will lessen carbon emissions.  But that's only one part of the enviroment.  As we are not at a 95% of our energy comes from  renewable sources yet, we can't actually know the impact, and haven't yet discovered the inevitable unintended consequences.

Also, how exactly can you say it will result in economic growth?  In the near term, depending on time lines, it could have a huge near term negative impact.  Both politically (like the Middle East isn't already a boiling pot - remove the one economic engine there is and what do you think happens?) and economically (its much easier for the relatively wealthy and well educated to change jobs/careers, but much, much harder for the less wealthy/less well educated).  Using AI and self driving vehicles as an example, what happens to the 3.5 million truck drivers in the US when drivers are made obsolete?  Or bus drivers, Uber drivers, etc, etc.  Those changes are hard painful, and will not benefit all economically.  So I take issue with such blanket statements assurances.

That doesn't mean the change doesn't need to happen, I'm not saying that.  But pretending that only good things will happen as a result of such a change is a flight of fancy...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, random said:

Even a little school girl gets that.  You are being 'schooled'  by a little school girl!

No she isn’t. School girls go to school. She is a high school dropout. But who needs education when you already know everything?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Crash said:

Its an interesting question, but I'm not sure you are correct.  There is no factual data that shows the long term impact to the environment of shifting to renewable energy sources.  What we have are projections and models, and hypothesis that say they lessen the impact.  They likely will lessen carbon emissions.  But that's only one part of the enviroment.  As we are not at a 95% of our energy comes from  renewable sources yet, we can't actually know the impact, and haven't yet discovered the inevitable unintended consequences.

Also, how exactly can you say it will result in economic growth?  In the near term, depending on time lines, it could have a huge near term negative impact.  Both politically (like the Middle East isn't already a boiling pot - remove the one economic engine there is and what do you think happens?) and economically (its much easier for the relatively wealthy and well educated to change jobs/careers, but much, much harder for the less wealthy/less well educated).  Using AI and self driving vehicles as an example, what happens to the 3.5 million truck drivers in the US when drivers are made obsolete?  Or bus drivers, Uber drivers, etc, etc.  Those changes are hard painful, and will not benefit all economically.  So I take issue with such blanket statements assurances.

That doesn't mean the change doesn't need to happen, I'm not saying that.  But pretending that only good things will happen as a result of such a change is a flight of fancy...

Good points.  My primary point is that if they are right and we have the environmental disasters they project, then we need to start focus on figuring it out. Including better answering the questions you raise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Crash said:

You do know that Bill Nye has an mech engineering degree, worked for Boeing, started doing standup comedy, quit Boeing to focus on his comedy, then got into television, first locally, then with “Bill Nye the Science Guy”

He’s not actually a “scientist” and holds no advanced degrees or degrees in science....

Edit: I’m not saying he’s incorrect, nor that he isn’t knowledgeable on scientific matters...

You do know he has a BSME, which is a Bachelor of SCIENCE in Mechanical Engineering. Its not an advanced degree, but is a degree in science. 

Also, most scientists don't have degrees which specifically state "scientist"

Stephen Hawking has advanced degrees in theoretical physics and applied mathematics and I don't think anyone would have an issue calling him a scientist.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, random said:

Yep, you can see how LB can't fucking handle her.  He, like the rest of the 30 years-out-of-date dumb cunts, deliberately spin it around to making it about Greta.

If they paid attention, they would have seen her on more than one occasion say she wants people to listen to Scientists, not her.  But that's scary for high school drop outs, and it seems lying cunts.

You are quite right I won’t handle her. She already has plenty of handlers. Yes we are making this thread about her. Noticed the subject of the thread? It up the top at the beginning. Your obsession with a 16 year old is creepy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Squalamax said:

You do know he has a BSME, which is a Bachelor of SCIENCE in Mechanical Engineering. Its not an advanced degree, but is a degree in science. 

Also, most scientists don't have degrees which specifically state "scientist"

Stephen Hawking has advanced degrees in theoretical physics and applied mathematics and I don't think anyone would have an issue calling him a scientist.  

He is not a "scientist" because he does not, in fact, make his way in theworld by rigorously doing research and publishing in peer reviewwedd journals. Like it or not, that's wat a scientis is, right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  13 hours ago, random said:

Yep, you can see how LB can't fucking handle her.  He, like the rest of the 30 years-out-of-date dumb cunts, deliberately spin it around to making it about Greta.

If they paid attention, they would have seen her on more than one occasion say she wants people to listen to Scientists, not her.  But that's scary for high school drop outs, and it seems lying cunts.

 

Fuck. A piece of randumb snuck through the fence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

You are quite right I won’t handle her. She already has plenty of handlers. Yes we are making this thread about her. Noticed the subject of the thread? It up the top at the beginning. Your obsession with a 16 year old is creepy.

