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

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

So, on one side, we have people advocating for believing that action is required, supported by the work of thousands of scientists and climatologists. On the other, we have people saying, (effectively) don't bother doing anything.

And yet, those advocating the science be believed are the ones being arrogant.

Why is that?

i mean i literally wrote the post to which you've responded above setting out what imo is arrogant.

literally, like.

Tell me how

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Still waiting on you to provide evidence for this?

Speech to British Parliament

One of the most common arguments that we children hear when people criticize us is that "we don't have any solutions"...
Here is a part from my speech at the British Parliament:

"Many people say that we don’t have any solutions to the climate crisis. And they are right. Because how could we? How do you “solve” the greatest crisis that humanity has ever faced? How do you “solve” a war? How do you “solve” going to the moon for the first time? How do you “solve” inventing new inventions?
The climate crisis is both the easiest and the hardest issue we have ever faced. The easiest because we know what we must do. We must stop the emissions of greenhouse gases. The hardest because our current economics are still totally dependent on burning fossil fuels, and thereby destroying ecosystems in order to create everlasting economic growth.
“So, exactly how do we solve that?” you ask us – the schoolchildren striking for the climate.

And we say: “No one knows for sure. But we have to stop burning fossil fuels and restore nature and many other things that we may not have quite figured out yet.”
Then you say: “That’s not an answer!”
So we say: “We have to start treating the crisis like a crisis – and act even if we don’t have all the solutions.”
“That’s still not an answer,” you say.
Then we start talking about circular economy and rewilding nature and the need for a just transition. Then you don’t understand what we are talking about.
We say that all those solutions needed are not known to anyone and therefore we must unite behind the science and find them together along the way. But you do not listen to that. Because those answers are for solving a crisis that most of you don’t even fully understand. Or don’t want to understand.
You don’t listen to the science because you are only interested in solutions that will enable you to carry on like before. Like now. And those answers don’t exist any more. Because you did not act in time.
Avoiding climate breakdown will require cathedral thinking. We must lay the foundation while we may not know exactly how to build the ceiling.
Sometimes we just simply have to find a way."

I'm finished using Google now so feel free to use it yourself if you have any more questions or want information.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

i mean i literally wrote the post to which you've responded above setting out what imo is arrogant.

literally, like.

I mean it is not like as if does of us in support of Greta are arguing amongst ourselves, the other side (which you are a member of) are putting forward their views which are being repeated in-spite of evidence countering them.

Yes, and you don't see the arrogance in feeling that it is your position is the one that is correct...

See my point?

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

I mean it is not like as if does of us in support of Greta are arguing amongst ourselves, the other side (which you are a member of) are putting forward their views which are being repeated in-spite of evidence countering them.

Yes, and you don't see the arrogance in feeling that it is your position is the one that is correct...

See my point?

i see you not reading what i wrote, but rather telling me what you want the point to have been so that you can tell me what your rejoinder is.

ie your m.o. throughout the entire thread.

KyussB

Deleted User wrote: »

theres a few of ye on the one side of this discussion that really seem not to understand- you telling someone something is not them "knowing it".

its just you typing it.

people will decide themselves whether they have been enlightened by your arguments/opinions or not

its....i mean look genuinely its terrific arrogance imo to behave as if simply by stating something youve decided it, and anyone not convinced is somehow acting the maggot by continuing to disagree with you

'how dare they'!

Except there are posters with a demonstrated history of ignoring very clearly pointed out things - it's not a matter of disagreeing, but of ignoring and pretending something wasn't said - often as a tedious and wilful form of obstruction.

In this case, ignoring that the article is stating the GND is not ambitious enough.

So instead of you or the other poster trying to rebut that and show how the article is not making the claim, that the GND is not ambitious enough - you're making us have this retarded meta-argument, instead of actually addressing any of the points made.

