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

gozunda

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Straw man. Not all. Tu quoque. Ad hominem. That's quite a collection.To be fair, I'm not sure what the formal name of the "you should be grateful for all I did for you" fallacy is, but it should probably be called the abusive husband fallacy or perhaps "lleti's Boner".

To be fair that sounds nothing more than bitterness.

Theres no straw man in the posters comment. The comment looks like it's a fairly comprehensive overview of the whole greta youf movement and yes there is an very evident issue of woke teenagers telling adults like it is whilst reveling in all the benefits of their generation and not seeing the irony of that (and no that does not mean they 'shouldn't have an opinion' btw)

But sure anyway - you can't criticise the childer - they obviously know better than everyone else. But if you do you a paedophile white Male with erection issues yada yada yada

:rolleyes:

hetuzozaho

lleti wrote: »

How come it's ok to comment on trumps or johnsons appearance?

I didn't say it was. I don't think it's nice to comment on anyone's appearance. My advice to you would be to stop doing that.

nthclare

lleti wrote: »

I'm a millenial myself but a kid whinging about her childhood being stolen helps no one and is not going to win people over.

As for the "you won't have to face the consequences so you don't care." commentary, why would people in their 30s and 40s not be affected if things are so bad things will go tits up in 12 years? Do boomers not have kids? Or are they saying boomers don't care about their kids? So why would kids care about their "future kids" either?

You do realise that life will go on and all this thing's going bad and tits up is your head having conversations with itself.

Tying yourself up in knots.
The amount of scary time's I've experienced about man made doomsday prediction's from the 70's until now...is a lot.

It's like gambling the next one's going to wipe us out, seriously now we'll all be gone in the next 12 years.

No matter what happens you'll have to be responsible and look after yourself because there's no point in getting worked up.

We adapt easily enough and you'll be ok

BarryD2

gozunda wrote: »

Indeed. And yet another example of the type of 'green' tech being produced in China using coal powered energy and gobbled up by virtue signaling gob****es by way of we're 'doing something for the environment'.

Looking at the actual costs and lifespans of much of the existing renewable energy technology shows that much of it is not viable without direct subsidy and the use of vast amounts of fossil fuel in production and transportation.*

Like Ireland importing biomas by ship from Australia to produce electricity. The hundreds of thousands of gallons of fossil fuel required to do so is truely staggering. But hey let's all drive our EVs and feel smug. There's a lot of that of sure.

*Some previous issues detailed here.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/sep/08/heat-pumps-green-heating

It's the other side of the renewables industry that proponents like to ignore. I've visited some of the recent on shore wind farms and the works involved in erecting them are very substantial, they are major construction projects. The Galway Wind Park was I think, the largest construction site west of the Shannon when it was built in recent years. Vast amounts of carbon expended in construction works, fabrication of turbines and ongoing maintenance required. There's no free lunch, energy costs one way or another.

That's not to say we shouldn't build some of these but I'd question whether several would be built if they weren't subsidised and incentivised by public policy, taxes and levies.

archer22

The anti Greta mob remind me of the wretches of earlier centuries dressed in brown rags, smelling of ****e running around with burning torches and mumbling gibberish about witches!

Oh well I suppose that mob still have a lot of modern day descendants ...they never went away unfortunately.

lleti

PostWoke wrote: »

Yeah man why blame those actually responsible?



That much is obvious.

I forgot blaming people solves climate change.

BorneTobyWilde

She's already a victim of intense online bullying. The hatred of her is nothing to do with her cause either, it's more about her. Pretty crazy to put someone that vulnerable in this position

Veritas Libertas

AtomicHorror wrote: »

It is worth re-posting as it is sorely needed by some very traumatized middle-aged white dudes on this thread. They also need a decent cloth to clear the spittle from their screens.

Implying anyone who disagrees with you is a 'traumatized middle-aged white dude' is racist.

