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

p1akuw47h5r3it

Tell me how wrote: »

It's all too predictable the people on this thread trying to undermine Greta's message.

No doubt they agree with Kelly's view. Smart and capable lady of course, just reccently nominated to represent USA in UN.............:eek:

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1099115117436960768

This is precisely why I'm not onboard with Greta. Do you really think Great is going to change that lady's mind. What is needed to change her mind is an actual climate scientist who can explain to her the actual science, and debunk the junk science.

Greta can't do this, as not only is she not a climate scientist, but she hasn't even finished secondary school. Every column inch, every talking slot, every interview she does, is a column inch, talking slot or interview not given to an actual climate scientist who can explain the actual science and it's potential and already occurred impacts.

Also, the idea that people need to be made more aware of climate change, in that it's a thing (or some "believe" it's a thing) is preposterous. It's in the news almost everyday.

What people who deny it need, or who deny the human impact causing it, is the actual science explained to them, not these silly gimmicks.

Richard Hillman

lolo62 wrote: »

I love the way she's ruffling so many feathers. A little girl speaking from a place of power seems to be just too much for some peoples inflated egos.
She is a great role model for young people and her message, how I receive it anyway, is to take responsibility, take action and challenge dysfunctional authority. Rock and roll is dead and the next generation need people who push against the establishment to look up to. I look up to her and im 39!

She and her family are the establishment

sk8erboii

Richard Hillman wrote: »

She and her family are the establishment

The hell does that even mean?

Tell me how

DanDan6592 wrote: »

This is precisely why I'm not onboard with Greta. Do you really think Great is going to change that lady's mind. What is needed to change her mind is an actual climate scientist who can explain to her the actual science, and debunk the junk science.

Greta can't do this, as not only is she not a climate scientist, but she hasn't even finished secondary school. Every column inch, every talking slot, every interview she does, is a column inch, talking slot or interview not given to an actual climate scientist who can explain the actual science and it's potential and already occurred impacts.

Also, the idea that people need to be made more aware of climate change, in that it's a thing (or some "believe" it's a thing) is preposterous. It's in the news almost everyday.

What people who deny it need, or who deny the human impact causing it, is the actual science explained to them, not these silly gimmicks.

First Bold - That is exactly what Greta is calling for people to do. Listen to the science, not Greta, she literally has pointed out that she is an unqualified child and how could people be looking to her for answers.

Second bold - People need to be made aware until such time as there is positive action. It's not simply giving people a status update, it's saying there needs to be a change and she intends continuing to call for action until it is initiated.

Tell me how

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah I suppose fair point and I can see where you’re coming from now when you explain it that way, but I disagree that it is and ever was “Greta’s message” as though she’s coming up with the ideas behind the message.

She’s having her strings pulled there by the adults surrounding her and elevating her to carry their message to a Western audience on the political and social stages that would make a world renowned puppet master blush.

I do agree with your earlier points generally though about the need to change attitudes and human behaviours in order to create a culture that cares about environmental issues. I also think that between the Agricultural, Industrial and now the Technological Evolution (as opposed to revolution, because technology isn’t that revolutionary, it’s evolutionary) that mankind is both contributing to the demise of our environment, and to the perpetuation and survival of humanity, and the survival of humanity will always win out over concerns about the environment or our natural ecosystem.

Just look at how the WHO were scoffed at when they suggested that a plant based diet was healthy alternative to our current diets and how it was also healthier for the environment - inarguably scientific and factually based, totally plausible at least. But it places a greater burden on Governments and individuals to change their current lifestyles that they have become accustomed to, and that’s why the argument that those measures would force humanity to return to the Stone Age is such a powerful one - because that’s the reality of it. Humans would need to be extinct in order to actually effect any sort of positive effect on our environment.

Who are we supposed to be saving the environment for if saving the environment means the extinction of the human species? It’s not future generations of humanity anyway, we know that much.

I disagree with the position that she is having her strings pulled. Her message has been simple and consistent from the very start and even though she has already spoken to many influential bodies and groups, I haven't seen it change.

