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

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

yeah, cos climate change denial has only been around since last year.......

But, like, it was coming from certain areas.. your average punter wouldn't have been a denialist..

20Cent

Deleted User wrote: »

You see, this is the negative consequence about taking people for eejits and talking down to them through a child..you piss them off to the point where they stop listening to the environmental message at all.

The amount of people she inspired is a lot bigger than those she pissed off, most of whom don't care whoever is giving the message.

US2

Tell me how wrote: »

Why would you? By his own admission, he is trying to make money by telling people to embrace industrial development

The first person is talking about the concern if we persist as we are.
Maybe they are wrong with the 12 years, but they're not wrong that something needs to be done.

Woukd you tell people to ignore the dangers if smoking if we cannot definitively tell them exactly how long before they will become I'll from it.

Because the evidence is there. Articles from the 70s an 80s saying London will be under water by 2020, all scientific ect zzzzzzz

Tell me how

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

This is the key issue we don't know exactly what is going to happen or what the impact will be with 100% certainty. What exactly do you suggest we do?

We've been told that the climate is fvcked for decades now.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-09-09/armstrong-climate-change-has-been-routine-scare-tactic-1930s#comment_stream

How do we know that this time it's the real deal and not like any of the other previous times when we've been told that we're all doomed if we don't take drastic action.

Less of the alarmist language and scaremongering would be a good start IMO.

As for the smokers questions that's a fairly different scenario all smokers are smoking by choice.

But not everyone that's burning fossil fuels is doing so by choice in some cases they need them to survive.

What would you tell those people?

Stop burning fossil fuels and freeze to death.

You want people to stop using alarmist language and then you suggest that the message is 'Stop burning fossil fuels and freeze to death'.

That, to me, is a good example of the position of a lot of detractors on this thread as well as in general. They are too eager to rush in to saying why Greta should shut up instead of considering why her efforts should be supported.

She herself has said that the solutions which are needed to move to an alternative system which both allows people to maintain their quality of life, businesses to prosper and is less harmful to the environment are not yet known and hence the effort has to go in to doing so.

US2 wrote: »

Because the evidence is there. Articles from the 70s an 80s saying London will be under water by 2020, all scientific ect zzzzzzz

In terms of having being told that the climate is f*cked previously and it hasn't happened, that ignores the fact that damage is being done and the alternative to doing something is to wait until everyone agrees that it is f*cked. But what then? People will scratch their heads and say 'Oh yeah, they were right'? Because some day, that will be the case. And the scientists say that that day is sooner rather than later.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

You see, this is the negative consequence about taking people for eejits and talking down to them through a child..you piss them off to the point where they stop listening to the environmental message at all.

What a cop out.

Many people here would complain about anything which suggested their lifestyle had to change even if David Attenborough knocked on their door and explained to them why.

Anyone not listening at this point is doing so because they are either ignorant or selfish. They were never going to listen to anything which might mean change for them.

I don't know..People don't like being lectured to..
They can reach saturation point with a topic where the reaction is just "Oh, will you fnck off.."

And anyway..most of the answers to these questions are in the hands of governments and big industry..

LessOutragePlz

Tell me how wrote: »

You want people to stop using alarmist language and then you suggest that the message is 'Stop burning fossil fuels and freeze to death'.

That, to me, is a good example of the position of a lot of detractors on this thread as well as in general. They are too eager to rush in to saying why Greta should shut up instead of considering why her efforts should be supported.

She herself has said that the solutions which are needed to move to an alternative system which both allows people to maintain their quality of life, businesses to prosper and is less harmful to the environment are not yet known and hence the effort has to go in to doing so.



In terms of having being told that the climate is f*cked previously and it hasn't happened, that ignores the fact that damage is being done and the alternative to doing something is to wait until everyone agrees that it is f*cked. But what then? People will scratch their heads and say 'Oh yeah, they were right'? Because some day, that will be the case. And the scientists say that that day is sooner rather than later.

I wasn't suggesting we use that language I was merely posing a question to you and giving a hypothetical response but interpret it whatever way you like.

As far as Greta saying the solutions are not yet known for a sustainable economy and good quality of life while reducing carbon emissions.

Have you got any clips or articles of her saying this because all I've seen from the mainstream media is her being overly dramatic about the situation saying we've stolen her childhood etc. I've yet to see her talk about any potential solutions to the problems that she is talking about.