I dunno, LB. You might be seeing Greta at your fancy Nobel Prize parties soon. When she tells her stories about sailing across the pond at 30 knots with Borris, they might give her your prize too! Put that in your pipe. . .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this thread is about Greta, and Greta sailed a hot boat across the Atlantic, then shouldn't this thread be about finding ways to keep Greta sailing? Maybe something positive CAN come from this shit show.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, random said:

 

Angry little minx isn’t she. 

 

14 hours ago, dash34 said:

She is aware that people are saying this, and recently made a public statement that she is working alone.  She does not have handlers.  I have not seen any credible evidence to the contrary.  Got any?

 

Here is her recent statement:

 

As the rumours, lies and constant leaving out of well established facts continue, please share this newly updated clarification about me and my school strike.
Please help me communicate this to the grown ups who lie about me and family so that I can focus on school instead:

Recently I’ve seen many rumors circulating about me and enormous amounts of hate. This is no surprise to me. I know that since most people are not aware of the full meaning of the climate crisis (which is understandable since it has never been treated as a crisis) a school strike for the climate would seem very strange to people in general.
So let me make some things clear about my school strike.

In may 2018 I was one of the winners in a writing competition about the environment held by Svenska Dagbladet, a Swedish newspaper. I got my article published and some people contacted me, among others was Bo Thorén from Fossil Free Dalsland. He had some kind of group with people, especially youth, who wanted to do something about the climate crisis.
I had a few phone meetings with other activists. The purpose was to come up with ideas of new projects that would bring attention to the climate crisis. Bo had a few ideas of things we could do. Everything from marches to a loose idea of some kind of a school strike (that school children would do something on the schoolyards or in the classrooms). That idea was inspired by the Parkland Students, who had refused to go to school after the school shootings.
I liked the idea of a school strike. So I developed that idea and tried to get the other young people to join me, but no one was really interested. They thought that a Swedish version of the Zero Hour march was going to have a bigger impact. So I went on planning the school strike all by myself and after that I didn’t participate in any more meetings.

When I told my parents about my plans they weren’t very fond of it. They did not support the idea of school striking and they said that if I were to do this I would have to do it completely by myself and with no support from them.
On the 20 of august I sat down outside the Swedish Parliament. I handed out fliers with a long list of facts about the climate crisis and explanations on why I was striking. The first thing I did was to post on Twitter and Instagram what I was doing and it soon went viral. Then journalists and newspapers started to come. A Swedish entrepreneur and business man active in the climate movement, Ingmar Rentzhog, was among the first to arrive. He spoke with me and took pictures that he posted on Facebook. That was the first time I had ever met or spoken with him. I had not communicated or encountered with him ever before.

Many people love to spread rumors saying that I have people ”behind me” or that I’m being ”paid” or ”used” to do what I’m doing. But there is no one ”behind” me except for myself. My parents were as far from climate activists as possible before I made them aware of the situation.
I am not part of any organization. I sometimes support and cooperate with several NGOs that work with the climate and environment. But I am absolutely independent and I only represent myself. And I do what I do completely for free, I have not received any money or any promise of future payments in any form at all. And nor has anyone linked to me or my family done so.
And of course it will stay this way. I have not met one single climate activist who is fighting for the climate for money. That idea is completely absurd.
Furthermore I only travel with permission from my school and my parents pay for tickets and accommodations.

My family has written a book together about our family and how me and my sister Beata have influenced my parents way of thinking and seeing the world, especially when it comes to the climate. And about our diagnoses.
That book was due to be released in May. But since there was a major disagreement with the book company, we ended up changing to a new publisher and so the book was released in august instead.
Before the book was released my parents made it clear that their possible profits from the book ”Scener ur hjärtat” will be going to 8 different charities working with environment, children with diagnoses and animal rights.

And yes, I write my own speeches. But since I know that what I say is going to reach many, many people I often ask for input. I also have a few scientists that I frequently ask for help on how to express certain complicated matters. I want everything to be absolutely correct so that I don’t spread incorrect facts, or things that can be misunderstood.

Some people mock me for my diagnosis. But Asperger is not a disease, it’s a gift. People also say that since I have Asperger I couldn’t possibly have put myself in this position. But that’s exactly why I did this. Because if I would have been ”normal” and social I would have organized myself in an organisation, or started an organisation by myself. But since I am not that good at socializing I did this instead. I was so frustrated that nothing was being done about the climate crisis and I felt like I had to do something, anything. And sometimes NOT doing things - like just sitting down outside the parliament - speaks much louder than doing things. Just like a whisper sometimes is louder than shouting.

Also there is one complaint that I ”sound and write like an adult”. And to that I can only say; don’t you think that a 16-year old can speak for herself? There’s also some people who say that I oversimplify things. For example when I say that "the climate crisis is a black and white issue”, ”we need to stop the emissions of greenhouse gases” and ”I want you to panic”. But that I only say because it’s true. Yes, the climate crisis is the most complex issue that we have ever faced and it’s going to take everything from our part to ”stop it”. But the solution is black and white; we need to stop the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Because either we limit the warming to 1,5 degrees C over pre industrial levels, or we don’t. Either we reach a tipping point where we start a chain reaction with events way beyond human control, or we don’t. Either we go on as a civilization, or we don’t. There are no gray areas when it comes to survival.
And when I say that I want you to panic I mean that we need to treat the crisis as a crisis. When your house is on fire you don’t sit down and talk about how nice you can rebuild it once you put out the fire. If your house is on fire you run outside and make sure that everyone is out while you call the fire department. That requires some level of panic.