I'm not sure I get your point on the extinction of the human race in relation to protecting the environment. Both can co-exist but not if we continue to consume in the manner in which we do and I do fear that the max number of people which could be sustained on the planet while having a balanced eco-system is much less than what is projected the numbers are going to get to.

One eyed Jack

lolo62 wrote: »

I love the way she's ruffling so many feathers. A little girl speaking from a place of power seems to be just too much for some peoples inflated egos.
She is a great role model for young people and her message, how I receive it anyway, is to take responsibility, take action and challenge dysfunctional authority. Rock and roll is dead and the next generation need people who push against the establishment to look up to. I look up to her and im 39!

Is she though? I don’t imagine Greta herself is actually ruffling all that many feathers tbh. It’s ironic that you claim people who have issues with the way adults are using a child to promote their message to politicians are the people with inflated egos. I’m all for taking action and taking responsibility and that’s why I absolutely disagree with the idea of promoting a child as an authority on anything, let alone giving them the authority to act on their beliefs. If we did, then of course you’re absolutely correct - society would become dysfunctional.

I also agree with you that the next generation do need role models and do need someone to look up to. That role is the responsibility of the adults in their lives. Adults should not be looking up to children and placing any burden of responsibility on children. Adults are supposed to protect children and create a society in which their children can thrive, as opposed to a society where adults are expected to defer authority to children. I’m not trying to take away from you the fact that you look up to a child, but surely you must be able to understand why most people in society would suggest that’s placing an unfair burden of responsibility on a child when it’s supposed to be the other way around?

p1akuw47h5r3it

Tell me how wrote: »

First Bold - That is exactly what Greta is calling for people to do. Listen to the science, not Greta, she literally has pointed out that she is an unqualified child and how could people be looking to her for answers.

Second bold - People need to be made aware until such time as there is positive action. It's not simply giving people a status update, it's saying there needs to be a change and she intends continuing to call for action until it is initiated.

Then why not, for example, turn up to these places with an actual climate scientist to do this. She has the profile, and he'd have the knowledge.

People can listen to science, but the junk kind. On the surface it can seem legit, but it isn't. And it takes someone with a least some knowledge of Climate science to explain why. She can't do that. Saying "listen to the science" is pointless if you are reading/ listening to science that has been debunked and have noone to explain as to why it's been debunked.

Again, "something needs to be done". Almost everyone knows this. Greta won't change the mind of those who don't. Further what's needed is someone to go and give relatively detailed plans as to what to do. And I'm sorry, Greta is not ina position to do this. I'm always skeptical of people who point out problems in a blaze of glory but offer little if any detail in way of a solution.

is_that_so

Tell me how wrote: »

First Bold - That is exactly what Greta is calling for people to do. Listen to the science, not Greta, she literally has pointed out that she is an unqualified child and how could people be looking to her for answers.

Second bold - People need to be made aware until such time as there is positive action. It's not simply giving people a status update, it's saying there needs to be a change and she intends continuing to call for action until it is initiated.

She's really not the first to do so and this is the weakness of having her as a figurehead. There are unquestionably others conveniently aligning themselves with her view because it suits their own message. Calling for things doesn't make make it happen. World peace has long been such a call.

simongurnick

Hard to win around here. We have kids her age and younger attacking gaurds and raping and murdering girls in ireland. She stands up for something she believes in and walks the walk and gets hit with cycnicism and ridicule. Crazy.

Tell me how

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is she though? I don’t imagine Greta herself is actually ruffling all that many feathers tbh. It’s ironic that you claim people who have issues with the way adults are using a child to promote their message to politicians are the people with inflated egos. I’m all for taking action and taking responsibility and that’s why I absolutely disagree with the idea of promoting a child as an authority on anything, let alone giving them the authority to act on their beliefs. If we did, then of course you’re absolutely correct - society would become dysfunctional.

Andrew Bolt's feathers were decidedly ruffled.

