India is choking to death - why isnt Greta over there?

[Beanz]

[Beanz]

[Beanz]

Greta and her family is a great example of what you can achieve if you manage to finally do a bit more than tidy your room and build a bigger book shelf


Thunberg’s activism can be claimed to be evidence-based and backed by a number of world-class scientists, well worth a nomination for Nobel Peace Prize [5]. As Thunberg claims, she has done her homework. However, defining exact reduction targets is difficult for scientists but important for politicians.Greta science-based claims 21.2.2019 (full text here [1])
1. ”…by the year 2020 we need to have bended the emissions curve steep downward.”
2. ”According to the IPCC report we are about 11 years away from being in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control.”
3. ”To avoid that unprecedented changes in all aspects of society\, [actions] need to have taken place within this coming decade\, including a reduction of our CO2 emissions by at least 50 % by the year 2030. And please note that those numbers do not include the aspect of equity\, which is absolutely necessary to make the Paris agreement work on a global scale\, nor do they include tipping points or feedback loops like the extremely powerful methane gas released from the thawing Arctic permafrost. They do\, however\, include negative emission techniques on a huge planetary scale that is yet to be invented\, and that many scientists fear will never be ready in time and will anyway be impossible to deliver at the scale assumed.”
4. ”We have been told that the EU intends to improve its emission reduction targets. In the new target\, the EU is proposing to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 45 % below 1990’s level by 2030 [6]. Some people say that is good or that is ambitious. But this new target is still not enough to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius. This target is not sufficient to protect the future for children growing up today. If the EU is to make its fair contribution to staying within the carbon budget for the two-degree limit\, then it means a minimum of 80 % reduction by 2030 and that includes aviation and shipping. So [it is] around twice as ambitious as the current proposal.”
The two independent scientists involved with IPCC were asked to review Greta’s public speech for science-based claims. They are:
Christian Breyer, [7] Professor of Solar Economy, LUT University
“I can clearly approve her Brussels speech from a scientific point of view, every single sentence. Specifically about the fourth claim on 80 % reduction target: this is part of interpretation, but let me explain. The remaining GHG emission budget is rather ’large’, in case we would like to reach the target with a 50 % probability. For a 66 % probability of target reaching the remaining GHG emissions are much lower (more than linear reduction), but to be on the safe side one should go for a 90 % probability to reach the target. The latter implies a very fast and very deep GHG emission reduction, even more drastic than mentioned by Greta. Now the relevant comparison: the Boeing 737 Max 8 is on ground after two strange crashes, but for all passengers in all flights in all of these planes the security had been higher than 99.9 %. This is a very high level of security. Honestly, for surviving on our planet, we should have the same drastic measures, if not more drastic. In other words, to really achieve the 1.5 C target in a very high probability the targets should be even more drastic, i.e. deeper and faster defossilisation than claimed by Greta. Thus the claim is more than fine.”



https://faktabaari.fi/greta-thunberg...ence-homework/

[Beanz]

For people assuming that she is mentally challenged and that they and most people are more informed than Thunberg on climate science - at the 8:49 mark

[Beanz]

“We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings." Ursula K. Le Guinn

[Fatboxingfan]

She is not mentally challenged. The disorders that I mentioned have nothing to do with being mentally challenged. It seems you are challenged though to try to understand the points. And that is that her parents are cruelly exploiting her when she should be in school and when she is already suffering from several disorders. And posting a few Opera YouTube rotter videos 😁 an opera legend she doesn't make.

How is a 16 year old girl not required to be in school?

[Beanz]

She is not mentally challenged. The disorders that I mentioned have nothing to do with being mentally challenged. It seems you are challenged though to try to understand the points. And that is that her parents are cruelly exploiting her when she should be in school and when she is already suffering from several disorders. And posting a few Opera YouTube rotter videos 😁 an opera legend she doesn't make.

How is a 16 year old girl not required to be in school?

You copied and pasted an angry shit flinging diatribe from some American anti-vaccination woman laughing at the suggestion that her mother was an Oprea singer. It doesn't surprise me that a loser like you would mock something that takes that amount of dedication and hard work to achieve.

You have always been a jealous spiteful fucker much like your loser mate Gandalf with you both mistaking your social media posting here and part time ESL jobs with evidence of actually achieving anything.

Most 'normal' parents would be very proud of a daughter that was as engaged and driven as Greta.

The negativity from you lot is beyond pathetic.

[Gandalf]

“We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings." Ursula K. Le Guinn

So what are you saying? You want an end to capitalism?

[Fatboxingfan]

"Any human institution can be overpowered by humans and changed."

🤭🤔🙁.... Gee...... 👩*🎓

How utterly trite, banal, hackneyed, redundant, and altogether MUSTY.

