Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

Professor Moriarty

gozunda wrote: »

Maybe so. But where awareness is a result of a negative perception of what is being said or done - that is not necessarily a good thing. A lot of the discussions I have seen are increasinly derived as a reaction against that. This thread for example - is about her so perhaps it is not strange that her various commentaries are getting dragged over the coals.

You won't change some people's minds. They will ignore, ridicule and deflect no matter what argument is presented to them. Her's was a rhetorical argument with some good lines that were reported widely across the world. The publicity that she has generated with this rhetoric will cause a lot of people to inform themselves of climate change realities.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

There is no evidence that the majority of those who heard her mess age have held a negative perception of it. In fact, given that it motivated the largest single day protest in human history and therefore it could be viewed there was an overwhelmingly positive reaction to it.

Sure. :cool:

gozunda

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

You won't change some people's minds. They will ignore, ridicule and deflect no matter what argument is presented to them. Her's was a rhetorical argument with some good lines that were reported widely across the world. The publicity that she has generated with this rhetoric will cause a lot of people to inform themselves of climate change realities.

Fair enough but the thing about changing peoples minds could be levied at most every group. I listened to the speech and my personal perception was the very different to yours. Her speech was not persuasive imo. Even going through the replies in this thread - the same or similar is evident in many of the comments made. Of course there is an existing fanbclub. But what I am referring to is not that group but everyone else and others who are perhaps new to these issues. The whole thing makes me think of the advice given to actors that they should not work with either animals or children ...

lola85

Has anyone figured out yet how they stole her childhood?

I feel bad but I don’t know what I feel bad about.

Tell me how

lola85 wrote: »

Has anyone figured out yet how they stole her childhood?

I feel bad but I don’t know what I feel bad about.

If they were doing what they should be doing in ensuring the long term health of the environment, she wouldn't have had to spend time protesting and then travelling to various locations asking for positive action to be taken.

Professor Moriarty

gozunda wrote: »

Well to be fair that could be levied at most every group. I listened to the speech and my personal perception was the very different from yours. Even going through the replies in this thread - the same or similar is evident in many of the comments made. Of course there is an existing fanbclub. But what I am referring to is not the greta fan club but everyone else and others who are perhaps new to these issues. The whole thing makes me think of the advice given to actors that they should not work with either animals or children ...

Overall, do you think her journey and speech had a positive or negative effect in heightening worldwide awareness of climate change?

lola85

Tell me how wrote: »

If they were doing what they should be doing in ensuring the long term health of the environment, she wouldn't have had to spend time protesting and then travelling to various locations asking for positive action to be taken.

Yeah all that traveling around the world and been famous has really robbed her of opportunities to become famous one day.

Tell me how

lola85 wrote: »

Yeah all that traveling around the world and been famous has really robbed her of opportunities to become famous one day.

No one is saying that she has not benefited from it, but, she is suggesting that she was left with no choice, hence her statement.

Professor Moriarty

lola85 wrote: »

Yeah all that traveling around the world and been famous has really robbed her of opportunities to become famous one day.

Reductio ad absurdum again. Seems to be all you've got.

Veritas Libertas

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Her's was a rhetorical argument with some good lines that were reported widely across the world. The publicity that she has generated with this rhetoric will cause a lot of people to inform themselves of climate change realities.

Wasn't 'Build the wall' a rhetorical argument for stronger borders?
I and others notice when arguments are taken rhetorically sometimes and literally in others.

I see your point about negating the bystander effect by upping the threat to emergency status. It seems to be the strategy adopted by the 'alarmists'. The problem with this though is like the boy who cried wolf, eventually people will stop listening to them, and may even numb people further and create more cynicism around the topic.

NIMAN

BarryD2 wrote: »

Maybe you have a point, as I see the volume of ice on Greenland is estimated at 2,900,000 km3 https://web.viu.ca/earle/geol305/The%20Greenland%20Ice%20Sheet.pdf#targetText=The%20total%20volume%20of%20Greenland's,to%200.05%25%20of%20that%20volume.