I have never seen a girl so young and with so many mental disorders treated by so many adults as a guru

…

What is so fascinating about this Thunberg cult is not just that she’s believed so fervently even though she’s wrong.

Or the Spectator

“Sorry, but the fawning attitude towards Thunberg is not going to extend to me,” said the Spectator. “If you are going to be given an international stage to call for a general strike, as Thunberg has done, you deserve to be challenged – whether you are 16 and wear pigtails or not... who will dare criticise a 16-year-old girl with Asperger’s?”

Again, I do not think that Greta is being used. I think that she is finding common ground with organisations and so speaking on their platforms at times and also trying to join forces to achieve their shared goals.

(That being said, there are undoubtedly people who are applauding her and posing for photographs while not listening to what she is saying but just because these exist within the bodies she is speaking to, does not mean that she is being used as such.)

Tell me how

is_that_so wrote: »

She's really not the first to do so and this is the weakness of having her as a figurehead. There are unquestionably others conveniently aligning themselves with her view because it suit their own message. Calling for things doesn't make make it happen. World peace has long been such a call.

So what would you have her do? Nothing?
Just attend university and then go to work as a climate scientist in maybe 8 years.


If nothing else, she is helping encourage a subset of society (teenagers) to recognize the risks to the environment and what this will mean for them as adults. I suspect that many of these teenagers will be more attentive to the problem and their place in it as they turn to college and then the work place and their adulthood and I think that Greta needs to be applauded for that alone, if nothing else.

Thargor

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The child herself isn’t receiving ferocious criticism. It’s the adults who are putting a child in the position they have done for their own gain, are receiving ferocious criticism, and rightly so. Attempting to use a child as a shield to hide behind is an attempt to shield their own beliefs above criticism while using a child to represent those beliefs at the same time. People have been doing it since baby Jesus. It’s not new.

Also, because “Asperger’s syndrome” is perceived as a modern affliction in Western society, it wasn’t their critics who introduced that into the discussion, it was the people who are promoting her as a modern Messiah - it adds value to their social currency among those people who share their political beliefs.

I don’t for a minute doubt her sincerity either. I am however absolutely cynical of the adults who surround her and promote her as the modern Messiah. That’s what I find perverse about the whole thing, the attempt to have people look the other way while there is enormous sums of money and politics involved in the “climate crisis” movement.

If it were as benign as you’re making out that it’s just a child who wants to make a difference and change the future for young people of her generation, I’d say fair play and I’d absolutely get behind that and encourage them in every way. But this so-called “movement” bears all the hallmarks of a cult, frankly.





The OP referred to the child as a “climate saint”, hardly vitriolic compared to much of the nonsense emanating from the people who are using the child to further their own beliefs about those who do not support their beliefs. This child is being presented to the UN where they will be expected to appeal to a room full of middle-aged and old men so your notions that you get the creeps from her critics, also apply to those people who are pimping her out to old men to further their own beliefs. Anyone can do what you’ve just done and present a narrative in a way that suits them to paint those opposed to their beliefs as unsavoury types.

It’s not the child herself that evokes any kind of a reaction (at least not among critics of the cult; for cult followers she is their Messiah - a positive symbol of hope so to speak). It’s the adults attempting to shield themselves from criticism for their beliefs by using a child that I’m critical of. A young person with an interest in environmental issues and politics is good. A young persons interest in environmental issues and politics being exploited by the adults who surround that child for their own gain - that’s worthy of criticism in and of itself, apart from any criticism of their beliefs.

Wow.

You do realise that's all in your head don't you? There's no sexual element to being asked to address the UN, she's not being 'pimped out' to middle age men, it happens all the time with children from conflict zones and other issues of the day. The fact you would make that statement about an underage child just because she speaks out about climate change is pretty sick. In my post that you're whining about I say there isn't really an element of paedophilia in the way certain media outlets have gotten the climate deniers all riled up but in your case I'd have to make an exception based on that statement.

Assetbacked

It's easier to attack her than agree with her; and people are lazy.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Thargor wrote: »

Wow.