All of it is just you and others proving, that you have no valid arguments against the GND, just ideological ones - and that you sidetrack into stupid meta arguments over nothing, instead.

feargale

Farmers, wanting more money, protest by blocking thoroughfares with tractors and driving sheep into a government office.
Other protesters physically attack the police and also their opponents whose flag they don't like, as witness, to take just one example, the attack on Love Ulster in Dublin.
Others go on strike and bring their country to a virtual standstill.

All of these inconveniences pass over us with a minimum of condemnation. Have you heard anybody ask why are they not working?

But when schoolkids take time out of school to show concern for their very existence in the future, and act peacefully, assaulting nobody, they are met with the same patronising arrogance I am old enough to have witnessed in 1968. "Why aren't they in school?" "What do they know about it?"
How much do you need to see with your own eyes to believe them? Australia is burning. Severe storms are more frequent. I haven't seen a hint of frost this winter, not to talk of a flake of snow. If that's not enough, do you really believe that the vast majority of scientists are making this up, that some if not all of the minority are not in the pay of vested interests who don't give a s--t about future generations as long as they can rape the earth. Is Evelyn Cusack off the wall for instance? I wonder how many of the ordinary people who are vehement deniers are in employment which depends on anti-environmental measures. Remember the tobacco industry and its cynical manipulation of scientific knowledge of cancer in the 1950s. The survival instinct kicks in with most employees of big corporations. Expressing views at variance with the the profit ambitions of the boss doesn't often end well.

Yes, I hear you when you say that old poor people cannot be left to die because they cannot warm themselves with fossil fuels. There are no easy answers. But bitter pills must be swallowed and time is running out. Head in the sand is no solution.

And 1968? I heard nice respectable people on Northern Ireland television decrying students who protested against blatant injustice. "You should be studying. As a taxpayer I am paying to educate you." Young people protested in America at that time too for a better world, and met the same hostility. Some paid with their lives.

Martin Luther King and his followers have been vindicated. The Northern Civil Rights mostly young protesters have been vindicated. So will Greta Thunberg and the other wonderful young people. If you are still around and the planet hasn't fried, how will you respond when your grandchildren ask you where you stood? At least, you should acknowledge the inconvenient truth.

20Cent

Deleted User wrote: »

Just came across this on reddit..


Quote by Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: "It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."

Quote by Jim Sibbison, public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency: "We routinely wrote scare stories...Our press reports were more or less true...We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment."

Quote by emeritus professor Daniel Botkin: "The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."

Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president: "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are"

Quote by Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ.: "That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

Quote by Sir John Houghton, lead editor of first three IPCC reports: “If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster.”

Quote from Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist: "The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty."

Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models.”

Quote by David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University: “Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.”

Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change gives the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Quote by Timoth Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former Democrat Senator: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Quote by Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat: "A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."

Out of context quotes don't beat hard science and facts.

feargale

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Just came across this on reddit..


Quote by Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: "It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."

Quote by Jim Sibbison, public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency: "We routinely wrote scare stories...Our press reports were more or less true...We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment."

Quote by emeritus professor Daniel Botkin: "The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."

Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president: "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are"

Quote by Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ.: "That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

Quote by Sir John Houghton, lead editor of first three IPCC reports: “If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster.”

Quote from Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist: "The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty."

Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models.”

Quote by David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University: “Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.”

Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change gives the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Quote by Timoth Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former Democrat Senator: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Quote by Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat: "A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."

I guess there's no problem then.

Like if I as an Allied soldier in WWII saw a comrade commit a war crime I should immediately transfer my allegiance to Hitler. :rolleyes:

Hitler wasn't one for allowing deviation from the party line..

Is anyone really saying that climate change isn't a thing?..people are objecting to lack of proper debate, and being subjected to blatant propaganda really..

KyussB

KyussB wrote: »

Except there are posters with a demonstrated history of ignoring very clearly pointed out things - it's not a matter of disagreeing, but of ignoring and pretending something wasn't said - often as a tedious and wilful form of obstruction.