[Gandalf]

“We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings." Ursula K. Le Guinn

So what are you saying? You want an end to capitalism?

I then asked you Beanz if you wanted an end to capitalism. It was a straightforward question considering all you put forth was a quote which was actually nothing to do with the thread unless it is about abolishing capitalism.

[Gandalf]

Greta and her family is a great example of what you can achieve if you manage to finally do a bit more than tidy your room and build a bigger book shelf


Thunberg’s activism can be claimed to be evidence-based and backed by a number of world-class scientists, well worth a nomination for Nobel Peace Prize [5]. As Thunberg claims, she has done her homework. However, defining exact reduction targets is difficult for scientists but important for politicians.Greta science-based claims 21.2.2019 (full text here [1])
1. ”…by the year 2020 we need to have bended the emissions curve steep downward.”
2. ”According to the IPCC report we are about 11 years away from being in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control.”
3. ”To avoid that unprecedented changes in all aspects of society\, [actions] need to have taken place within this coming decade\, including a reduction of our CO2 emissions by at least 50 % by the year 2030. And please note that those numbers do not include the aspect of equity\, which is absolutely necessary to make the Paris agreement work on a global scale\, nor do they include tipping points or feedback loops like the extremely powerful methane gas released from the thawing Arctic permafrost. They do\, however\, include negative emission techniques on a huge planetary scale that is yet to be invented\, and that many scientists fear will never be ready in time and will anyway be impossible to deliver at the scale assumed.”
4. ”We have been told that the EU intends to improve its emission reduction targets. In the new target\, the EU is proposing to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 45 % below 1990’s level by 2030 [6]. Some people say that is good or that is ambitious. But this new target is still not enough to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius. This target is not sufficient to protect the future for children growing up today. If the EU is to make its fair contribution to staying within the carbon budget for the two-degree limit\, then it means a minimum of 80 % reduction by 2030 and that includes aviation and shipping. So [it is] around twice as ambitious as the current proposal.”
The two independent scientists involved with IPCC were asked to review Greta’s public speech for science-based claims. They are:
Christian Breyer, [7] Professor of Solar Economy, LUT University
“I can clearly approve her Brussels speech from a scientific point of view, every single sentence. Specifically about the fourth claim on 80 % reduction target: this is part of interpretation, but let me explain. The remaining GHG emission budget is rather ’large’, in case we would like to reach the target with a 50 % probability. For a 66 % probability of target reaching the remaining GHG emissions are much lower (more than linear reduction), but to be on the safe side one should go for a 90 % probability to reach the target. The latter implies a very fast and very deep GHG emission reduction, even more drastic than mentioned by Greta. Now the relevant comparison: the Boeing 737 Max 8 is on ground after two strange crashes, but for all passengers in all flights in all of these planes the security had been higher than 99.9 %. This is a very high level of security. Honestly, for surviving on our planet, we should have the same drastic measures, if not more drastic. In other words, to really achieve the 1.5 C target in a very high probability the targets should be even more drastic, i.e. deeper and faster defossilisation than claimed by Greta. Thus the claim is more than fine.”



https://faktabaari.fi/greta-thunberg...ence-homework/

How man times will you tell someone that Greta has achieved more than them? What does that even mean? Many people here have more money, more experience, more parenting, more all kinds of things than she does and none of it makes anyone more successful. It is all relative. Justin Bieber is more 'successful' than Jason Lytle, but it just means more people know who he is is. It doesn't say anything more than that someone has been marketed more than the other. I happen to think anyone who is able to educate themselves, or improve in some way and make a go of it has done pretty well, so you do come across as a bit hostile to the white male audience here in that regard.

Not all of us were like you and Greta born to great Professors and with herbal experts as step mothers or a plethora of journalist and Professor siblings. That isn't most people, you know. Or in her case her own pampered upbringing. She is more akin to Trump in that regard than any of us on here. She has been privileged and entitled. Some really are born to shitty people and that they overcome that is far more impressive than a spoiled, mentally ill girl throwing a Violet at the world because she has an obsession and a marketing team able to exploit a) youth b) vulnerability in the form of mental illness.

If someone offered any of us the chance to sail across the Atlantic and have a few minutes to rant, we would take it in a heartbeat. It isn't that great an achievement.

Also, your posting of opera videos, constant white knighting etc, comes across as really, really cringey and just a little bit creepy.