You do realise that's all in your head don't you? There's no sexual element to being asked to address the UN, she's not being 'pimped out' to middle age men, it happens all the time with children from conflict zones and other issues of the day. The fact you would make that statement about an underage child just because she speaks out about climate change is pretty sick. In my post that you're whining about I say there isn't really an element of paedophilia in the way certain media outlets have gotten the climate deniers all riled up but in your case I'd have to make an exception based on that statement.

His point that there is no nefarious reasoning for criticising her or what sh's doing either, as was suggested earlier.

One eyed Jack

Tell me how wrote: »

I disagree with the position that she is having her strings pulled. Her message has been simple and consistent from the very start and even though she has already spoken to many influential bodies and groups, I haven't seen it change.

It’s true that Greta’s message (we’ll go with that, fair enough ) hasn’t changed, but what I mean by having her strings pulled is that adults are taking advantage of her passion and enthusiasm for environmental issues and wish to effect social change, and using that passion and enthusiasm to further their own cause.

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm not sure I get your point on the extinction of the human race in relation to protecting the environment. Both can co-exist but not if we continue to consume in the manner in which we do and I do fear that the max number of people which could be sustained on the planet while having a balanced eco-system is much less than what is projected the numbers are going to get to.

Less humans = less human consumption = less impact of humans on the environment. I agree that both can co-exist (sure we’re co-existing now and have done for thousands of years and will continue to do so for thousands of years), which is why I made the point that in order to reverse the trend you speak of, it requires that humans become extinct in order that the environment in which we now live, can revert to a natural state without humans consuming all the resources we can get our hands on in order to accommodate our current lifestyles. Even something as simple as giving up our mobile devices is a big ask of many people as we use them as communication devices with other humans. We would have to adopt a lifestyle where our consumption was zero in order to address the issues caused by a lifestyle which is generally considered by most people to be a better quality of life than the alternative.

In short - people won’t be convinced by science, they will only be convinced by things when they are directly negatively affected.

is_that_so

Tell me how wrote: »

So what would you have her do? Nothing?
Just attend university and then go to work as a climate scientist in maybe 8 years.


If nothing else, she is helping encourage a subset of society (teenagers) to recognize the risks to the environment and what this will mean for them as adults. I suspect that many of these teenagers will be more attentive to the problem and their place in it as they turn to college and then the work place and their adulthood and I think that Greta needs to be applauded for that alone, if nothing else.

Why do people immediately leap to some extreme end of the spectrum when someone points out problems? This is becoming somewhat cultish and that serves nobody well. Things are happening but they take time. Most of them incidentally have more to do with the threat of whopping fines than anything activists have done.

Say my name

It's no surprise that Greta is from Sweden.

Sweden is the most sustainable country in the world.

She's a product of her environment.
Go on ya good thing!!!

Tell me how

is_that_so wrote: »

Why do people immediately leap to some extreme end of the spectrum when someone points out problems? This is becoming somewhat cultish and that serves nobody well. Things are happening but they take time. Most of them incidentally have more to do with the threat of whopping fines than anything activists.

I don't know who you are talking about pointing out problems. Greta, because of the issues or posters here because of Greta doing so from an unqualified position.

Things are not happening fast enough or on a sufficient scale to halt the increase of circa 2 degrees in average temperature which has been said by scientists is essential must happen.

Richard Hillman

sk8erboii wrote: »

The hell does that even mean?

Her family are very wealthy and powerful. The Thunbergs are a dynasty in the entertainment industry. They are the establishment.

One eyed Jack

Thargor wrote: »

Wow.

You do realise that's all in your head don't you? There's no sexual element to being asked to address the UN, she's not being 'pimped out' to middle age men, it happens all the time with children from conflict zones and other issues of the day. The fact you would make that statement about an underage child just because she speaks out about climate change is pretty sick. In my post that you're whining about I say there isn't really an element of paedophilia in the way certain media outlets have gotten the climate deniers all riled up but in your case I'd have to make an exception based on that statement.