In this case, ignoring that the article is stating the GND is not ambitious enough.

So instead of you or the other poster trying to rebut that and show how the article is not making the claim, that the GND is not ambitious enough - you're making us have this retarded meta-argument, instead of actually addressing any of the points made.

All of it is just you and others proving, that you have no valid arguments against the GND, just ideological ones - and that you sidetrack into stupid meta arguments over nothing, instead.

1. It's a matter of disagreement. If you state it isn't, guess what: I disagree. Some of you, as I've said, seem to think that's not allowed. Ye must have been reared in very gentle houses!

2. Why would I be rebutting anything? I've little interest in discussing many of the items you seem to think this (indeed, every thread you post in, tbh) is about. You also seem to be mistaking me for a proxy for someone else. Again- anyone who doesn't buy your leaflet becomes part of the amorphous mass of "deniers" who are all to be held to account for a range of sins you appear to invent at will. Try to keep the posters you're insulting separate, will you please? Yourself and tell me how have the thread wrecked with lazy handwaved "ye deniers have all said the same thing all thread" when it's demonstrably not the case at all. I don't think I've once essayed an opinion on the GND in the thread, ffs.

3. "Retarded" is a ugly word.

4. A thread this long, pulled from pillar to post (by you yourself as much or moreso than any other one poster, it seems fair to note) will veer into meta-analysis when the issue at times boils down to the tack that one side is taking in their argument. Many's the long thread does, it seems a valid and interesting avenue to me (moreso than the GND, or the invention of the concept of free money as long as one likes what it's to be spent on).

Guy:Incognito

gozunda wrote: »

Do you? That's quite bizarre. The number of posters on boards who reckon threads like these are anything but part of a discussìon forum is frankly amazing. And no didnt going checking out Ms Henderson's social media profile or even heard of her previously - the story came up in my newsfeed. However suggesting that somehow she somehow deserves to be told go kill herself or be lampooned or even 'claiming the moral high ground'? is tad odd tbh at best

Btw you may notice my comment concerned the update relating to the reported online abuse telling Ms Henderson she should kill herself and the linked lampooning etc in the news story. And no tbh I dont reckon everyone knows what book was written exactly what climate activist. Especially if you not particularly interested etc. But hey it takes all types...

I never mentioned comments about killing herself, people like that on twitter are best ignore as they clearly have a screw loose, but it's a bit rich to be whinging about someone having a laugh, partially at their own expense , with their twitter handle over an amusing clip of someone giving a stupid answer . Especially someone who is perfectly ok having a laugh at something far worse (the woman falling down stairs) .

Personally, I'll laugh at both, but I don't tend to get my nose out of joint and go defending strangers because someone I don't like had the neck to have a laugh at them.

As for the question itself, come on, how many 16 year old climate activists do you know about who are famous. I didn't know there was a book, but Greta thunberg would be my first guess. Again, she's quite famous and anyone with even a passing interest in what's going on in the world will have heard of her.

Just on the book..

Why in the fnck is she writing a book?..

Has that been the point all along?..was she just selling a book?..

Is she just another bloody "grifter"?..

(Note that I refrain from the obvious..)

KyussB

Deleted User wrote: »

1. It's a matter of disagreement. If you state it isn't, guess what: I disagree. Some of you, as I've said, seem to think that's not allowed. Ye must have been reared in very gentle houses!

2. Why would I be rebutting anything? I've little interest in discussing many of the items you seem to think this (indeed, every thread you post in, tbh) is about. You also seem to be mistaking me for a proxy for someone else. Again- anyone who doesn't buy your leaflet becomes part of the amorphous mass of "deniers" who are all to be held to account for a range of sins you appear to invent at will. Try to keep the posters you're insulting separate, will you please? Yourself and tell me how have the thread wrecked with lazy handwaved "ye deniers have all said the same thing all thread" when it's demonstrably not the case at all. I don't think I've once essayed an opinion on the GND in the thread, ffs.

