Greta Thunberg (Continued...)

Tell me how

Tea drinker wrote: »

She is an angry kid with a negative attitude, I find nothing about her positive.
If you want positive action for society build hospitals full of therapists and psychologists.

If you want to do something about environment and nature don't listen to a kid for advice, carry out your own campaigns in your realm, I'm sure there loads of great ideas on boards.

She increased the frequency and volume of the conversation around climate action to the point where more people marched in support of it than for any individual purpose in 2019.

She gained an audience at the UN, the EU, the UK government to speak about the topic.

If people shouldn't listen to kids, why did a kid have such an impact?

Greta is currently pointing out the lack of meaningful action from these governments which is the next, necessary step in ultimately forcing them to bring about the action that is needed.

Can you name a single activist that saw their cause achieve success almost immediately?

Greta is showing the commitment to the subject, contrary to many on this site who said that she was only doing it for attention, or would stop when she got bored as some of the angles they took to attack her motivation.

She is someone who is principled to draw attention to an area that needs action. That is indisputable.
And yet she is met with intense derision for doing so. Quite bizarre.

Tell me how

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Climate is not static and wherever point you live in history the climate of the region is changing due to natural variation. The last major change in climate happened with the ending of the Pleistocene ~13000 years ago when the great ice age ended giving us the chance to thrive. Since then the climate had been relatively stable. We do well in periods of warming, less so when in gets cold and all the evidence shows the for the last 200 years we have coped with climate change exceptionally well with deaths from climate related caused down dramatically since the turn of the 20th century while at the same time seeing massive general improvements in human welfare.


Declaring war on climate is the same as declaring war on the tides, it is not something that mankind can ever control.


The so called war has nothing to do with climate, it is a war on energy derived from from carbon sources that are squestered in the earths crust.

This drive begn in the 1970s as a result of the OPEC blocade and a realisation by western governments that they needed alternative sources of energy, that's when a major push for nuclear energy started. In parallel there was the campaign for nuclear disarmament (CND) which was a significant movement at the time, nobody really wanted to die of cancer due to radiation from nuclear fallout. The communist regimes collapse at the end of the 1980s, and many socialists were left without a cause, they did not go away they moved into the environmentalists and woke culture we experience today and they use scientism as the justification to do what they they want to do anyway.


Today we have the situation where politics is promoting feel good energy generation sources like wind and solar to provide electricity to power electric vechiles, industry and heat homes. In doing so they are destabilising the grid as these generation sources are random and the product must be consumed in the here and now, the energy cannot be stored economically at scale. In Ireland we are dependent on gas, coal and nuclear energy (UK interconnect) to maintain electrical grid stability and availability of electrical power, wind generation is too unreliable for that purpose, adding more won't help.

In about 5 years time the world is going to wake up to the fact that renewables are not working and will never work. And that EROEI of fossil is diminishing pushing up the real costs. This documentary about nuclear energy may change the way you see the greening of the planet and this is the direction the debate is shifting.

This post would actually be more at home in the conspiracy theory forum rather than here. Half thinking I shouldn't bother responding.

The bit in bold showcases your absolute lack of understanding of the topic.

Greta, and the scientists are calling for action to lessen the impact of human activities on the climate. To suggest that mankind cannot influence or control the activities of mankind is absurd.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

She increased the frequency and volume of the conversation around climate action to the point where more people marched in support of it than for any individual purpose in 2019.

She gained an audience at the UN, the EU, the UK government to speak about the topic.

If people shouldn't listen to kids, why did a kid have such an impact?

Greta is currently pointing out the lack of meaningful action from these governments which is the next, necessary step in ultimately forcing them to bring about the action that is needed.

Can you name a single activist that saw their cause achieve success almost immediately?

Greta is showing the commitment to the subject, contrary to many on this site who said that she was only doing it for attention, or would stop when she got bored as some of the angles they took to attack her motivation.

She is someone who is principled to draw attention to an area that needs action. That is indisputable.
And yet she is met with intense derision for doing so. Quite bizarre.

Like a female Bono

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

No just on greta and what is blatantly wrong with gretas claims that she wants 'real zero' vs as opposed to the IPCCs 'net zero'

And no thats not 'mocking btw. That's simply calling out what is said.

As I said I'd disagree with a lot of his political opinions but here - on our greta he certainly was not wrong.

You might note he states acceptance of Climate change and the IPCC so I'll have to give him that as well.

Here it is again just in case you missed that

All I see here is you agreeing with someone you admit to normally disagreeing with because they are undermining Greta's position. Seems to be a case of 'an enemy of my enemy is my friend'.

