Greta Thunberg (Continued...)

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Look , nevermind how misguided her views are, some of the comments about her ohline are completely out of line.

This is a person suffering with a severve form of Asbergers. She is not aware that she comes across as being intensely creepy and odd at times.


These are the symtoms of her condition and they should not be so callously scoffed at.

Even worse her condition and conditioning are being cynically exploited by a group of people surrounding her for their own benefit whether that be financial or lust for power. Don't overlook either that for their entire lives just like Greta our own children have faced the incessant propaganda from people pushing catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. This been actively promoted in the public school system since the 1990s and depending on family circumstances may cause or exacerbate anguish and depression among them culminating in catastrophic ends like suicide for those on the margins. Parents may even experience factitious disorder by which someone deceives others by appearing sick, by purposely getting sick or by self-injury externalising itself as concern about "the climate" which seems to be what's happened with both Greta and her sister due to their family circumstances. For Greta and her family climate seems to have become a proxy fight against their personal problems as least that is what Ulrike Stockmann concludes based on reading Gretas mothers book.


Those of us who grew up in the 1970s/80s will remember the Campaign for Nuclear (CND) disarmament which certainly did cause anguish and a sense of foreboding among the population. It got much too expensive to maintain the nuclear weapons arsenals and they were cut back plus the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics collapsed. In recent decades both the United States, Russia and countries in South East Asia have all gotten interested in missile development through their "space exploration programs" which NASA was the original cover for the US development of ICBMs and still is today with hypersonic missiles and the US has even launched space force (seriously).





In an rather strange development the UN has revived the old two minutes to midnight doomsday clock scare featuring none other than Mary Robinson who has been milking the climate change gravy train for some time.


Comparing “climate change” to the intensity of all the other threats, it seems completely out of place and of far less magnitude and urgency. Despite 73 years of predicting doomsday proximity, it has never materialized.

You need to ask yourself: Do you feel more threatened by nuclear armageddon, or the possibility of the climate changing? And will we be introducing duck and cover to classrooms when the temperature rises or rain falls?

As if this is not sinister enough, remember extinction rebellion, well here is what some of their members are thinking right now.

In this pamphlet, we concern ourselves principally with the UK, but a majority world-facing narrative is an equally important and urgent requirement. The new story will not be one about ‘the environment’ or ‘green’ issues. It will be human-centric and rooted in the indelible truth that we are living in a world that has evolved as if dangerous climate change did not exist. Bringing this realisation to life is our story untold. It says we don’t all go from now to extinction sometime
after 2080 with nothing else in between. We lose everything that matters to us on the way: our public services, our security, our community, our homes, our food, our water. And ultimately the people we love. It is a story of unstoppable loss unless we act now. It is a story that starts with eliciting vulnerability.

source

By eliciting vulnerability they are engaging in cult behaviour by stripping their members of their identity and replacing it with a new one and that is how they intend to proceed and your children are their target.

Gozunda, why do you hate Greta?

^^^

What is your point with this post?

Tell me how wrote: »

You'll have to edit this post a second time. I don't worship her, I support her message and efforts.So, why do you hate her?

. Nope clear signs of hero worshiping there - as demonstrated by the fact that you think anyone who points out any inconsistencies or replies to another comment etc 'hate' her. Now that is truely truely bizarre.

gozunda wrote: »

. Nope clear signs of hero worshiping there - as demonstrated by the fact that you think anyone who points out any inconsistencies or replies to another comment etc 'hate' her. Now that is truely truely bizarre.

What is your point with this post?

Can you please copy your last post and point out where you explained your hatred.

This is a subtle point, in virtually all my posts I am indeed challenging those who disagree with her and using logic and evidence to support my position.

You are free to hate but I am curious as to why. You differ in most posters who come with links or some form of evidence (irrelevant or inaccurate mind) to undermine her message in that you just simply try to do so at this point almost exclusively without a supporting argument. You did earlier on in the first thread moved through a variety of arguments as pointed out previously, but even this bouncing around supports the view that your motivation is on a personal level.

Why do I care as to your motivation? As I have said, I feel the message relating to the call for action needs to be heard and so I think that it is important to point out that at least some of those trying to undermine it have no logical basis for doing so.

This last point answers hetuzozaho's post also.

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

One issue of many is employment. Practically all of us are dependent on 24x7 availability of electricity and those involved in production cannot plan around random energy they need a reliable supply.

You will be in agreement with Greta's message so that we need to unite behind the science to develop solutions which allow for society to function as it must in today's world as such solutions do not already exist.

It is no good to look in to an empty coal pit and say, 'but we need coal to function'.

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

What you are tacitly admitting is that both Greta and yourself have no solutions to offer. Any leader pushing her preferred solution of real 0 can only be a very dangerous ideologue that will slaughter all around him in pursuit of that goal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGSuE7_HdeE

You are jumping to a prejudiced conclusion here.

