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. — Mr Bee

One of the problems on the policy half of the question is that it's a bureaucratic and political mess to get something done. This isn't even only a problem for this particular issue. It just isn't that easy to get anything done on that level. I think most concerned, apart from some idiots, are well aware that this is a serious problem. I don't think she is convincing a lot of people that weren't already convinced. And then what does it help really, to keep shouting and blaming everybody?

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. — Bitter Crank

Back then the whole thing was dealt differently. As you said, it indeed was a discussion conducted among smart, scientist-type adults. Now it's not.

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

An honest question for information without any bias eh, you don't see those a lot around here :-).

I have no 'smoking gun' evidence of such foul play, no. But let's just say I just have a decent amount of experience in these things, and that is my intuition. And I don't want to necessarily imply anything egregious either, but I would be surprised that nobody has taken an interest in Greta's dealings.

An honest question for information without any bias eh — ChatteringMonkey

There's so many lies and contortions of fact on both sides. The more information I have, the less dizzy I feel.

One of the problems on the policy half of the question is that it's a bureaucratic and political mess to get something done. — ChatteringMonkey

Indeed, it sucks to get consensus on any issue, especially this one. That's sort of the reason why I have less faith in government bodies to change things given how democratic systems can simply elect psychopaths like Trump or Bolsonaro at any point and turn it's back on the whole climate fight. It wasn't that long ago that the US and Brazil were seen as leaders of the environment and now things have turned around. They've had a chance to do things for decades now and we're still figuring it out.

Likely we won't be seeing massive change until an economic incentive comes in to push people to switch to renewables, cause apparently that's all that people care about. Thankfully renewables have become competitive and electric vehicles are catching on so there's hope on that front. I just hope that people start adopting it en masse like they did smartphones.

And then what does it help really, to keep shouting and blaming everybody? — ChatteringMonkey

Public shaming for one. Protests have been effective more or less historically. And it's not like she's wrong in blaming world leaders, cause they're supposed to be the people who look out for the best interests of the people, and they're failing at it.

There's so many lies and contortions of fact on both sides. The more information I have, the less dizzy I feel. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I mean the basic science is pretty well established by now, as far as science can be established I guess.

The earth is warming faster than anything in recent history, and we are definitely a factor in that by emitting lots of greenhouse gasses.

Projections are generally more than 2 degree if we keep going the way we are going, i.e. if we don't reduce emissions.

Where things get murky is, how bad will it really be, and what can we reasonably do about it.

There are a number of scenario's in which a certain raise in temperature could trigger other reinforcing factors, like it is speculated to have happened with a couple of extinctions events in the earths history,,. but there is still a lot of uncertainty around those as far as I know.

And what can we do about it, is probably the most complex question in this issue, because there just so much to consider there. For one thing it isn't even clear, I don't think, that reducing greenhouse emissions now (by an amount that is realistic without tanking the whole system for example) will have that great of an impact on climate change in the short term. Greenhouse gasses stay in the atmosphere for a very long time, and the effects of reducing emissions now may only have a marginal effect on climate change in the next 20 to 50 years. If this is the case, then it could be the case for instance that all the money that is spend to reduce emmissions (by a relatively insignificant amount) could be better spend into damage control and innovation to find better ways of getting the gasses out of the atmosphere etc...

Indeed, it sucks to get a consensus on the issue. That's sort of the reason why I have less faith in government bodies to change things given how democratic systems can simply elect psychopaths like Trump or Bolsonaro at any point and cause chaos. They've had a chance to do things for decades now and we're still figuring it out.

Likely we won't be seeing massive change until an economic incentive comes in to push people to switch to renewables, cause apparently that's all that people care about. Thankfully renewables have become competitive and electric vehicles are catching on so there's hope on that front. I just hope that people start adopting it en masse like they did smartphones. — Mr Bee

Yeah and those economic incentives likely will have to come in the form of taxes, at least in part. That could work, one problem with that route though, is that those taxations often hurt the poor the most.

