Discussion in 'News and Current Affairs' started by PeteXXX, 15 Aug 2019 at 10:34.
Greta sets sail to America. Pointless mission, or a good thing?
~Greta's voyage ~
Page not found when I followed the link ?
As I'm not able to read the the article I'll ofeer up my uninformed opinion. I'm not sure what winds people up more about Greta Thunberg - the fact she is young, female or foreign.
From what I have heard about her trip it does sound a bit like an effort to grab column inches. But why not - whilst we still have a climate change denier in the White House, all column inches drawing attention to the crisis are good.
The chances are she won't change anything by herself , we all need to do our own bit to try and save the planet
one of bits i do is picking up litter that can be recycled and putting it in my own recycling bin rather than leaving it laying around
On the same note, has anyone tried that Co2 calculator on the BBC News website
I was quite shocked how much my love of beer and cheese contributes per year
@rugby bloke and all..
Link edited to Sky News.. BBC link won't work.
I agree with her sentiments on meeting Trump
he'll probably offer a "wallypop" and send her on her way
A great thing.
As an aside, what an experience for a young girl.
The article gives the impression that this was a solo journey. Quite common, even amongst teenagers.
But in fact her father and cameraman are making up a 3 man crew.
It does appear to be more of a self serving trip than anything else.
Marketing stunt. Lots of carbon went into that rather flashy 60ft racing yacht.
Travel in a royal family's posh boat, or cattle class on a plane... Hmmmmm. Bob all to do with climate.
This girl does appear to practice what she preaches and her high profile story puts her in direct contrast with people like Meghan and Harry hopefully shutting them up.
I saw Andrew took a private jet to holiday in Spain which really made me mad but unfortunately people like this have no shame.
Why self serving?
Anything that highlights the effect of humans on the earth's climate problems is a good thing. She has managed to generate huge media interest and she is managing to (in modern PR parlance) "control the agenda"
I've put her in the same pile as that woman who won GBBO. She's probably a good thing but I'm sick of hearing about her
I know what response to expect to this, but I will say it anyway.
I see absolutely no reason to be believe that she knows what she is talking about, instead she is acting on mass media headlines.
Nearly all of my working life I have been a computer programmer including a period working in the water industry which was very heavily into weather simulation, they wanted to keep the reservoirs full. :-)
It is now almost heresy to say that man made global warming is not a certainty.
Yet almost everybody who says that man made climate change deniers are stupid, thick, idiotic etc have never read and do not have a clue about the research that underlies the issue.
How many people here have read even the summary of the summaries and feel that they understand the research and the limitations and caveats?
Once you simplify the issue down to
1) Man's technology emits lots of Carbon Dioxide.
2) Carbon Dioxide is like glass in a green house, it makes the air hotter
then it becomes a pointless discussion.
A very simple answer might be that more heat trapped means more evaporation from the seas which means more clouds so more reflected sunlight giving a new steady state with an unchanged average temperature but more water and less ice.
You can't refute the above paragraph without a very detailed level of understanding of the subject and your own experience tells you that cloudier nights are hotter that clear ones.
Yet it is fine to say that the models are predicting the climate for the next 50 years using a model that can't predict rainfall and by implication plant life but this doesn't matter as rainfall averages out over a year or two.
By the way we are predicting massive changes to temperature and rainfall patterns, oh no we aren't predicting any rainfall pattern changes because we have assumed that they will remain the same as they change.
If plant life changes massively as a result of the change in rainfall don't worry we have assumed that this will have no effect on the climate.
It is a fact that climate modellers do not have the technology to do what they want to do, to get results they simplify as this is all they can do. They publish results with explanations and caveats but these get ignored.
Although I am reducing the argument to an absurd level of simplicity imagine there were just two weather models and they gave you this result for the average temperature for the next ten years.
Data Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
Model 1 12.0 12.2 12.4 12.7 12.9 13.1 13.4 13.6 13.8 14.1
Reality 12.0 12.2 12.3 12.5 12.7 12.9 13.0 13.2 13.4 13.6
Model 2 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.9 13.0 13.1
The orange line is reality and the blue and grey lines are the models.
It is easy to say that the reality is within the range predicted by the models and as statement that is true.
It is also true to say that as both models are wrong the range between their wrong predictions has no useful meaning.
I know that I am not going to convince many people. :-)
Whether you agree with her or not (and I do wholeheartedly) it is quite amusing watching all the gammony middle aged men getting themselves into frothing hissy fits about her. She's right, and deep down they know it.
Edit- if that Arron Banks tweet Ian posted above is for real, then that's beyond despicable.
Separate names with a comma.