Attributing any set of characteristics to people based on skin colour is racist.

I realize you learnt the opposite in whatever grievance studies course you attended, but none-the-less; shame on you.

lleti

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

She's already a victim of intense online bullying. The hatred of her is nothing to do with her cause either, it's more about her. Pretty crazy to put someone that vulnerable in this position

You could say the same thing about her speeches and publicity, that they are more about her than the cause.

Why would her sailing to the US in a boat help the cause?

AtomicHorror

lleti wrote: »

Clever of the movement to put a kid as the face of it, any criticism is just used against people "she's just a kid!!! I can't believe you're so mean!!!"

That's not accurate. It's not "any criticism", but ad hominem attacks specifically directed at her age, neurodiversity and physical appearance.

lleti wrote: »

It's why a debate with her wouldn't settle much because when someone one ups her everyone will just say "well done, you outsmarted a kid".

What's to debate? The relevant experts should not be listened to, or already are being listened to?

Greta is symbolic of a generation who have greater stake in this subject than the generation making the decisions for them. That's why her youth is meaningful, not as a defense against criticism.

lleti wrote: »

How come it's ok to comment on trumps or johnsons appearance?

In Trump's case, the physical characteristics commented on are his orange skin, strange hair and his weight. All direct consequences of his vanity, disregard for authenticity and greed. Personality traits which have influenced his actions as president.

In Johnson's case, his dishevelment is widely considered to be a carefully-considered affectation designed to make him appear benign or relatable, when in fact he is neither. So he himself has introduced his appearance into the discussion.

Ash.J.Williams

JJayoo wrote: »

Personally I couldn't care less about Greta, hopefully she won't go loopy from all the attention the same way a lot of child stars go off the rails.

However I cannot stand the virtue signalling sh1tes who have suddenly emerged declaring her the second coming while at the same time they wouldn't dare lift a finger to do anything positive.

I think before a person is allowed to cry about climate change they should have to show that they have made some form of effort into making a positive impact.

I have about 400 oak trees, all 12 years old, that I have to dig out of a nursery area and plant on the land this winter. I wonder how many of the people losing their sh1t over the climate will give me a hand planting them? In the lovely Irish winter months.

Already have about 5000+ trees planted, all collected as acorns from Union wood in Sligo. Zero incentive every provided by any time of government scheme, massive costs with posts and tree guards as all trees are planted on land grazed by sheep. Another 10000 trees densely planted in this nursery area that will be planted out each winter.

Also have few hundred native flowering trees and 350 commercial apple trees I bought recently for the bees.

Not one cent available for any type.of planting yet everyday all you hear is carbon this and carbon that and all the penalties we will have to pay.

I believe in climate change, I have been doing my bit for a long time BUT I believe that currently it is being used, and Gretta, to get us ready for a whole host of new carbon/climate taxes.

Anyhow

Just listen to what she said...take on board the important bits and stfu

gozunda

BarryD2 wrote: »

It's the other side of the renewables industry that proponents like to ignore. I've visited some of the recent on shore wind farms and the works involved in erecting them are very substantial, they are major construction projects. The Galway Wind Park was I think, the largest construction site west of the Shannon when it was built in recent years. Vast amounts of carbon expended in construction works, fabrication of turbines and ongoing maintenance required. There's no free lunch, energy costs one way or another.

That's not to say we shouldn't build some of these but I'd question whether several would be built if they weren't subsidised and incentivised by public policy, taxes and levies.

It's certainly true that much of the ancillary construction for such projects relies on huge inputs of carbon emitting materials and resources. For example the amount of concrete used in providing access roads, bases and infrastructure required for wind turbines or hydroelectric schemes such as China's Three Gorges Dam.