3. "Retarded" is a ugly word.

4. A thread this long, pulled from pillar to post (by you yourself as much or moreso than any other one poster, it seems fair to note) will veer into meta-analysis when the issue at times boils down to the tack that one side is taking in their argument. Many's the long thread does, it seems a valid and interesting avenue to me (moreso than the GND, or the invention of the concept of free money as long as one likes what it's to be spent on).

More bullshit meta-arguing :rolleyes: Get to the point: Did the article argue that the Green New Deal was not ambitious enough - or did it not?

If you can't answer that directly, you're spouting nonsense.

You're the only poster on the entire thread to bring up 'free money'.

KyussB

If anyone has Netflix, a good documentary detailing a present die-off/effect of climate change, is Chasing Coral - detailing the accelerating die-off of coral around the world, due to climate change. Found that looking for a related documentary, Chasing Ice - have not watched that yet, though.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Except there are posters with a demonstrated history of ignoring very clearly pointed out things - it's not a matter of disagreeing, but of ignoring and pretending something wasn't said - often as a tedious and wilful form of obstruction.

In this case, ignoring that the article is stating the GND is not ambitious enough.

So instead of you or the other poster trying to rebut that and show how the article is not making the claim, that the GND is not ambitious enough - you're making us have this retarded meta-argument, instead of actually addressing any of the points made.All of it is just you and others proving, that you have no valid arguments against the GND, just ideological ones - and that you sidetrack into stupid meta arguments over nothing, instead.

Incorrect. Again that is singularly your opinion and unfortunately does not stand up to scrutiny. It is your own bizarre take on the article that the plan for GND 'wasn't ambitious enough'' and not the authors. Let's spell this out simply - it was 'not said'

This is what author actually says in his own words was and I quote:

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.

This is the central point to that article:

The only way to solve the climate crisis is for the whole world to stop emitting greenhouse gases. But the tools that the GND would create would not be effective worldwide. Until low-carbon energy is cheaper than high-carbon energy for the bulk of the globe’s energy needs, the pace of global emissions will not slow down very much. And the GND would not do very much to make that so.

No where absolutely nowhere does the author make any reference to your statement that "GND is not ambitious enough".

So just to restate that- the fact is the author does not make your claim and you have spectacularly failed to show otherwise other than demanding others do your work for you.

You may not like any of that. But that simply is irrelevant to the facts or the thread or even the entire discussion.

Grab All Association

IndependentUK wrote:

If you are of a certain age you've probably never heard of aging rocker Meat Loaf but he has heard of Greta Thunberg and unsurprisingly has a few opinions about the climate change activist.

The 'Bat out of Hell' singer, who also starred in Fight Club, spoke to the Daily Mail and admitted that he felt sorry for the 17-year-old Swede who has been widely praised for her efforts to raise awareness on the climate crisis.

The 72-year-old who is a climate change denier, is quoted as saying:

She has been brainwashed into thinking that there is climate change and there isn’t.

She hasn’t done anything wrong, but she’s been forced into thinking that what she is saying is true.

Considering that Meat Loaf's career peaked in the 1970s and Thunberg is still a teenager it is unlikely that she has ever heard of him and it would hardly be the first time that she has received a critical comment from an older, misguided white man.

With all this in mind, people were more than happy to come to Thunberg's defence and mock Meat Loaf, real name Marvin Lee Aday, for his egregious comments.

career peaked in the 1970s?