[Gandalf]

Greta and her family is a great example of what you can achieve if you manage to finally do a bit more than tidy your room and build a bigger book shelf


Thunberg’s activism can be claimed to be evidence-based and backed by a number of world-class scientists, well worth a nomination for Nobel Peace Prize [5]. As Thunberg claims, she has done her homework. However, defining exact reduction targets is difficult for scientists but important for politicians.Greta science-based claims 21.2.2019 (full text here [1])
1. ”…by the year 2020 we need to have bended the emissions curve steep downward.”
2. ”According to the IPCC report we are about 11 years away from being in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control.”
3. ”To avoid that unprecedented changes in all aspects of society\, [actions] need to have taken place within this coming decade\, including a reduction of our CO2 emissions by at least 50 % by the year 2030. And please note that those numbers do not include the aspect of equity\, which is absolutely necessary to make the Paris agreement work on a global scale\, nor do they include tipping points or feedback loops like the extremely powerful methane gas released from the thawing Arctic permafrost. They do\, however\, include negative emission techniques on a huge planetary scale that is yet to be invented\, and that many scientists fear will never be ready in time and will anyway be impossible to deliver at the scale assumed.”
4. ”We have been told that the EU intends to improve its emission reduction targets. In the new target\, the EU is proposing to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 45 % below 1990’s level by 2030 [6]. Some people say that is good or that is ambitious. But this new target is still not enough to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius. This target is not sufficient to protect the future for children growing up today. If the EU is to make its fair contribution to staying within the carbon budget for the two-degree limit\, then it means a minimum of 80 % reduction by 2030 and that includes aviation and shipping. So [it is] around twice as ambitious as the current proposal.”
The two independent scientists involved with IPCC were asked to review Greta’s public speech for science-based claims. They are:
Christian Breyer, [7] Professor of Solar Economy, LUT University
“I can clearly approve her Brussels speech from a scientific point of view, every single sentence. Specifically about the fourth claim on 80 % reduction target: this is part of interpretation, but let me explain. The remaining GHG emission budget is rather ’large’, in case we would like to reach the target with a 50 % probability. For a 66 % probability of target reaching the remaining GHG emissions are much lower (more than linear reduction), but to be on the safe side one should go for a 90 % probability to reach the target. The latter implies a very fast and very deep GHG emission reduction, even more drastic than mentioned by Greta. Now the relevant comparison: the Boeing 737 Max 8 is on ground after two strange crashes, but for all passengers in all flights in all of these planes the security had been higher than 99.9 %. This is a very high level of security. Honestly, for surviving on our planet, we should have the same drastic measures, if not more drastic. In other words, to really achieve the 1.5 C target in a very high probability the targets should be even more drastic, i.e. deeper and faster defossilisation than claimed by Greta. Thus the claim is more than fine.”



https://faktabaari.fi/greta-thunberg...ence-homework/

How man times will you tell someone that Greta has achieved more than them? What does that even mean? Many people here have more money, more experience, more parenting, more all kinds of things than she does and none of it makes anyone more successful. It is all relative. Justin Bieber is more 'successful' than Jason Lytle, but it just means more people know who he is is. It doesn't say anything more than that someone has been marketed more than the other. I happen to think anyone who is able to educate themselves, or improve in some way and make a go of it has done pretty well, so you do come across as a bit hostile to the white male audience here in that regard.

Not all of us were like you and Greta born to great Professors and with herbal experts as step mothers or a plethora of journalist and Professor siblings. That isn't most people, you know. Or in her case her own pampered upbringing. She is more akin to Trump in that regard than any of us on here. She has been privileged and entitled. Some really are born to shitty people and that they overcome that is far more impressive than a spoiled, mentally ill girl throwing a Violet at the world because she has an obsession and a marketing team able to exploit a) youth b) vulnerability in the form of mental illness.

If someone offered any of us the chance to sail across the Atlantic and have a few minutes to rant, we would take it in a heartbeat. It isn't that great an achievement.

Also, your posting of opera videos, constant white knighting etc, comes across as really, really cringey and just a little bit creepy.

This was my first meaningful post in the thread. And what I was doing was standing up for genuinely oppressed children.

[Fenster]

Greta and her family is a great example of what you can achieve if you manage to finally do a bit more than tidy your room and build a bigger book shelf

Like Trump. Who would have thought a man born into such hardship would become so powerful. How inspirational.

[Gandalf]

If any of you would like to get a fund together to fund my trip over the Atlantic on a raft in order to meet my friend Walrus whereupon we go on a roadtrip in order to tell everyone we come across who is heavy to 'Do a little bit more walking' whilst offering them a barbecued maggot 'for the future' I will be grateful. I will happily do this and hire Brock as my film crew and we will even make sporadic treks into the suburbs to lecture those people too and ask them probing questions like 'What is your IQ?' and 'Has plastic lowered your sperm count?'

We will only need a 2 million dollar raft and 7 million dollars in expenses. Let's achieve as much in our lives as Greta. Come on guys, 9 million dollars and you get drama and revolution.