I fully support Greta in being able to advocate for what she believes in. I have no doubt she passionately believes in her message and it is a selfless cause to her. My daughters think she is fantastic and I do nothing to dispel those thoughts. All kudos to her.
I also believe that less honourable persons with their own agendas would use her shamelessly given an opportunity. Which I am sure her parents are cognizant of, and I hope they are zealously protecting her from ill-intentioned advisors.
But do I listen to her message? No chance.
That is not because I am a climate change denier, it's because she is 16.
I don't profess to be an Einstein, but as a mature and responsible member of humanity if I can not undertake my own research and do my own due diligence, then it's time for the back paddock for me.
If we are so uneducated and lazy that we need to source our intel from a 16yr old teenager that has not one shred more real world experience other than diligent research, well then frankly climate change is the least of our worries.
Select to expand quotehoop said..
So Greta has an adviser . How is that a bad thing?
Do you expect a 16 year old girl to do absolutely everything on her own ?
You will have to watch a video of Greta speaking at a press conference when Neubauer is not present. I don't think the word adviser really suits.
I personally love big jet planes, tonight at sunset I spotted these guys doing some cool heading changes and the black stuff that falls over all the rich mans nicely polished boats creates even more employment from them.??
Select to expand quoteshaggybaxter said..
I fully support Greta in being able to advocate for what she believes in. I have no doubt she passionately believes in her message and it is a selfless cause to her. My daughters think she is fantastic and I do nothing to dispel those thoughts. All kudos to her.
I also believe that less honourable persons with their own agendas would use her shamelessly given an opportunity. Which I am sure her parents are cognizant of, and I hope they are zealously protecting her from ill-intentioned advisors.
But do I listen to her message? No chance.
That is not because I am a climate change denier, it's because she is 16.
I don't profess to be an Einstein, but as a mature and responsible member of humanity if I can not undertake my own research and do my own due diligence, then it's time for the back paddock for me.
If we are so uneducated and lazy that we need to source our intel from a 16yr old teenager that has not one shred more real world experience other than diligent research, well then frankly climate change is the least of our worries.
Sorry shaggy, with respect, you're missing the point - all Greta is saying is "listen to the scientists". She doesn't offer solutions, because like most people, the technicalities of Climate Change is beyond her.
The science involved in Climate Change is extremely complex, and I have no doubt anyone with less than degree level science, including physics, chemistry, mathematics, hydraulics, thermodynamics, etc, wouldn't have a hope of understanding the the dynamics of Climate Change.
This is not to disparage those who do not have this level of training - it's just a simple fact, Climate Change is very complicated.
Even as a professional Engineer with over 40 years of working continuously with engineers and scientists from a wide range of disciplines, on a wide range of projects, I certainly can't claim to have a comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of Climate Change.
It's complicated, so my advice is simple - listen to the creditable scientists. The creditable ones, not the conspiracy theorists.
Most of us remember the so called "scientists" recruited by Big Tobacco to prove that smoking didn't cause cancer - we know how that turned out.
Unfortunately the same thing is happening now - except the so called "scientists" are recruited by vested interests such as Big Coal, Big Oil, Big Palm Oil, and Governments whose economy is dependent on these activities.
Climate Change is real and happening now, either believe what the the creditable scientists are telling you, or wait until it's effects are so obvious that the fact is no longer deniable.
best regards,
Allan
Select to expand quoteDatawiz said..shaggybaxter said..
I fully support Greta in being able to advocate for what she believes in. I have no doubt she passionately believes in her message and it is a selfless cause to her. My daughters think she is fantastic and I do nothing to dispel those thoughts. All kudos to her.
I also believe that less honourable persons with their own agendas would use her shamelessly given an opportunity. Which I am sure her parents are cognizant of, and I hope they are zealously protecting her from ill-intentioned advisors.
But do I listen to her message? No chance.
That is not because I am a climate change denier, it's because she is 16.
I don't profess to be an Einstein, but as a mature and responsible member of humanity if I can not undertake my own research and do my own due diligence, then it's time for the back paddock for me.