Again this is the main issue I have with the whole thing. I'm not denying that damage is being done but, at what rate I would argue is yet to be determined. How long should we keep up the alarmist language and scaremongering: Should would go on it with it for another 100 years?

As well as this what about some of the world's biggets polluters such as China and India. Are we really gonna convince them to cut out fossil fuels and reduce carbon emissions. When they are among the fastest growing economies in the world.

What we need is less short sightedness because things aren't going to change overnight. Realistically it's going to be decades before greener sources of energy are going to be a viable alternatives to fossil fuels in certain parts of the world.

KyussB

We already have the plans (Green New Deal) and technology to slash our carbon emissions - even before you get to eliminating them entirely... - and we are not deploying it at a big enough scale, even though (despite private industry being incapable) governments are perfectly capable of doing this - solely because of ideological objections against government doing anything...

Governments are also the only entities capable of engaging in R&D at a large enough scale, to develop the technology needed for solving the remaining technological etc. problems for making renewable tech and storage more efficient, and moving towards zero-emissions (and even negative emissions) economies.

The main reason anyone objects to doing all of this, is ideological opposition to governments undertaking large scale projects like this.

That's it, really. Even the backpedalling denialists in this thread, have been forced to admit climate change is a real problem - only walk it back to trying to debate the timeline before things get bad - so they have no good excuse for not engaging in the necessary projects, merely because governments are the only entities capable of doing it in a timely manner.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

You want people to stop using alarmist language and then you suggest that the message is 'Stop burning fossil fuels and freeze to death'.

That, to me, is a good example of the position of a lot of detractors on this thread as well as in general. They are too eager to rush in to saying why Greta should shut up instead of considering why her efforts should be supported.

She herself has said that the solutions which are needed to move to an alternative system which both allows people to maintain their quality of life, businesses to prosper and is less harmful to the environment are not yet known and hence the effort has to go in to doing so.

In terms of having being told that the climate is f*cked previously and it hasn't happened, that ignores the fact that damage is being done and the alternative to doing something is to wait until everyone agrees that it is f*cked. But what then? People will scratch their heads and say 'Oh yeah, they were right'? Because some day, that will be the case. And the scientists say that that day is sooner rather than later.

Again such gross generalisations about those you dont agree with on this thread makes that null and void. But yes greta has indeed declared that she wants fossil fuels kept in the ground now  and the direct consequences of that is yes people will not be able to heat their houses or get to work or for us to produce food. Because at this moment we do not have alternatives on the ground which can provide anything close to the available energy which we draw down from fossil fuels. And btw no that does not mean that anyone is suggesting nothing 'can' be done. Rather the fact is we are million miles away from being able to do that without their being serious consequences for people being able to look after their basic needs.

Also I see none on this thread suggesting that "greta should shut up" rather many have correctly criticised her naive and frankly childlike take on the actual issue which is being pushed by her fans.

And until there are real alternatives on the ground for the majority of people on the planet- not just some 'green new deal' type political idiocy based on magigical beans - then that is not going to happen.

Pointing this out is really a case of the emperors new clothes which means that yes the issue is bolloc naked for all to see but some are choosing to ignore that and engaging in screaming and tantrums and virtue signalling which unfortunately is not going to help anyone even a little bit

KyussB

gozunda wrote:

And until there are real alternatives on the ground for the majority of people on the planet- not just some 'green new deal' type political idiocy based on magigical beans - then that is not going to happen.

Pretty much anyone can see that the scale of what private industry is doing with regards to renewables, storage, R&D etc. etc. - versus what we as a species are capable of doing in scaling up the manufacturing and development of that tech - is enormous, we can scale it up at least an order of magnitude or two - but only using governments, because private industry is not capable of that.

That is the basis of the Green New Deal. We can even choose the scale at which we undertake that, to maintain our current standards of living.

Not a single person on the thread has a valid argument against undertaking that - all opponents of it gave up presenting actual arguments against it 3+ months ago - only disparaging it without argument, usually only giving ideological objections to it, by pretending it represents an ideology it does not.