A, Greta has said that she doesn't have the answers, because, how could she, she is a child. That does not undermine the message that the change is needed.

B, Greta highlighting that change is needed does not mean that world leader will adopt a similar position without consideration of the implementation.

C, Even if someone was advocating for change, that does imply that they will slaughter all round them in pursuit of that goal.

D, My position is that the conversation needs to be had, on the last thread, I gave several examples of things I would do immediately if I was in a position to implement such laws.

biko wrote: »

Finnish scientists:

During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1℃ because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01℃.”

https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/16562-finnish-scientists-effect-of-human-activity-on-climate-change-insignificant.html

Let's see how this claim stands up. Already, there is doubts as to their methodology.

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/

Flawed Reasoning: The authors' argument claims a correlation between cloud cover/relative humidity and global temperature proves that the former caused the latter without investigating whether they have the relationship backwards.
Inadequate support: The source of their claimed global cloud dataset is not given, and no research on their proposed mechanism for climate change is cited.
Fails to provide correct physical explanation: The manuscript incorrectly claims that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by release from ocean waters. It also provides no explanation for the claim that an increase in relative humidity causes global cooling.

KyussB wrote: »

Real zero vs Net zero requires clarifying the definitions of each.
Net Zero = Reducing emissions by having a market for 'carbon offsets', where you can produce greenhouse gasses without offsetting them yourself, by buying carbon credits and trading them - schemes like that, which easily allow accounting fraud.

Real Zero = Not producing carbon emissions - and I would also include, directly having carbon sinks/sequestration, that either directly produce the greenhouse-gas-generating fuel you use - or which locally/directly offset your emissions, with no market or trading scheme.

There's a lot of scope for going after 'Real Zero' - while trashing the easily exploited 'Net Zero' trading schemes - and while allowing flexibility with retiring greenhouse-gas-generating infrastructure, even past the point of achieving 'Real Zero'.

I think that's a little bit mixed up there tbh.

Heres a better explanation:

What’s the difference between net zero, and real zero? Easy enough to understand, actually. Net Zero means that for all the carbon we put into the atmosphere, we must work to remove an equal amount*. ...

But, that says Greta, is not enough. We need absolute (real) zero. What’s absolute zero? Well, it’s exactly what it sounds like. To reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere over time, we do not just need to increase our de-carbonisation activities, like tree planting. We need to stop emitting carbon altogether. 

*Of note increasing forestry cover is part and parcel of a 'net zero' emissions scenario.

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/uk-climate-change-crisis-target-net-zero-carbon-billions-funding-a9124446.html


Personally I really cant see the Chinese or even many others agreeing with absolute / real zero now or even in the near future as It effectively means completely shutting down life as we know it ....

https://gript.ie/thunberg-stop-breathing/

KyussB wrote: »

Here is what she says directly:

“Let’s be clear. We don’t need a ‘low-carbon economy’. We don’t need to ‘lower emissions’. Our emissions have to stop to stay* if we are to have a chance to stay below the 1.5C degrees target.“And until we have the technologies that at scale can put our emissions to minus then we must forget about net-zero – we need real zero“ Because distant net zero emission targets will mean absolutely nothing if we just continue to ignore the carbon dioxide budget – which applies for today, not distant future dates. If high emissions continue like now even for a few years, that remaining budget will soon be completely used up.

She is referring the having positive emissions today, and then negative emissions to offset that in the future - that is the form of net zero she opposes (along with other forms of cheating the numbers).It's all within the context of staying in the carbon budget. She doesn't exclude carbon sinks and sequestration from the mix at all.
Also - slaying one of the other misquotings of Greta that you bring up all the time:
.https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1219692675332542465

But incorrect*. As you detailed...

Here is what she says directly:
“Let’s be clear. We don’t need a ‘low-carbon economy’. We don’t need to ‘lower emissions’. Our emissions have to stop...

“And until we have the technologies that at scale can put our emissions to minus then we must forget about net-zero – we need real zero

And she wants this Now

Immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction.
Immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies.
And immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels. We don’t want these things done by 2050, 2030 or even 2021. We want this done now.

The rest unfortunately your own supposition....

The tweet linked was in fact reference to another tweet about this ...

https://twitter.com/wef/status/1219669787044872194?s=20

KyussB wrote: »

What she said fits my interpretation. She does not exclude carbon-sinks/sequestration from the equation - she excludes accounting tricks, where emissions in the present, are 'offset' by carbon-sinks/sequestration long in the future.
The Twitter link slays your misquoting of her, as saying 'the end is nigh' in 'x' amount of years - she says: There are of course no magical “dates” for “saving the world”

Watching that video - the kid is being clearly being snidely sarcastic regarding existing carbon trading policies . It does not mean same are 'tricks' or otherwise because she claims they are. But yes her 'real zero' does mean exactly what it says on the tin ie - 'she' wants no carbon emissions whatsoever - and just in case you missed it - this is what greta wants ....

Immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction.

Immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies.

And immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels.

We don’t want these things done by 2050, 2030 or even 2021. We want this done now.

And btw her twitter link above is in reply to a ' World Economic Forum" tweet.

And yes the kid remains on record pontificating about the likley end of our present civilisation

"Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it"

The evident backtracking of that hyperbole after this was pointed out as complete rubbish is irrelevant. The only thing which is being 'slayed' is a continued lack of critical thinking tbh. Also Incredible we have some adults hanging onto the kids words as gospel tbh.

Not only one saying that btw

https://youtu.be/8RVooYlyl20?t=2m1s

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fkCo_trbT8&t=941s

Decent vid that shows the complexity involved Climate models. I'd much rather this man to have the platform that Greta does as his views are far more nuanced as he knows the science.

Thanks. I hadn't came across that guy previously.

KyussB wrote: »

Ending of investments/subsidies in the fossil fuel industry - complete disinvestment from that industry...
You're arguing that letting the fossil fuel industry fend for itself, is equivalent to the complete elimination of emissions - that one of the most profitable industries in the world won't survive without the government subsidies and pension fund etc. investments they get...The only people thick enough to believe that - are the ones economically illiterate enough to mix up buying oil for use, with 'investment'.

Incorrect. I have not suggested they should or shouldn't be left 'fend for themselves.
The only 'thick people' as you referred to them would be any who bizarrely fail to acknowledge what greta is advocating- which is viz and I quote

Immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction.

.

And yes grera wants the industry halted and reinforces that when she demands zero emissions.

We don’t need a ‘low-carbon economy’. We don’t need to ‘lower emissions’. Our emissions have to stop

And yup she wants all that NOW

KyussB wrote: »

here is how you misquote her all the timeHere are Greta's own words proving these are all a misrepresentation: *"It’s never too late to do as much as we can, every fraction of a degree matters. There are of course no magical “dates” for “saving the world”....

Again incorrect. I see you are quoting out of context again. But no matter. As per my previous comment - I provided the exact quotes of the type of rubbish and hyperbole she regularly comes out with. The above tweet* you found using Google ie is in reply to a recent tweet from the World Ecomonic Forum. Ie this one.



Nothing to do with what she said regarding her previous speech and I quote btw.

"Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it"

It remains that this is exactly what she tried to pass as informed commentary. And the fact stands its is 1) hyperbole and 2) complete horse manure (even ignoring the crazy dates)

And again it's another example of the rubbish that some adults are listening to and defending. It really makes no sense whatsoever.

gozunda wrote: »

We can agree to disagree if you wish.

But the point above is that the above not only details "investments" by third parties or governments but those 'demands' were also directed at the many representatives of the worlds biggest oil and gas exploration companies who attended Davos.

So yes greta is demanding "that at this year’s forum, participants from all companies, banks, institutions and governments immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction, immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies and immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels."

And as she states - "we dont want these things done by 2050, 2030 or even 2021, we want this done now"

Now perhaps there were some oil and gas companies who did not attend Davos in 2020. Maybe they won't fall under this dictate?

So you're acknowledging that she didn't say Oil and Gas use had to stop immediately?

Also, that was a similar issue with the 2030 statement. She said that that is the date which will start a chain of irreversible events which could result in the end of humanity. You interpreted that as her saying all life is going to end by that date.

Tell me how wrote: »

So you're acknowledging that she didn't say Oil and Gas use had to stop immediately?Also, that was a similar issue with the 2030 statement. She said that that is the date which will start a chain of irreversible events which could result in the end of humanity. You interpreted that as her saying all life is going to end by that date.

Nope. So acknowledging making ****e up again? Grand so.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Yes, and I've said previously the general public have been listening to the science, climate change has been an issue for years. I learned about it back in secondary school in 2004. Eco-schools for example has been ongoing for 25 years, before Greta came along. https://www.ecoschools.global/our-history

The science has been known since the 70's and has been an issue ever since. The Paris science accords were first negotated in 2015, before Greta came along. Earth day is an event to show support for enviromental protection first started in 1970, before Greta came along.

The idea that Climate change has not been an issue and people have not been listening to the scientists is nothing short of absurd. Every heat wave or catastrophic weather event over the last 10-15 years if not longer immediately results in it being linked with climate change.

An inconvenient truth came out in 2006.

Climate denialism only has a large audience in a minority of countries and peoples concerns about in increased in the years between 2013 and 2018 (before Gretas movement took off in 2019) according to Pew Research.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/18/a-look-at-how-people-around-the-world-view-climate-change/

To put it another way, people were already aware, already concerned and didn't need a 16 year old castigate them for "stealing her childhood" and to lecture them about listening to scientists.

So, two questions.

If all this was already happening, why are things continuing to get worse and why has appropriate action not yet been implemented?

Why do you think Greta should have sat and ignored the problem if indeed we are running out of time?

You are undermining someone who is advocating for action which you seem to agree is needed. Seems strange.