It has been stated that If the cement industry were a country, it would be the third largest carbon dioxide emitter in the world with up to 2.8bn tonnes, surpassed only by China and the US.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/feb/25/concrete-the-most-destructive-material-on-earth

The issue with the much advocated 'keeping all the fossil fuels in the ground" is that will mean nothing - if the sources of emissions such as concrete use are not tackled. What are the alternatives for renewable energy projects? That is not been talked about for some strange reason.

It is interesting that this also has significant consequences for house building. Modern construction methods favour timber and concrete. Even where concrete is removed - timber does not provide for an adequate solution. Every tree cut down releases approx half the carbon absorbed during its lifetime. In a zero emissions economy - is it a moot point to query where will burgeoning populations be housed and services provided for where concrete cannot be used and trees must be left harvested?

AtomicHorror

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Implying anyone who disagrees with you is a 'traumatized middle-aged white dude' is racist.

I'm a middle aged white dude, as are many of Greta's more visible supporters. So in case you needed it explicitly stated- I'm not suggesting that all middle aged white dudes are hating on Greta.

They do seem traumatized, triggered or whatever.

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Attributing any set of characteristics to people based on skin colour is racist.

I'm not attributing the characteristics to the skin colour, I'm attributing the skin colour to the set of characteristics. Most of her critics are white men around my age or older who are making a choice to behave this way. It's not genetic, or innate, it's a decision. I'm observing that the most privileged group in society are choosing to abuse their privilege.

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

I realize you learnt the opposite in whatever grievance studies course you attended, but none-the-less; shame on you.

Please do not project your shame on me. Use it more constructively to drive change in your behavior.

Jimmy Garlic

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

She's already a victim of intense online bullying. The hatred of her is nothing to do with her cause either, it's more about her. Pretty crazy to put someone that vulnerable in this position

So is Donald Trump. Part and parcel of being in the public eye. She shouldn't have been put in that position, you're right. The Club of Rome and her parents should be ashamed of themselves.

lleti

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That's not accurate. It's not "any criticism", but ad hominem attacks specifically directed at her age, neurodiversity and physical appearance.



What's to debate? The relevant experts should not be listened to, or already are being listened to?

Greta is symbolic of a generation who have greater stake in this subject than the generation making the decisions for them. That's why her youth is meaningful, not as a defense against criticism.



In Trump's case, the physical characteristics commented on are his orange skin, strange hair and his weight. All direct consequences of his vanity, disregard for authenticity and greed. Personality traits which have influenced his actions as president.

In Johnson's case, his dishevelment is widely considered to be a carefully-considered affectation designed to make him appear benign or relatable, when in fact he is neither. So he himself has introduced his appearance into the discussion.

Vast majority of world leaders acknowledge climate change exists.

How many politicians were out getting photo ops last friday with the kids saying they agree with them?

Ireland is planning for another 1m people in 20 years. You'd think we'd be looking at trying to stop that if we were talking about reducing emissions. I don't hear the kids criticizing this? Why?

AtomicHorror

BarryD2 wrote: »

It's the other side of the renewables industry that proponents like to ignore. I've visited some of the recent on shore wind farms and the works involved in erecting them are very substantial, they are major construction projects. The Galway Wind Park was I think, the largest construction site west of the Shannon when it was built in recent years. Vast amounts of carbon expended in construction works, fabrication of turbines and ongoing maintenance required. There's no free lunch, energy costs one way or another.

Does it cost more carbon emissions than for a fossil-fueled plant generating equivalent energy over it's lifetime? The aim is to reduce emissions, with the distant hope of elimination.

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

So is Donald Trump. Part and parcel of being in the public eye. She shouldn't have been put in that position, you're right. The Club of Rome and her parents should be ashamed of themselves.

As I mentioned above, Trump's orange skin, bad hair and heavy frame are direct consequences of his vanity, disregard for authenticity and greed. These are personality traits which have influenced his actions as president.

They are fair game.

What do Greta's physical traits have to do with her message or her work as an activist?

gozunda

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That's not accurate. It's not "any criticism", but ad hominem attacks

specifically directed at her age, neurodiversity and physical appearance.

