MVC adopts emergency climate resolutions

Decision comes after talk by noted physicist on climate change.

Physicist Philip Duffy, president and executive director of the Woods Hole Research Center, gave a talk about climate change data and realities Thursday night at the Katharine Cornell Theater. Before a full house, Duffy, who came at the invitation of the Martha’s Vineyard Commission, said the world is past the tipping point.

If the world had “instantaneously and completely stopped greenhouse emissions in 2010,” Duffy said, which he likened to turning off a spigot, data shows “the global temperature fails to drop significantly for at least 300 years.” In other words, Duffy said, “climate change doesn’t fix itself.” To this he added, “it doesn’t get better; it only gets worse.” Therefore, he said, “wait and see” policymaking is “not a good idea.”

The MVC held a meeting in the theater following Duffy’s talk. And after commissioners posed a few questions to Duffy, chairman Doug Sederholm read into the record a set of emergency climate resolutions.

The resolutions stated in part that the MVC would craft a “framework” for augmenting the development of regional impact process so as “to reduce the detrimental impacts of the climate crisis on the Island and to secure the benefits of policies designed to minimize those impacts — to the intent of protecting the Island values, its people, economy and environment…” The MVC would further resolve to support a nonbinding resolution put forth by Vineyard energy committees at annual town meetings to end Island fossil fuel use by 2040. Last, the MVC would resolve to draft a master plan to guide an adaptation process toward better resiliency on the Vineyard as the climate changes the Island. 

The commissioners voted 13-0, with two abstentions, to adopt the resolutions. Clarence (“Trip”) Barnes was one of the two commissioners who declined to vote. Barnes did not seem unsold on climate change, however. He previously told Duffy one sign of climate change on the Vineyard was the lack of ice in Vineyard Haven Harbor in recent years. In the 1960s, Barnes noted, the harbor would freeze over completely. After the vote, Barnes said his abstention was due to the swiftness of the vote. He said he did not have time to review what the commission aimed to adopt before it adopted it. The other abstaining vote was was commissioner James Joyce. He did not publicly qualify his abstention. Reached the next day, Joyce said, as a commissioner appointed by the Edgartown board of selectmen, he prefers to check in with town officials and townspeople prior to committing to a position, and he didn’t have that opportunity ahead of the vote. “This was definitely rushed through,” he said. 

During his presentation, Duffy pointed to the ice sheets over Greenland and Antarctica. “Those ice sheets are more sensitive to warming than we thought,” he said. Should the global baseline temperature elevate two degrees, the Greenland ice sheet will be on an irreversible melting timetable. In such a scenario, “we will be committing our descendants to 20 to 25 feet of sea level rise,” he said. 

Duffy noted that significant amounts of greenhouse gases are now seeping into the atmosphere from thawing permafrost in the Eurasian and North American Arctic. The latest information on the subject came in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration annual Arctic report card, which Duffy said was “in large part” based on work done by Woods Hole Research Group scientists. Duffy described the thaw of Arctic permafrost, and the methane and carbon dioxide released by it, as an “ominous threshold that we have crossed.”

Duffy later told The Times another danger from thawing permafrost is the release of frozen pathogens. Not so long ago, he said, anthrax was released that way in Russia, triggering an outbreak.

Climate change is definitely transforming hurricanes, Duffy told the audience — “all of the science of climate change points to stronger hurricanes.”

Data shows hurricanes of “high intensity” with “rapid intensification” as a new reality. And with such rapid intensification, he said, forecasting becomes more difficult, and as a result, “emergency response [becomes] more challenging than it already is.”

Hurricanes are anticipated to produce “more extreme precipitation,” he said, and “these hurricanes have a tendency to stall” or “almost stop,” which he described as “enormously consequential.” He cited Hurricane Harvey, which did so and inundated Houston with rain.

Extreme heat in parts of the world will make outside work perilous and largely undoable, he pointed out, with India being the poster child for such high temperatures. 

Duffy used a bathtub model to show what the carbon situation looked like. While there was no stopping the warming trend now that it’s passed the point it has, he said, the global community can take efforts not to exacerbate it, and essentially shut off the tub spigot. The global community can also make efforts to remove carbon, and essentially drain the tub, he said. 