You have previously said that Greta is in no position to comment on these matters given her lack of education in the field. Why then are you countering her with someone who has no education in the field?

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

Like a female Bono

You'll have to explain this a bit more.

AlekSmart

Tell me how wrote: »

She increased the frequency and volume of the conversation around climate action to the point where more people marched in support of it than for any individual purpose in 2019.

She gained an audience at the UN, the EU, the UK government to speak about the topic.

If people shouldn't listen to kids, why did a kid have such an impact?

Greta is currently pointing out the lack of meaningful action from these governments which is the next, necessary step in ultimately forcing them to bring about the action that is needed.

Can you name a single activist that saw their cause achieve success almost immediately?

Greta is showing the commitment to the subject, contrary to many on this site who said that she was only doing it for attention, or would stop when she got bored as some of the angles they took to attack her motivation.

She is someone who is principled to draw attention to an area that needs action. That is indisputable.
And yet she is met with intense derision for doing so. Quite bizarre.

I think you probably know that "getting bored" with her subject is the one thing Greta will NOT do...ever.
Her fixation,which may,or may not be shared by many of her close supporters is what she is strongest at,and allows her to focus closely and directly upon her crusade.
Her elevation to becoming dominatrix of the entire Climate Change movement,is very much a first-world occurence,which of course allows us to show our own levels of compliance in support.

However,the occupied Planet is a VERY big place,with much of it still awaiting the attention of the "Skolstrejk för klimatet" movement,which from Greta's perspective only began in 2018.

Plenty of room yet for diversification and product placement.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

I think people should work on their own insecurities instead of persistently targeting someone who is actively trying to initiate positive action for society.

At some stage you're going to have to accept that public figures are subject to public opinion

Public figures where it isnt clear how they merit their platform to affect important policy decisions, all the more so

Your continuous approach to ad-homming posters on boards for having an opinion you dislike on just such a public figure is imo ridiculous.

Greta is a very well protected, privileged and empowered individual and frankly there's more than an element of white knighting in much of the very personalised defending of her approach and her qualification to dictate from such a vaunted perch.

That said, good luck to the general scientific consensus in improving our relationship with the natural world and defeating global warming, I'm sure none of us disagree with that- through the proper channels and not led by a scweaming wabble.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

At some stage you're going to have to accept that public figures are subject to public opinion

Public figures where it isnt clear how they merit their platform to affect important policy decisions, all the more so

Your continuous approach to ad-homming posters on boards for having an opinion you dislike on just such a public figure is imo ridiculous.

Greta is a very well protected, privileged and empowered individual and frankly there's more than an element of white knighting in much of the very personalised defending of her approach and her qualification to dictate from such a vaunted perch.

That said, good luck to the general scientific consensus in improving our relationship with the natural world and defeating global warming, I'm sure none of us disagree with that- through the proper channels and not led by a scweaming wabble.

Really?
At what stage will you figure out how discussion boards work?

Workers rights, civil rights, womens rights, homosexuality's rights, body atonomy rights, religious rights all relied on activists to advance their cause at one point. Your dismissal of such roles in societal advances with the term scweaming wabble is telling. (You'll also find within the last few posts at least one poster who would disagree with your position of supporting scientists)

Tell me how

AlekSmart wrote: »

I think you probably know that "getting bored" with her subject is the one thing Greta will NOT do...ever.
Her fixation,which may,or may not be shared by many of her close supporters is what she is strongest at,and allows her to focus closely and directly upon her crusade.
Her elevation to becoming dominatrix of the entire Climate Change movement,is very much a first-world occurence,which of course allows us to show our own levels of compliance in support.

However,the occupied Planet is a VERY big place,with much of it still awaiting the attention of the "Skolstrejk för klimatet" movement,which from Greta's perspective only began in 2018.

Plenty of room yet for diversification and product placement.

Funny how it is her detractors who have awarded such titles to her.

It seems at this point that people agree that action is needed, and that Greta shouldn't have to be the one getting involved in this. Both positions which she herself holds. Why then do people get so riled up about someone who they agree with?

CtevenSrowder

Tell me how wrote: »

If you truly listen to the science you will recognize the praise which the science community had and still has for Greta in increasing the conversation around climate change in 2019.

You've no way to verify that at all. It's more likely that the majority of climate scientists are totally indifferent to Greta.

Tell me how wrote: »

As Greta is point out at the moment, that largely extended to parliaments making promises but not necessarily laws to enact change, but, no activist saw their goal met at the first attempt.

