Nope. I was just asking if by "no one" you meant no one. Apparently, not even close.

Again, no one in the Netherlands takes this seriously. — Tzeentch

Maybe ask these people first:

"Dutch turn to floating homes to confront rising sea levels"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EQrGHCn828

You like decorum. So do I. Do you have anything to say about appropriateness? Greta is a messenger. But she seems underweight, maybe even undersized. I guess that means that climate change is a non-issue? Yes?

And it occurs to me your legal analogy is ill-founded. That world, apparently your professional world, is an adversarial world. But what about Greta's message is adversarial in nature, or should provoke obloquy?

Haha. A friend of mine lives in one of those, and I can assure they have nothing to do with sea level rise. That's probably the funniest thing I've heard in a while.

Consider the possibility that climate change is real. Now consider your (apparent) response to it. Any cognitive dissonance there?

I don't believe you.

https://www.metabolic.nl/news/dutch-floating-neighborhood-rises-to-the-challenge-of-climate-change/

https://psmag.com/environment/are-the-floating-houses-of-the-netherlands-a-solution-against-the-rising-seas

https://www.euronews.com/2018/12/20/dutch-turn-to-floating-homes-to-confront-rising-


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/15/world/europe/climate-change-rotterdam.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=E753E7391EA63532B7F37044DB7D6D77&gwt=pay&assetType=REGIWALL

That just goes to show you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet.

Those kinds of homes have been around for decades and a remnant of times when rivers like the Rhine would occasionally overflow. They have absolutely nothing to do with sea level rise.

People will apparently use anything as long as it suits their narrative.

Is anyone here arguing that the climate doesn't change?

And to prove my point, here's a site that shares pictures of "woonboten", as they are called in Dutch.

https://pixotale.com/story/7596751/

You don't speak Dutch, but pay attention to the dates below the photographs.

Is anyone here arguing that the climate doesn't change? — Tzeentch

That reads like a stupid question. You're not asking a stupid question, are you?

I'd say when we let children do the talking for us, we have definitely left the realm of rational thought. — Tzeentch

Greta Thurnberg is the Joan of Arc of our time. Take a cause and put an innocent girl in the front as an emblem of the purity and righteousness of the cause. And why not: the Angevin dynasty had only emerged thanks to a lucky marriage while the nation states of France and England (UK) have shown historical persistence, so hooray for Joan. With climate change the righteousness of the cause is even more clear, even if the actual policies that would indeed help ought to be considered and debated.

I don't mind that teenagers participating in the global debate at all. I just wonder why people would be so offended about it. And to discuss Greta is just dumbing down the whole debate (about environmental policy).

They have absolutely nothing to do with sea level rise. — Tzeentch

Take a closer look at the sources I provided. They are a growing phenomenon in light of sea-level rise.

Ofcourse this debate is ideological.

There are two sperate things here.

One is the question whether climate is changing and what the causes and effects are etc. This is a scientific question, and there's pretty much a consensus on this in the scientific community.

And then there is the question of what we can do about it. This is a policy question, and ideologies will certainly play a part in that. There's a host of different things you can do to try to address the problem, all with different pro's and con's having an impact on other policy issues.

Greta Thunberg is essentially akin to a fundamentalist, she only sees this one problem (that of climate change) and doesn't have the knowledge nor life-experience to be able to properly assess the complexity of the policy question.

The fact that someone has it right on the first question doesn't mean their opinion is worth anything on the second question.

She's just a child with views you could expect of an average... child. But then she is being used to sell the ideology of one part of the political spectrum. Ofcourse she will get a lot of flak for that, what do you expect?

But then she is being used... — ChatteringMonkey

What evidence is there that Greta is being used?

what do you expect? — ChatteringMonkey

Clarity. Your point is well taken. There is a difference between the statement of the problem and possible solutions. But shooting the messenger does not serve clarity, rather the opposite. Why do that?

So, if I felt Greta's words deserved a hearty "fuck off" had they been spoken by an old shrew, she gets it too. — Hanover

Well, if Greta's message were spoken by an old shrew, would there have been the same negative backlash from people on the other side? To be honest I'm not really sure. The situation really reminds me of the bashing of AOC by the right back when she became relevant.

But then she is being used... — ChatteringMonkey

Counter-evidence.

https://www.facebook.com/gretathunbergsweden/posts/recently-ive-seen-many-rumors-circulating-about-me-and-enormous-amounts-of-hate-/767646880269801/

https://www.ted.com/talks/greta_thunberg_the_disarming_case_to_act_right_now_on_climate_change?fbclid=IwAR1m5aYpvloX4WVKyl3W2u7Doa5P9Cic15VHITHDd4pAiXDh0c6Ln_HNXZA

Clarity. Your point is well taken. There is a difference between the statement of the problem and possible solutions. But shooting the messenger does not serve clarity, rather the opposite. Why do that? — tim wood

Tim Wood, it's not that i'm necessarily condoning that behaviour, I'm just saying this is the way it goes. If you enter the political arena and take an (extreme) stand on one side, you will get shot at (metaphorical).

What evidence is there that Greta is being used? — ZzzoneiroCosm

No human being is an island. These ideas didn't magically pop into Greta's head from nowhere. She is influenced and continues to be under influence by other groups of people.

You think she acts wholly on her own without any support from other people?