KyussB

KyussB wrote: »

Not a single person on the thread has a valid argument against undertaking that - all opponents of it gave up presenting actual arguments against it 3+ months ago - only disparaging it without argument, usually only giving ideological objections to it, by pretending it represents an ideology it does not.

people tired of discussing it with you because you consistently claim pretty ludicrous opinions as certain fact, insist that money comes from nowhere, that pan-governmental multi-generational projects are as simple as snapping fingers and on top of it all misrepresenting any case against these facile claims in exactly the manner you have above.

type away, another ten paragraphs of repetition won't actually lend you the credibility you are so outraged about not getting from the """"""denialists"""""""

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Again such gross generalisations about those you dont agree with on this thread makes that null and void. But yes greta has indeed declared that she wants fossil fuels kept in the ground now  and the direct consequences of that is yes people will not be able to heat their houses or get to work or for us to produce food. Because at this moment we do not have alternatives on the ground which can provide anything close to the available energy which we draw down from fossil fuels. And btw no that does not mean that anyone is suggesting nothing 'can' be done. Rather the fact is we are million miles away from being able to do that without their being serious consequences for people being able to look after their basic needs.

Also I see none on this thread suggesting that "greta should shut up" rather many have correctly criticised her naive and frankly childlike take on the actual issue which is being pushed by her fans.

And until there are real alternatives on the ground for the majority of people on the planet- not just some 'green new deal' type political idiocy based on magigical beans - then that is not going to happen.

Pointing this out is really a case of the emperors new clothes which means that yes the issue is bolloc naked for all to see but some are choosing to ignore that and engaging in screaming and tantrums and virtue signalling which unfortunately is not going to help anyone even a little bit

GTFO with this nonsense.
Do you think we were born yesterday and haven't read the thread or that we haven't the capacity to remember what we have read.

You and I are here pretty much from the beginning of the thread. You can't tell me what I've read and given your high post count also, I dont see how you could have failed to read the same posts.

Tell me how

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

I wasn't suggesting we use that language I was merely posing a question to you and giving a hypothetical response but interpret it whatever way you like.

As far as Greta saying the solutions are not yet known for a sustainable economy and good quality of life while reducing carbon emissions.

Have you got any clips or articles of her saying this because all I've seen from the mainstream media is her being overly dramatic about the situation saying we've stolen her childhood etc. I've yet to see her talk about any potential solutions to the problems that she is talking about.

Again this is the main issue I have with the whole thing. I'm not denying that damage is being done but, at what rate I would argue is yet to be determined. How long should we keep up the alarmist language and scaremongering: Should would go on it with it for another 100 years?

As well as this what about some of the world's biggets polluters such as China and India. Are we really gonna convince them to cut out fossil fuels and reduce carbon emissions. When they are among the fastest growing economies in the world.

What we need is less short sightedness because things aren't going to change overnight. Realistically it's going to be decades before greener sources of energy are going to be a viable alternatives to fossil fuels in certain parts of the world.

I'll try to find the ones I am referring to later on.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Pretty much anyone can see that the scale of what private industry is doing with regards to renewables, storage, R&D etc. etc. - versus what we as a species are capable of doing in scaling up the manufacturing and development of that tech - is enormous, we can scale it up at least an order of magnitude or two - but only using governments, because private industry is not capable of that.That is the basis of the Green New Deal. We can even choose the scale at which we undertake that, to maintain our current standards of living.Not a single person on the thread has a valid argument against undertaking that - all opponents of it gave up presenting actual arguments against it 3+ months ago - only disparaging it without argument, usually only giving ideological objections to it, by pretending it represents an ideology it does not.

So you keep repeatedly claiming bizarrely on a thread about gretas travels across the globe. But hey even if this type of party political broadcasting was somehow relevant to anything and not the stuff of fairy tales - None of it stands up to even the most basic scrutiny. It may be your or indeed AOCs favourite persional mantra - but it remains that is all it is.

As to what private industry is doing with regards to renewables, storage, R&D?

Well lets look up some tiny examples shall we? - Solar technologies. High efficiency light bulbs, furnaces and air conditioning. Huge improvements to fuel efficiency. Shifts to natural gas. Material research for efficient insulation. Recycling. Solar for businesses and homes. Ditto wind enegy. Composting. Carbon capture technology. Paperless and virtual communications. The list is endless and increasing and you want to throw all this away?

And it's not like governments aren't already doing much already as well in providing real and alternative solutions to fossil fuels ie nuclear energy generation and the subsidisation of renewables for same. Even the EU has achieved a considerable decrease in CO2 emissions as part of its efforts and this is continuing.

But why no mention of nuclear with GND? Or wait, is that’s completely out because implementing it doesn’t achieve socialist goals?