There is one other argument that I can’t do anything about. And that is the fact that I’m ”just a child and we shouldn’t be listening to children.” But that is easily fixed - just start to listen to the rock solid science instead. Because if everyone listened to the scientists and the facts that I constantly refer to - then no one would have to listen to me or any of the other hundreds of thousands of school children on strike for the climate across the world. Then we could all go back to school.
I am just a messenger, and yet I get all this hate. I am not saying anything new, I am just saying what scientists have repeatedly said for decades. And I agree with you, I’m too young to do this. We children shouldn’t have to do this. But since almost no one is doing anything, and our very future is at risk, we feel like we have to continue.


And if you have any other concern or doubt about me, then you can listen to my TED talk ( https://www.ted.com/…/greta_thunberg_the_disarming_…/up-next ), in which I talk about how my interest for the climate and environment began.

And thank you everyone for your kind support! It brings me hope.
/Greta

Ps I was briefly a youth advisor for the board of the non profit foundation “We don’t have time”. It turns out they used my name as part of another branch of their organisation that is a start up business. They have admitted clearly that they did so without the knowledge of me or my family. I no longer have any connection to “We don’t have time”. Nor does anyone in my family. They have deeply apologised for what has happened and I have accepted their apology.

You know that is pretty good. Who ever writes her stuff knows there shit about creative writing. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fastyacht said:

If this thread is about Greta, and Greta sailed a hot boat across the Atlantic, then shouldn't this thread be about finding ways to keep Greta sailing? Maybe something positive CAN come from this shit show.

I hope she finds a nice ride back across and can hoist the canvas to raise awareness again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, random said:

Science is based on validating the data.

  • If the same data comes from say the Heartland Institute funded by the Kock-up-your arse Brothers, then it's fucked, no credibility and you would get laughed out of the presentation.
  • If that same data came from calibrated instruments using trained scientists, then it's ok to report!

That's how it works.

But we could do a test.  Let's say you go out for lunch and order a nice chicken soup.  But it is delivered to you by a homeless person who came in off the street.

Same soup, different messenger.  Different outcome.

Remind me again about who is the fuckwit here?

image.thumb.png.0ac6a99706b506e6b1e2495915019a8c.png

Who goes out for chicken soup?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Angry little minx isn’t she. 

 

You know that is pretty good. Who ever writes her stuff knows there shit about creative writing. 

Way better than that trite Saint Greta spiel you posted the other day.  I wonder where you copy/pasted that from?

And she would probably spell "their" correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Squalamax said:

You do know he has a BSME, which is a Bachelor of SCIENCE in Mechanical Engineering. Its not an advanced degree, but is a degree in science. 

Also, most scientists don't have degrees which specifically state "scientist"

Stephen Hawking has advanced degrees in theoretical physics and applied mathematics and I don't think anyone would have an issue calling him a scientist.  

Squal,

I do know that.  I have a BS from the Naval Academy, but that doesn't make me a scientist, and my Masters of Arts in Military History doesn't make me an Artist.

I consider a scientist to be one who studied one of the 3 basic groups of science, and now is actively engaged in furthering the knowledge in one of those fields.  

"The natural taxonomy of the empirical sciences would break the sciences down into three basic groups: the physical sciences (physics, astronomy, chemistry, geology, metallurgy), the biological sciences (zoology, botany, genetics, paleontology, molecular biology, physiology), and the psychological sciences (psychology, sociology, anthropology, maybe economics)"

In my construct, I would call Bill Nye a well informed advocate and spokesperson, but not an "expert" or scientist

Crash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ajbram said:

This ^

If your mechanic tells you your brakes have 2% of their surface left before they fail, you listen. If you are skeptical and think the mechanic may have an ulterior motive, you get a second opinion. If the second mechanic tells you the same thing, you get new brakes. You don't cook up the idea that your brakes wearing out is a conspiracy constructed by 99% of mechanics so they can get rich. 

Greta never claimed to be a master mechanic. She's just pointing out (rightly) that we've been told by a lot of mechanics that our brakes are shitty and we are speeding towards a brick wall.

Does she only work on Volvo’s? If not I might get her to look at the brakes on my Hyundai. I will go pick her up on my boat, she how she likes spending a few months on a BH41. Pity it has a Yanmar not one of them green Swedish taxi engines. Still I am sure she will work out how to fix it. She Does have all the answers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, hoppy said:

Clearly it's FASD and not genetics that gave her looks.

So a girl who quotes science is attacked personally, now her parents are as well?

Are you fucking serious?  Are you fucking insane?