No human being is an island. These ideas didn't magically pop into Greta's head from nowhere. She is influenced and continues to be under influence by other groups of people.

You think she acts wholly on her own without any support from other people? — ChatteringMonkey

I asked you what evidence you can provide that Greta is being used. Your response suggests there's no evidence you can provide.

But what about Greta's message is adversarial in nature, or should provoke obloquy? — tim wood

If she stated an uncontested truth, no one would have cared. I get that you think her comments ought not be contested, but they are, and therefore she should expect those who disagree to disagree.

And issues I've seen contested in my professional life are far less disputable than climate change, like many criminals who deny obvious facts. What causes dispute often is personal interest in the outcome. What is true and not, I leave to those without interest or bias, which seem to grow rarer daily.

I'm asking you what evidence you can provide that Greta is being used. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Nope sorry, not interested in playing that game.

I think this is what always happens when some movement becomes popular. People start seeing the opposing side as "fashionable" and start following it blindly to "distinguish themselves from the crowd" not realizing the irony of what they're doing

Greta Thunberg is essentially akin to a fundamentalist, she only sees this one problem (that of climate change) and doesn't have the knowledge nor life-experience to be able to properly assess the complexity of the policy question.

The fact that someone has it right on the first question doesn't mean their opinion is worth anything on the second question. — ChatteringMonkey

I don't think Thunberg is trying to be an expert at all on the subject if her message is simply to "listen to the scientists". So much as she's asking people to listen to her, it's to take the actual experts on the matter seriously, people who are older, have degrees, and a lifetime of experience studying the issue.

It would be fantastic if we can all agree that climate change is happening, urgent action needs to be done, and we simply disagree as to the specifics of what approach to take. However, as seen in the recent COP25 our world leaders are not even at that stage yet and that's the problem.

Nope sorry, not interested in playing that game. — ChatteringMonkey

Providing evidence to support an assertion - that's a game to you?

Providing evidence to support an assertion - that's a game to you? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Look, this was not the point of my post, it really doesn't matter all that much to me if she is being 'used' or not. I don't care to split hairs over what 'being used' exactly means, and what would exactly counts as evidence for that claim... and waste a bunch of time on something that is ultimately not the point.

Again, no one in the Netherlands takes this seriously. It plays no part in political discourse. If the sea level had been significantly rising, we'd be the first to notice. — Tzeentch

I've often wondered if it might be a good idea to drown the Dutch, but that was just in the context of seeking completely satisfying experiences. It seems to be the case now that the Dutch will be drowned in any event, so all we need is patience--especially if global warming and ocean expansion (from temperature and melting) "play no part in political discourse".

I'd say when we let children do the talking for us, we have definitely left the realm of rational thought. — Tzeentch

Global warming has been a hot topic of discussion for the last 40 years, conducted among smart, scientist-type adults. Did I hear about global warming in 1980? No. Back then, the burning issue was the ozone hole over the antarctic and diminished ozone in the upper atmosphere elsewhere. The world took the ozone deficiency seriously, banned refrigerants and aerosol propellants (chlorofluorocarbons) that destroyed ozone. Since the Montreal Agreement in 1987, the ozone deficiency has steadily improved. (FYI: Ozone absorbs UV radiation that causes skin cancers and interferes with photosynthesis.).

Just because I didn't hear about global warming doesn't mean it wasn't being discussed. It was being discussed, and efforts began to gather more precise data. As data accumulated, it has become clearer that global warming is real, ocean expansion is real, climate change is real, and all this is having real, negative, consequences on the global environment, on which we are 100% dependent.

And just because you aren't hearing people talk about it, doesn't mean that it isn't real. People generally don't like talking about the way of life they know coming to an end. Also, global warming effects are mostly projected into the future, which makes them seem 'unreal' to some people. "Oh, 2100 is so far away." Not so far away, really; it's the time when present toddlers will be growing old. It's in the lifetime of living people.

And because we have been changing the CO2 levels steadily for the past 150 years, at least, we have to understand that changing our life ways (like our industrial culture) has to start 20-40 years ago, and will take most of the century to achieve IF we work at it diligently.

it really doesn't matter all that much to me if she is being 'used' or not. — ChatteringMonkey

Okay. I was interested to know if there was evidence of lib-nut foul play.

No, they are not. Building space is scarce in the Netherlands, especially around the big cities, and projects like IJburg were suggested solutions for that problem. From the Iamsterdam website:

"IJburg is a collection of artificial islands east of the city currently being developed to help deal with Amsterdam’s housing shortage. Projected to be a city of 18,000 residences and 45,000 citizens, it is already home to over 10,000 pioneers. Welcome to the windy and watery city."

https://www.iamsterdam.com/en/living/about-living-in-amsterdam/neighbourhoods/ijburg

Planning for it started back in the '60s.

The other article states:

"By 2020 the neighborhood is expected to house over 100 residents across 46 households, all experimenting with sustainable solutions to the unique challenges of on-water living."

A whopping 0.000005% of the Dutch population.

What you and your news sources are doing is twisting reality to fit your narrative.

Are you going to keep throwing nonsense my way hoping some of it will stick? You're fooling no one but yourself.

You're fooling no one but yourself. — Tzeentch

Eh. Anyway, climate deniers of all stripes are a dime a dozen.