As pointed out previously the Green New Deal is indeed remains a large pile of pooh and to quote humorously it seems to "appeal to two types of people: idiots, and those who don’t pay taxes"

And indeed there has been lots of good reasoned and valid arguments why GND is not a runner. That these have been ignored is irrelevant to that debate. Plenty of independent and thought provoking discussion and links on the issue in the thread already - like this posted previously. Perhaps you haven't read it?

https://quillette.com/2019/05/21/straight-to-hell-millenarianism-and-the-green-new-deal/

Even those who are supportive of improving the environment and socio-economic reforms point out that GND ideas dont add up with regard to climate change.

Don’t get me wrong. I am in whole-hearted agreement with the goals of the Green New Deal, as laid out yesterday by Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). I want the United States to stop emitting greenhouse gases, create millions of good jobs, and promote justice and equity.

I only have one problem with the plan. It won’t solve the climate crisis.

https://itif.org/publications/2019/02/08/green-new-deals-achilles-heel#

KyussB

Deleted User wrote: »

people tired of discussing it with you because you consistently claim pretty ludicrous opinions as certain fact, insist that money comes from nowhere, that pan-governmental multi-generational projects are as simple as snapping fingers and on top of it all misrepresenting any case against these facile claims in exactly the manner you have above.

type away, another ten paragraphs of repetition won't actually lend you the credibility you are so outraged about not getting from the """"""denialists"""""""

You've brought up the topic of money creation (as you have here) more times than I have by now - it's not really related to Green New Deal discussions, only comes up as a tangent. My views on the topic are the same as those of central banks - you fail to present what you think the 'correct' view is.

It's a bit odd that whenever you haven't got an argument against something, you try to get me talking about such tangents - and then posters you backslap with, seem to try to build a mod case against me for discussing those tangents they deem 'off topic'...

See, you don't try to argue the Green New Deal - you go for smears, or worse... - that proves my point.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

GTFO with this nonsense. Do you think we were born yesterday and haven't read the thread or that we haven't the capacity to remember what we have read.
You and I are here pretty much from the beginning of the thread. You can't tell me what I've read and given your high post count also, I dont see how you could have failed to read the same posts.

"GTFO"??? charming!

But why the constant obsession with your high post count? - which btw remains ringing the bell at the very top by quite a margin. Congrats :pac:

To your post - there's a lot of irrelevant words there which really say nothing I'm afraid. But sure go ahead and do put the money with the vocal cords and provide the links all those posts where all those nasty posters have said that greta needs to shut up

Afaik there was just one poster way back who suggested that

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112006556&postcount=7809

And thats about it. But hey let's ignore that for the hyperbole yes?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

As to what private industry is doing with regards to renewables, storage, R&D?

Well lets look up some tiny examples shall we? - Solar technologies. High efficiency light bulbs, furnaces and air conditioning. Huge improvements to fuel efficiency. Shifts to natural gas. Material research for efficient insulation. Recycling. Solar for businesses and homes. Ditto wind enegy. Composting. Carbon capture technology. Paperless and virtual communications. The list is endless and increasing and you want to throw all this away?

All government activity in this area only expands the amount of effort done, to achieve all of this faster and at a greater scale - private industry, which is restricted by needing to make a profit, obviously isn't doing any of this fast enough, as the time scales for ending our contribution to climate change are still at least half a century away.

The percentage of GDP that private industry is putting into the task of fighting our contribution to climate change - is nothing compared to what governments can do.

gozunda wrote: »

And it's not like governments aren't already doing much already as well in providing real and alternative solutions to fossil fuels ie nuclear energy generation and the subsidisation of renewables for same. Even the EU has achieved a considerable decrease in CO2 emissions as part of its efforts and this is continuing.

In other words: Even when private industry is subsidized with public money, it's still not arresting our countribution to climate change, fast enough.

gozunda wrote: »

As pointed out previously the Green New Deal is indeed remains a large pile of pooh and to quote humorously it seems to "appeal to two types of people: idiots, and those who don’t pay taxes"

And indeed there has been lots of good reasoned and valid arguments why GND is not a runner. That these have been ignored is irrelevant to that debate. Plenty of independent and thought provoking discussion and links on the issue in the thread already - like this posted previously. Perhaps you haven't read it?

https://quillette.com/2019/05/21/straight-to-hell-millenarianism-and-the-green-new-deal/

Even those who are supportive of improving the environment and socio-economic reforms point out that GND ideas dont add up with regard to climate change.



https://itif.org/publications/2019/02/08/green-new-deals-achilles-heel#

The only argument you present against the GND is to literally 'pooh pooh' it again - the first article you link bizarrely presents only religious arguments againt the GND - specifically stating that it has no empirical arguments against the GND.