The denial industry is the most evil construct that ever existed on the planet.  At least the Nazis only wanted to kill jews and gypies.

These cunts are killing the entire planet.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

Way better than that trite Saint Greta spiel you posted the other day.  I wonder where you copy/pasted that from?

And she would probably spell "their" correctly.

I wrote that all by my little self cup cake. Like Greta I enjoy creative writing. Used to do it for a living and drove my editors crazy with my appalling spelling. But Greta and I are more concerned with getting our message out than worrying about trolls attacking us about our disabilities. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Like Greta I enjoy creative writing.

Greta writes speeches that quote science.  LB this is a low point for you, it's fucking disgusting that adults, scared shitless that a girl is pointing out how evil they are, like the Emperors New Clothes fable.  An the only response is to attack the girl?  And her parents?  And the boat she rode in on?

Get a a mugachino of go fuck youtself, if you are tolling it's not funni, if you are serious, get a fucking education you stupid cunt.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Crash said:

Its an interesting question, but I'm not sure you are correct.  There is no factual data that shows the long term impact to the environment of shifting to renewable energy sources.  What we have are projections and models, and hypothesis that say they lessen the impact.  They likely will lessen carbon emissions.  But that's only one part of the enviroment.  As we are not at a 95% of our energy comes from  renewable sources yet, we can't actually know the impact, and haven't yet discovered the inevitable unintended consequences.

Also, how exactly can you say it will result in economic growth?  In the near term, depending on time lines, it could have a huge near term negative impact.  Both politically (like the Middle East isn't already a boiling pot - remove the one economic engine there is and what do you think happens?) and economically (its much easier for the relatively wealthy and well educated to change jobs/careers, but much, much harder for the less wealthy/less well educated).  Using AI and self driving vehicles as an example, what happens to the 3.5 million truck drivers in the US when drivers are made obsolete?  Or bus drivers, Uber drivers, etc, etc.  Those changes are hard painful, and will not benefit all economically.  So I take issue with such blanket statements assurances.

That doesn't mean the change doesn't need to happen, I'm not saying that.  But pretending that only good things will happen as a result of such a change is a flight of fancy...

Intelligent life exists on PA.  There is actually a way to know that an economic activity is beneficial and superior to others in a Mill-esque utilitarian sense, but not in the system we have now. It would require an organic economic system in which the truly fittest survived and thrived.  It would require allowing evolutionary economic forces to operate freely, but under strict, fixed, common regulation.  Keeping things small and local would have to be part of that, IMHO, and who knows, we might decide the rules include some social programmes in education, health...  But we'd also need to actually have rule-of-law, and no more global debt-bubbles.  I believe systems-theory applied to natural (incl human) history tells us this.  I'm optimistic we're going to get there.

But I don't think a kid like Greta (nor even many of the scientists that produce the projections she is convinced are true) have a big enough picture of the problems, our level of understanding of the problems, and the tradeoffs that could be involved in trying to do something about them. 

But WTF this is PA, so

1 hour ago, fastyacht said:

Maybe something positive CAN come from this shit show.

Yeah, it's possible.  Like read and understand my little bit of creative writing below, or don't, but ask a civil question, or do neither and go get your RAMWEL tattoo.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, frostbit said:

There are a few scientists who think humans are not responsible and are unable to alter the vector we are on. The overwhelming majority believe climate change, as we are experiencing it now and the trajectory we are on, is a by-product of human use of hydrocarbon fuels. You can disagree with the majority, but let me ask this, what if the over-whelming majority is right and we do nothing? And alternatively, what if they are wrong, but we act by reducing fossil fuel dependencies and we aggressively embrace renewable energy sources and reduce carbon emissions globally? In a risk based assessment, acting, even if you disagree with the central premise, creates significantly less catastrophic risk potential and results in economic growth and an accelerated state of innovation. If the overwhelming majority of scientists are right, and we do nothing, the impact is catastrophic, expensive, and difficult, if not impossible, to recover from. So, which do you choose?

As with so many people in this debate, you ignore opportunity cost.

Would the money be better spent eradicating TB or malaria?  Providing clean drinking water to the third world?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ajbram said:

This ^

If your mechanic tells you your brakes have 2% of their surface left before they fail, you listen. If you are skeptical and think the mechanic may have an ulterior motive, you get a second opinion. If the second mechanic tells you the same thing, you get new brakes. You don't cook up the idea that your brakes wearing out is a conspiracy constructed by 99% of mechanics so they can get rich. 

Greta never claimed to be a master mechanic. She's just pointing out (rightly) that we've been told by a lot of mechanics that our brakes are shitty and we are speeding towards a brick wall.

.. you go look at your brake pads and find out they have at least 20% left, are wearing at a third of the rate both mechanics say they are, and nothing is out of the ordinary.