“Really drastic reductions in emissions,” he said, starting immediately, would lead to negative emissions by about 2050; however, the only truly viable technology on the table presently to remove carbon was land management, specifically of forests, wetlands, and agriculture. 

“In theory, if you do that, you can remove an awful lot of carbon,” he said, but it would take “an awful lot of work by an awful lot of people,” he said, plus “the commitment of land for that purpose. It means you have to preserve large areas of standing forest. It means you have to convince most of the 2 billion people in the world who practice agriculture to do it in a way that pulls carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. So it’s a challenge.”

Duffy said there are carbon-removing devices, which he referred to as vacuum cleaners, but he described them as “expensive” and dependent on “a lot of energy,” and not proven to work at the scale needed to be impactful. 

84 COMMENTS

  1. MVC votes 13-0 to end freedom by 2040
    (PATRIOTS ALWAYS CHOOSE FREEDOM OVER TYRANNY and COMMUNISTS ALWAYS CHOOSE TYRANNY OVER FREEDOM)

    • myob — are there no “patriots” in communist countries ?
      Your statement seems to be contradictory, patently false and seemingly intended to create partisan divisiveness. But perhaps you just misunderstand what a “patriot” is …. Definition of patriot:
      “one who loves and supports his or her country ”
      https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patriot
      So, If someone is living in a communist country, and they love their country , then by your statement, They would be a communist who would choose freedom over tyranny. But that can’t possibly be. Or perhaps it can ?
      You have to be careful when using the word “always”

        • myob– Sorry, I can’t take too much Soviet era style propaganda designed to indoctrinate children.
          I tried —
          But, I guess that if I watched all 40 episodes of that, I might not care what the definitions of words are. I will assume since you do not know the meaning of the word “patriot” , you likely don’t know what a communist or socialist is either. Of for that matter, “freedom”. You can watch your cartoons, but, please understand that they are not reality.

          • with some corrections…
            Yes a hand drawn fully illustrated story staring famed Soviet Era…. wait it was published in the year 2002 (after Jesus Christ was born) on the formally respected network PBS. Staring famed vineyard resident Walter Cronkite who narrates Ben Franklin, our original Post Master General who happens to also be the star on our $100 dollar bill. Hmmmm Soviet era seems to be a false narrative after all. Seems kind of All American to me.
            Stars include Celebrity voices such as Walter Cronkite (as Benjamin Franklin), Sylvester Stallone (as Paul Revere), Ben Stiller (as Thomas Jefferson), Billy Crystal (as John Adams), Annette Bening (as Abigail Adams), Dustin Hoffman (as Benedict Arnold), Arnold Schwarzenegger (as Baron von Steuben), Liam Neeson (as John Paul Jones), Whoopi Goldberg (as Deborah Sampson), and Don Francisco (as Bernardo de Gálvez) lend credence to characters critical to the forming of a free country, from the Boston Tea Party to the Constitutional Convention.
            ….wait Whoopi Goldberg? Is she a Russian asset too?

          • Jackie, Thank you for your commandment but I thought this was all about not using fossil fuels?
            Do you realize how much power is consumed to film just a 20 second TV commercial? How many vehicles must haul every tiny bit of the set? How powerful and/or many gas powered generators are used for the perfect lighting in the field, or for sound, and props, cameras on tracks, sets that move on tracks etc? How many people must be moved to the film site in their SUVs?
            hmmmmm…. I never thought of that either until I watched a tea commercial being filmed the other day (on a paved lot btw).
            ….Then consider a hand drawn “cartoon” or even one created on a laptop or two. I think if you really care about not using fossil fuels, then you should boycott movies, and the ever indoctrinating netflix TV, and then just stick to hand drawn cartoons.
            Perhaps we can all help to ‘save the world’ that way.