If we are so uneducated and lazy that we need to source our intel from a 16yr old teenager that has not one shred more real world experience other than diligent research, well then frankly climate change is the least of our worries.
Sorry shaggy, with respect, you're missing the point - all Greta is saying is "listen to the scientists". She doesn't offer solutions, because like most people, the technicalities of Climate Change is beyond her.
The science involved in Climate Change is extremely complex, and I have no doubt anyone with less than degree level science, including physics, chemistry, mathematics, hydraulics, thermodynamics, etc, wouldn't have a hope of understanding the the dynamics of Climate Change.
This is not to disparage those who do not have this level of training - it's just a simple fact, Climate Change is very complicated.
Even as a professional Engineer with over 40 years of working continuously with engineers and scientists from a wide range of disciplines, on a wide range of projects, I certainly can't claim to have a comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of Climate Change.
It's complicated, so my advice is simple - listen to the creditable scientists. The creditable ones, not the conspiracy theorists.
Most of us remember the so called "scientists" recruited by Big Tobacco to prove that smoking didn't cause cancer - we know how that turned out.
Unfortunately the same thing is happening now - except the so called "scientists" are recruited by vested interests such as Big Coal, Big Oil, Big Palm Oil, and Governments whose economy is dependent on these activities.
Climate Change is real and happening now, either believe what the the creditable scientists are telling you, or wait until it's effects are so obvious that the fact is no longer deniable.
best regards,
Allan
Well said and I agree with you Allan,
I do get the point.
She is simply not a source I would think to turn to for information.
Cheers,
SB
Edit: my environmental radar is more aligned to our rapidly forming new continent of plastic that humanity is gifting our oceans. That one is on all of us.
Select to expand quoteDatawiz said..shaggybaxter said..
I fully support Greta in being able to advocate for what she believes in. I have no doubt she passionately believes in her message and it is a selfless cause to her. My daughters think she is fantastic and I do nothing to dispel those thoughts. All kudos to her.
I also believe that less honourable persons with their own agendas would use her shamelessly given an opportunity. Which I am sure her parents are cognizant of, and I hope they are zealously protecting her from ill-intentioned advisors.
But do I listen to her message? No chance.
That is not because I am a climate change denier, it's because she is 16.
I don't profess to be an Einstein, but as a mature and responsible member of humanity if I can not undertake my own research and do my own due diligence, then it's time for the back paddock for me.
If we are so uneducated and lazy that we need to source our intel from a 16yr old teenager that has not one shred more real world experience other than diligent research, well then frankly climate change is the least of our worries.
Sorry shaggy, with respect, you're missing the point - all Greta is saying is "listen to the scientists". She doesn't offer solutions, because like most people, the technicalities of Climate Change is beyond her.
The science involved in Climate Change is extremely complex, and I have no doubt anyone with less than degree level science, including physics, chemistry, mathematics, hydraulics, thermodynamics, etc, wouldn't have a hope of understanding the the dynamics of Climate Change.
This is not to disparage those who do not have this level of training - it's just a simple fact, Climate Change is very complicated.
Even as a professional Engineer with over 40 years of working continuously with engineers and scientists from a wide range of disciplines, on a wide range of projects, I certainly can't claim to have a comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of Climate Change.
It's complicated, so my advice is simple - listen to the creditable scientists. The creditable ones, not the conspiracy theorists.
Most of us remember the so called "scientists" recruited by Big Tobacco to prove that smoking didn't cause cancer - we know how that turned out.
Unfortunately the same thing is happening now - except the so called "scientists" are recruited by vested interests such as Big Coal, Big Oil, Big Palm Oil, and Governments whose economy is dependent on these activities.
Climate Change is real and happening now, either believe what the the creditable scientists are telling you, or wait until it's effects are so obvious that the fact is no longer deniable.
best regards,
Allan
Like the creditable scientists who screamed about global cooling in the 70s, or the nuclear winter in the 50s and 60s, or the Y2K wipeout of civilisation in 1999.
There are a very lot of people who are creditable but totally wrong.