What's to debate? The relevant experts should not be listened to, or already are being listened to?Greta is symbolic of a generation who have greater stake in this subject than the generation making the decisions for them. That's why her youth is meaningful, not as a defense against criticism.

In Trump's case, the physical characteristics commented on are his orange skin, strange hair and his weight. All direct consequences of his vanity, disregard for authenticity and greed. Personality traits which have influenced his actions as president.
...

In Johnson's case, his dishevelment is widely considered to be a carefully-considered affectation designed to make him appear benign or relatable, when in fact he is neither. So he himself has introduced his appearance into the discussion.

So you think its ok to attack the appearance of some and ascribe those traits as negitive aspects of their public personality but not others - and you see nothing wrong with that? Ok I think we will leave you there ..

AtomicHorror

lleti wrote: »

Vast majority of world leaders acknowledge climate change exists.

How many politicians were out getting photo ops last friday with the kids saying they agree with them?

The response to which would be that actions, and emissions, speak louder than photo ops. Greta has made that point, as have many others.

lleti wrote: »

Ireland is planning for another 1m people in 20 years. You'd think we'd be looking at trying to stop that if we were talking about reducing emissions. I don't hear the kids criticizing this? Why?

You do see "the kids" supporting sex education, abortion and contraception rights, which is the only humane way to tackle the matter of population. However, even if we were to reach a steady-state population tomorrow, the matter of emissions will make that meaningless. Both questions need to be tackled, and young people make up the majority of activists advocating for both.

Jimmy Garlic

lleti wrote: »

Ireland is planning for another 1m people in 20 years. You'd think we'd be looking at trying to stop that if we were talking about reducing emissions. I don't hear the kids criticizing this? Why?

Cognative dissonance. Open door immigration is trendy so it is supported despite the fact it is at odds with all the preaching about carbon emmisions.

AtomicHorror

gozunda wrote: »

So you think its ok to attack the appearance of some and ascribe those traits as negitive aspects of their public personality but not others - and you see nothing wrong with that? Ok ...

Yes, I consider that to be valid. Because Greta's traits and personality have no bearing on the validity of her message. Her neurodiveristy may explain some of her behavior, but has no bearing on whether she is correct.

Now, if people criticized Trump for being over 70, I would not support that, but they're mostly focused on the aforementioned indicators of his horrible personality and judgment.

AtomicHorror

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Cognative dissonance. Open door immigration is trendy so it is supported despite the fact it is at odds with all the preaching about carbon emmisions.

Worrying to have to point out, but immigration does not increase the number of people in the world, just where they are. If they move from countries with higher emission infrastructure, to renewable infrastructure, it might even reduce the per-capita emissions.

Jimmy Garlic

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Worrying to have to point out, but immigration does not increase the number of people in the world, just where they are. If they move from countries with higher emission infrastructure, to renewable infrastructure, it might even reduce the per-capita emissions.

Right so, name all the African countries with higher "emission infrastructure" .

p1akuw47h5r3it

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That's not accurate. It's not "any criticism", but ad hominem attacks specifically directed at her age, neurodiversity and physical appearance.



What's to debate? The relevant experts should not be listened to, or already are being listened to?

Greta is symbolic of a generation who have greater stake in this subject than the generation making the decisions for them. That's why her youth is meaningful, not as a defense against criticism.



In Trump's case, the physical characteristics commented on are his orange skin, strange hair and his weight. All direct consequences of his vanity, disregard for authenticity and greed. Personality traits which have influenced his actions as president.

In Johnson's case, his dishevelment is widely considered to be a carefully-considered affectation designed to make him appear benign or relatable, when in fact he is neither. So he himself has introduced his appearance into the discussion.

It's hilarious that you rightly criticise those who make ad-hominium attacks online about Greta, but then do the exact same to anyone who isn't fully inboard with what she does.