The second article is actually in favour of the GND - just criticizing that it is not ambitious enough, and that it should focus majorly on R&D, to roll out zero emissions tech worldwide - something I actually agree with and have stated many times in the thread - much bigger government action is required, beyond the GND - and reliance on rare-earths needs to be minimized.

It just looks like you didn't even read the articles - just pasted the first Google links you found - and the latter actually supports my arguments and the GND.

Hilarious.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

All government activity in this area only expands the amount of effort done, to achieve all of this faster and at a greater scale - private industry, which is restricted by needing to make a profit, obviously isn't doing any of this fast enough, as the time scales for ending our contribution to climate change are still at least half a century away.The percentage of GDP that private industry is putting into the task of fighting our contribution to climate change - is nothing compared to what governments can do.
In other words: Even when private industry is subsidized with public money, it's still not arresting our countribution to climate change, fast enough.The only argument you present against the GND is to literally 'pooh pooh' it again - the first article you link bizarrely presents only religious arguments againt the GND - specifically stating that it has no empirical arguments against the GND.The second article is actually in favour of the GND - just criticizing that it is not ambitious enough, and that it should focus majorly on R&D, to roll out zero emissions tech worldwide - something I actually agree with and have stated many times in the thread - much bigger government action is required, beyond the GND - and reliance on rare-earths needs to be minimized.It just looks like you didn't even read the articles - just pasted the first Google links you found - and the latter actually supports my arguments and the GND.

TLDR plus you've simply repeated all the same null arguments previously but they still dont wash

And btw I'm not 'pooh poohing' it btw - I'm actually saying it is a pile of pooh imho.

As to the two articles- the first was already posted and indeed looks at the apocalyptic origins of AOCs Green New Deal built on the premise that the world is going to end in 12 years (Which as pointed out is not given by any scientist) and how the whole idea is predicated on that and where that idiocy leads.

And of the second - it is actually quoted in the first - but you must have missed this bit in the haste to try and change what the author has stated.

Don’t get me wrong. I am in whole-hearted agreement with the goals of the Green New Deal, as laid out yesterday by Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). I want the United States to stop emitting greenhouse gases, create millions of good jobs, and promote justice and equity.

I only have one problem with the plan. It won’t solve the climate crisis.

But yeah perhaps try reading opinions other than Bernie Sanders party election website which was your only link on it afaik. There is some very interesting stuff out there showing that GND is indeed rubbish. Try googling it ....

is_that_so

Tell me how wrote: »

This post could be used in future as an example of 'the ignorance displayed by many'.

• Didn't hear of someone who was a topic of near global conversation until a thread was started on Boards.
  
• Proud of the fact that they make no effort to recycle and drive a 'big diesel'.
  
• Unaware of the fact that 80's concern about the ozone lead to the banning of CFC's which had been responsible for the rapid escalation of the issue and whose removal saw that particular problem negated.
  
• The ubiquitous statement about it being all an excuse for taxes again while Irish, American and Australian (to name a few) governments have shown no interest in bringing in taxes to enforce change.
  
• A completely baseless belief that technology can solve all problems while Australia is suffering catastrophic damage by something which in theory could be solved by pouring water on it.

Quite depressing to read it to be honest.

As is this one of yet another anonymous (and very probably unqualified) poster lecturing the rest of the internet on how stupid they are! Two sides of the same coin?

Guy:Incognito

Deleted User wrote: »

But, like, it was coming from certain areas.. your average punter wouldn't have been a denialist..

You sure? YouTube has made a lot of people experts on everything........

hetuzozaho

Maybe posted already so apologies but here we are ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Happy birthday to Greta is in order I see!