It is very curious why someone who pertains to listen to science would be bothered by someone being such a vocal advocate for the work of scientists.

Because she does more harm then good. The 'battle' of climate science has been won, the only real exceptions being America. Greta isn't going to change that, and makes things worse. The average climate denyer in America is likely some form of a conservative. A child from 'socialist' Sweden isn't going to change their minds. Ultimately, as I pointed out, it will be technological advances that get us through it. All she does is to get governments to make bull**** promises that they never keep. If she wants to make a real, tangeble difference, she is best served becoming a scientist herself.

Tell me how wrote: »

As for go back to school, and get a degree etc. That is such a closeted view on personal development and purpose. I have no doubt that in time Greta will get a degree, she has already gone back to school, and I would point out that there a great many people walking around with degrees who haven't had the impact which she has had to this point in her life.

What is the greater value of education? To 'attain' it? Or to use it to have an impact? If it is the latter (as I believe it is), then look at what she has done without it!

She doesn't make a difference, she simply gives that impression. As I've pointed out before, the general public are fully aware of climate change. Nearly every bad weather event is attributed to it. There has been numerous iniatives based around reducing carbon emissions long before Greta came onto the scene.

Tell me how wrote: »

As for your final sentence, well, duh, that is her point......

Well then, if she cares so much, why doesn't she attempt to become one and enact real change?

Tell me how wrote: »

Don't agree with this. At all.
People are motivated by personal desires, but that does not necessarily mean that these desires are inherently selfish.
If someone really wants to be a teacher all their life because they fell strongly about the value of imparting particular skills in to kids at a young age, that is a personal desire where the beneficiaries are largely the kids they teach.

If a person wants to be a university Professor so they can add the title to their name and tell people that they have tenure, but they don't really care about educating and will delegate a lot of the work around this to their assistants then theirs is primarily a selfish desire.

Yes, people are motivated by what they want. In your former example the person wants to do it because it makes them happy. Who benefits is irrelevant, they are doing it because it's in their interests.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

All I see here is you agreeing with someone you admit to normally disagreeing with because they are undermining Greta's position. Seems to be a case of 'an enemy of my enemy is my friend'.

*You have previously said that Greta is in no position to comment on these matters given her lack of education in the field. Why then are you countering her with someone who has no education in the field?

A poor argument tbf.

Do you always have a need to agree absolutely with every single thing someone says or otherwise?

Personally I don't.

As detailed - the video included does not "undermine her message or position" or whatever the blurb is - rather it simply sums up what's wrong with what greta is saying where she decides to ignore the UNs goal of achieving Net zero by 2050 and replaces it with something else entirely ...

And no one needs a third level qualification to do that.

I believe I've previously agreed Greta should return to school. Is that something you disagree with?

Edit:

Thats your second reply to the same comment.

Tell me how

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

You've no way to verify that at all. It's more likely that the majority of climate scientists are totally indifferent to Greta.

I've more of a way to verify than you have to counter it given the praise for Greta expressed by scientists and scientific outlets.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Because she does more harm then good. The 'battle' of climate science has been won, the only real exceptions being America. Greta isn't going to change that, and makes things worse. The average climate denyer in America is likely some form of a conservative. A child from 'socialist' Sweden isn't going to change their minds. Ultimately, as I pointed out, it will be technological advances that get us through it. All she does is to get governments to make bull**** promises that they never keep. If she wants to make a real, tangeble difference, she is best served becoming a scientist herself.

What she is doing now is pointing out exactly that they made promise and aren't delivering on them. It's ludicrous to say that someone drawing more attention to a topic and highlighting government inaction on it be doing harm?
What an absolutely crazy position? It sounds like people saying whistleblowers are wrong for giving a company a bad name.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

She doesn't make a difference, she simply gives that impression. As I've pointed out before, the general public are fully aware of climate change. Nearly every bad weather event is attributed to it. There has been numerous iniatives based around reducing carbon emissions long before Greta came onto the scene.

You could say the same about any activist and put all the praise on change down to politicians who eventually and belatedly come on board. We saw it with the Repeal referendum in Ireland recently.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Well then, if she cares so much, why doesn't she attempt to become one and enact real change?

A - Because she is doing what she can when she can
B - She has generated a lot of attention on it which is more impactful than what a lot of people working in the area have managed to achieve.
C - She may yet become qualified in a specific scientific area and go on to work in the area.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Yes, people are motivated by what they want. In your former example the person wants to do it because it makes them happy. Who benefits is irrelevant, they are doing it because it's in their interests.