Unbunch those knickers and take a breath. My point was a direct response to your castigating people who disagree with the ideas of Greta’s message (it physically pains me every time I have to type that :pac:).

That’s precisely why they’re using a child to promote their message, because it’s an awful prick would dare to say no to a child, because that would look terrible for their image on the world stage, especially in politics where everything is about appearances. You probably didn’t see it on Sky News when they came to London and the child was flanked on both sides by old men fawning over her during the photo op. That’s precisely the moment when I said this is fcuking wrong.

It should have been ADULTS representing Greta’s opinions on the world stage to other adults, not children themselves being pushed to the fore to represent the opinions of adults.

Tell me how

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s true that Greta’s message (we’ll go with that, fair enough ) hasn’t changed, but what I mean by having her strings pulled is that adults are taking advantage of her passion and enthusiasm for environmental issues and wish to effect social change, and using that passion and enthusiasm to further their own cause.

If their cause is the implementation of sustainable practices then I don't think Greta would have a problem with that, in fact, I think that is what she wants.
I haven't seen examples of her being used by an organisation which would undermine her message.

(I am aware of what the corporate world is like, last year, Team Sky wore jerseys advocating the saving of the oceans from plastic rubbish, this year, the Team has been taken over by Ineos, one of the worlds largest processors of petro-chemical products and so any concern for the oceans has been shelved)

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In short - people won’t be convinced by science, they will only be convinced by things when they are directly negatively affected.

Yes, but that is too late to make positive changes. People need to be aware of the impact of our behaviours now.
We don't wait until people have had a car crash to tell them that speeding is dangerous, we try to prevent a bad event occurring.

Tell me how

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Her family are very wealthy and powerful. The Thunbergs are a dynasty in the entertainment industry. They are the establishment.

Okay, so what does that mean.

How does that negate her message?

(I'm not getting in to whether or not a eurovision contender and film maker constitutes a dynasty)

is_that_so

Tell me how wrote: »

I don't know who you are talking about pointing out problems. Greta, because of the issues or posters here because of Greta doing so from an unqualified position.

Things are not happening fast enough or on a sufficient scale to halt the increase of circa 2 degrees in average temperature which has been said by scientists is essential must happen.

The problem of her being the image of it all and the added opportunity for others to exploit this.
Chill on all of that. Keep plugging away by all means but we'll get there. Between science and politics a lot can be achieved quickly when it needs to be. You seem to imagine that nobody outside of this young girl and some more informed people more care. Mostly we do, but as mentioned earlier we're waiting to see how and how much. People are adaptable but continually telling the world is screwed in a little under a century is really not a good sell.

screamer

I’m sorry but I can’t take a child giving lectures on things seriously. Her privileged background gives her the ability to have a platform, otherwise we’d not even know who she is.
Besides, we needn’t worry about killing the planet l, it’ll shake us off into extinction long before it gives up. That’s the reality we’re all missing or maybe don’t want to face up to.

gozunda

Hector Savage wrote: »

Exactly, her on her own I don't have an issue with - and fair play to her she's not a hypocrite by using SUVs and flying around the world - but her followers are.Why the media have given her so much attention over what started as tantrums basically is incredible to me.

And I do wonder about her "ausbergers" , is that used to make her more special - more untouchable as regards criticism ?

She herself uses the tagline of 'Aspergers' in her Twitter profile -

"16 year old climate activist with Asperger"

An article about the child from a book written by her mother that you might find of interest.

https://quillette.com/2019/04/23/self-harm-versus-the-greater-good-greta-thunberg-and-child-activism/

As a 10 year old Greta herself has stated that she was shown a video of a starving polar bear - which the narator claimed was caused by global warming (story later turned out to be complete bunkum afaik). She cites this single event and her growing obsession with the topic that led to her depression and stopping eating to the point the child was hospitalised.

It would appear that her continued obsession with this singular subject has done some irreparable harm. That the child is being feted and effectively declared a Joan of arc figure in relation to climate change should be ringing alarm bells for her parents. The opposite appears to be the case ...