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1213163169620877312

Thelonious Monk

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/05/britain-annual-carbon-emissions-overtake-africa-two-weeks-oxfam

Interesting reading. I would imagine Irish footprint is at least as bad as British.

gozunda

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Maybe posted already so apologies but here we are ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Happy birthday to Greta is in order I see!
https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1213163169620877312

Yup as you said- here we are ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ You know - I like that!I think I'll make it my own :pac:

I think it was noted here already as it's been all over social media

The lovely social media birthday wishes are a contrast in point to some of the recent online reaction to Amanda Henderson - the person on the TV Quiz show who didn't know who greta was. Its been reported that some have taken the opportunity to amongst other things to tell her to ‘kill herself’ as a result of the comment. The crazy thing is that Ms Henderson was even lampooned for that by none other than our own greta when she renamed herself as 'Sharon' on her twitter profile.

https://metro.co.uk/2020/01/04/amanda-henderson-defended-casualty-co-star-vile-greta-thunberg-backlash-12000816/

hetuzozaho

Just on Greta's twitter page she has retweeted lots of interesting stuff around the Australian Bush fires over the last few days.

This one is just crazy to see

https://twitter.com/AssaadRazzouk/status/1213500612182257666

Penrith at 48.9, yikes if true!!

Guy:Incognito

gozunda wrote: »

Yup as you said- here we are ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ You know - I like that!I think I'll make it my own :pac:

I think it was noted here already as it's been all over social media

The social media birthday wishes are a contrast in point to some of the recent online reaction to Amanda Henderson - the person on the TV Quiz show who didn't know who greta was. Its been reported that some have taken the opportunity to amongst other things to tell her to ‘kill herself’ as a result of the comment. The crazy thing is the girl was even lampooned for that by none other than our own greta when she renamed herself as 'Sharon' on her twitter profile.

https://metro.co.uk/2020/01/04/amanda-henderson-defended-casualty-co-star-vile-greta-thunberg-backlash-12000816/

I had never heard of Amanda Henderson before the clip. I didnt even know it was a "celebrity" version tbh. But lets be honest here, if you havnt heard of Greta Thunberg at this stage, whatever your take on climate change is, you probably need to have a look at how you view world affairs . Or more specifically,have a view on world affairs and look beyond whatever reality show is on the tv in front of you.

Also, in an effort to see who she was, I chad a quick look at her twitter because she was tagged in a post saying how awful it was to slag her. Funnily enough,the 2nd or 3rd tweet on her page was her sharing a video of a woman falling down stairs in a club. So she can hardly claim the moral high ground.




I do like how youre presenting the name change thing as new information, even though you had a discussion about it a couple of pages back.......

Gaoth Laidir

I see Greta makes a big deal about her mental illness on her profile, yet nobody else is allowed to mention that she has it (the guy in that Fox News interview, for example). Like it or not, Autism (of which Asberger's is a form, is classified as a mental illness/disorder. Much of her behaviour, enxiety, outbursts, etc., are symptoms of this illness. I don't get why pointing this out is met with such hostility and political correctness.

Tell me how

is_that_so wrote: »

As is this one of yet another anonymous (and very probably unqualified) poster lecturing the rest of the internet on how stupid they are! Two sides of the same coin?

No. The points I bulleted are objectively the case given the post.
Your logic is what grants flat earthers a platform so as to 'present both sides of the argument'.
It ignores the reality.

Thelonious Monk

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I see Greta makes a big deal about her mental illness on her profile, yet nobody else is allowed to mention that she has it (the guy in that Fox News interview, for example). Like it or not, Autism (of which Asberger's is a form, is classified as a mental illness/disorder. Much of her behaviour, enxiety, outbursts, etc., are symptoms of this illness. I don't get why pointing this out is met with such hostility and political correctness.

Everyone in this thread who don't like her or her message go on about her autism or asperger all the time! It's often used in a "what would she know she's autistic" kind of way by many of the posters here.
I've also heard people in the media mention it.

Tell me how

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I see Greta makes a big deal about her mental illness on her profile, yet nobody else is allowed to mention that she has it (the guy in that Fox News interview, for example). Like it or not, Autism (of which Asberger's is a form, is classified as a mental illness/disorder. Much of her behaviour, enxiety, outbursts, etc., are symptoms of this illness. I don't get why pointing this out is met with such hostility and political correctness.

Because the majority of people can see that the points she is making are true, and the emotion which she is displaying is appropriate for something which she obviously is passionate about given her behaviour and lifestyle is in line with what she is saying.

It is rational behaviour.

If she was getting upset and speaking out about something irrational, say, why all public clocks weren't set to the exact same second, she wouldn't have the same support for the topic.

What is met with hostility is when people try to use the fact that she has 'asbergers' (sic) in an effort to discount the points which she is making. That is insulting to all people as it implies that no one with any sort of mental disorder is capable of making a rational point.