I think anyone using or hearing the word 'selfish' understand that it means that the sole or primary beneficiary of something is the person doing it or advocating it.

From Google; (Bold my emphasis)

selfish
adjective
(of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

A poor argument tbf.

Do you always have a need to agree absolutely with every single thing someone says or otherwise?

Personally I don't.

As detailed - the video included does not "undermine her message or position" or whatever the blurb is - rather it simply sums up what's wrong with what greta is saying where she decides to ignore the UNs goal of achieving Net zero by 2050 and replaces it with something else entirely ...

And no one needs a third level qualification to do that.

I believe I've previously agreed Greta should return to school. Is that something you disagree with?

She already has. It seems reading posts from a number of you that you have only been paying passing attention to what she has been saying and doing.

But are still very motivated to say she is wrong......

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

She already has. It seems reading posts from a number of you that you have only been paying passing attention to what she has been saying and doing.

But are still very motivated to say she is wrong......

Indeed. Not just me saying that. See my previous comment.

nolivesmatter

gozunda wrote: »

A poor argument tbf.

Do you always have a need to agree absolutely with every single thing someone says or otherwise?

Personally I don't.

As detailed - the video included does not "undermine her message or position" or whatever the blurb is - rather it simply sums up what's wrong with what greta is saying where she decides to ignore the UNs goal of achieving Net zero by 2050 and replaces it with something else entirely ...

And no one needs a third level qualification to do that.

I believe I've previously agreed Greta should return to school. Is that something you disagree with?

Edit:

Thats your second reply to the same comment.

Yeah, that's my takeaway from it, irrespective of who the messenger is. Real zero over net zero? Maybe a well intentioned and nice idea, but hardly a reasonable or realistic one.

AlekSmart

Tell me how wrote: »

Funny how it is her detractors who have awarded such titles to her.

It seems at this point that people agree that action is needed, and that Greta shouldn't have to be the one getting involved in this. Both positions which she herself holds. Why then do people get so riled up about someone who they agree with?

You appear totally focused upon being "riled up" by Greta Thunberg,when most of those not buying into her well managed use of emotive and cataclysmic language,are quite content to let her on....:)

The Planet will,in it's own time shake us off in a nanosecond,much to the bewilderment of those amongst us who believe in Mankinds supreme authority and control over our domain.

All I see in the Thunberg manifesto,is total fixation with our own importance.

Pa ElGrande

Tell me how wrote: »

. . .
Greta, and the scientists are calling for action to lessen the impact of human activities on the climate. To suggest that mankind cannot influence or control the activities of mankind is absurd.

They did try this in the 20th century. It was called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the people in charge tried to do exactly that, they failed, in doing so they killed millions (Lysenkoism) and impoverished the populations they controlled, until such schemes collapsed in the late 80s.

Todays Russian leader damned Ms. Thunberg with feint paise and pointed out that people are exploiting her emotional state for their monetary gain.

President Vladimir Putin wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK1ht85izTc

You know, young people, teenagers, draw attention to today's acute problems, including environmental ones, and it is right, it is very good. They defintely must be supported. But when someone uses children and teenages for someone's benefit, it is only reprehensible. It is especially bad when someone tries to make money on it. I don't mean to say that this is the case, but we should closely follow futher. I am sure that Greta (Thunberg) is a kind girl and very sincere. But adults must do everything to not put teenagers and children in extreme situations, must shield them from exteme emotions that could destroy a personality. That's what I want to say.

Tell me how

Ben Shapiro and Vladimir Putin......

Enough said.

Eric Cartman

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

They did try this in the 20th century. It was called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the people in charge tried to do exactly that, they failed, in doing so they killed millions (Lysenkoism) and impoverished the populations they controlled, until such schemes collapsed in the late 80s.

Todays Russian leader damned Ms. Thunberg with feint paise and pointed out that people are exploiting her emotional state for their monetary gain.

he's spot on there. Calling out the many people exploiting the girl for their own gain.

nolivesmatter

Tell me how wrote: »

Ben Shapiro and Vladimir Putin......

Enough said.

Not really though, ad hominem attacks don't engage the point at all.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

You'll have to explain this a bit more.

Bono does all the great campaigns and causes, but everyone still thinks he's a s*it

growleaves

I think in general people responded badly to the spectacle of being trolled by an insolent child.

Many people took the bait, allowed themselves to be wound up and fell into the trap of 'picking on' a young girl. They got played.