The primary indicator of the global warming catastrophe is rising sea levels. There is no creditable evidence of an increased rate of change of sea levels over the last decades. Sydney tide charts, taken from a pole in the water at Fort Denison which can't be manipulated, show this clearly. The argument that sea levels can increase in other locations and not be reflected in Sydney cannot be sustained over time. Water has a great capacity to level out over time.www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_60370_SLI.pdf
There is a cogent case that there is no physical evidence for human caused global warming. Lots of computer models but no evidence.
However, let's accept it may be possible. What is the answer. The creditable scientists largely agree that we will not reduce CO2 emmissions anywhere near enough to make a difference.
But this is the only solution of the activists. Why? Why not actions to deal with the effects of temperature changes? Because it doesn't suit there agenda.
A lot of rational people including lots of creditable scientists argue that the agenda has nothing to do with the environment but rather with the wealth distribution agenda of the UN and others.
I write this post because this is a sailing forum and the posts here are opinions on something totally unrelated to sailing and there are many different opinions.
Get back to sailing.
Select to expand quotehoop said..
I do find it funny however that Guys like Cisco and bananabender feel so threatened by a 16 year old girl.
Poor hoop.
You just don't get it do you?
You follow me around from one forum to the other in order to level criticism without putting your own opinion forward.
I genuinely feel sorry for you in that you allow me to control your on line life.
You criticse who you think are "old guys".
What is your age and education level?
Do you have a wife and children?
Do you own a yacht?
If not why are you commenting in this section of the Seabreeze Forum?
BTW. I do not feel threatened by a 16 year old girl. She is just a mouth piece for the far left/greenies that are controlling her.
She knows nothing of import. The only thing she knows how to do is read a script from those that are feeding her.
Select to expand quoteshaggybaxter said..
I fully support Greta in being able to advocate for what she believes in.
I have no doubt she passionately believes in her message and it is a selfless cause to her. My daughters think she is fantastic and I do nothing to dispel those thoughts. All kudos to her.
I believe you need to look deeper into the agenda her backers are using her for and advise your daughtes to do the same.
I do not discredit the voice of youth as long as they KNOW what they are talking about.
Unfortunately in this day and age emotions and passions get more cred than facts.
When Greta was asked the question "If there was a scientific solution to the problem of "climate change" would that be acceptable.
She could not or would not answer because her (handlers) agenda is political.
What the far left/greens are trying to effect is the largest transfer of wealth in history by compensating third world countries for alleged climate change effects caused by first world countries modernising the world.
Select to expand quote
shaggybaxter said
Edit: my environmental radar is more aligned to our rapidly forming new continent of plastic that humanity is gifting our oceans. That one is on all of us.
Forget about the climate change hokus pokus.
The world is choking on plastic.
Select to expand quotesouthace said..
I personally love big jet planes, tonight at sunset I spotted these guys doing some cool heading changes and the black stuff that falls over all the rich mans nicely polished boats creates even more employment from them.??
Do you realise that these are chemtrails? They are released by the governments of first world to suppress sea levels in localised areas so that the impacts of climate change are hidden from the populace. 
All Cisco is saying is listen to the youth if Australia
For Cisco the youth of Australia are represented by George Christenson 
Select to expand quoteMorningBird said..
Like the creditable scientists who screamed about global cooling in the 70s, or the nuclear winter in the 50s and 60s, or the Y2K wipeout of civilisation in 1999.
There are a very lot of people who are creditable but totally wrong.
this is a straw man argument. you could use exactly the same argument to support anti-vaxxers.
and actually the Y2K bug was a big deal. it didn't turn out to be hugely disruptive because it was dealt with proactively and billions of dollars were spent on remediating vulnerable computer systems.
and the world did reach a very scary place in geopolitical terms once massive batteries of nuclear weapons were built, capable of obliterating life as we know it.
i think it would be more helpful if people provided some kind of evidence for their arguments as a lot of this discussion is emotive left-right ping pong and is a distraction from the impacts of climate change itself. a tendency to become mired in black-and-white thinking is one of the weaknesses of our not-so-fancy monkey mind.
www.popsci.com/xkcd-earth-average-temperature-timeline/
I agree with MB but just for interest how many people can the earth sustain and when will it be reached anyway. Currently just under 8b.
edit: sorry it's a Dorothy Dixer , I'd be more worried about that and what action will be taken by countries but I'm beyond it thesedays.