Public shaming for one. Protests have been effective more or less historically. And it's not like she's wrong in blaming world leaders, cause they're supposed to be the people who look out for the best interests of the people, and they're failing at it. — Mr Bee

I'm not a huge fan of public shaming. Psychopaths typically don't feel shame. And more generally, I don't think shaming changes the behaviour of people for the better usually. You give an incentive to people to hide their behaviour yes, and then another layer of bad gets pilled on top of it.

It's the Boomer Death Drive

I get all that.

I started this thread on a whim. The OP videos juxtaposed Greta's impassioned speech with images of extravagant pollution. As if to say fuck this little girl and the earth she rode in on: Let's own the libs by grandiosely toxifying the earth. A death-cult psychology. That's what fascinates me.

I get all that.

I started this thread on a whim. The OP videos juxtaposed Greta's impassioned speech with images of extravagant pollution. As if to say fuck this little girl and the earth she rode in on: Let's own the libs by grandiosely toxifying the earth. A death-cult psychology. That's what fascinates me. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Ok fair enough.

Looking back at the clip of her speech, I get that some people would want to make fun of her, she does come across as an insufferable brat there.

Yeah and those economic incentives likely will have to come in the form of taxes, at least in part. That could work, one problem with that route though, is that those taxations often hurt the poor the most. — ChatteringMonkey

I think you misunderstood what I meant. I was referring to the fact that technological developments will help give companies and countries more of a reason to switch to renewables over relying on traditional fuels since they will be cheaper and less costly overall on a financial level. Like I said before, these technologies are becoming competitive and will take over in the coming years. My only hope is that it will be sooner rather than later given the limited time frame we have to act on the environment.

One reason why I liked the vanilla Green New Deal was that it can be argued both on an economic and environmental level. Even if you have people on the right that don't care/believe in climate change, they can still be persuaded on the economic opportunities of green technology. So much as governments are involved, I think they should in part be investing and subsidizing R&D on renewables and EVs, especially if it moves funds away from fossil fuel subsidies.

Anyways, since we're on the topic of taxation, it really depends on what the taxation is. If it's gonna be regressive like the ones in France, then of course that's a backwards way of going about it since it disproportionately hurts the poor over the rich. A carbon tax that is rebated back to the people like in Canada would be more palatable IMO. In addition, there are also tax credits that incentivize people to switch to EVs and renewables that should be considered as well.

I'm not a huge fan of public shaming. Psychopaths typically don't feel shame. And more generally, I don't think shaming changes the behaviour of people for the better usually. You give an incentive to people to hide their behaviour yes, and then another layer of bad gets pilled on top of it. — ChatteringMonkey

Shaming of public officials may not sway their hearts on a personal level, but if it hurts their public standing so as to hurt their businesses or reelection chances then they'll be obligated to act whether they want to or not. Bolsonaro clearly doesn't give a damn about the Amazon burning, but the global outcry of the Amazon's destruction led to organizations like the EU to reconsider their trade deals with Brazil which convinced him to finally send in the military to put them out. Of course this isn't gonna stop him completely but it helps limit the damage he is doing.

What precisely do you find irrational in Greta's plea?
— ZzzoneiroCosm

Blaming the world for "stealing her childhood", for one. — Tzeentch

We blamed our parents for the Viet Nam war.

Our parents blamed Hitler for WWII.

Hitler blamed the Jews for everything wrong under the sun.

The blame is not with "them". The blame is with them them them them and them. And us, and me. Because "them" includes every last person on Earth. (And that includes Greta, too.)

I for one, refuse to play the blame game. I don't blame Greta; but I hate her for blaming me. Because she does not blame them; them is always we, and you and I. And god would be my witness, if he existed, that I am beyond blame.

Fuck Greta.

live in the Netherlands, so in a sense I am the canary in the mineshaft, since sea level rise should have put half the country underwater. But so far, nothing. — Tzeentch

The Venetians would like a word with you.....

