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

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/05/britain-annual-carbon-emissions-overtake-africa-two-weeks-oxfam

Interesting reading. I would imagine Irish footprint is at least as bad as British.

average

couldnt be much less relevant tbh

Gaoth Laidir

Tell me how wrote: »

Because the majority of people can see that the points she is making are true, and the emotion which she is displaying is appropriate for something which she obviously is passionate about given her behaviour and lifestyle is in line with what she is saying.

It is rational behaviour.

If she was getting upset and speaking out about something irrational, say, why all public clocks weren't set to the exact same second, she wouldn't have the same support for the topic.

What is met with hostility is when people try to use the fact that she has 'asbergers' (sic) in an effort to discount the points which she is making. That is insulting to all people as it implies that no one with any sort of mental disorder is capable of making a rational point.

Making a point is one thing, making it in the way she does is another. It is the Asberger's effect that's garnered the attention and most likely made her for life. It seems that her team are capitalising on the Asberger's and the world is falling for it. Young people are being encouraged to accept her behaviour as rational and acceptable for those without the illness, and that is as damaging as anything.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Making a point is one thing, making it in the way she does is another. It is the Asberger's effect that's garnered the attention and most likely made her for life. It seems that her team are capitalising on the Asberger's and the world is falling for it. Young people are being encouraged to accept her behavious as rational and acceptable for those without the illness, and that is as damaging as anything.

It's aspergers dude.

What is wrong with the way she is making her point? Can you give an example? Her speech at the UN was very emotive but still rational for someone as passionate about the topic as she is, speaking to literally every organisation in the world who could enforce change should they wish to.

Can you give evidence as to where her team are capitalising on her illness and also explain how you think people are being encouraged to accept her behaviour as rational and why you think this should not be the case.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I had never heard of Amanda Henderson before the clip. I didnt even know it was a "celebrity" version tbh. But lets be honest here, if you havnt heard of Greta Thunberg at this stage, whatever your take on climate change is, you probably need to have a look at how you view world affairs . Or more specifically,have a view on world affairs and look beyond whatever reality show is on the tv in front of you.Also, in an effort to see who she was, I chad a quick look at her twitter because she was tagged in a post saying how awful it was to slag her. Funnily enough,the 2nd or 3rd tweet on her page was her sharing a video of a woman falling down stairs in a club. So she can hardly claim the moral high ground
I do like how youre presenting the name change thing as new information, even though you had a discussion about it a couple of pages back.......

Do you? That's quite bizarre. The number of posters on boards who reckon threads like these are anything but part of a discussìon forum is frankly amazing. And no didnt going checking out Ms Henderson's social media profile or even heard of her previously - the story came up in my newsfeed. However suggesting that somehow she somehow deserves to be told go kill herself or be lampooned or even 'claiming the moral high ground'? is tad odd tbh at best

Btw you may notice my comment concerned the update relating to the reported online abuse telling Ms Henderson she should kill herself and the linked lampooning etc in the news story. And no tbh I dont reckon everyone knows what book was written exactly what climate activist. Especially if you not particularly interested etc. But hey it takes all types...

Tell me how wrote: »

Because the majority of people can see that the points she is making are true, and the emotion which she is displaying is appropriate for something which she obviously is passionate about given her behaviour and lifestyle is in line with what she is saying.It is rational behaviour. If she was getting upset and speaking out about something irrational, say, why all public clocks weren't set to the exact same second, she wouldn't have the same support for the topic. What is met with hostility is when people try to use the fact that she has 'asbergers' (sic) in an effort to discount the points which she is making. That is insulting to all people as it implies that no one with any sort of mental disorder is capable of making a rational point.

No they dont. I think you are entering the realm of wishful thinking there. Tbh greta refers to her condition all the time, so does her father and there was a poster not to long ago who kept on bringing it up to highlight it along the lines no one could say anything because of the condition. That was called out as by a good few posters as it certainly wasn't relevant to the discussion. I think Gaoth Laidir has made a valid point.

Again I see very very little evidence of posters going on about her autism in an effort to discount anything despite claims to the contrary ...

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Everyone in this thread who don't like her or her message go on about her autism or asperger all the time! It's often used in a "what would she know she's autistic" kind of way by many of the posters here. I've also heard people in the media mention it.

Again more lazy logic - you yourself are going on about her condition here and also mentioned previously - does that mean you dont like her message? Thats what you seem to be suggesting there ...

vriesmays

20Cent wrote: »

Anyone who seriously knows about climate and studies it knows climate change is real and a serious issue. On the denier side are right wing shills and meatloaf.