  2. “end Island fossil fuel use by 2040”
    Gas Stations – gone
    Marinas – gone
    Ferries – gone
    Furnaces – gone
    Propane – gone
    Packer oil – gone
    Freedom – gone
    99% of cars – gone
    Boats – gone (you can still row)
    Scallop industry – gone
    Lobstering – gone
    Excavating little bridge – never again
    Pavement – gone
    Fireworks – too traumatizing
    Fire engines – gone
    Farm tractors – gone
    Dredging – banned
    Globalists – rich from carbon tax scam
    The rest of us…… expendable

    • myob–I am curious as to how the “globalist” will get rich on a carbon tax scheme, and the rest of us will be “expendable” .
      May I point out to you that by revenue–( that’s not a speculative value based on stock prices but actual money that runs through the company ) Walmart tops the chart of richest companies in the world. Out of the next seven , 6 are oil and gas companies, and one is electricity. Interestingly enough, that one is a state owned (China) monopoly that produces it’s electricity almost entirely by burning fossil fuels.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue
      So I wonder who these so calls “globalist” are, how they will get rich by imposing a tax on the worlds largest corporations, and why you don’t think the “rest of us” are already perceived as “expendable” by corporations that do not view the rest of us with any more concern than the back side of a small mammal .
      Having said all that, the concept of a 100% renewable Vineyard in the next 20 years is ridiculous, and points to the lack of understanding of the scale of the problem.
      Having said that, There are electric heaters, farm tractors, boats of all sorts, and even planes
      https://www.sciencealert.com/the-first-fully-electric-plane-takes-to-the-skies-for-10-successful-minutes

      • Don, Help us all out. I assume you live in a comfortable house. Please heat it entirely and comfortably for the next 3 months with only electric heaters. Then report back to us what your electric bills amounted too, and also if you know your typical heating cost then report on the difference. (I usually heat with 100% OB Oak that the worms kindly killed. Or cut for fire breaks in the state forest so I burn zero fossil fuels nor any electricity at all) I do have rooftop solar panels that would cost over $17,000 ($35,000 at inflated Vineyard rates) but they can’t even heat my house for a week on a full summer’s sun.
        …After you get the total cost to electric heat your house, then multiply that by 4 to get the “wind power” rates we will soon be all paying. And let us know how many square feet your heating so we can do the math for our own homes.
        Thanks in advance!

  3. I’ve had to delete several comments posted on this thread during the moderation process. Just a reminder to those of you who don’t know — and some of you who do, but continue to try anyway (I’m looking at you Andrew) — The Times does not accept comments that deny climate change or sea-level rise.

    • How inclusive of you. This is a political matter not scientific. Your policy only enforces the notion that climate change advocates are ignorant of the facts. If you are so sure of your position then why not publish so called “climate deniers”? Is it due to the fact that you are scared the pubic, when confronted with the facts, will see beyond this hoax?

      • bs — I am not certain, but I think the policy adapted by the times would not allow comments claiming that the Sandy Hook massacre never happened , and the families of the victims were actors.
        Climate change is in fact a scientific matter–it is only politicized by those who do not at all care about the future of humanity, in a hedonistic desire to grab all they can as quickly as possible.
        Please present us with “some facts” that humans are not causing a potentially catastrophic extinction event.
        if you can present an actual fact– not an opinion piece, as some here are prone to do, to make the case that climate change is not caused by humans,I am sure the times will allow that. But keep in mind, the fact that Al Gore has a big house, is not a fact that proves climate change is not real . Al Gore does in fact have a big house— And he flies on private jest because he is really really wealthy– I would love to see a law passed that forbid him from doing that..
        In the meantime, I appreciate that my local newspaper, that I have signed up to pay for, does not allow egregious lying.

      • They don’t post climate deniers probably for same reason they wouldn’t post holocaust deniers: both these groups are liars spreading lies.

      • Also, bs, if you don’t like the standards for truth here, you can always pick up your toys and go play elsewhere. There are plenty of websites that welcome lies.

      • BS, the MV Times is not a government service. This is not the Congressional Record or C-Span. I am a subscriber., but that does not mean that an Editor has to publish my views. Here, there actually is no quid pro quo. Nothing is owed to me or by me.

      • I wasn’t suggesting it did, but you know as well as I do that since we’ve instituted our new policy, you have repeatedly attempted to fit that into your narrative.

