Greta Thunberg (Continued...)

KyussB

She clearly says investments from the Davos participants in fossil fuels need to stop, now. That's not calling for zero emissions now.

You're deliberately conflating two different parts of the speech.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

She clearly says investments from the Davos participants in fossil fuels need to stop, now. That's not calling for zero emissions now.You're deliberately conflating two different parts of the speech.

We can agree to disagree if you wish.

But the point above is that the above not only details "investments" by third parties or governments but those 'demands' were also directed at the many representatives of the worlds biggest oil and gas exploration companies who attended Davos.

So yes greta is demanding "that at this year’s forum, participants from all companies, banks, institutions and governments immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction , immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies and immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels."

And as she states - "we dont want these things done by 2050, 2030 or even 2021, we want this done now"

Now perhaps there were some oil and gas companies who did not attend Davos in 2020. Maybe they won't fall under this dictate?

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

We can agree to disagree if you wish.

But the point above is that the above not only details "investments" by third parties or governments but those 'demands' were also directed at the many representatives of the worlds biggest oil and gas exploration companies who attended Davos.

So yes greta is demanding "that at this year’s forum, participants from all companies, banks, institutions and governments immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction, immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies and immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels."

And as she states - "we dont want these things done by 2050, 2030 or even 2021, we want this done now"

Now perhaps there were some oil and gas companies who did not attend Davos in 2020. Maybe they won't fall under this dictate?

So you're acknowledging that she didn't say Oil and Gas use had to stop immediately?

Also, that was a similar issue with the 2030 statement. She said that that is the date which will start a chain of irreversible events which could result in the end of humanity. You interpreted that as her saying all life is going to end by that date.

Tell me how

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

They've also been sidelined by people engaging in hyperbole (Greta has engaged in some of this herself, but she's only 16), narcissists trying to boost there egos and anarchists.

The whole issue has become so politicised that the science almost gets lost. I don't understand why Greta does not invite an actual climate scientist to travel with her to explain the science. Instead we get the "stole my childhood"-esque speeches.

And yes I do agree with his statement. Not everyone that isn't a Greta fan is a climate skeptic or denier.

The message is listen to the science. It cannot be argued but that that is what Greta has been most clear on. The people who need to hear that message are the general public because they are ultimately who the politicians will listen to.

It is a political conversation because action is required and no concrete action will happen without one or a combination of the following, funding, legislation, penalties etc.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

So you're acknowledging that she didn't say Oil and Gas use had to stop immediately?Also, that was a similar issue with the 2030 statement. She said that that is the date which will start a chain of irreversible events which could result in the end of humanity. You interpreted that as her saying all life is going to end by that date.

Nope. So acknowledging making ****e up again? Grand so.

CtevenSrowder

Tell me how wrote: »

The message is listen to the science. It cannot be argued but that that is what Greta has been most clear on. The people who need to hear that message are the general public because they are ultimately who the politicians will listen to.

It is a political conversation because action is required and no concrete action will happen without one or a combination of the following, funding, legislation, penalties etc.

Yes, and I've said previously the general public have been listening to the science, climate change has been an issue for years. I learned about it back in secondary school in 2004. Eco-schools for example has been ongoing for 25 years, before Greta came along. https://www.ecoschools.global/our-history

The science has been known since the 70's and has been an issue ever since. The Paris science accords were first negotated in 2015, before Greta came along. Earth day is an event to show support for enviromental protection first started in 1970, before Greta came along.

The idea that Climate change has not been an issue and people have not been listening to the scientists is nothing short of absurd. Every heat wave or catastrophic weather event over the last 10-15 years if not longer immediately results in it being linked with climate change.

An inconvenient truth came out in 2006.

Climate denialism only has a large audience in a minority of countries and peoples concerns about in increased in the years between 2013 and 2018 (before Gretas movement took off in 2019) according to Pew Research.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/18/a-look-at-how-people-around-the-world-view-climate-change/

To put it another way, people were already aware, already concerned and didn't need a 16 year old castigate them for "stealing her childhood" and to lecture them about listening to scientists.

Tell me how

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Yes, and I've said previously the general public have been listening to the science, climate change has been an issue for years. I learned about it back in secondary school in 2004. Eco-schools for example has been ongoing for 25 years, before Greta came along. https://www.ecoschools.global/our-history

The science has been known since the 70's and has been an issue ever since. The Paris science accords were first negotated in 2015, before Greta came along. Earth day is an event to show support for enviromental protection first started in 1970, before Greta came along.

The idea that Climate change has not been an issue and people have not been listening to the scientists is nothing short of absurd. Every heat wave or catastrophic weather event over the last 10-15 years if not longer immediately results in it being linked with climate change.

An inconvenient truth came out in 2006.

