Muhler
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2010
- Messages
- 16,771
- City
- Eastern Jutland
- Country
- Denmark
QMII has started a controversy.
Miljøfolk går i rette med dronningen - Politiken.dk
Miljgrupper kritiserer dronningen - TV 2 Nyhederne
Dronningen på glatis i Grønland - Royale - BT.dk
QMII visited among other things an arctic research station and later she said to the press about the prevailing climate changes in the Arctic and elsewhere:
Der er jo ikke noget at gøre. Man kan ikke lave om på klimaet, når det laver sig selv om. Det må man se i øjnene
Man kan jo ikke gå ud med en dybfryser og lægge ny is på en fjord, vel. Det er, som det er. Men samtidig vil der jo nok ske det, at nye fiskearter vil komme til, og fiskeriet vil få nye dimensioner.
"There is nothing to do. You cannot change the climate when it changes itself/by itself. You have to face that fact. After all you cannot go out with a deep freezer and put new ice on a fjord, can you. It is as it is. But at the same time what will happen is that new species of fish will prevail and the fishery will have new dimensions/will change".
Unsurprisingly that has environmental organisations like Greenpeace and WWF up in arms, stating that she is wrong.
- Okay, that's what climate sceptics have said for years and QMII's statement is very much against the prevailing political attitude and dare I say political correctness. But what if she is right? Whatever you can say about QMII, she is usually not ill informed and you can't accuse her of being slow either.
QMII did not say we shouldn't do something about pollution, excessive use of resources, alternative energy, recycling and so on. - These are in every respect very good ideas!
What she did point out is that we humans may not be the main culprit in the current climate change and as such there is little we can do to prevent is.
There is a reason why Greenland is named Greenland. There is a reason why European settlers settled in Greenland and lived there until the "mini iceage" started about 600 years or so ago. That climate fluctuation lasted about 400 years, and that wasn't caused by humans.
If QMII is right, it's actually even more omnious than what Greenpeace and WWF are saying. If QMII is right, we are pretty much screwed - and we are in for some major transitions in the decades to come.
ADDED: A clip from TV2 Saturday, where a Arctic researcher (at about 01:20) says what QMII said above. - Whether the scientist is wrong is debatable, but QMII was not wrong in picking up what she was told. http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php/id-41781204:video-regentparret-besøger-qeqertarsuaq.html
I think we sometimes have to look at environmental organisations with a critical eye. They have an agenda too. - For example: If there are no humanitarian crisis, there is no need for humanitarian organisations. No organisation is willing to abolish itself, so they beat the drums whenever there are is humanitarian crisis anywhere, especially around Christmas. - But perhaps the money were best spend elsewhere? On other projects than those advocated by the most influential organisations.
-------------------------------------------------------
And a story from Billed Bladet illustrating why Dannebrog is always escorted by a warship when sailing away from the Danish coasts: http://www.billedbladet.dk/Kongelige/ArticleFolder/2011/7/Drama pa Dannebrog.aspx
A sailor serving onboard Dannebrog fell seriously ill. The doctor onboard decided he needed urgent medical attention in Nuuk hospital. He and the sailor was sailed to a cliff nearby and here they were hoisted onboard a helicopter from the escorting frigate, Hvidbjørnen.
They were flown to the hospital where the sailor had his appendix removed.
Substitute sailor with a member of the DRF and you get my meaning.
I don't know why the sailor wasn't sailed too to the frigate first. Perhaps the sea was too rough or this was a faster method?
Miljøfolk går i rette med dronningen - Politiken.dk
Miljgrupper kritiserer dronningen - TV 2 Nyhederne
Dronningen på glatis i Grønland - Royale - BT.dk
QMII visited among other things an arctic research station and later she said to the press about the prevailing climate changes in the Arctic and elsewhere:
Der er jo ikke noget at gøre. Man kan ikke lave om på klimaet, når det laver sig selv om. Det må man se i øjnene
Man kan jo ikke gå ud med en dybfryser og lægge ny is på en fjord, vel. Det er, som det er. Men samtidig vil der jo nok ske det, at nye fiskearter vil komme til, og fiskeriet vil få nye dimensioner.
"There is nothing to do. You cannot change the climate when it changes itself/by itself. You have to face that fact. After all you cannot go out with a deep freezer and put new ice on a fjord, can you. It is as it is. But at the same time what will happen is that new species of fish will prevail and the fishery will have new dimensions/will change".
Unsurprisingly that has environmental organisations like Greenpeace and WWF up in arms, stating that she is wrong.
- Okay, that's what climate sceptics have said for years and QMII's statement is very much against the prevailing political attitude and dare I say political correctness. But what if she is right? Whatever you can say about QMII, she is usually not ill informed and you can't accuse her of being slow either.
QMII did not say we shouldn't do something about pollution, excessive use of resources, alternative energy, recycling and so on. - These are in every respect very good ideas!
What she did point out is that we humans may not be the main culprit in the current climate change and as such there is little we can do to prevent is.
There is a reason why Greenland is named Greenland. There is a reason why European settlers settled in Greenland and lived there until the "mini iceage" started about 600 years or so ago. That climate fluctuation lasted about 400 years, and that wasn't caused by humans.
If QMII is right, it's actually even more omnious than what Greenpeace and WWF are saying. If QMII is right, we are pretty much screwed - and we are in for some major transitions in the decades to come.
ADDED: A clip from TV2 Saturday, where a Arctic researcher (at about 01:20) says what QMII said above. - Whether the scientist is wrong is debatable, but QMII was not wrong in picking up what she was told. http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php/id-41781204:video-regentparret-besøger-qeqertarsuaq.html
I think we sometimes have to look at environmental organisations with a critical eye. They have an agenda too. - For example: If there are no humanitarian crisis, there is no need for humanitarian organisations. No organisation is willing to abolish itself, so they beat the drums whenever there are is humanitarian crisis anywhere, especially around Christmas. - But perhaps the money were best spend elsewhere? On other projects than those advocated by the most influential organisations.
-------------------------------------------------------
And a story from Billed Bladet illustrating why Dannebrog is always escorted by a warship when sailing away from the Danish coasts: http://www.billedbladet.dk/Kongelige/ArticleFolder/2011/7/Drama pa Dannebrog.aspx
A sailor serving onboard Dannebrog fell seriously ill. The doctor onboard decided he needed urgent medical attention in Nuuk hospital. He and the sailor was sailed to a cliff nearby and here they were hoisted onboard a helicopter from the escorting frigate, Hvidbjørnen.
They were flown to the hospital where the sailor had his appendix removed.
Substitute sailor with a member of the DRF and you get my meaning.
I don't know why the sailor wasn't sailed too to the frigate first. Perhaps the sea was too rough or this was a faster method?
Last edited: