She has always said that she is not telling other people what they should do, only trying to put into practice what she preaches, and draw attention to real climate issues. (It is why she has nearly always used trains across Europe) Transatlantic flights use about the same amount of fuel as a years worth of driving a car, and so yes it makes sense to be aware of that, and cut down, if as an individual you want to reduce your carbon footprint. People like Brock swan around all over the world claiming that people who live in the suburb are cowards as though his own failure to put down roots is some kind of achievement . Who cares what he thinks about anything to be honest?
Kids today get so much shite thrown at them for just sitting down in front of screens and supposedly not knowing about how hard their parents generation had it, and yet here is a youngster going way, way, way out of her comfort zone for something she believes in, and cynical bitter old middle age men (the bastards) are virtue signalling their disdain for her, as though it is a positive attribute. She is not Leonard de Caprio or Al Gore jetting around everywhere, and yet she is still getting all these self righteous blokes labeling her as a hypocrite, or almost as bad, as a poor abused girl who must surely be being used by puppet masters behind the scenes.
I find that almost the most offensive thing, because it removes any ides of agency and achievement from
As though the people criticizing her are somehow clever for punching down on a figure, who whatever you think of her, has already achieved more than virtually any of them EVER will.
Ahh... the dangers of lumping people together. It's something I've decried here since Day One. You've mentioned "Us vs Them" on other threads and on other occasions. That is such a dangerous and careless way to engage with people. People are individuals, and should be addressed as such. If you work with young people at all, in any type of educating capacity, that is one of the primordial things that must be kept in mind.
Again... no one here is saying Greta is a bad person. What some of us are saying and criticizing is the methods used and the adults behind the scenes. Not having a stomach for a 16-year old girl yelling "How dare you!!" at an assembled group of adults, many of whom are well-educated in the field and have the best of intentions..... is hardly grounds for vilifying me and making it seem as though I'm having a go at Greta herself. But we have enough showings of public scoldings and lacks of respect in today's world, starting with the orange-haired clown himself.
Master I was defending the other side of the argument, I like to see both sides.
Nobody here has talked about her like an individual, and the idea that 'no one here is saying Greta is a bad person' is just sticking your head in the sand. She has in the first few threads here, and in many other threads, been called everything from 'A media cunt' to a 'a freaky annoying mong' , there is routine mocking, memes, and her actively going out and speaking, protesting and traveling the world, stupidly and callously being compared to using a dead baby by these guys you are attributing, (credit to you), far more common human decency than they are in possession of.
It always amazes me how people think that not being PC (not you) excuses talking about people, and specifically disabled people and disabled kids, like they are fair game to rip the piss out of. Nobody, disabled or otherwise are out of bounds for parodying or jokes but there is often a real underlying fucked up nastiness with it here, that betrays people's own discomfort. I am met with the reality of it on a virtual daily basis with idiots staring at my Mrs, and older, supposedly decent conservative looking people are the worst for it. Disability can happen to anyone at anytime and as we all live longer it is a future reality we all may have to face.
There is a reason bloody naff Zombie movies are all the rage. The posting of many on here is already far more zombie like than many a young person, looking at and using, the exact same devices as the gormless posters who think they are a cut above, whilst posting the same old dribbly shite on their smartphones, tablets and PC's for years now
Climate activists it's nothing new a 16 year old girl so what it all been said before.
Shit in truth it's social media that give people a platform to sprout there doctrine.
Zosial media is the death of the young people 18 years old and younger, they have all of those info at their fingertippers, but cant integrate it to solve any kind of problems.
Even if you do not belive in man made climate change. She has also achieved more than you ever will.
'So what' indeed.
It’s not surprising that Greta’s father, Svante Thunberg, was an wildly unsuccessful actor, failed author, sub-par arts manager and producer. The 50 year-old has-been anything but famous. I would venture to guess that Greta’s protest notes have been written by Mr. Thunberg. Greta’s mother, Malena Ernman, calls herself a famous Opera singer. L.................M.....................F......... ..............A...........................O.
What a travesty to have been born to those parents. Both daughters have been diagnosed with Aspergers, body dysmorphic disorder, obsessive compulsive-disorder, depression, anorexia nervosa, neurological twitching, and even a very rare eating disorder called Prader-Willi Syndrome, yet they cruelly parade their daughter around encouraging her to fight for a 100% political cause.
Greta and her family is a great example of what you can achieve if you manage to finally do a bit more than tidy your room and build a bigger book shelf
Thunberg’s activism can be claimed to be evidence-based and backed by a number of world-class scientists, well worth a nomination for Nobel Peace Prize . As Thunberg claims, she has done her homework. However, defining exact reduction targets is difficult for scientists but important for politicians.Greta science-based claims 21.2.2019 (full text here )
1. ”…by the year 2020 we need to have bended the emissions curve steep downward.”
2. ”According to the IPCC report we are about 11 years away from being in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control.”
3. ”To avoid that unprecedented changes in all aspects of society\, [actions] need to have taken place within this coming decade\, including a reduction of our CO2 emissions by at least 50 % by the year 2030. And please note that those numbers do not include the aspect of equity\, which is absolutely necessary to make the Paris agreement work on a global scale\, nor do they include tipping points or feedback loops like the extremely powerful methane gas released from the thawing Arctic permafrost. They do\, however\, include negative emission techniques on a huge planetary scale that is yet to be invented\, and that many scientists fear will never be ready in time and will anyway be impossible to deliver at the scale assumed.”
4. ”We have been told that the EU intends to improve its emission reduction targets. In the new target\, the EU is proposing to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 45 % below 1990’s level by 2030 . Some people say that is good or that is ambitious. But this new target is still not enough to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius. This target is not sufficient to protect the future for children growing up today. If the EU is to make its fair contribution to staying within the carbon budget for the two-degree limit\, then it means a minimum of 80 % reduction by 2030 and that includes aviation and shipping. So [it is] around twice as ambitious as the current proposal.”
The two independent scientists involved with IPCC were asked to review Greta’s public speech for science-based claims. They are:
Christian Breyer,  Professor of Solar Economy, LUT University
“I can clearly approve her Brussels speech from a scientific point of view, every single sentence. Specifically about the fourth claim on 80 % reduction target: this is part of interpretation, but let me explain. The remaining GHG emission budget is rather ’large’, in case we would like to reach the target with a 50 % probability. For a 66 % probability of target reaching the remaining GHG emissions are much lower (more than linear reduction), but to be on the safe side one should go for a 90 % probability to reach the target. The latter implies a very fast and very deep GHG emission reduction, even more drastic than mentioned by Greta. Now the relevant comparison: the Boeing 737 Max 8 is on ground after two strange crashes, but for all passengers in all flights in all of these planes the security had been higher than 99.9 %. This is a very high level of security. Honestly, for surviving on our planet, we should have the same drastic measures, if not more drastic. In other words, to really achieve the 1.5 C target in a very high probability the targets should be even more drastic, i.e. deeper and faster defossilisation than claimed by Greta. Thus the claim is more than fine.”
For people assuming that she is mentally challenged and that they and most people are more informed than Thunberg on climate science - at the 8:49 mark
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)