Select to expand quotesouthace said..
I personally love big jet planes, tonight at sunset I spotted these guys doing some cool heading changes and the black stuff that falls over all the rich mans nicely polished boats creates even more employment from them.??
You cant but marvel at the magnificence of them , They look great on a clear moonlit night.
Select to expand quoteBananabender said..
... just for interest how many people can the earth sustain and when will it be reached anyway. Currently just under 8b.
Depends on technology, quality of soil, water and many factors, people first started crying too many people in the 1800's when the population reached 1 billion. Then fertilisers were mass produced and the question disappeared for a bit.
Personally I don't like the blame the number of people argument because:
1: Your impact on the world is not pre-determined, your daily choices make the difference between a first world nation person using 20 times the energy of a second or third world person (not that energy is the sum total of environmental impact but it is important).
2: There really isn't any great moral solution to the problem...
3: We are on the cusp of the 3rd industrial revolution and there is a very real possibility of machines making machines to work fields, killing off the model of 1 crop farming with high pesticide usage and having massive gains in productivity.
Select to expand quotecisco said..
hoop will be along soon to tell us all what out of date fools we are.
No, perish the thought.
congratulations on realising the world is choking on plastic though.
Its strange that you can't put it all together, to understand that there needs to be some massive changes made NOW.
The plastic problem is one major issue. Climate change is another major issue.
You don't seem to understand how it's all linked to become one major global issue.
The planet is a living entity in a living solar system in a living galaxy ( anything moving is 'alive' ) So does anyone
think there's the possibility that the warming is the opposite end of the spectrum to the Ice Age. Whatever made
the planet cool down is the same force that's making it heat up. It's just the planet's ' livingness '. Just as you and I go
through changes in our physicality....so does planet Earth.
Select to expand quotesamsturdy said..
The planet is a living entity in a living solar system in a living galaxy ( anything moving is 'alive' ) So does anyone
think there's the possibility that the warming is the opposite end of the spectrum to the Ice Age. Whatever made
the planet cool down is the same force that's making it heat up. It's just the planet's ' livingness '. Just as you and I go
through changes in our physicality....so does planet Earth.
So do you think there is nothing that can be measured or understood in the process?
Is the universe so technologically advanced a thing that it appears magic to us, well yes and no IMO. It certainly did in the past and there are still many things we don't understand but as an entity who is alive only because of our advancing understanding of science I tend to disagree that it is beyond our capability to map and measure.
If you believe in the accuracy of instruments and our capacity to model data then the planet is currently warming ~10 times faster than the warming after the last ice age. As noted above that modelling is a very complex science which is not my field so I defer to those many whom it is.
To continue anthropomorphising the planet you would go to the doctor if you were having a hot flush :) :)
I guess what I'm saying is that the forces contained within the planets livingness are far greater than we humans
really understand. Yes, we can 'measure' things but can't control them, the planet coughs and sneezes just as we do and
if you are in the locality.... look out.' As the microcosm so the macrocosm '.
Select to expand quotesamsturdy said..
I guess what I'm saying is that the forces contained within the planets livingness are far greater than we humans
really understand. Yes, we can 'measure' things but can't control them, the planet coughs and sneezes just as we do and
if you are in the locality.... look out.' As the microcosm so the macrocosm '.
...over to you sparau....all yours...
For those Climate Change doubters, here's a link to the 2019 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5?C" compiled and submitted to the Panel by more than a hundred scientists (all of whom are listed within the report).
This is the report that is the basis of the current IPCC discussions in Madrid.
So, why not download it, sit back and read and digest the whole 630 pages.
Then you'll be well armed to present your contrary propositions to the scientist's conclusions - using of course, the data they based their conclusions on.