I for one, refuse to play the blame game. — god must be atheist

Blame:
verb
assign responsibility for a fault or wrong.
noun
responsibility for a fault or wrong.

Is it the presence of the word "blame" in "blame game" that's got you confused? It's not useful, and it's a sign of ignorance, to conflate the two. Greta is (near as I can tell) blaming - no "blame game" whatsoever. But fuck her anyway, because you can't tell the difference.

Or are you really smart enough to know the difference, and you're just playing a misdirection game?

Either way, you get to ignore the substance of the message - aren't you precious!

I think that generally speaking, we have become like people who have soiled themselves and are well satisfied to have done so. Smug about it, even. Of course we say "Fuck you, Greta." What else would someone happy to be in that condition say, to anyone who complains of the smell?

I agree with Greta 100%, but I don't especially like listening to her talk. — Bitter Crank

perfect...I may not have been quite so polite :grin:

What precisely do you find irrational in Greta's plea? — ZzzoneiroCosm

I think it is the idea of children "teaching" adults that they found irrational (how many adults do you think have had their opinion swayed by Greta? - Greta thinks not very many, haha).

And what law says that children are not rational agents? — tim wood

Nothing says it unequivocally, but they can't vote, and they generally have fewer rights than adults...this suggests to me that society does not count them as fully rational agents (this could be seen as unfair as most {all?} adults are not fully rational either).

Let me know when they fawn over a teenager and become activists in her name. — NOS4A2

From my perspective, a major problem of Greta is that no one has done a damn thing in her name. They may post her picture on their facebook page (I am not that old, but I really don't know what exactly people do on social media, haha), but actions fighting climate change have not increased since Greta's emergence.

But yes, the fawning is out of control. Conservatives tend to wait until young people are in their 20's before the hype and fawning begins.

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

She is famous. She is not teaching anybody anything. She is not inspiring anyone toward action (I would actually be rather happy if you could prove me wrong on these assertions...I like what Greta is pushing, but I do not expect the opinions of a child to change much). So while "used" may not be exactly right, adults that agree with her are blasting her message to the world hoping it has an impact...not considering that they would laugh a child climate denier off the stage...so how is this supposed to help?

I suppose you're equally skeptical about relativity, evolutionary biology, electromagnetism, civil engineering, and other subjects of which you haven't a clue, as you are of climatology? Eh, never mind. This post isn't really for you.

Climate deniers just don't even question the reasons for why they deny anything is happening, why they bother with this at all when in other areas of science they couldn't care less. The answer is simple for everyone else: a massive propaganda and misinformation campaign by the fossil fuel industry, particularly targeted towards the leaders and supporters of the Republican party.

The new line: "The climate is always changing." This way they can deny they're living in a complete dreamworld. Yet, when pressed about the rate of change and its causes, their ignorance comes shining through.

I didn't mind it much when it came to Creationism, as that's relatively harmless (until they try to teach it in schools). But what science denial does in this case is almost guarantees a radically changed earth, which is already underway. It's hard not to feel very deep hatred for these ignoramuses.

:up:

I live in the Netherlands, so in a sense I am the canary in the mineshaft, since sea level rise should have put half the country underwater. But so far, nothing. — Tzeentch

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/proof/2017/02/climate-change-pacific-islands/

I think that generally speaking, we have become like people who have soiled themselves and are well satisfied to have done so. Smug about it, even. Of course we say "Fuck you, Greta." What else would someone happy to be in that condition say, to anyone who complains of the smell? — Ciceronianus the White

hahaha, damn. Not sure how you came up with that, but good stuff.