It is enough to say that a child shouldn't be lecturing adults and note it as another black mark against the media and political leaders who arranged for it to happen and receive prominence.

biko

Snow in Sahara again this year, and other places.

Snow fell in Saudi Arabia and Algeria at the weekend as temperatures plummeted to below freezing.

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20210119-snow-blankets-saudi-arabia-and-algeria-as-temperatures-plummet/

It happens every few years
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/01/08/rare-snowstorm-just-blanketed-parts-of-the-sahara-desert-in-up-to-16-inches-of-snow/?sh=46c0be2f27ee

gozunda

biko wrote: »

Snow in Sahara again this year, and other places.

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20210119-snow-blankets-saudi-arabia-and-algeria-as-temperatures-plummet/

It happens every few years
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/01/08/rare-snowstorm-just-blanketed-parts-of-the-sahara-desert-in-up-to-16-inches-of-snow/?sh=46c0be2f27ee

In the coming decades and centuries, we may find the Sahara Desert becoming the fertile grassland it once was. Research shows that northern Africa where the Sahara currently is was once dotted with large lakes, vegetation, animals, and human settlements. This period, known as the African Humid Period (lasting approximately 15,000 to 5,000 years ago) was far from northern Africa we know today.

It appears that approximately 5,500 years ago, however, northern Africa moisture was suddenly cut off, ending the humid period. Research is ongoing as to why and how fertile northern Africa suddenly became the Sahara Desert. One thing is clear though, the switch between humid and arid can be abrupt. Are we on the verge of another African humid period? No one knows for sure, but it will likely be the focus of continued research studies and the hopes for many northern Africa countries.

An interesting perspective on the future?

Many years ago was In Morocco and came across the Ski Resorts there. You can also go skiing in Algeria, Lesotho and South Africa ...


https://youtu.be/XsiFF2Ndp2Q

But just don't think you can fly there

https://www.snowindustrynews.com/articles/2019/october/ski-flight-free-launches-with-a-new-climate-campaign/[url][/url]

biko

Greta and Extinction Rebellion must be crying tears of joy.

Eco-protests on the curriculum in every school.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/green-activism-mandate-in-schools/news-story/9ae6bdadd9235b999aa1cde5278da4ff

Lessons in climate change, the environment and how to protest will be compulsory subjects at all schools worldwide as part of the Paris Agreement, under plans being developed for this year’s UN climate summit in Glasgow.

Teaching children about the environment, the green economy and how to take action against government to stop environmental harm are considered essential parts of preparing future workers for what campaigners say is the third industrial revolution.

Overheal

How to protest in a civil manner? Epic win for civics around the world. We could use a lot of that.

Tea drinker

Overheal wrote: »

How to protest in a civil manner? Epic win for civics around the world. We could use a lot of that.

People did it for years without being taught how to do it - it's easy if you want.
"I didn't know how to walk down a street without breaking stuff or attacking people"

Tea drinker

Tea drinker wrote: »

People did it for years without being taught how to do it - it's easy if you want.
"I didn't know how to walk down a street without breaking stuff or attacking people"

Eh the 20th century had plenty of protest movements that had elements of unruly behaviour. Anti Vietnam War protests, the suffragettes were famous for it. This desire to rewrite protest movements as constantly calm simply does not match the reality.

https://www.bl.uk/votes-for-women/articles/suffragettes-violence-and-militancy

biko

how to take action against government

This is the one that peaked my interest initially.
There isn't that much info around this but some digging brought up their plan to use the education systems in place and push in climate change topic;

https://friendsoftheearth.uk/about/teach-future-and-friends-earth

The "Teach the Future" campaign, spearheaded by the UK Student Climate Network, SOS-UK and Extinction Rebellion Educators and supported by Friends of the Earth, demands a Climate Emergency Education Act and a review into climate education across the curriculum, as well as teacher training

https://www.teachthefuture.uk/

Teach the Future is an inclusive, well organised and persistent campaign by secondary and tertiary education students to repurpose the education systems of the world, around the climate emergency and ecological crisis.

biko

biko wrote: »

This is the one that peaked my interest initially.
There isn't that much info around this but some digging brought up their plan to use the education systems in place and push in climate change topic;

https://friendsoftheearth.uk/about/teach-future-and-friends-earth


https://www.teachthefuture.uk/

And? It's a bit like being outraged over evolution being taught. Both are scientifically realities with a pretty niche group of deniers.Fyi, pretty sure it was being taught about as a fact when I was in school and that was fifteen years ago.