Climate denialism only has a large audience in a minority of countries and peoples concerns about in increased in the years between 2013 and 2018 (before Gretas movement took off in 2019) according to Pew Research.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/18/a-look-at-how-people-around-the-world-view-climate-change/

To put it another way, people were already aware, already concerned and didn't need a 16 year old castigate them for "stealing her childhood" and to lecture them about listening to scientists.

So, two questions.

If all this was already happening, why are things continuing to get worse and why has appropriate action not yet been implemented?

Why do you think Greta should have sat and ignored the problem if indeed we are running out of time?

You are undermining someone who is advocating for action which you seem to agree is needed. Seems strange.

CtevenSrowder

Tell me how wrote: »

So, two questions.

If all this was already happening, why are things continuing to get worse and why has appropriate action not yet been implemented?

Things aren't getting worse!

Tell me how wrote: »

Why do you think Greta should have sat and ignored the problem if indeed we are running out of time?

No, I think she should've stayed in school, gone to University and got a degree in Physics, Chemistry or Engineering as the people who work in these areas will be the ones to eventually solve the problem (hopefully!) Though tbh, I don't really mind Greta all that much. It's the Extinction Rebellion crown I really detest. I feel she is being used more than anything and being put on a pedestal undeservingely.

Tell me how wrote: »

You are undermining someone who is advocating for action which you seem to agree is needed. Seems strange.

I'm undermining her because she undermines the whole Green movement. Do you really not see how a child lecturing adults might really piss some people off, and have the opposite affect required?

As I said, she'd be far better simply having a climate scientist with her to explain the science in a rational and calm manner. I'd be less critical then.

KyussB

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Things aren't getting worse!



No, I think she should've stayed in school, gone to University and got a degree in Physics, Chemistry or Engineering as the people who work in these areas will be the ones to eventually solve the problem (hopefully!) Though tbh, I don't really mind Greta all that much. It's the Extinction Rebellion crown I really detest. I feel she is being used more than anything and being put on a pedestal undeservingely.



I'm undermining her because she undermines the whole Green movement. Do you really not see how a child lecturing adults might really piss some people off, and have the opposite affect required?

As I said, she'd be far better simply having a climate scientist with her to explain the science in a rational and calm manner. I'd be less critical then.

Would you agree that climate changing emissions should be eliminated (brought to Genuine Net Zero - any remaining emissions offset from within a country by GHG sinks/sequestration, per year), within a timely manner?

Putting a timeline on that goal, seems to be The test on how serious people really are.

Dr. Bre

Claire Byrne show dedicated to climate catastrophe

jackboy

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Claire Byrne show dedicated to climate catastrophe

And they have ruined it already by giving George Lee free reign to spout ****e. Embarrassing stuff.

Tell me how

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Things aren't getting worse!

NASA seems to disagree.

Ancient air bubbles trapped in ice enable us to step back in time and see what Earth's atmosphere, and climate, were like in the distant past. They tell us that levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere are higher than they have been at any time in the past 400,000 years. During ice ages, CO2 levels were around 200 parts per million (ppm), and during the warmer interglacial periods, they hovered around 280 ppm (see fluctuations in the graph). In 2013, CO2 levels surpassed 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history. This recent relentless rise in CO2 shows a remarkably constant relationship with fossil-fuel burning, and can be well accounted for based on the simple premise that about 60 percent of fossil-fuel emissions stay in the air.

Today, we stand on the threshold of a new geologic era, which some term the "Anthropocene", one where the climate is very different to the one our ancestors knew.

If fossil-fuel burning continues at a business-as-usual rate, such that humanity exhausts the reserves over the next few centuries, CO2 will continue to rise to levels of order of 1500 ppm. The atmosphere would then not return to pre-industrial levels even tens of thousands of years into the future. This graph not only conveys the scientific measurements, but it also underscores the fact that humans have a great capacity to change the climate and planet.

Tell me how

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No, I think she should've stayed in school, gone to University and got a degree in Physics, Chemistry or Engineering as the people who work in these areas will I'm undermining her because she undermines the whole Green movement. Do you really not see how a child lecturing adults might really piss some people off, and have the opposite affect required?

As I said, she'd be far better simply having a climate scientist with her to explain the science in a rational and calm manner. I'd be less critical then.

How is she undermining the green movement?

In relation to the point in bold. She was invited to the UN, EU, HoC, US senate to speak. Who do you think invited her? More children.

Her message is listen to the scientists. the majority of them seem to agree with her.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Would you agree that climate changing emissions should be eliminated (brought to Genuine Net Zero - any remaining emissions offset from within a country by GHG sinks/sequestration, per year), within a timely manner? Putting a timeline on that goal, seems to be The test on how serious people really are.