One eyed Jack

Tell me how wrote: »

Andrew Bolt's feathers were decidedly ruffled.

Or the Spectator

Again, I do not think that Greta is being used. I think that she is finding common ground with organisations and so speaking on their platforms at times and also trying to join forces to achieve their shared goals.

A mere handful TMH, nothing I’d get too excited about. I do agree with them though, but I don’t think their feathers are ruffled by Greta’s message, or Greta herself. It’s the people who are promoting her as someone who should be listened to, are the people whom I take issue with.

Tell me how wrote: »

(That being said, there are undoubtedly people who are applauding her and posing for photographs while not listening to what she is saying but just because these exist within the bodies she is speaking to, does not mean that she is being used as such.)

That’s precisely what it means.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

An article about the child from a book written by her mother that you might find of interest.

https://quillette.com/2019/04/23/self-harm-versus-the-greater-good-greta-thunberg-and-child-activism/

As s 10 year old Greta herself has stated that she was shown a video of a starving polar bear - which the narator claimed was caused by global warming (story later turned out to be complete bunkum afaik). She cites this single event and her growing obsession with the topic that led to her depression and stopping eating to the point the child was hospitalised.

It would appear that her continued obsession with this singular subject has done some irreparable harm. That the child is being feted and effectively declared a Joan of arc figure in relation to climate change should be rining alarm bells for her parents. The opposite appears to be the case ...

The author of that piece has their own anti-change 'agenda' if you look at some of their other work. Not surprising that they would be trying to undermine Greta's position.

If they were American, they'd be on Fox News nightly.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

The author of that piece has their own anti-change 'agenda' if you look at some of their other work. Not surprising that they would be trying to undermine Greta's position.

If they were American, they'd be on Fox News nightly.

An interesting point - that the conveyor of a message can indeed be criticised. In this case the reporter ...

The details about the polar bear and hospitalisation etc come from a YouTube interview with her father.

Im afraid I've never heard of the author tbh. I have compared that article to one other account of her mothers book and it appears to be fairly consistent tbh. I'm not sure if the book is available in English. Perhaps someone here would know.

Tell me how

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s precisely what it means.

It doesn't.

If, for example, Dail Eireann decided to have a cross party environmental change bill developed and Greta was invited to by the Dail to attend it being signed in to law. Say, one TD had opposed the bill privately but on the day, when the media cameras were present, they posed with Greta for a picture and said they were in favour of it.

Now, that TD would have used her but it would not have meant the Dail did so as a body.

MarquisDeSad

gozunda wrote: »

Hector Savage wrote: »

Exactly, her on her own I don't have an issue with - and fair play to her she's not a hypocrite by using SUVs and flying around the world - but her followers are.Why the media have given her so much attention over what started as tantrums basically is incredible to me.

And I do wonder about her "ausbergers" , is that used to make her more special - more untouchable as regards criticism ?

Afaik she herself uses the tagline of 'Aspergers' in her Twitter profile

An article about the child from a book written by her mother that you might find of interest.

https://quillette.com/2019/04/23/self-harm-versus-the-greater-good-greta-thunberg-and-child-activism/

As a 10 year old Greta herself has stated that she was shown a video of a starving polar bear - which the narator claimed was caused by global warming (story later turned out to be complete bunkum afaik). She cites this single event and her growing obsession with the topic that led to her depression and stopping eating to the point the child was hospitalised.

It would appear that her continued obsession with this singular subject has done some irreparable harm. That the child is being feted and effectively declared a Joan of arc figure in relation to climate change should be rining alarm bells for her parents. The opposite appears to be the case ...

Fascinating. Look at this fellas hate for her. As I said earlier in the thread it is fascinating to see the emotive ire directed at her.

Ignore what she is pointing at and point at her(or her parents in this case).

The hate thrown thrown at her by the likes of 'gozunda' is all emotive. In this case, quite disgusting, not that I'd put that past you gozunda given your continual ability to out shame yourself on climate related threads.