Wikipedia wrote:

The song reached number one in the charts in 28 countries.[1] In most countries, it was Meat Loaf's first and only number one solo single.[citation needed] It was number one in the US for five weeks and sold over 1.4 million copies there.[22] In the UK, it topped the singles chart, and at seven minutes and 52 seconds, "I'd Do Anything for Love" becoming the longest song on top there since The Beatles' hit "Hey Jude".[23] This was then broken when Oasis released their 1997 single "All Around the World", clocking in at 9 minutes and 20 seconds.[citation needed]

In the UK, this was the biggest hit of 1993, selling 761,200 copies and staying at number one for seven weeks.[24] As a result of its success, "Bat Out of Hell" was reissued in the UK, this time reaching the top ten (which it did not achieve on its first release in 1979), meaning Meat Loaf achieved the rare feat of having two singles in the UK top ten at the same time.

What exactly has his race and gender got to do with this? There's plenty of black men, white women, black women, asians etc in the world who think the whole thing is a hoax or skeptical.

KyussB

Here is the entire article - with the parts relevant to the claim, of it stating the GND is not ambitious enough, highlighted:

The Green New Deal’s Achilles Heel

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.


I’m not talking about the obstacles to getting it passed. I’m not even talking about the obstacles to getting it implemented. Let’s assume that the GND achieves its stated goals, and the United States is no longer dumping its carbon pollution into the atmosphere in 2030. Even if that’s the case, we would still be facing the horrific consequences outlined by the scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.


The only way to solve the climate crisis is for the whole world to stop emitting greenhouse gases. But the tools that the GND would create would not be effective worldwide. Until low-carbon energy is cheaper than high-carbon energy for the bulk of the globe’s energy needs, the pace of global emissions will not slow down very much. And the GND would not do very much to make that so.


The most important tool in the GND toolkit is the mass adoption of existing zero-carbon energy technologies. For some technologies, like solar panels and electric vehicles, the pull exerted by new U.S. demand would indeed hasten ongoing price declines that would benefit the rest of the world.


But for many others, especially in harder-to-abate sectors like manufacturing and buildings, which comprise about a third of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions today, as well as “negative emissions technologies” that can remove carbon from the atmosphere, there is little reason to believe that the GND would drive down costs. The barriers for these technologies lie on the supply side. We must make significant investments in research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) to improve them before the world will benefit from stronger U.S. demand.
The GND also calls for decentralized, community-focused decision-making in sectors like agriculture and construction. This approach would have the effect of yielding highly customized solutions, tailored to the particularities of each place. Each community would have to go through a similar process of customization, with little prospect of lowering the cost of these solutions significantly over time. And in many parts of the world, American solutions would have very little applicability, because those communities are so different from ours.


Massive public investment is another tool that the GND would rely on. GND proponents do not provide figures but rely on an analogy with World War II. Federal spending rose by about 350 percent during that war. The federal budget for fiscal year 2019 is $4.4 trillion. Doubling that figure, much less tripling it, without triggering crippling inflation by simply printing money, would suck in vast amounts of capital from abroad. That would leave the rest of the world without the means to carry out its own clean energy transition.


The GND is not entirely blind to these challenges. The overall goal as well as the specific goals for industry, transportation, and agriculture are to be achieved only to the extent “technologically feasible.” The GND calls for public investment in RD&D and international exchange of technology. But technological feasibility is a far cry from true affordability. And a passing call for RD&D is a far cry from the extraordinary mobilization of scientific talent and industrial might that won World War II and planted the seeds of postwar prosperity.


The GND should demand solutions that have the potential to become cost-effective globally. Only these solutions will enable the billions around the world who are energy-poor to gain access to essential services like heat, light, and mobility that Americans take for granted, without provoking catastrophic climate consequences. The GND should mobilize science, technology, and industry to find these solutions, which must be robust to the changing price of fossil fuels, which will drop as demand declines.
Unless and until we adopt this kind of GND, a program that focuses on making technologies much better and much cheaper as well as encouraging their rapid adoption when ready, those billions will keep burning coal, natural gas, and oil unabated and the climate will continue to deteriorate.

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

The last highlighted/oversized paragraph in particular, backs up my point that the article is primarily criticizing the GND for not being ambitious enough.