It is simply not possible to arbitrarily make up a version of what 'net zero' means and then bizarrely tag same with the phrase 'genuine' ffs

That aside - considering most people are not climate scientists - the selection of some arbitrary 'timeline' is hardly a litmus test for believing in climate change or otherwise.

CtevenSrowder

jackboy wrote: »

And they have ruined it already by giving George Lee free reign to spout ****e. Embarrassing stuff.

And this is precisely the problem. Talk on Climate change and not a climate scientist in sight.

CtevenSrowder

Tell me how wrote: »

NASA seems to disagree.

I thought you meant in terms of action being taken.

CtevenSrowder

Tell me how wrote: »

How is she undermining the green movement?

In relation to the point in bold. She was invited to the UN, EU, HoC, US senate to speak. Who do you think invited her? More children.

Her message is listen to the scientists. the majority of them seem to agree with her.

By engaging in hyperbole as being discussed.

Right, but people have all ready been listening to the scientists as I've been pointed out.

Regardless, as I've said I'm not too bothered about Greta at the same time. I wish her the best and hope I am wrong about her being used, but really don't think I am.

Tell me how

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I thought you meant in terms of action being taken.

Well, in terms of action being taken. New Zealand passed legislation last November committing to reduce carbon emissions to zero by 2050.

Anything that does happen cannot be attributed directly to Greta. She certainly is an instigator and motivator in the conversation but anything that happens in the short term is likely to be down to scientists, legislators, industry and the public.

But that doesn't mean she is not positive in her actions.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

How is she undermining the green movement?

Through mainly spouting absolute rubbish imo.

Tell me how wrote: »

In relation to the point in bold. She was invited to the UN, EU, HoC, US senate to speak. Who do you think invited her? More children.

Cart largely before the horse there. Young people can participate in UN climate events by applying to attend. The UN reserves a proportion of tickets for young people around the world. Previous participants may also get preference. Afaik a number of other appearances were as a result of petitions etc. So by no means does that mean greta has been 'invited' to all such events.
.

Tell me how wrote: »

Her message is listen to the scientists. the majority of them seem to agree with her.

To my knowledge having 'a message' tends to be something unique to various prophets and other religious types. Jesus would probably spring to mind for 'having a message' tbh. Kids not so much.

The kid seems to spend her time making stuff up unrelated to what the scientists are actually saying and blaming the adults for ruining her childhood or wtte. In addition I would expect she should agree with the scientists - not the other way around tbh.

CtevenSrowder

Tell me how wrote: »

Well, in terms of action being taken. New Zealand passed legislation last November committing to reduce carbon emissions to zero by 2050.

Anything that does happen cannot be attributed directly to Greta. She certainly is an instigator and motivator in the conversation but anything that happens in the short term is likely to be down to scientists, legislators, industry and the public.

But that doesn't mean she is not positive in her actions.

Look we'll agree to disagree re Greta. I'll admit I'm highly skeptical of all "climate activists". It's all to easy to hold up the working man and women from coming home, gluing yourself to all sorts and moaning about there not being enough done.

I've much more respect for the politicians, scientists, engineers and legislators who will bring the actual change needed. Ofcourse the "activists" will take the credit.

Tell me how

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Look we'll agree to disagree re Greta. I'll admit I'm highly skeptical of all "climate activists". It's all to easy to hold up the working man and women from coming home, gluing yourself to all sorts and moaning about there not being enough done.

I've much more respect for the politicians, scientists, engineers and legislators who will bring the actual change needed. Ofcourse the "activists" will take the credit.

Do you think Greta cares about credit? She has said several times she'd rather not have to be doing what she is doing if the above politicians, scientists, engineers and legislators were doing what needed to be done.

But they haven't. She is doing what she can which is limited in actual change, but she is keeping it a much more active conversation than has been held for a while and fair play to her for doing it.

CtevenSrowder

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you think Greta cares about credit? She has said several times she'd rather not have to be doing what she is doing if the above politicians, scientists, engineers and legislators were doing what needed to be done.

But they haven't. She is doing what she can which is limited in actual change, but she is keeping it a much more active conversation than has been held for a while and fair play to her for doing it.

She doesn't have to do it! This is the whole point we are discussing. I've already pointed out that the Climate has been an issue for years, and that action was/is being taken.

The fact she says she doesn't want to do it, but is, suggests to me she is being heavily influenced to do it. My money is on her parents. Which is why I wish her the best. I think she is being used.

My activists taking the credit comment wasn't directly aimed at her though.

Tell me how

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

She doesn't have to do it! This is the whole point we are discussing. I've already pointed out that the Climate has been an issue for years, and that action was/is being taken.

The fact she says she doesn't want to do it, but is, suggests to me she is being heavily influenced to do it. My money is on her parents. Which is why I wish her the best. I think she is being used.

My activists taking the credit comment wasn't directly aimed at her though.