Then you discover that the break wear indicators they use have changed recently, the older measurements have been adjusted, and both mechanics rely on research into brake pads for their major source of income.

btw - you have $100 left to do something on your car.. and you can see that one tyre is completely flat, with a big puncture. What do you do?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, duncan (the other one) said:

.. you go look at your brake pads and find out they have at least 20% left, are wearing at a third of the rate both mechanics say they are, and nothing is out of the ordinary.

Then you discover that the break wear indicators they use have changed recently, the older measurements have been adjusted, and both mechanics rely on research into brake pads for their major source of income.

btw - you have $100 left to do something on your car.. and you can see that one tyre is completely flat, with a big puncture. What do you do?

tenor.gif?itemid=12536653

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LB 15 said:

Angry little minx isn’t she. 

 

You know that is pretty good. Who ever writes her stuff knows there shit about creative writing. 

her daddy is an author and sailed with her, you figure...

Her parents are her puppet masters....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, random said:

So a girl who quotes science is attacked personally, now her parents are as well?

Are you fucking serious?  Are you fucking insane?

The denial industry is the most evil construct that ever existed on the planet.  At least the Nazis only wanted to kill jews and gypies.

These cunts are killing the entire planet.

I'm not shooting the message, just the messenger....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Left Shift said:

Playing off the health and abilities of children in service of your politics is par for the course for a pitiful, disgusting troll.  

Ban this asshole.

Take this political discussion over to PA and then you can be ignorant over there.

The parents are using her to sell their books after fucking her life by boozing during pregnancy. The parents are disgusting.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Adult Quotient of this conversation is inversely related to the frequency of use of the word "cunt".  Just sayin'

I finally decided to ride my damn bike to work 3 days a week, 'cause i really don't need  too drive.  After the rally we went to on Friday the Mrs and I had a talk about plastic and while we're not going to throw away stuff we already have, we are going to make a concerted effort to NOT buy stuff that's plastic. That includes stuff that's packaged in plastic. THAT means, not buying much stuff online, because you can't inspect the packaging online.

We don't have children.   Were not perfect. But maybe we're a little "better" than we were on Thursday.

I "get" that some people aren't climate change deniers, but don't like Greta. 
I get that some people aren't climate change deniers, but are Ok with Greta except they think she's unrealistic.  I disagree with that opinion, but it's open to discussion. I think she's VERY realistic.

As for those who deny that it's happening, I'm not wasting time with you any more. You're just a distraction.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wholly fuck over 100 post this past weekend in this thread. I guess there is nuttin else for these pa psychopaths to do on duh weekend

pathetic

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, random said:

Greta writes speeches that quote science.  LB this is a low point for you, it's fucking disgusting that adults, scared shitless that a girl is pointing out how evil they are, like the Emperors New Clothes fable.  An the only response is to attack the girl?  And her parents?  And the boat she rode in on?

Get a a mugachino of go fuck youtself, if you are tolling it's not funni, if you are serious, get a fucking education you stupid cunt.

Gosh! What is it with you alarmists and your foul tempers? Now Greta doesn’t write speeches, she gives them. If you believe that she writes all her own finger waging lectures then you are so naive that you probobly believe in unicorns, the tooth fairy and that the US government are behind the 911 attacks. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, VWAP said:

wholly fuck over 100 post this past weekend in this thread. I guess there is nuttin else for these pa psychopaths to do on duh weekend

pathetic

You are all over that time zone thingy  princess. But lets not let that bit of stupidity distract us from giving credit where credit is due. For the first time ever you have managed to write a post without accusing anyone of taking blue pills. Keep up the good work mate, you are really coming on.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Alan H said:

As for those who deny that it's happening, I'm not wasting time with you any more. You're just a distraction.

Good for you. That is the attitude that most other religions adopt. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LB 15 said:

You are all over that time zone thingy  princess. But lets not let that bit of stupidity distract us from giving credit where credit is due. For the first time ever you have managed to write a post without accusing anyone of taking blue pills. Keep up the good work mate, you are really coming on.

fuck you are pathetic.

Uhhh geee wizz dats why I did not give a exact number. Try to keep up. 

 

Anyhoo arn't the little blue pills banned in "you're" senior housing. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, VWAP said:

Anyhoo arn't the little blue pills banned in "you're" senior housing. 

Next I want you to sit. Now roll over on your back. Good boy have a biscuit. 

fuck I love this place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And toecutter joins LB15 on my ignore list.  cheers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, duncan (the other one) said:

.. you go look at your brake pads and find out they have at least 20% left, are wearing at a third of the rate both mechanics say they are, and nothing is out of the ordinary.

Then you discover that the break wear indicators they use have changed recently, the older measurements have been adjusted, and both mechanics rely on research into brake pads for their major source of income.

btw - you have $100 left to do something on your car.. and you can see that one tyre is completely flat, with a big puncture. What do you do?

This is presuming that you are qualified enough to assess the wear of your brakes.

Climate is complicated, I am not convinced that any of us has the knowledge to do so. You've shown above that even assessing stastically lack of evolution in a phenomenon was tricky for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, Crash said:

You do know that Bill Nye has an mech engineering degree, worked for Boeing, started doing standup comedy, quit Boeing to focus on his comedy, then got into television, first locally, then with “Bill Nye the Science Guy”

He’s not actually a “scientist” and holds no advanced degrees or degrees in science....

