gozunda wrote: » Maybe so. But where awareness is a result of a negative perception of what is being said or done - that is not necessarily a good thing. A lot of the discussions I have seen are increasinly derived as a reaction against that. This thread for example - is about her so perhaps it is not strange that her various commentaries are getting dragged over the coals.
Tell me how wrote: » There is no evidence that the majority of those who heard her mess age have held a negative perception of it. In fact, given that it motivated the largest single day protest in human history and therefore it could be viewed there was an overwhelmingly positive reaction to it.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » You won't change some people's minds. They will ignore, ridicule and deflect no matter what argument is presented to them. Her's was a rhetorical argument with some good lines that were reported widely across the world. The publicity that she has generated with this rhetoric will cause a lot of people to inform themselves of climate change realities.
lola85 wrote: » Has anyone figured out yet how they stole her childhood? I feel bad but I don’t know what I feel bad about.
gozunda wrote: » Well to be fair that could be levied at most every group. I listened to the speech and my personal perception was the very different from yours. Even going through the replies in this thread - the same or similar is evident in many of the comments made. Of course there is an existing fanbclub. But what I am referring to is not the greta fan club but everyone else and others who are perhaps new to these issues. The whole thing makes me think of the advice given to actors that they should not work with either animals or children ...
Tell me how wrote: » If they were doing what they should be doing in ensuring the long term health of the environment, she wouldn't have had to spend time protesting and then travelling to various locations asking for positive action to be taken.
lola85 wrote: » Yeah all that traveling around the world and been famous has really robbed her of opportunities to become famous one day.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Her's was a rhetorical argument with some good lines that were reported widely across the world. The publicity that she has generated with this rhetoric will cause a lot of people to inform themselves of climate change realities.
BarryD2 wrote: » Maybe you have a point, as I see the volume of ice on Greenland is estimated at 2,900,000 km3 https://web.viu.ca/earle/geol305/The%20Greenland%20Ice%20Sheet.pdf#targetText=The%20total%20volume%20of%20Greenland's,to%200.05%25%20of%20that%20volume. However loss of this ice is estimated at 0.05% over 10 years from 1996 to 2005, estimated to be only 'a few percent' by end of the 21st century. So the conjecture about a 7m sea level rise is pointless anyway, typical of the needless scaremongering and fake news around this topic.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Overall, do you think her journey and speech had a positive or negative effect in heightening worldwide awareness of climate change?
gozunda wrote: » On balance I agree she is unimportant in the big scheme of things. But overall the whole shenanigans of the journey and her speech resulted have resulted in quite an evident negative backlash - so no not good.
Veritas Libertas wrote: » Wasn't 'Build the wall' a rhetorical argument for stronger borders? I and others notice when arguments are taken rhetorically sometimes and literally in others. I see your point about negating the bystander effect by upping the threat to emergency status. It seems to be the strategy adopted by the 'alarmists'. The problem with this though is like the boy who cried wolf, eventually people will stop listening to them, and may even numb people further and create more cynicism around the topic.
gozunda wrote: » On balance I agree she is unimportant in the big scheme of things. But overall the whole shenanigans of the journey and her speech have resulted in quite an evident negative backlash - so no not good.
Tell me how wrote: » Again, the largest public demonstration in human history on the basis of her activism is very strong evidence of a positive reaction to her actions. A few outliers, in public commentary, however loud they may be cannot suggest there was a negative backlash.
gozunda wrote: » In Sweden she attends a special school for children with autism spectrum conditions etc. Prior to setting sail for the new world- she had taking to mitching school on fridays for at least a year. So yeah it would appear she has already missed a whole load of schooling. According to one of her own interviews she decided not to go back to school this year and instead go off to the US etc. There was no comment made about returning to school. So no it doesnt seem to fit with being a gap year. Not sure if the parents had any real input in this. Tbh they dont seem to have input into anything she does. According to her mother she managed to barage the other members of the family into giving up flying, only eating a plant food diet, not use their car etc. Though the mother did admit to sneaking some cheese when greta is not around. Afaik - There was some talk of selling their swedish holiday house. Oh and the parents both gave up their full time jobs. Her father to accompany her on her travels and her mother as her singing career requires her to fly and greta didnt like that. So if I had to place a bet on it - it's highly unlikely anyone will persuade her to return to finish school. I suppose there some chance of a job out of all this gallavanting. But who knows.
Jane Wonderful Inch wrote: » A few outliers. Why do you think that is? Potentially because the few who did comment negatively got absolutely ruined by her sheep, for attacking a 16 year old with ass burgers. I wish I was 16 with that condition, it appears you can say and do as you please with absolutely no consequences.
Omackeral wrote: » Sure we'll be living on the moon by then, be grand.
joe40 wrote: » That's what f**cks up debate. Could you not just make your point without referring to aspergers as ass burgers.
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » I know its tongue in cheek. It would cost us at least 10 times the money ie trillions to colonise the moon as we'd spend on fixing this planet.
Veritas Libertas wrote: » More realistic proposal: We could have developed cheaper, affordable carbon scrubbers by then.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Further to our discussion regarding ad hominem comments, I'd like to pedantically point out the "ass burgers" comment a few posts above. Got to be right on the internet.