However loss of this ice is estimated at 0.05% over 10 years from 1996 to 2005, estimated to be only 'a few percent' by end of the 21st century. So the conjecture about a 7m sea level rise is pointless anyway, typical of the needless scaremongering and fake news around this topic.

There is a culture of fear being promoted. When you see headline figures like "sea levels could rise 23ft", you normally don't see the fact "by the year 2856" after it.

gozunda

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Overall, do you think her journey and speech had a positive or negative effect in heightening worldwide awareness of climate change?

On balance I agree she is unimportant in the big scheme of things. But overall the whole shenanigans of the journey and her speech have resulted in quite an evident negative backlash - so no not good.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

On balance I agree she is unimportant in the big scheme of things. But overall the whole shenanigans of the journey and her speech resulted have resulted in quite an evident negative backlash - so no not good.

Again, the largest public demonstration in human history on the basis of her activism is very strong evidence of a positive reaction to her actions.

A few outliers, in public commentary, however loud they may be cannot suggest there was a negative backlash.

Professor Moriarty

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Wasn't 'Build the wall' a rhetorical argument for stronger borders?
I and others notice when arguments are taken rhetorically sometimes and literally in others.

I see your point about negating the bystander effect by upping the threat to emergency status. It seems to be the strategy adopted by the 'alarmists'. The problem with this though is like the boy who cried wolf, eventually people will stop listening to them, and may even numb people further and create more cynicism around the topic.

Trump actually wants to build a real wall, stupid as that may seem. I take your point about the boy who cried wolf. However, there doesn't seem to be any way of informing people other than constantly highlighting the imminent dangers of climate change. The alternative is to stay mute and I can't see any benefit to that.

As it happens, I believe that tipping point will be reached long before people wake up and vote for politicians who will actually do something. Probably within the next 10-15 years. But that wouldn't stop me trying to do the right thing even if it is ultimately pointless. And Greta's journey and speech is her doing the right thing as she sees it. Good for her.

Professor Moriarty

gozunda wrote: »

On balance I agree she is unimportant in the big scheme of things. But overall the whole shenanigans of the journey and her speech have resulted in quite an evident negative backlash - so no not good.

So you think the negative outweighed the positive in what she did? I disagree.

joe40

Tell me how wrote: »

Again, the largest public demonstration in human history on the basis of her activism is very strong evidence of a positive reaction to her actions.

A few outliers, in public commentary, however loud they may be cannot suggest there was a negative backlash.

I agree, serious scientifically backed warnings about climate change have been around for a long time. The Al Gore film was 2005 I think but they were largely ignored.
Maybe a bit of alarmism was needed in the debate because sombre arguments were not having the necessary impact.
Ultimately democratic governments need to be elected so hearts and minds of voters are required

Gaoth Laidir

gozunda wrote: »

In Sweden she attends a special school for children with autism spectrum conditions etc. Prior to setting sail for the new world- she had taking to mitching school on fridays for at least a year. So yeah it would appear she has already missed a whole load of schooling.

According to one of her own interviews she decided not to go back to school this year and instead go off to the US etc. There was no comment made about returning to school. So no it doesnt seem to fit with being a gap year.

Not sure if the parents had any real input in this. Tbh they dont seem to have input into anything she does. According to her mother she managed to barage the other members of the family into giving up flying, only eating a plant food diet, not use their car etc. Though the mother did admit to sneaking some cheese when greta is not around.

Afaik - There was some talk of selling their swedish holiday house. Oh and the parents both gave up their full time jobs. Her father to accompany her on her travels and her mother as her singing career requires her to fly and greta didnt like that.

So if I had to place a bet on it - it's highly unlikely anyone will persuade her to return to finish school. I suppose there some chance of a job out of all this gallavanting. But who knows.

Great, so we're going to have to put up with more of her antics till at least next September? Still, if she were my daughter I'd probably want to send her off on the slow boat to the US too. Sounds like a little terror to live with if what you said is true.

q85dw7osi4lebg

Tell me how wrote: »

Again, the largest public demonstration in human history on the basis of her activism is very strong evidence of a positive reaction to her actions.

A few outliers, in public commentary, however loud they may be cannot suggest there was a negative backlash.

A few outliers. Why do you think that is? Potentially because the few who did comment negatively got absolutely ruined by her sheep, for attacking a 16 year old with ass burgers.

I wish I was 16 with that condition, it appears you can say and do as you please with absolutely no consequences.

Professor Moriarty

Jane Wonderful Inch wrote: »

A few outliers. Why do you think that is? Potentially because the few who did comment negatively got absolutely ruined by her sheep, for attacking a 16 year old with ass burgers.

I wish I was 16 with that condition, it appears you can say and do as you please with absolutely no consequences.

Well done. Good job.

1800_Ladladlad

Her publicist seems to be well worth the money judging by the tweets on its page today. Such banter, loads woke, highly brave.

Gaoth Laidir

Jane Wonderful Inch wrote: »

A few outliers. Why do you think that is? Potentially because the few who did comment negatively got absolutely ruined by her sheep, for attacking a 16 year old with ass burgers.

I wish I was 16 with that condition, it appears you can say and do as you please with absolutely no consequences.

It's gone beyond cringeworthy. It's farcical, bordering on criminal. Forget the climate topic for a minute and imagine a kid like that behaving like that to people like that in places like that on any other subject, shouting about the end of the world in 10 years. Religion. Veganism. Whatever. She wouldn't see the light of day. She's so extreme that any real message that's in there about future climate change has been lost and distorted by the hyperbole and sheer hysteria. Anyone who believes her 2030 mass extinction nonsense is as psychotic as she is.

joe40

Jane Wonderful Inch wrote: »

A few outliers. Why do you think that is? Potentially because the few who did comment negatively got absolutely ruined by her sheep, for attacking a 16 year old with ass burgers.

I wish I was 16 with that condition, it appears you can say and do as you please with absolutely no consequences.

That's what f**cks up debate. Could you not just make your point without referring to aspergers as ass burgers.

ToBeFrank123

Omackeral wrote: »

Sure we'll be living on the moon by then, be grand.

I know its tongue in cheek.

It would cost us at least 10 times the money ie trillions to colonise the moon as we'd spend on fixing this planet.

Even simple things like encouraging everyone to remote work 2 or 3 times a week would make a big difference.

Professor Moriarty

joe40 wrote: »

That's what f**cks up debate. Could you not just make your point without referring to aspergers as ass burgers.

I doubt if that would be possible given the mindset.

Veritas Libertas

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I know its tongue in cheek.
It would cost us at least 10 times the money ie trillions to colonise the moon as we'd spend on fixing this planet.

More realistic proposal: We could have developed cheaper, affordable carbon scrubbers by then.

Tell me how

Jane Wonderful Inch wrote: »

A few outliers. Why do you think that is? Potentially because the few who did comment negatively got absolutely ruined by her sheep, for attacking a 16 year old with ass burgers.

I wish I was 16 with that condition, it appears you can say and do as you please with absolutely no consequences.

In 3 or 4 more years, or may closer to 5 or 6, when you are 16, you might understand the link between the terminology you used here, and why many were adamant to not let such outliers who try to demean people in that way get away with their head in the sand nonsense.

Professor Moriarty

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

More realistic proposal: We could have developed cheaper, affordable carbon scrubbers by then.

Further to our discussion regarding ad hominem comments, I'd like to pedantically point out the "ass burgers" comment a few posts above. Got to be right on the internet.

Tell me how

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

More realistic proposal: We could have developed cheaper, affordable carbon scrubbers by then.

We already have them but another climate change denier, Bolsanaro has decided it's fine to ramp up the speed at which they're being destroyed.

YFlyer

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

More realistic proposal: We could have developed cheaper, affordable carbon scrubbers by then.

Algae. Could be use to produce biofuel.

Veritas Libertas

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Further to our discussion regarding ad hominem comments, I'd like to pedantically point out the "ass burgers" comment a few posts above. Got to be right on the internet.

There was an episode of South Park season 8 episode 15 entitled "Ass Burgers". In it the theme was Cartman coping with aspergers, they were trying to make fun of the ridiculousness of certain things associated with autism.

Perhaps this is also what the poster was doing?