Edit: I’m not saying he’s incorrect, nor that he isn’t knowledgeable on scientific matters...

A mechanical engineering degree is a degree in science.   In many universities (the one I went to included) it is called a Bachelor of Science in Engineering.  In fact,that is what my degree says in the title.

I would argue that a mechanical engineer, having taken courses in thermodynamics that virtually all engineering schools require, is as qualified as anyone to discuss the science behind the future health of the heat engine we call Earth.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Next I want you to sit. Now roll over on your back. Good boy have a biscuit. 

fuck I love this place. 

Any attention whore would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Alan H said:

And toecutter joins LB15 on my ignore list.  cheers.

people who advertise adding names onto their ignore list or even admitting they have one, have got to be some of the most stupid people on the forum.

 

Congratulations Toe and LB. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Alan H said:

And toecutter joins LB15 on my ignore list.  cheers.

 

39 minutes ago, toecutter said:

Is this the Internet equivalent of taking your (or is it "you're"? lol) bat and ball and going home?

:(

It depends. If it's Pro a sailor or random going on the ignore is understandable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alan H said:

And toecutter joins LB15 on my ignore list.  cheers.

Ah that’s right you are the bungy cord halyard guy. 

Bwahahahahaha.

I really do love this place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

Climate is complicated, I am not convinced that any of us has the knowledge to do so. 

No shit Sherlock.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

 

It depends. If it's Pro a sailor or random going on the ignore is understandable

Oh I'm still here. I just choose to minimize irritation.  Everyone can still see people on their ignore list if they're quoted by someone else.  If something is irritating without being educational, then why deal with it?   If people find me irritating but not worth their time, then put me on ignore. It reduces the number of posts to get through in a thread like this one. I don't have a problem with it.

=========================

 

Back to the topic.

My good old Chevy S-10 4 cylinder pickup truck has 189,000 miles on it, since 1999. It's about time to get a new truck, though I could keep this one going for years if i wanted to spend the money. I'd rather have a truck that doesn't spew as much CO2, and that means "electric"....and ride my bicycle a lot more.  The bicycle is easy. Anyway, the thing is, my Chevy S-10 is at least 500 pounds of plastic, which if I get rid of it, will get ground up and enter the plastic funnel to environmental hell.  So if I keep the S-10, even if I drive it less, I'm putting more CO2 in the air, but not  ditching a huge amount of plastic.

If I buy the first generation 2020 electric truck, then I'm not shoving so much CO2 into the air, but I'm contributing a crapload of plastic to the problem.  I'm also telling the auto manufacturers "Hey Chevrolet, guess what....there's a market for this. Make more electric vehicles". and that's a good thing.

I honestly do not know what to do.

Ride my bike more...duh....but...  meh. First World Problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, random said:

 What I do realise is that a lot of deniers pretend not to be ... to build a barely credible platform to discredit Greta?

 

Since when did you have to like the messenger and their methods, when agreeing with a message?

This cunt and his organisation are ensuring that the Japanese will not back down because they now cannot without losing face.

Watson-Photo-2018.jpg

 

She is ensuring that there will be blowback

00-story-greta.jpg

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Alan H said:

Back to the topic.

My good old Chevy S-10 4 cylinder pickup truck has 189,000 miles on it, since 1999. It's about time to get a new truck, though I could keep this one going for years if i wanted to spend the money. I'd rather have a truck that doesn't spew as much CO2, and that means "electric"....and ride my bicycle a lot more.  The bicycle is easy. Anyway, the thing is, my Chevy S-10 is at least 500 pounds of plastic, which if I get rid of it, will get ground up and enter the plastic funnel to environmental hell.  So if I keep the S-10, even if I drive it less, I'm putting more CO2 in the air, but not  ditching a huge amount of plastic.

If I buy the first generation 2020 electric truck, then I'm not shoving so much CO2 into the air, but I'm contributing a crapload of plastic to the problem.  I'm also telling the auto manufacturers "Hey Chevrolet, guess what....there's a market for this. Make more electric vehicles". and that's a good thing.

I honestly do not know what to do.

Ride my bike more...duh....but...  meh. First World Problems.

200w.gif

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Alan H said:

Oh I'm still here. I just choose to minimize irritation.  Everyone can still see people on their ignore list if they're quoted by someone else.  If something is irritating without being educational, then why deal with it?   If people find me irritating but not worth their time, then put me on ignore. It reduces the number of posts to get through in a thread like this one. I don't have a problem with it.

=========================

 

Back to the topic.