Admin note
Please note the following link concerning copyright of the above
https://itif.org/copyright
Beasty

tabby aspreme

Realistically are any European countries, organised and honest enough to deliver the GND, not just pay lip service to it

20Cent

Deleted User wrote: »

Just on the book..

Why in the fnck is she writing a book?..

Has that been the point all along?..was she just selling a book?..

Is she just another bloody "grifter"?..

(Note that I refrain from the obvious..)

People read books.
It's a great way to spread a message.

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

1. It's a matter of disagreement. If you state it isn't, guess what: I disagree. Some of you, as I've said, seem to think that's not allowed. Ye must have been reared in very gentle houses!

2. Why would I be rebutting anything? I've little interest in discussing many of the items you seem to think this (indeed, every thread you post in, tbh) is about. You also seem to be mistaking me for a proxy for someone else. Again- anyone who doesn't buy your leaflet becomes part of the amorphous mass of "deniers" who are all to be held to account for a range of sins you appear to invent at will. Try to keep the posters you're insulting separate, will you please? Yourself and tell me how have the thread wrecked with lazy handwaved "ye deniers have all said the same thing all thread" when it's demonstrably not the case at all. I don't think I've once essayed an opinion on the GND in the thread, ffs.

3. "Retarded" is a ugly word.

4. A thread this long, pulled from pillar to post (by you yourself as much or moreso than any other one poster, it seems fair to note) will veer into meta-analysis when the issue at times boils down to the tack that one side is taking in their argument. Many's the long thread does, it seems a valid and interesting avenue to me (moreso than the GND, or the invention of the concept of free money as long as one likes what it's to be spent on).

This ^^^

Well said.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

This ^^^

Is nonsense. Yes.

gozunda

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I never mentioned comments about killing herself, people like that on twitter are best ignore as they clearly have a screw loose, but it's a bit rich to be whinging about someone having a laugh, partially at their own expense , with their twitter handle over an amusing clip of someone giving a stupid answer . Especially someone who is perfectly ok having a laugh at something far worse (the woman falling down stairs) .
Personally, I'll laugh at both, but I don't tend to get my nose out of joint and go defending strangers because someone I don't like had the neck to have a laugh at them. As for the question itself, come on, how many 16 year old climate activists do you know about who are famous. I didn't know there was a book, but Greta thunberg would be my first guess. Again, she's quite famous and anyone with even a passing interest in what's going on in the world will have heard of her.

The social media threats re 'killing herself' was in the linked newspsper article and was one of the points regarding the seriousness of some of the abuse directed at Ms Henderson. Afaik these days Twitter etc do take threats like that seriously.

I do not believe Ms Ms Henderson was 'whinging' or even as you said 'taking the moral high ground'. The statement in the article came from a friend and colleague of hers. The point was not about 'defending' strangers either - no idea where that was pulled from. The point of the comment as a reply was about contrasting social media commentary.

Regarding the last paragraph - the quiz presenter did not mention anything about a "16 year old" btw. But are you seriously suggesting that Ms Henderdon was lying / pretending she didnt know of what activist had written what book - really?

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Is nonsense. Yes.

Incorrect. Simply agreeing with the posters comment. The poster has provided a well thought our and reasoned arguement regarding much of the frankly lazy commentary that has been posted in this thread. Seems not much change there then tbh.

KyussB

KyussB wrote: »

More bullshit meta-arguing :rolleyes: Get to the point: Did the article argue that the Green New Deal was not ambitious enough - or did it not?

If you can't answer that directly, you're spouting nonsense.

You're the only poster on the entire thread to bring up 'free money'.

hardly much point responding, but seeing as the thread to question why greta thunberg is getting platformed is seemingly never going to be back on-topic again, i spose the only response is:

i havent discussed this article or the gnd with you, we're not currently doing so, i wont be doing so in future, and frankly your demand that i do so and insistence that we have been doing so is rather bizarre.

nb you have posted about free money for several hundred pages. again, it's there for all to see.

folks, quick question


why is greta thunberg getting a platform worth tens of millions, who is making it happen, what influence are they seeking and what influence are they getting over democratically elected government structures?

just asking- for a friend, like.

gozunda

20Cent wrote: »

People read books.
It's a great way to spread a message.