    • I am sorry, but there is something to be said for two sides of an issue. There are some who will say that the climate change is man made, some say it’s natural, others will say it’s dire and others will say it’s not as bad as we think. There are all types of opinions and “science” on this issue. You should never exclude one view point. There are many who don’t believe in Jesus and many that do, some don’t believe in God and many do. Comments that are sound and respectful and in areas where there is “science” on both sides (not talking about complete deniers, only those that differ in the immediacy of the issue) it should be allowed to be debated.

  4. George Brennan-I hope I misunderstood you? Do you really say your newspaper will not post anything narrative that disputes climate change? Though I am a believer in climate change, I would strongly detest any public newspaper from not displaying opposing views? I listen to everyone, and my opinion is always subject to change based on new intelligence I may receive. Never block opposing views, if presented in a scientific or respectful manner. That actually makes our opinion less valid and actually promotes separation and more controversy.

        • Bs– may I remind you yet again that the word “science” was first used in 1833 by William Whewell , long after it was established that the world was in fact round.

        • And, cigarettes were “as addictive as carrots.” Seat belts were optional. Bicycle helmets are still optional. Like climate change, these were or are health risks. An opposing view is not necessarily legitimate and deserving of publication te de facto it opposes. Though more draconian to make the point, one could say: “Let’s hear from the point of view of Holocaust deniers. It’s only fair.” “There is no reason anyone NEEDS a colonoscopy.”

        • Bs– you seem to be confused with my post to MYOB . Is it the part where I say that by 1833 it was very “established” that the earth is in fact round, or the part where I point out that “science” did not exist before 1833. There may have been people who went against the “established” religions of the time, and tried to figure out the real world, and how it worked. But it was not “established science”.

      • George. Galileo was jailed because he claimed there something called a vacuum. Einstein completely changed Newton’s laws. All science is subject to further review. Don’t be like Trump calling all opposing views fake news.

        • public trust– I could not find anything about Galileo being jailed for his belief in a vacuum. I do like learning new things– perhaps you could provide some details about that. Thanks.
          I did however find that he was jailed for heresy when he stated the earth resolved around the sun. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-is-convicted-of-heresy He was in fact jailed during the trial ( I don’t know for how long) but was sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life.
          According to the historical record , the inquisitors did not even dispute that he was correct, only that he had contradicted the teachings of scripture.
          Which brings me to the point that climate deniers often use the word “religion” when talking about people who know the facts about climate change.
          Ironic.
          Newton’s most famous and enduring accomplishment was his discovery of the 3 laws of motion that have remained constant since their inception , by the way. Also the three laws of thermodynamics have not changed. Science constantly builds on knowledge accrued by former generations, and occasionally disproves something that was misunderstood, or technologically unknowable.
          If you want to seriously question the accomplishments of science, take a look at your cell phone– On the basic level it is about a half pound of dirt, and trillions of hours of scientific research and discovery.
          If people want to deny the existence of cell phones, or claim the earth is flat and is the center of the universe, I am all for them doing so, as no one will be injured.
          Denying climate change, and spreading unfounded lies about it, slows the process by which our leaders acquire the political will to do something about it.
          That will lead to misery and death that could be avoided.

          • Don’t know if he faced any legal consequences where this theory is concerned, but I kinda remember Galileo being on the opposite side of the vacuum debate. He was mostly incorrect about siphon phenomenon, supporting an idea called horror vacui that was later disproven. (I think the disproving was even done by one of his own students. ? Which probably felt worse than prison.)

      • Sure there is , George…..liberal Democrats believe life begins when they say it begins….science says otherwise…..I’ll just use the “A word” as an example.

    • public trust– It is my opinion that there are limits to free speech, and what media outlets should filter.
      There can be very real consequences to the continued telling of lies. In the late 1930’s a maniacal leader with the help of a sophisticated propaganda machine managed to convince an entire nation that a certain ethnic group was responsible for all their problems and that they should be exterminated. We use the term “never again” to remind us of the evils that became reality through the use of consistent lies.
      The words “socialist”and “communist” get thrown around today like the word “Jew” did in pre ww2 Europe. We have to be careful with our words. Some people throw them around and use them in nonsensical paradoxical statements in all caps to make us think they are true, when they don’t even know the meaning of the words. And that is dangerous.. Those kind of lies, and general hate bashing of one group or another can lead to serious consequences.
      I personally think George is right on the money when he refuses to be complicit with lies that could delay the much needed turn away from the burning of fossil fuels that could doom our species.