Should you wish to propose the data they used is false or unreliable, or their experimental method is faulty, then you should present your reasoned arguments to substantiate that claim.
Alternatively, one could simply accept what the scientists are telling us - which is all that Greta is saying.
www.ipcc.ch/sr15/download/
regards to all,
Allan
+1 Allan.
And yes, I'm out of the naughty corner, and have been sitting back watching which side you are all on. Very interesting. Frankly, I'm a bit shocked! Yes, MB, this is a sailing forum; and no I will not be silent about the most important matter to ever confront the modern world.
If any of you have watched Greta's first major speech in Sweden, you would not be blaming her current handlers. Sure, now there is a bit of theatre, but that's nothing compared to what I'm planning!
Select to expand quotesaintpeter said..
+1 Allan.
And yes, I'm out of the naughty corner, and have been sitting back watching which side you are all on. Very interesting. Frankly, I'm a bit shocked! Yes, MB, this is a sailing forum; and no I will not be silent about the most important matter to ever confront the modern world.
If any of you have watched Greta's first major speech in Sweden, you would not be blaming her current handlers. Sure, now there is a bit of theatre, but that's nothing compared to what I'm planning!
Well take it to the heavy weather forum. Please
Select to expand quote
samsturdy said..
Yes, we can 'measure' things but can't control them
There are 1 billion cars in the world, for some ball park feel of how we might be able to change the climate please see if my quick rough math is right.
earth square kms including oceans 510 million so roughly 2 cars per square km for the entire planet.
car 2 litre @ 3000 rpm 60 minutes = 180,000 litres or 180 cubic metres
3000 * 2 * 0.5 (4 stroke so only intakes every 2nd cycle) * 60
Ok, so that is how much air goes through it but what does it do to it?
Just in CO2 emissions:
Let just say 10 litres of fuel for that one hour = 23,000 grams of CO2 emissions.
total air volume = 180,000 litres = 216,000 grams
So ppm by weight of CO2 added would be
(23,000 / 216,000 = 0.106) * 1,000,000 = 106,000 parts per million
At 5,000 ppm CO2 will asphyxiate an O2 loving organism, at 1,000 ppm studies have shown that mental acuity is affected negatively.
Plants love CO2 but how long does it take you to grow 23 kg of plant in your garden?? The woodier the better as it takes longer for the CO2 to be released by bacteria, bonus points if you encapsulate it in resin and dynel and float around in it indefinitely...
Possibly one contention as to the why of "we can't change the climate" may have to do with the size of everything.
i.e. the belief there is so much air and water.
If the earth were the size of a billiard ball it would be smoother. What we perceive as a mountain, say Everest is nothing in the scale of the planet, yet on Everest most people would asphyxiate due to there being only ~50% the air density at a mere ~8km.
Here is a graphic showing ALL the Earth's water, oceans, fresh and in the atmosphere relative to the planet. Yes it will absorb many tons of CO2 but not without change and subsequent cost.
LOL, I just looked at my post and the image of the Earth, (like always) is enhanced to make it look like there are vast vertical distances.
However if you look at the outside edge you see it is a smooth ball (ish) shape.
And wow, just looked it up and on Everest the air density is only ~35% of sea level...
Select to expand quoteBananabender said..saintpeter said..
+1 Allan.
And yes, I'm out of the naughty corner, and have been sitting back watching which side you are all on. Very interesting. Frankly, I'm a bit shocked! Yes, MB, this is a sailing forum; and no I will not be silent about the most important matter to ever confront the modern world.
If any of you have watched Greta's first major speech in Sweden, you would not be blaming her current handlers. Sure, now there is a bit of theatre, but that's nothing compared to what I'm planning!
Well take it to the heavy weather forum. Please
With respect BB, the topic title is "Greta Thunberg hitches a ride with La Vagabond" which was accepted by the moderator, and has attracted a large number of contributions.
Given that it's entirely optional for members to read or submit contributions, I can't see why the topic should be moved to another forum.
regards,
Allan
Sunset through the smoke at Bundeena