We've gone full circle.

Any action thus far has been inadequate. That's a fact. She had 2 choices. Wait 10 years until she is qualified to work in a tin way on it, or try to create an even bigger conversation around it.
She did the latter. Well done to her.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Through mainly spouting absolute rubbish imo.



Cart largely before the horse there. Young people can participate in UN climate events by applying to attend. The UN reserves a proportion of tickets for young people around the world. Previous participants may also get preference. Afaik a number of other appearances were as a result of petitions etc. So by no means does that mean greta has been 'invited' to all such events.
.


To my knowledge having 'a message' tends to be something unique to various prophets and other religious types. Jesus would probably spring to mind for 'having a message' tbh. Kids not so much.

The kid seems to spend her time making stuff up unrelated to what the scientists are actually saying and blaming the adults for ruining her childhood or wtte. In addition I would expect she should agree with the scientists - not the other way around tbh.

All this post does. Again. Is show your contribution here is based on nothing more than your personal subjective view of the girl.

Nothing more.

CtevenSrowder

Tell me how wrote: »

We've gone full circle.

Any action thus far has been inadequate. That's a fact. She had 2 choices. Wait 10 years until she is qualified to work in a tin way on it, or try to create an even bigger conversation around it.
She did the latter. Well done to her.

Work in a tin way on it!! You mean by helping to actually solve the problem, as oppose to hoping somebody else will? Should've stayed in school.

And we went full circle 3 or 4 posts ago.:pac:

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

All this post does. Again. Is show your contribution here is based on nothing more than your personal subjective view of the girl.Nothing more.

Lots of objective criticisms out there for your investigation. Plenty posted in this thread and previous. But if you wish to ignore that - then so be it.

You can look up the Youth Invitations to UN climate Events. Follow link provided for petitition etc etc. So nope - not anyones 'subjective view' by any means

Unfortunately all your comment shows is the making of unfounded claims with absolutely no backup.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

It is simply not possible to arbitrarily make up a version of what 'net zero' means and then bizarrely tag same with the phrase 'genuine' ffs

That aside - considering most people are not climate scientists - the selection of some arbitrary 'timeline' is hardly a litmus test for believing in climate change or otherwise.

It's a restriction of the term Net Zero, to remove the use of fraudulent accounting tricks that make it look as if emissions will net to zero, while still overall increasing our contribution to greenhouse gasses - that's all it is.

When do you support emissions being reduced to Net Zero like that? 100 years? 50? 30? 20? 10?

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

It's a restriction of the term Net Zero, to remove the use of fraudulent accounting tricks that make it look as if emissions will net to zero, while still overall increasing our contribution to greenhouse gasses - that's all it is.When do you support emissions being reduced to Net Zero like that? 100 years? 50? 30? 20? 10?

Who is claiming that all such mechanisms are 'fraudulent accounting tricks"? sounds like something a 12 year old would come up with to be fair.

Europe has an advanced system of Emissions Trading (ETS) which involves the management of greenhouse gases through offseting emissions made in one sector by reducing them somewhere else. The only fraud I'm aware of was when some computer hackers gained access to the ETS system and some vat sciming. Both of those incidences were well documented afaik.

Most EU countries have already signed up to to reducing and managing their ghgs through this system. See:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme

As to your query - I could ask you the same question - but the answer would be pointless as as far as I know you are not a climate scientist and any such answer would be unqualified. It's certainly not a competition tbh which poster here can come up with the best answer for sure
Best leave science to actual scientists tbh.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

As to your query - I could ask you the same question - but the answer would be pointless as as far as I know you are not a climate scientist and any such answer would be unqualified. It's certainly not a competition tbh which poster here can come up with the best answer for sure
Best leave science to actual scientists tbh.

So a dodge again.

Lets switch from timeline to temperature: Do you support limiting human greenhouse gas contribution to the global temperature rise, so that it doesn't hit 1.5°C this century? Doesn't hit 2.0°C? 3.0°C? 4.0°C?

Tell me how

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Work in a tin way on it!! You mean by helping to actually solve the problem, as oppose to hoping somebody else will? Should've stayed in school.

And we went full circle 3 or 4 posts ago.:pac:

Lots of girls her age would have spent a year in transition year. More might have finished high school before taking a gap year and going to Australia and worked in a bar or something.

Greta has sailed across the Atlantic twice, spoken at the EU, UN, HoC and US senate. Attended World Climate forum and Davos World Forum. She has been nominated for the Nobel prize and was named Time person of the year. She has led a movement which resulted in over 10M people protesting to support her cause. And she has drawn the ire of one Donald Trump.
She will likely go to 3rd level education and I expect be enticed to attend and some of the most renowned ones on the planet should she be interested in doing so.

And you think she should have stayed in school?....