Also your paragraph about Boris Johnson and Trump is complete codswallop. There is a clear and obvious double standard when it comes to Trump and BJ and comments on how they look, and you are attempting to make excuses for it. And rather poorly at that.

You are classic example of everything that is wrong with modern political discourse. You chastise your political opponents for doing bad things, and then go on to do the exact same things yourself. When this is pointed out you deny it and throw out lame excuses of how it's different when you do it. A little self-reflection wouldn't go amiss.

gozunda

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Yes, I consider that to be valid. Because Greta's traits and personality have no bearing on the validity of her message. Her neurodiveristy may explain some of her behavior, but has no bearing on whether she is correct.Now, if people criticized Trump for being over 70, I would not support that, but they're mostly focused on the aforementioned indicators of his horrible personality and judgment.

Nope. Im afraid it doesn't work like that. You either allow puerile criticisms (of everyone) or you recognise them for what they are. Excusing it as being ok for some because you happen not to like a specific person is little other than bias.

No ones "traits and personality" have a bearing on the validity of their "message". Greta is not a guru. No more than Trump or Johnson is. They are all open to valid criticism.

Placing a public figure such as greta on a pedestal above all others is not only daft - it smacks of religous belief.

lleti

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

The fact the Greta Thunberg is young is the point. It’s her generation that mine and the previous generations have f’ed over by our recklessness. She’s become a symbol for that.

When she found out the dangers her generation faces, she got depressed. Instead of remaining depressed, she took action and, with the Youth Strike, created a movement that just might have an impact on our politicians today. She’s a symbol of action, not words, and with the clock ticking towards a climate catastrophe, that’s exactly the kind of thing we need.

All young people are liberal pro X. It's when they move into the real world and have to put food on the table that it changes.

AtomicHorror

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. Im afraid it doesn't work like that. You either allow puerile criticisms (of everyone) or you recognise them for what they are. Excusing it as being ok for some because you happen not to like a specific person is little other than bias.

No ones "traits and personality" have a bearing on the validity of their "message". Greta is not a guru. No more than Trump or Johnson is. They are all open to valid criticism.

Placing a public figure such as greta on a pedestal above all others is not only daft - it smacks of religous belief.

DanDan6592 wrote: »

It's hilarious that you rightly criticise those who make ad-hominium attacks online about Greta, but then do the exact same to anyone who isn't fully inboard with what she does.

Also your paragraph about Boris Johnson and Trump is complete codswallop. There is a clear and obvious double standard when it comes to Trump and BJ and comments on how they look, and you are attempting to make excuses for it. And rather poorly at that.

You are classic example of everything that is wrong with modern political discourse. You chastise your political opponents for doing bad things, and then go on to do the exact same things yourself. When this is pointed out you deny it and throw out lame excuses of how it's different when you do it. A little self-reflection wouldn't go amiss.

So, you see no distinction between criticizing Greta on the basis of her age, gender and neurology and criticizing Trump on the basis of his spray tan, complex comb-over and excess body fat?

Something to do with choice, perhaps?

AtomicHorror

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Right so, name all the African countries with higher "emission infrastructure" .

It was an aside, the point was that bringing immigration into the argument was invalid.

jackboy

AtomicHorror wrote: »

So, you see no distinction between criticizing Greta on the basis of her age, gender and neurology and criticizing Trump on the basis of his spray tan, complex comb-over and excess body fat?

Something to do with choice, perhaps?

So you are saying that it is acceptable to mock fat people.

AtomicHorror

jackboy wrote: »

So you are saying that it is acceptable to mock fat people.

No.

p1akuw47h5r3it

AtomicHorror wrote: »

So, you see no distinction between criticizing Greta on the basis of her age, gender and neurology and criticizing Trump on the basis of his spray tan, complex comb-over and excess body fat?

Something to do with choice, perhaps?

No I don't. All are of an irrelevance. Attack their politics not how they are or what they look like.