  5. I made spelling edits:
    George Brennan-I hope I misunderstood you? Did you really say your newspaper will not post any narrative that disputes climate change? Though I am a believer in climate change, I would strongly detest any public newspaper from not displaying opposing views? I listen to everyone, and my opinion is always subject to change based on new intelligence I may receive. Never block opposing views, if presented in a scientific or respectful manner. That actually makes our opinion less valid and actually promotes separation and more controversy. Apparently there was a previous major climate change that destroyed the dinosaurs and reports show the polar ice caps once melted some 10,000 years ago, long before carbon emissions. Again, I am a believer in climate change, but never block opposing views.

  6. The question isnt whether there is climate change. The question is if its man made. I dont think that has been proven yet. If you go by increases in population and land developement, resources that break down carbon dioxide are being wiped out. So we are the root cause. World population has to be controlled. I dont think anyone is addressing that.

    • Redsox patriot celtics bruins fan. I am surprised you are not deleted since you question man made climate change in your post. Perhaps you slipped it past Mr Brennan. As for world wide population control–what would you have us do. Should we increase abortion in African countries and perhaps India and China and should we get rid of Grandmothers in other countries? Just exactly what are you suggesting?

      • Why worry about abortions and grandmas? If you and ALL your like-minded friends sell your possessions and give to the poor, you won’t be able to afford those carbon-y airplane rides, your cars, having more than one residence, and all the other stuff you have. AND you get to be perfect, go to heaven, and follow what an ancient storybook tells you to think and do. A win-win for you, Andrew… and for our endangered, good earth.

        • Jackie, every time I post, you attack me without any reference to the post. You attack on general principle. I simply asked REDSOX what he would do about population control. By all means attack my opinions, but to attack simply to do it seems puerile to me. Then you attack the Bible as ”an ancient story book”. I would assume that as a Jew you would support your history in the Tanakh–the Hebrew Bible(Mikra) but perhaps you would not. Then you seem a tad envious of the ”stuff you have” and ”having more than one residence” Tell me Jackie, what one have to do to mitigate your animus?

      • andrew– there is a difference between “I don’t think that has been proven yet,” and “the green new deal will do nothing” . One of those phrases is a clearly stated opinion, the other is a lie.
        As for population control, there are more options than abortion and euthanasia.
        A few of the better one’s -in my opinion- are education and birth control.
        Just right off the top, many women around the world have no knowledge about the menstrual cycle. The simple act of educating them about the workings of their bodies could have a significant impact on birth rates. Since most women do not have intercourse every day, they simply have to ABSTAIN ( I know you like that word) from having sex for about 1 week per 28 day cycle. I don’t even think that would offend “god”, although it may anger some ignorant , hedonistic ,misogynist men. What is so difficult about that ? Well , let me tell you — some religious cults think it is against “gods will” to educate women, and others think it is “immoral” to speak of such things, or fund the organizations that help women learn this stuff and support their constitutionally protected right to terminate a non viable pregnancy.
        And then of course, there are many forms of birth control that actually prevent conception. How easy is that ? With some education and availability to affordable birth control, abortion could be entirely eliminated.

        • Um, Don, you forgot to educate the boys about birth control. Growing up, the parents of my Catholic friends practised the rythym method you’ve described, only form of birth control approved by the church. Didn’t you ever wonder why Catholic families had so many children back then? Lol.

          • jackie– when it comes to this subject, I am sure you know most of the boys are about as clueless as the women. The women however, suffer the most severe consequences of reproductive ignorance . I use the words “boys” and “women” with intent.
            I was raised catholic, and went to catholic school for 8 years. I had only 2 siblings , a rarity for my generation.
            But my parents were educated, and when my mother thought it was time for me to learn about the birds and the bees ( I already knew by then of course) we had a frank discussion, and it helped guide me through uncertain times. Parental advice has it all over religious dogma or governmental policy.