I would suggest that some people read books but also that apparently reading is in sharp decline.

https://reaction.life/reading-sharp-decline-thats-bad-news-future/

Plus I'm not sure if or what you yourself read but personally I do not read books for someones 'messsge'. I tend to read for recreation and / or to learn about a subject / topic and then primarily from books being written by experts in their field.

Someone writing a piece attempting to dictate 'a message' would not warrant reading imo

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

folks, quick question


why is greta thunberg getting a platform worth tens of millions, who is making it happen, what influence are they seeking and what influence are they getting over democratically elected government structures?

just asking- for a friend, like.

The reality is, Greta has garnered so much attention because she has demonstrated her commitment to a critical message and drawn attention to this with first, her persistent protesting with a simple clear message, on a topic which has had growing attention and yet has reached a critical level due to inappropriate levels of action.

Her age, the fact that she has Asperger's and is a girl and was was initially protesting on her own, did, at first, with respect to a topic which was already increasing in global awareness, to some degree help to garner media attention which is frequently looking for unique headlines but since then, her manner, her consistent sensible message, her support of logic and science has been recognized leading to many millions echoing her call and her being invited to speak at some of the worlds most influential organisations and groupings.
On top of this, her humour, her passion and her intent to practise what she preaches has impressed many millions more leading them to further support her message.


Now, as I have answered your friends question, maybe you would ask them to answer this or you might take a stab at it yourself.

Why does your friend have such an issue with Greta and the message she is communicating at a time when the catastrophic influence of the non-sustainable use of resources and materials has been scientifically proven and the effects of such are drastically impacting so many and which is expected to increase in severity and frequency?

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

I would suggest that some people read books but also that apparently reading is in sharp decline.

https://reaction.life/reading-sharp-decline-thats-bad-news-future/

Plus I'm not sure if or what you yourself read but personally I do not read books for someones 'messsge'. I tend to read for recreation and / or to learn about a subject / topic and then primarily from books being written by experts in their field.

Someone writing a piece attempting to dictate 'a message' would not warrant reading imo

That's just another way of saying listening to someones message.

is_that_so

Tell me how wrote: »

The reality is, Greta has garnered so much attention because she has demonstrated her commitment to a critical message and drawn attention to this with first, her persistent protesting with a simple clear message, on a topic which has had growing attention and yet has reached a critical level due to inappropriate levels of action.

Her age, the fact that she has Asperger's and is a girl and was was initially protesting on her own, did, at first, help to garner media attention which is frequently looking for unique headlines but since then, her manner, her consistent sensible message, her support of logic and science has been recognized leading to many millions echoing her call and her being invited to speak at some of the worlds most influential organisations and groupings.
On top of this, her humour, her passion and her intent to practise what she preaches has impressed many millions more leading them to further support her message.


Now, as I have answered your friends question, maybe you would ask them to answer this or you might take a stab at it yourself.

Why does your friend have such an issue with Greta and the message she is communicating at a time when the catastrophic influence of the non-sustainable use of resources and materials has been scientifically proven and the effects of such are drastically impacting so many and which is expected to increase in severity and frequency?

She's not the Messiah, she's a very naughty girl! (Apologies but this post was asking for it!)

Tell me how

is_that_so wrote: »

She's not the Messiah, she's a very naughty girl! (Apologies but this post was asking for it!)

Let's just see what snoopsheeps friend comes back with. I suspect plenty more Monty Python phrases will be appropriate.

Maybe something from the skit of the Judean Peoples Front. A lot of people are very aggrieved at the attention a 17 year old girl is getting.