My good old Chevy S-10 4 cylinder pickup truck has 189,000 miles on it, since 1999. It's about time to get a new truck, though I could keep this one going for years if i wanted to spend the money. I'd rather have a truck that doesn't spew as much CO2, and that means "electric"....and ride my bicycle a lot more.  The bicycle is easy. Anyway, the thing is, my Chevy S-10 is at least 500 pounds of plastic, which if I get rid of it, will get ground up and enter the plastic funnel to environmental hell.  So if I keep the S-10, even if I drive it less, I'm putting more CO2 in the air, but not  ditching a huge amount of plastic.

If I buy the first generation 2020 electric truck, then I'm not shoving so much CO2 into the air, but I'm contributing a crapload of plastic to the problem.  I'm also telling the auto manufacturers "Hey Chevrolet, guess what....there's a market for this. Make more electric vehicles". and that's a good thing.

I honestly do not know what to do.

Ride my bike more...duh....but...  meh. First World Problems.

Alan, If you buy ANY new truck, you will not be shoving so much CO2 in the air.  A 10 year old engine (2009) is a gross polluter compared to a 2019 engine, and 20 year engine is about 4 times worse.  You don't need to go electric to make a huge and significant reduction in emissions. Plus you'll get much better mileage, so that means less emissions to.  I'm not saying don't buy electric....

But you are right about the recycling of the old truck.  There is soo much raw material going into the recycling "system" these days that the market if "flooded."  It probably time to set mandatory recycling content amounts on most manufactured goods...otherwise there is no market.  Of course that will drive the price of a new car even higher, making it even harder for anyone not in the middle class to afford one...but that's a different issue...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Crash said:

Alan, If you buy ANY new truck, you will not be shoving so much CO2 in the air.  A 10 year old engine (2009) is a gross polluter compared to a 2019 engine, and 20 year engine is about 4 times worse.  You don't need to go electric to make a huge and significant reduction in emissions. Plus you'll get much better mileage, so that means less emissions to.  I'm not saying don't buy electric....

But you are right about the recycling of the old truck.  There is soo much raw material going into the recycling "system" these days that the market if "flooded."  It probably time to set mandatory recycling content amounts on most manufactured goods...otherwise there is no market.  Of course that will drive the price of a new car even higher, making it even harder for anyone not in the middle class to afford one...but that's a different issue...

Thanks for this. I'm no automotive expert on emissions, but I suspected as much. Honest truth is I'll probably buy a hybrid as the Mrs and I like to go backpacking and there's a curious shortage of charging stations at mountain trailheads.

Though I suppose if I put 300 watts of solar panels on the tonneau cover and parked in the sun, MAYBE after a week?

One nice thing about the all electric models is the torque. It makes it easy to tow a smallish keelboat around the Bay Area.

 

Yeah, Plastic recycling.  ugh.  What a nightmare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hoppy said:

The parents are using her to sell their books after fucking her life by boozing during pregnancy.

You know this how? The boozing during pregnancy I mean.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:

You know this how? The boozing during pregnancy I mean.

Read about FASD, what I posted earlier...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dash34 said:

 

A mechanical engineering degree is a degree in science.   In many universities (the one I went to included) it is called a Bachelor of Science in Engineering.  In fact,that is what my degree says in the title.

I would argue that a mechanical engineer, having taken courses in thermodynamics that virtually all engineering schools require, is as qualified as anyone to discuss the science behind the future health of the heat engine we call Earth.

 

Dash,

As I responded to Squalamax, who said basically the same thing you did, your right.  I also have a BS in engineering.  I don't think that makes me a scientist, just like I don't think my Masters of the Arts in History makes me an Artist.  I think to be a scientist, you need to have studied one of the 3 branches of science (The natural taxonomy of the empirical sciences would break the sciences down into three basic groups: the physical sciences (physics, astronomy, chemistry, geology, metallurgy), the biological sciences (zoology, botany, genetics, paleontology, molecular biology, physiology), and the psychological sciences (psychology, sociology, anthropology, maybe economics) not engineering, though an understanding of science is required for an engineer, and then you have to work in the field, advancing the knowledge of that field.  I never worked as an Engineer or Historian, so I don't get to claim either as my "profession" even though I have a good "understanding" of each of them.  Make sense?

I recognize you may define it differently, and am open to a different interpretation.

Crash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, hoppy said:

Looks like Greta's mummy could have been a bit of a pisshead

 

768353951_WhatsAppImage2019-09-24at22_28_26.thumb.jpeg.e282f7ed0d38c8644cfd94e0a6d20849.jpeg

 

What is Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder?

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) refers to the range of problems caused by prenatal exposure to alcohol (exposure to alcohol during pregnancy).

If a woman drinks alcohol while she is pregnant, the alcohol crosses the placenta from her blood into the baby’s bloodstream and the baby is exposed to similar concentrations of alcohol as the mother.

The effects of alcohol on a fetus include: 

  • harm to the development of the fetal nervous system, including the brain 
  • under-nourishment of the growing baby 
  • in some cases, triggering of changes in the development of the baby’s face, resulting in certain facial features.

Babies severely affected by FASD are at risk of dying before they are born. 

