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

gozunda wrote: »

:pac:
Exuse my French - but 'nuance' my rearend. That type of alarmism 'end of civilisation' bs has nothing to do with nuance my friend. Stick with the science and you should be fine.

You continue to illustrate the point.
End of Civilization as we know it.
Notice the qualifier?

This doesn't mean the end of civilization period; just the end of the sort of civilization that we know. Civilization continues albeit on a different trajectory.

Tell me how wrote: »

Who has she alienated? Who might have been inclined to do something positive I mean.

Also, who would you nominate get's her job (which isn't a job) if she is sacked (which she can't be)?

She has alienated half the population, her approach is divisive and unhelpful.

When me and the brothers were kids whenever we were brought to the seaside we always hoped that, at some part of the day, the tide would start coming in. Why? because we always enjoyed trying to stop it.

We'd get our buckets and spades and build thick walls of sand one behind the other. As the incoming tide reached the first defences we'd rapidly pile more sand but, try as we might, the waves would eventually burst through and onto the second line of defence.

One day, as the second (of four) walls crumbled, we noticed a funny looking boat approaching the beach. When it beached, out stepped a young witch from a foreign country. Her cohorts from the boat then built a platform up the beach and handed her a megaphone. From this mighty high horse position she snarlingly declared that we can and must stop the tide doing what Nature intended. If we didn't the World was doomed and had only ten years left. We were just impressionable kids and believed her so we battled even harder.

Some folk on the beach became enraptured with and enchanted by the young witch and cheered her on. This began to build into a crescendo as more and more folk jumped on the bandwagon, not wanting to be seen as unfashionable or out of step. We redoubled our efforts.

The other common-sense folk on the beach laughed their asses off at the idiocy of it. Some shouted that she should be locked away in an asylum. Others told her to go and join the idiot downtown with the sandwich-board declaring the end of the world on 25th July.

An old wise man who was watching all this came up to us and, quietly, said that, no matter how hard we tried, we would never stop Nature doing her thing. She has been doing it for millions of years on her terms, over and over. He was right. The tide, as always, won.

We vowed we'd never be bullied by any other young foreign witches ever again.

gozunda wrote: »

The issue is the use of stupid alarmist language such as 'end of civilisation as we know it" 'Qualiers' or otherwise bedamned

It's alarmism that you don't like?
Her statement goes on:


But I don’t want your hope. I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act.

I want you to act as you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if our house is on fire. Because it is.

She uses alarmist language to try and spur action.
Is it really the language you don't like?
Or is it the thought that you may have to face changes in your lifestyle in a low carbon future?

You engage in similar alarmist language, you claimed that she was saying civilization would end in 10 years FFS.

AllForIt wrote: »

It was actually the bit where he said 'she speaks with passion so we have to take her seriously' part I was referring to.

But lets say I meant it the way you took it. It is not realistic to ever have zero emissions - until such time there is a some kind of technological solution. There is nothing like that in sight, not even a hint of it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-51193460/davos-forget-about-net-zero-we-need-real-zero-greta-thunberg

To say that she doesn't want zero emissions today but that we should embark on the path to zero emissions is only ever so slightly less ridiculous. There is no path to zero emissions. That is noting more than a dream of a child at this moment in time.

It seems to me Greta is saying to turn everything off even if there is no other non-polluting solution to operating our services. Even if she's right it's still ridiculous to advocate zero emissions, it'll never happen until the technology is found.

So, taking the original tweet: You're launching into a defense of the bolded part - yet you want us to believe you only posted the tweet, due to the non-bolded part. This isn't very credible - it will be obvious to posters that you intended to perpetuate the claim in the bolded part.

As expected as well, you have walked-back the original 'strong' form of the claim - which states that she is advocating something that would bring an 'end to civilization', by enacting zero emissions immediately - and walked it back into a weaker claim, which states she is advocating something that we merely don't have the technology for yet (that we would need to work towards - something she acknowledges in the same speech...) - and where you try to further 'mind read' her intent, to present her as saying something she did not say (ending economic activity that we don't convert to zero emissions, even if it's unsustainable).

Perfect example of willingness to be 'deceived', where it suits your view - and to perpetuate false claims to smear someone - and to even distance yourself from those claims (so you can avoid owning the lie behind it), even while simultaneously arguing in defence of the claim.

No straight up admission that the tweet you posted was deliberately misleading and a lie/misrepresentation - instead backing up falsehoods to the hilt - perfectly following the usual pattern from posters sharing similar views...

BluePlanet wrote: »

So you either are intentionally misrepresenting her speech, or you are unintentionally doing it.

She said in 10 years time if we do not alter our CO2 producing:
we set off an irreversible chain reaction
This chain reaction will:

most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it

She doesn't say that civilization ends in 10 years.
In fact she doesn't put a date as to when civilization 'ends'.

She is saying we have a 10 year window to change course.
After that, we are into consequences that end 'civilization as we know it'.
Note too that she did not say the 'end of civilization', just the end of the civilization we now know.

Are you intentionally misrepresenting the climate views of a 16 yrd old girl?
You making a straw-man argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

He is because the concept of tipping points and how that's very obviously what she's referring to - has been pointed out many times.

Deleted User wrote: »

"this thread has been characterized by a running battle between ppl saying "if you dont fully sign up with greta and us, then you must believe *this*".

its been pointed out a few times as a massively lazy, arrogant fallacy.

just fyi"

just fyi

That is totally irrelevant to my post.

What is the big worry if Greta's climate alarmism is actually put into action?
Even presuming that the forecast climate catastrophe doesn't materialize.

gozunda wrote: »

Yeah like panicking and running around like a headless chicken is exactly what the IPCC scientists are saying and if you wish to be pedantic she does say civilisation is 'about' to go tits up and then hillarilously gives us the precise number of years months and days.

And no I dont like alarmism. Neither does the scientist quoted. If you disagree with him thats fine. No skin off my nose.

No she doesn't gave the precise number of years that civilization goes "tits up".
This is just your inability to grasp language.

It obviously IS skin off your nose, after all you're here on an internet forum dedicating your time and effort to propagandize about her.

Greta communicates that she is being alarmist because she wants that alarm to spur action.
So is it really the alarmism that you don't like and not the 'action'?
I think you are being dishonest.
It's the action that has you worried.

KyussB wrote: »

He is because the concept of tipping points and how that's very obviously what she's referring to - has been pointed out many times.

Oh so you can read gretas mind now? Is that it?

If not then provide a Link to the 'tipping point'in the relevant IPCC report regarding civilisation ending etc or get out the door with the usual rubbish pontificating common here

The action of pointing at something and screaming 'I'm right' or wtte thankfully does not make a valid argument.

Deleted User wrote: »

lol

questioning a shady, powerful and bludgeoning propaganda campaign- propagandizing!

amazing

Yes, claiming that Greta said civilization ends in 10 years is propaganda.

BluePlanet wrote: »

Yes, claiming that Greta said civilization ends in 10 years is propaganda.

Paddygreen wrote: »

Great point. Essential travel only based on how important someone is to society. A politician for example would have to have a vastly larger travel allowance than someone on the dole that contributes nothing. If private ice modes of transport was banned in a more realistic timeframe then non-essential travel would be eliminated. Those who can afford an electric car, such as myself, are obviously bigger players in society because we can afford one in the first place. Tyres are another issue that needs to be addressed, the sale of tyres that are not carbon neutral should be heavily levied.

Public transport and cycling are the obvious solutions.
Your 'right' to use public space to store your large metal box will probably wane in near future. Space ceded to sustainable transport.

This is good because you're tipping your hand.
Your car IS the important bit, and it's your main worry about climate action.