We all know climate change is real, it's the man-made bit the smarter people are querying.

gozunda wrote: »

No they dont. I think you ars entering the realm of wishful thinking there. Tbh greta refers to her condition all the time, so does her father and there was a poster not to long ago who kept on bringing it up to highlight it along the lines no one could say anything because of the condition. Thst was called out as by a good few posters as it certainly wasn't relevant to the discussion.

Again I see very very little evidence of posters going on about her autism in an effort to discount anything despite claims to the contrary ...

Does she? Where? And is this off her own bat or in response to questions asking her about it?

Also, I'm not sure I have ever heard her father say anything, I'm sure he has, but I can't recall having seen him do so.

vriesmays wrote: »

We all know climate change is real, it's the man-made bit the smarter people are querying.

Do you think the scientists are not some of the smarter people?

vriesmays

No I don't, most are sheep.

vriesmays wrote: »

No I don't, most are sheep.

What evidence have you of this?

They have qualifications, experience of working in their field and publish their work in peer reviewed journals. It is the same methodology which has lead to medical and technological innovation which we all use and trust on a daily basis.

Who do you trust?

Tell me how wrote: »

Does she? Where? And is this off her own bat or in response to questions asking her about it?
Also, I'm not sure I have ever heard her father say anything, I'm sure he has, but I can't recall having seen him do so.

Its topline on her twitter profile and to my memory she has talked about same on a number of interviews claiming it as a superpower with the ability to see through things etc

There was also a post here regarding gretas father talking about her health etc recently. I believe there was a link to it as well...

gozunda wrote: »

Its topline on her twitter profile and to my memory she has talked about same on a number of interviews claiming it as a superpower with the ability to see through things etc

There was also a post here regarding gretas father talking about her health etc recently. I believe there was a link to it as well...

Not being embarassed or constrained by her illness is not the same as going on about it all the time as you referenced. And talking about it in interviews is exactly the point I was making in terms of that being in response to questions put to her.

Same goes in terms of one example of her father talking about it which again, I expect was responding to questions on the subject.

You used the term 'lazy logic' yourself just a couple of posts ago and yet the above is your basis for 'she's going on about it all the time'.

Tell me how wrote: »

Not being embarassed or constrained by her illness is not the same as going on about it all the time as you referenced. And talking about it in interviews is exactly the point I was making in terms of that being in response to questions put to her.
Same goes in terms of one example of her father talking about it which again, I expect was responding to questions on the subject.
You used the term 'lazy logic' yourself just a couple of posts ago and yet the above is your basis for 'she's going on about it all the time'.

But she certainly does talk about it - check it out if you dont believe mere posters here. And that's both in her social media and elsewhere. And yes she herself has brought the subject up about being a superpower etc. I'm sure some have also asked about the conddition especially considering she has it prominently and publically flagged on Twitter etc.

Shes not embarrassed about it so no idea why some apparently outraged interests loose their frillies when anyone else points out that it's used by her on a regular basis and even at time used by others in an attempt to shut down any criticism whatsover.

I see you missed the point about lazy logic - not that she prominently flags the condition (which she does btw) and talks about same regularly but that somehow anyone mentioning it is automatically
dismissing "her message" or wtte

Gaoth Laidir

Tell me how wrote: »

It's aspergers dude.

What is wrong with the way she is making her point? Can you give an example? Her speech at the UN was very emotive but still rational for someone as passionate about the topic as she is, speaking to literally every organisation in the world who could enforce change should they wish to.

Can you give evidence as to where her team are capitalising on her illness and also explain how you think people are being encouraged to accept her behaviour as rational and why you think this should not be the case.

I don't like hysterics and hyperbole in any speeches, which describes pretty much most of hers, especially the UN. If an adult did that about any other topic I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been met with the same level of worldwide P. C. applaud, especially by those at the highest level of public life. School strike. It is not rational. Not to mention that much of what she says is not true.

She has almost 4 million Twitter followers. She celeb status. The millions will be flooding in. Im sure there'll be book deals, a film deal, etc
Her team benefit from that. Simple.

is_that_so

Tell me how wrote: »

No. The points I bulleted are objectively the case given the post.
Your logic is what grants flat earthers a platform so as to 'present both sides of the argument'.
It ignores the reality.

Nah, these are things you think are true but leave them to it. Being judgemental quite rightly leads people to reflect on your own values as a human being. Not a good look at this moment BTW. Plenty of debate to be had without it.

the hyperbolic description of how her condition is raised and discussed in this thread is notable, as is every attempt by tell me how to dictate to others what they have said and what they meant by it

her condition has been, in the main, raised in a relevant fashion and respectfully enough.

sure, pick out the minority of posts that do otherwise, but the cheap attempt to paint the entire other side of the discussion as doing this consistently is as transparent as every other attempt to avoid the points raised

fly_agaric

vriesmays wrote: »

We all know climate change is real, it's the man-made bit the smarter people are querying.

Evidence in the real world appears to be mounting up making denial less sustainable, so the better, more persuasive arguments now are:

a) it is "natural" thing, like the force of gravity that we cannot affect, or

b) okay we <<might>> be contributing to it by humanity's actions, but really TINA ("there is no alternative") when it comes to making different (...more "lefty"-ish...uggh) economic & political choices, or

c) "Whatabout" 2.5 billion Indians and Chinese, using fossil fuels for energy & pumping out CO2? Why should we sacrifice anything? Them first.

The same elements that said the idea of "global warming" was complete rubbish back in the 90s-00s now fund and promote the new, more effective arguments.

If you look at sources of the youtube videos that get posted at times during the "what did Greta do today" 2 minutes hate you'll see it plain as day.

Guy:Incognito

vriesmays wrote: »

We all know climate change is real, it's the man-made bit the smarter people are querying.

So nothing man has ever done has an effect on the climate? Doesn't matter what or how much of anything we send up in to the atmosphere, all harmless?

Thelonious Monk

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So nothing man has ever done has an effect on the climate? Doesn't matter what or how much of anything we send up in to the atmosphere, all harmless?

They seem to eventually admit we are effecting the climate in these discussions. Then they say it's overpopulation is the problem. Then they say India and China etc.
People are just unwilling to change their lifestyles in any way. They'll have to sooner or later though.

20Cent

vriesmays wrote: »

We all know climate change is real, it's the man-made bit the smarter people are querying.

Nope that hit has been firmly established as well.

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

They seem to eventually admit we are effecting the climate in these discussions. Then they say it's overpopulation is the problem. Then they say India and China etc. People are just unwilling to change their lifestyles in any way. They'll have to sooner or later though.

"They"? - do you mean those darn "deniers"? All too easy to cast aspersions in lieu of discussion and disparage those who dont think like we do

But yes indeed climate change is a complex issue. For sure human overpopulation and consequent overconsumption is a contributing problem. And yes China contributes approx a quarter of the world's greenhouse emissions and show no sign of slowing down. So indeed it is relevant.

Many ordinary people have adopted new technologies and are making changes. It's just too often none of that is good enough for those who would be moral arbitrators for everyone else...

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

TLDR plus you've simply repeated all the same null arguments previously but they still dont wash

And btw I'm not 'pooh poohing' it btw - I'm actually saying it is a pile of pooh imho.

As to the two articles- the first was already posted and indeed looks at the apocalyptic origins of AOCs Green New Deal built on the premise that the world is going to end in 12 years (Which as pointed out is not given by any scientist) and how the whole idea is predicated on that and where that idiocy leads.

And of the second - it is actually quoted in the first - but you must have missed this bit in the haste to try and change what the author has stated.

But yeah perhaps try reading opinions other than Bernie Sanders party election website which was your only link on it afaik. There is some very interesting stuff out there showing that GND is indeed rubbish. Try googling it ....

Yea that's what 'pooh pooh'ing is. Aiming to resolve our contribution to climate change by 2030 is simply taking the threat of climate change appropriately seriously - not a doomsday prediction. Ya and the reason the article says the GND won't solve the climate crisis, is because it needs to be more ambitious - but you know this, because it was already just pointed out to you - and you wilfully ignored that.

Perhaps try putting arguments in your own words, instead of link dumping stuff you haven't even read. If the GND is 'rubbish', it should be very easy for you to explain how, after all...

KyussB wrote: »

Yea that's what 'pooh pooh'ing is. Aiming to resolve our contribution to climate change by 2030 is simply taking the threat of climate change appropriately seriously - not a doomsday prediction. Ya and the reason the article says the GND won't solve the climate crisis, is because it needs to be more ambitious - but you know this, because it was already just pointed out to you - and you wilfully ignored that.Perhaps try putting arguments in your own words, instead of link dumping stuff you haven't even read. If the GND is 'rubbish', it should be very easy for you to explain how, after all...

Nope it's not. Pooh poohing as you use it is dismissing something. I'm clearly pointing the whole thing is rubbish based on a lack of supporting evidence. Additionally AOC claiming the world is going to end in a decade IS doomdayism and unsupported by any science. That is explained in the article.

Again misinterpret the articles completely but no matter. I provided, read it. At least you didnt try and claim it was written by a libertarian Koch think tank or similar. So some progress there I think.
This is the author central thesis: (second article)

The only way to solve the climate crisis is for the whole world to stop emitting greenhouse gases. But the tools that the GND would create would not be effective worldwide. Until low-carbon energy is cheaper than high-carbon energy for the bulk of the globe’s energy needs, the pace of global emissions will not slow down very much. And the GND would not do very much to make that so.