      • I wouldnt be against a global initiative of making abortions a human right. If you violate it we have sanctions. We all ready use human rights to sanction countries, lets add that one. Also donx3 has a good point about education. Globally women have alot of catching up to do. Religions will have to rethink their stand to save the planet. If a woman is raped there is no way she should be told to have the baby. No way.

  7. I like all the climates. The four seasons is a nice change. I like free speech comments too. Not
    Editor Brennan. He unilaterally deleted several comments. How can anyone trust a news publication with a closed-minded editor? I’m nor a climate change denier. I’m a retired cop who listened to both sides objectively without knowing all the facts. Still do. I distrust anyone with such power to state the following: “The Times does not accept comments that deny climate change or sea-level rise.”

      • Wow I have to say that I find the newspaper’s position repugnant. I believe in climate change, but I can appreciate the alternative argument and to shut down an entire point of view tells me that your articles must be slanted as well. Where has reporting gone? Shame on this newspaper!!!

    • Should the Times also allow comments from holocaust And Sandy Hook deniers, flat earthers & Pizza-gate conspiracy theorists? Crackpots can go post on Breitbart.

  8. Why are all the dark age science and fact deniers so upset? You have plenty of alt-right nonsense publications to feed your ignorance. The same sources that promote debunked Soviet-inspired propaganda. In other words, go read Trump’s moronic Twitter feed.

      • bs– you do know that the united states is currently involved in numerous wars around the world , right ? You do know our brave young men and women of our military are dying in these wars , right ?

      • BS, I have a daughter. She is a Marine, overseas now, in the line of fire every day. I do not know which is more galling: your ingratitude or your ignorance.

      • Maybe you should go take a look at the ravings of your lunatic leader. He’s an international embarrassment. And while you’re at it, educate yourself about what he’s been doing with our troops in Saudi Arabia. A country whose dictator murdered and dismembered a WaPo journalist, partly because he was investigating the relationship between MBS and Jared Kushner. Trump and his affinity for dictators and murderers (MBS, Putin, Erdogen, Kim, etc.) is as unAmerican as you can possibly get.

      • bs– let me break some bad news to you– there are 5,000 more troops in Afghanistan than there were the day trump was sworn in to office.

  9. What I’ve never understood about the climate change disagreements is that many of the measures we are being asked to take to combat it have multiple benefits. We should be doing them anyway. Cleaner air, a switch to sustainable/renewable resources, less plastic and waste, creating an environment that allows all species to thrive again. Shouldn’t these things be a priority for their sake? Shouldn’t everyone want to live better, even if you’re not impressed by sea levels? I am not denying climate change. Just asking why we all have to agree on its cause before we can simply decide we want a cleaner planet. Not sinking is just an added bonus. ? Maybe I’m oversimplifying.

    • Agree with your comment 100%. Especially now that it is becoming more difficult for this country to export recyclable glass/plastic/paper. Anyone who disagrees should google “great pacific garbage patch.” Of the more than 9 billion tons of plastic that have been manufactured, less than 9% has been recycled. Plastic microfibers in the ocean, in drinking water, are linked to health problems and if I’m not mistaken, fertility problems. Realistically as the population grows so too will this the problem grow. It will not go the other way.

      • Good point about the garbage patch, Mary. I think it’s hard for most people (at least it is for me) to compute what that much plastic really amounts to, so seeing it some of it helps. The river of plastic in India is another sobering sight. You’re right, plastics contain xenoestrogens, which are classified as endocrine disruptors. They’re known to interfere with natural hormone levels and increase breast cancer risk. This is true even of BPA-free plastic.

  10. “Schoolchildren, young people, and adults all over the world will stand together, demanding that our leaders take action, not because we want them to, but because the science demands it,” . “That action must be powerful and wide-ranging. After all, the climate crisis is not just about the environment. It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will. Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it. We need to dismantle them all. Our political leaders can no longer shirk their responsibilities.” We will make sure we put world leaders against the wall’ if they fail to take urgent action on climate change’’. Greta.