Not all babies exposed to alcohol develop FASD. The risk of harm to the fetus is highest when prenatal exposure to alcohol occurs regularly or due to frequent binge drinking.

 

 

Diagnosis of FASD

An accurate diagnosis of FASD is important. It can help provide appropriate care for the child and prevent FASD happening again in any later pregnancy.

The three main features used to make a diagnosis of FASD are:

  1. significant problems with learning and behaviour
  2. certain facial features that are known to be associated with FASD
  3. a history of prenatal alcohol exposure.

Facial features that may be associated with FASD include:

  • short horizontal length of the eye opening, from the inner corner to the outer corner of the eye
  • a smooth philtrum (the usually ridged area of skin between the upper lip and the nose) 
  • a thin upper lip.

Learning and behavioural problems may include:

  • learning difficulties
  • memory problems
  • impulsiveness
  • limited attention span, ease of distraction or hyperactivity
  • difficulty relating actions to consequences
  • difficulty following instructions (but able to repeat them verbally)
  • difficulty with abstract thinking – such as about mathematics, money or time 
  • slow cognitive processing (thinking)
  • difficulty with social relationships

 

https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtreatments/fetal-alcohol-spectrum-disorder-fasd

 

 

Jesus Hoppy, that's uncalled for.  You should be ashamed of yourself. 

An absolute cunt act.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, hoppy said:

 

00-story-greta.jpg

 

I don't see any of those FAE symptoms you si nefariously pointed to. She has regular lops, a chin, the whatchamacallit above her lip is normal. What on earth you going on abou?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Recidivist said:

Jesus Hoppy, that's uncalled for.  You should be ashamed of yourself. 

An absolute cunt act.

and how is that?

She is bringing up her aspergers, her parents are open about Greta's and her sisters issues. Greta's aspergers is part of her  "super power" and there is a huge correlation between asperger symptoms and FASD.

Understanding she is a victim of FASD actually make me understand her better and make me understand that she is a victim of her mothers neglect during pregnancy and it's clear that they are part of the machine that is using her. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Crash said:

You do know that Bill Nye has an mech engineering degree, worked for Boeing, started doing standup comedy, quit Boeing to focus on his comedy, then got into television, first locally, then with “Bill Nye the Science Guy”

He’s not actually a “scientist” and holds no advanced degrees or degrees in science....

Edit: I’m not saying he’s incorrect, nor that he isn’t knowledgeable on scientific matters...

It's a comedy bit.  Wanker!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2019 at 1:55 PM, Left Shift said:

So with your glib bit of tossed-off snark, you must be feeling mighty proud of yourself.  You are taking a mighty shove at pushing a young girl - who is driven to take a stand about something she deeply believes about our collective future - under a bus driving backwards toward our wasteful past.

Take a look at that picture of Greta Thunberg I posted earlier of a lonesome, young, tiny autistic girl hoping desperately for people to listen to her about the climate science that she wants to be understood.  No she is not a scientist.  No she is not a researcher.  She's just a high school student.

But the scientists and researchers have been trying to get our attention for a couple of decades.  For some reason, her message caught fire.  Rather impossible but in a way magical.

Heck, maybe you are right, maybe she is a saint.  She is exceptional, certainly.

My Sainthood I saw now official. 

How dare anyone question me! 

The science is settled. There will be no more, I repeat NO MORE, contrary opinions tolerated. 

Adherence to the gospel is mandatory. Non believers will be dealt with accordingly. 

  • Like 3
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, hoppy said:

she is a victim of her mothers neglect during pregnancy and it's clear that they are part of the machine that is using her. 

This is not just libel, it's criminal defamation.  You'd better hope you can produce compelling evidence of the truth of these statements, recklessly made for your own aggrandisement on a fucking sailing forum. 

What the fuck are you thinking? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Recidivist said:

This is not just libel, it's criminal defamation.  You'd better hope you can produce compelling evidence of the truth of these statements, recklessly made for your own aggrandisement on a fucking sailing forum. 

What the fuck are you thinking? 

Is that some Australian law? That would never fly in the U.S. "Public figures" have a very high bar to being successful in civil libel cases, and criminal defamation? Australia must not have free speech.

If sarcasm, conjecture is criminal defamation (in the U.S.) I would be shocked.

Oh, but if your last name is ************, in the U.S., you can successfully sue Scott Tempesta for Libel--and win.

 

Intertestng reading:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/aclu-test-case-takes-aim-criminal-defamation-laws/578383/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we have LB continuing to say she has writers behind her speeches when she says she doesn't.  LB says her parents are using her to profit while she says the proceeds from the book are being donated to charity.  LB and Hoppy think she has handlers, when she says she doesn't.  Now, who are we going to believe, anonymous assholes on the internet or a girl who seems genuinely concerned about the future of the planet?  LB and Hoppy, I sincerely hope you live to regret the positions you have taken.

Hoppy has now gone off the deep end, and way off the scale of acceptable discourse, with an accusation of FASD and further accusations against her parents.  Personally I think we ought to get him banned.  But that is just me.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites