is_that_so wrote: » She keeps saying don't listen to me yet continues to assume people will listen to her. It's quite the conundrum.
Tell me how wrote: » Where has she said that? She has said she doesn't have the answers. That is quite different to implying that she is suggesting that people discount her message entirely.
Akrasia wrote: » The fact that the staff were nice and she eventually got a seat doesn’t change the reality that she spent a long time sitting on the floor because the train was overcrowded Which part of her tweet was a lie?
is_that_so wrote: » She doesn't have any answers but still wants to be listened to. That's fine and it's perfectly normal activity for kids.
Beechwoodspark wrote: » Another example of how ppl are willfully spinning her message incorrectly. It’s not working folks.
"I am submitting this report as my testimony because I don't want you to listen to me, I want you to listen to the scientists," Thunberg said.
is_that_so wrote: » Hmm. From the horse's mouth!
Tell me how wrote: » Ok. You've obviously just heard about her and have no knowledge of what has been going on, what she has done, or what her message is. Take some time to review and catch up, it's a bit embarrassing to be so far behind.
Beechwoodspark wrote: » There you go. She’s not the expert but She wants You to look at the established science and then take action on climate change. I don’t see what’s so hard in all of this.
Tell me how wrote: » See the above doesn't wash when it is misrepresenting the whole thing and ignoring her follow up tweet. Even without which, it's forced outrage. I thought you'd giver her kudos for the 2 refillable bottles in her bag but, nah, they're just there for more spin.
Beechwoodspark wrote: » She is pointing to established climate science yet it seems that some of the least academically/technically qualified boardsies have a problem with the science.
is_that_so wrote: » Nah I'm fine. I find information from people who actually know something about a topic is a far better use of time. I lost interest in her quite some time back. She does nothing for me at all but good luck to her.
Tuisceanch wrote: » Has that bit finished now or is there more to come?
Akrasia wrote: » 1.5c above preindustrial temperatures has for decades been the target to avoid dangerous climate change because of the risks that positive feedbacks can amplify warming beyond human influences. Any warming above 1.5c increases the risk that we will trigger more of these known feedbacks and some we don’t even know about yet. 2c is the next round number to aim for and the scientific evidence is that we are on target to exceed our carbon budget required to stay below 2c so our best chance is to aim to be carbon neutral ASAP and then begin removing some carbon by becoming net carbon negative sometime in the 2nd half of this century There is broad scientific consensus with this, it’s less certain than the unequivocal human cause of the warming, but it’s also the best available scientific hypotheses on the matter, vastly surpassing and alternative put forward by any climate skeptics
Dr Naomi Wolf@naomirwolf · People shd realize that there is now technology to direct a "tweetstorm", using AI, at any influencer who threatens established interests; using any silly pretext at all. You can see the influencers who've been targeted with this but you may not know a lot of it is an algorithm.
Akrasia wrote: » Governments should borrow based on the future strength of the economy. If current borrowing wither reduces future costs or boosts future income, then it is justified. Borrowing now to stop climate change is totally justified on both counts
Tuisceanch wrote: » So a Twitterstorm generated a post storm in this thread. Interesting! An algorithm is controlling your responses.Greta has taken over your minds. She has won!!!
The public relations ****storm would end your career if anyone ever found out about this!
jackboy wrote: » No.
gozunda wrote: » Is that similar to a sh1tstorm? https://www.dictionary.com/browse/****storm Dont know about you - I read it in a news report But yeah make a comment in a thread about greta and some people seem to loose their fillies... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is_that_so wrote: » Hmm, and I thought you were looking at all the facts rather than making them say what you want to read. This is an incredibly subjective biased view of it and my own biased view is they said it would have been nice if ....
Akrasia wrote: » What was it then?
Akrasia wrote: » Do you know what spin is? Greta posts that she was on an overcrowded train. Train company responds saying but she didn’t say we eventually gave her a 1st class seat. The response does not negate the initial complaint. It just spins it to make the train company look better and the complainant look ungrateful/disengenuous
Professor Moriarty wrote: » she is forcing them to become aware of climate change. .
Micky 32 wrote: » The poor result of the summit seems to suggest otherwise.
Tuisceanch wrote: » It's clear the political will or co-operation isn't there. That's what prompted her activism. If you don't believe any meaningful action is required then the failure of the COP25 is irrelevant or perhaps good news otherwise it's not good news. This really isn't as complicated as you seem to suggest.
Micky 32 wrote: » I never suggested it was complicated. Greta has been around for a while now and the political will is still not there. Like i said unless there’s an alternative that doesn’t affect peoples lifestyles or the economy she’s wasting her time.
Tell me how wrote: » If the alternatives were available, .
Micky 32 wrote: » Exactly, they aren’t available.
Tell me how wrote: » Shes trying to promote finding alternative solutions. She is advocating for dedicated efforts to be prioritised for this. That is her whole MO. If the alternatives were available, she might not even be protesting.If every advocate or creator waited until the solution was obvious, we'd still be living in the dark ages.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1a8522b26abe4367117071263a70671.svg)