    • “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” ~The idiot in the White House

    • andrew– thank you once again for posting such an incredibly well articulated quote from “A teenager working on her anger management problem. Currently chilling and watching a good old fashioned movie with a friend.”
      She should be chosen as Time magazines’ person of the year for a quote like that.
      Perhaps she could fool her followers by photo shopping her head onto the picture of trump that he thinks is on the cover .
      https://people.com/politics/trump-campaign-photoshops-his-head-greta-thunberg-time-cover/
      Are republicans not embarrassed by this kind of stuff ? Are world leaders impressed ?
      Someday trump may get to the maturity level of a pre teen, and work on his anger.

      • dondondon. ”We will make sure we put world leaders against the wall” is the quote Greta made which I think is unfortunate. Would you not agree?

        • Andrew– you should know a little about the way certain phrases can be translated, as you are multilingual. What I think is unfortunate is that otherwise rational adults would not assume that she was not speaking of executing people ( not a concept her society embraces) and would bother to find out what she really meant.
          She basically found herself apologizing for the nuances of language.
          And apologize she did — Here’s another eloquent quote from her:

          “Yesterday I said we must hold our leaders accountable and unfortunately said ‘put them against the wall’. That’s Swenglish: “att ställa någon mot väggen” (to put someone against the wall) means to hold someone accountable,”
          “That’s what happens when you improvise speeches in a second language. But of course I apologize if anyone misunderstood this,” she continued. “I can not enough express the fact that I – as well as the entire school strike movement- are against any possible form of violence. It goes without saying but I say it anyway.”

          Now, since you bring up a comment that YOU may interpret as inciting violence and seem to be concerned about that, would you care to criticize someone who in his native language says things like “i’de like to punch him in the face”, encourages his supporters to “beat the crap out of [a protester] , encourages his supporters to “rough up” people who criticize him and promises to pay their legal fees if they do. Any apologies there ?
          Is there any possibility you think we might be misinterpreting what he is saying ? Shame on you Andrew– your hypocrisy is astounding. You know better.
          https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-rally-violence_n_5bd121b1e4b055bc94882565

        • You take the time to be bothered by a young girl’s statements, a girl with no actual power to act on anything, but not by any of the gazillion disturbing quotes from Trump?

          “I think there is blame on both sides. … Excuse me, what about the ‘alt-left’ that came charging at, as you say, the ‘alt-right,’ do they have any semblance of guilt? Let me ask you this. What about the fact they came charging, with clubs in hands, swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do. … You had a group on one side that was bad and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. Nobody wants to say it, but I will say it right now. You had a group, you had a group on the other side that came charging in without a permit and they were very, very violent. … I own a house in Charlottesville. Does anyone know I own a house in Charlottesville?”

          — President Donald Trump, on the white supremacists marching in Charlottesville, Virginia, and those protesting the neo-Nazi rally. A woman was killed when a white supremacist rammed his car into a crowd of protesters.

          Your outrage-meter needs repair, Andrew.

      • dondondon. If you think that the quote given by Greta is from her and her alone and not from her ”team” and manager you are more naive than I thought. Besides everyone knows teens are notoriously ignorant of world affairs and this is simply warmed over Marxism coming from an adult on her ”team”. By the way how did her team get from the US to Madrid? Was it by Yacht also. They are now on first class tickets on a train from Madrid to Norway while she sits on the floor in a photo op complaining that trains are overcrowded.

          • Don, Conservatives make up stuff all the time, just like their lying chosen one does every day. Even on Faux News they pick on and taunt Greta, an insprirational young girl. Who do these poor trumpers actually have to inspire anyone? A first lady who is an uneducated lesbian porn model who lies on her resume and tells people to Be Best? A VP who is the poster child for homophobic self-loathing? Rudy Kazooty? Or the great one himself, the ignorant slob who can shoot someone on 5th Ave and still be supported? Nothing and no one inspires these people, so they shoot down everything and everyone who is in fact an inspiration. Then they’ll tell you about purity and their faith. No disconnect there at all, right? It’s the fake christian way of life in America for privileged, white, straight people who sold their very souls to support Trump.