It might actually help looking up how to support arguments ie provide references or articles etc which actually backs the ideas or opinions in line with what you are proposing. Currently you have a sole US democratic election website belonging to Bernie Sanders as the reason d'etre of your whole thesis on GND. It does not stand. It is indeed rubbish. Not just me saying that either.

LessOutragePlz

Tell me how wrote: »

I'll try to find the ones I am referring to later on.

Still waiting on you to provide evidence for this?

AlekSmart

20Cent wrote: »

The dire warning about HIV/AIDs didn't come about because people changed their behaviours drastically and there was huge public education and research. It isn't that the warnings were wrong it's that they were taken seriously and action was taken.

You reckon ?

Yet the HSE is still outlining an upward trend in STD's some 35 years later.

https://www.hpsc.ie/news/newsarchive/2019newsarchive/title-18975-en.html

AlekSmart

Tell me how wrote: »

Does she? Where? And is this off her own bat or in response to questions asking her about it?

Also, I'm not sure I have ever heard her father say anything, I'm sure he has, but I can't recall having seen him do so.

The recent BBC News interview with Mt Thunberg shone a dim light into this particular crevice....

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50901789

Mr Thunberg said his daughter had struggled with depression for "three or four years" before she began her school strike.

"She stopped talking... she stopped going to school," he said.

He added that it was the "ultimate nightmare for a parent" when Greta began refusing to eat.

To help her get better, Mr Thunberg spent more time with Greta and her younger sister, Beata, at their home in Sweden. Greta's mother, opera singer and former Eurovision Song Contest participant Malena Ernman, cancelled contracts so the whole family could be together.

The family also sought help from doctors, Mr Thunberg said. Greta was diagnosed with Asperger's - a form of autism - aged 12, something she has said allows her to "see things from outside the box".

There's somewhat more at play than simply Aspbergers here,and as Greta enters adulthood,it really should be borne in mind by those who appear dedicated to maximising her profile at every hands turn.

He also refers to the existance of people who do not share His or Greta's worldview...

However, since Greta's school strike stunt went viral online, Mr Thunberg said she has faced abuse from people who "don't want to change" their lifestyles in order to save the environment.

Greta has said previously that people abuse her for "my looks, my clothes, my behaviour and my differences".

Her father said he was particularly worried about "the fake news, all the things that people try to fabricate her - the hate that that generates".

But he added that his daughter deals with the criticism "incredibly well".

"Quite frankly, I don't know how she does it, but she laughs most of the time. She finds it hilarious."

I find it noteworthy that Mr Thunberg,and Greta herself appear to characterize ANY disenting opinions as "abuse" or "Hate".

I would personally admit to being quite comfortable with my current lifestyle,I would in fact be quite happy to see it improve a tad,with perhaps the wherewithal for me to undertake a few more flights each year.

I am quite happy that this would not contribute anything to the impending doom our planet faces,and I remain quite sanguine about the motives and personal attributes of the Thunberg camp.

And yes,I do share Greta's opinion on one aspect of the entire shenannigans....I too find it Hilarious

KyussB wrote: »

but you know this, because it was already just pointed out to you - and you wilfully ignored that.

theres a few of ye on the one side of this discussion that really seem not to understand- you telling someone something is not them "knowing it".

its just you typing it.

people will decide themselves whether they have been enlightened by your arguments/opinions or not

its....i mean look genuinely its terrific arrogance imo to behave as if simply by stating something youve decided it, and anyone not convinced is somehow acting the maggot by continuing to disagree with you

'how dare they'!

Just came across this on reddit..

Quote by Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: "It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."

Quote by Jim Sibbison, public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency: "We routinely wrote scare stories...Our press reports were more or less true...We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment."

Quote by emeritus professor Daniel Botkin: "The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."

Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president: "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are"

Quote by Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ.: "That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

Quote by Sir John Houghton, lead editor of first three IPCC reports: “If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster.”

Quote from Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist: "The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty."

Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models.”

Quote by David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University: “Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.”

Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change gives the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Quote by Timoth Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former Democrat Senator: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Quote by Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat: "A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."

20Cent

AlekSmart wrote: »

You reckon ?

Yet the HSE is still outlining an upward trend in STD's some 35 years later.

https://www.hpsc.ie/news/newsarchive/2019newsarchive/title-18975-en.html

Yes definitely.

Tens of billions were spent to avert a huge disaster.
It's a good example of what should be done now.

People were moaning about celebrities, being lectured to and denying it would be a problem then as well.