        • Greta speaks for herself and writes without a team. Why make up lies? Why are grown men so threatened by this young girl with Asperger’s, her “superpower”? She has more integrity in her little finger than that dumb cluck in the White House has in both his tiny hands. No problem supporting an immoral bum, but issues so deep with with an inspirational young girl that you have to find something wrong with her mode of travel? Too funny, and yet too revealing of how low Trumpers are willing to sink.

  11. If opposing any challenge to climate change, you are doing exactly what Trump is trying to do. Trump is trying to destroy all left wing media that disputes he is a king by labeling it fake news. Don’t make the same mistake. Right now certain scientist are challenging parts of Einsteins theory of relativity. Should we block them also?

    • You give yourself away when you cite “left wing media”. Trump wants to destroy journalism and the TRUTH. There, fixed it for ya.

  12. George how can you publish such disgusting rhetoric from Jackie calling our First Lady an “uneducated lesbian porn model” . She speaks five languages, is a very successful business woman and infinitely more intelligent than our previous First Lady. Shame on the MV Times.

    • Where you been? Melania is a liar— and a plagiarist. The lying birther lady was caught being the liar she is when she was unable to converse with French children and then again when she needed an interpreter for Italian. Look it up. She also lied about her education on her resume. She dropped out of school and is basically uneducated. Her lesbian porn photos are on the internet for anyone to see. Shame on you for falling for such obvious lies. There’s nothing wrong with being uneducated, but there’s plenty wrong with being a liar.

        • not new– george won’t post the link because it is pornographic in nature– go to “google” type in “Melania lesbian photo shoot” .
          Just don’t show it to the kids… And yes, she may be better looking than Rachel Maddow, but you will never really know because Rachel has more dignity than to pimp herself out in a lesbian photo shoot for a few bucks..

          • If Rachel did a photo shoot nobody would look. I’d kick in a few bucks to tell her to put her clothes back on.

      • BS, Michelle Obama is a graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School. I would say that this does not de facto make her intelligent…well actually, it does. While I have not taken it, I have heard that the Bar Exam can be a challenge. As for Trump, are you sure about “infinitely” more intelligent? “There is no shame in leaving school behind when pursuing your dreams. However, the first lady found herself in a bit of hot water when up until Donald Trump’s “election her personal website read that she’d obtained a degree in design and architecture at an unspecified university in Slovenia. When folks went to scout out the validity of that claim and came up short, questions about Mrs. Trump’s alleged degree began to arise. Mrs. Trump later updated her site to read “paused her studies to advance her modeling career in Milan and Paris.” (https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/tv/did-melania-trump-go-to-college.html/)

  13. Bs– george can publish that because it’s true— and she does not speak 5 languages, unless you call practicing a few phrases before you meet someone speaking the language.
    There are plenty of pictures of her naked in bed with another naked woman. — Lesbian– I have no problem with lesbians– she can do what she wants with who she wants– she was paid for that–selling her body as a “model”– the seemingly p.c. way of describing her “profession” — but don’t “models” usually try to sell something, like a bathing suit, hat or pocketbook ? What’s she selling ? Her body.
    Do you remember What did rush call that college girl that testified before congress about access to birth control ?
    Melania has never shown proof of her degree , and the university she claims to have a degree from has no record of it. Jackie is correct on all counts.

    • I’m glad we agree one one thing… I like lesbians too. I think you’re pushing the envelope with your insinuation of her modelling career being other than what it was. When I was younger, the woman I was dating was a TV reporter, and she filled me on on some of the big network female ‘stars’ at the liberal mainstream media news outlets, on how they obtained their promotions and anchor seats. And it wasnt’t by siting on their seats it was more likely on a couch or the bedroom (Harvey weinstein style) At least Melania has never claimed to have been born here. So she didn’t have to prove that to the media.

      • I don’t really know anymore how people define porn. Cindy Crawford isn’t considered a a “lesbian porn” model from what I’ve seen. But she posed nude for money. With other female models touching her body.

Comments are closed.