Well, I live in the Netherlands, so in a sense I am the canary in the mineshaft, since sea level rise should have put half the country underwater. But so far, nothing. — Tzeentch

Waiting for the Netherlands to down isn't being a canary but a miner, that canary already died. Sea level rises are not projected to drown the Netherlands any time soon : https://www.uu.nl/en/news/the-question-is-not-if-the-netherlands-will-disappear-below-sea-level-but-when

Anyone who follows global warming closely has to be aware of the problems involved in talking about both "conditions that are changing now" but are part of "conditions that will change over 1, 2, or 3 centuries time". RIGHT: Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Dhaka, Shanghai, New York, or Boston are not going to be evacuated next year or next decade, even if some small low-rise Pacific Islands are pretty close to being frequently flooded. Things are changing rapidly, but the great mass of ice, water, and land means that these changes aren't going to be over in a few years. Greenland and Antartica will take quite a while to melt.

But it's necessary to keep people's minds on both the present and the distant future, because (well, you know all this, I am sure) what we have done in the last 150 years, what we are doing now and will probably continue to do (adding CO2 and methane to the atmosphere) can't be undone quickly. Also, there are those worrying tipping points, where some changes happen quickly, and unpredictably.

I don't know what is in Greta's future, of course. Christ, I don't know what is in my own immediate future. My guess is that she will remain an activist of some sort but that her newsworthiness will fade, which is probably a good thing for her, if not everybody else.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. I was referring to the fact that technological developments will help give companies and countries more of a reason to switch to renewables over relying on traditional fuels since they will be cheaper and less costly overall on a financial level. Like I said before, these technologies are becoming competitive and will take over in the coming years. My only hope is that it will be sooner rather than later given the limited time frame we have to act on the environment.

One reason why I liked the vanilla Green New Deal was that it can be argued both on an economic and environmental level. Even if you have people on the right that don't care/believe in climate change, they can still be persuaded on the economic opportunities of green technology. So much as governments are involved, I think they should in part be investing and subsidizing R&D on renewables and EVs, especially if it moves funds away from fossil fuel subsidies.

Anyways, since we're on the topic of taxation, it really depends on what the taxation is. If it's gonna be regressive like the ones in France, then of course that's a backwards way of going about it since it disproportionately hurts the poor over the rich. A carbon tax that is rebated back to the people like in Canada would be more palatable IMO. In addition, there are also tax credits that incentivize people to switch to EVs and renewables that should be considered as well. — Mr Bee

I did not misunderstand you I think. The technology could become competitive on it's own… but it's no certainty, I don't think. Either way you cannot really rely on the economy alone. But I do agree with your general point that any solution will have to take into account both economy and ecology.

Regarding taxation, yes, in principle you could go any direction with taxes. Because of the usual political forces at play though, it usually goes in certain directions.

Shaming of public officials may not sway their hearts on a personal level, but if it hurts their public standing so as to hurt their businesses or reelection chances then they'll be obligated to act whether they want to or not. Bolsonaro clearly doesn't give a damn about the Amazon burning, but the global outcry of the Amazon's destruction led to organizations like the EU to reconsider their trade deals with Brazil which convinced him to finally send in the military to put them out. Of course this isn't gonna stop him completely but it helps limit the damage he is doing. — Mr Bee

I've been thinking about this, because you do have a point…. but I don't like it :-). That is no rational argument ofcourse, so i'll try to articulate what doesn't sit well with me.

This only works to some extend, I think. One, because in principle it works only on perception of behaviour… . If they can get away with hiding the shamed behaviour than that is what they will try to do, and then things get potentially worse because there are no limits to what you can do if the behaviour isn't visible anymore. This akin to the arguments as to why criminalizing drugs doesn't work all that well.

Second, there are deminishing returns to this tactic it seems to me. Attentions of people are limited. If you flood them with messages of doom, at some point they invariably will stop caring… and then the tactic becomes ineffective in the long term.

And third, shaming distances you from the shamed. If the solution to the problem ultimately will have to entail making a deal with everybody, then shaming has probably made that more difficult.

think that generally speaking, we have become like people who have soiled themselves and are well satisfied to have done so. Smug about it, even. Of course we say "Fuck you, Greta." What else would someone happy to be in that condition say, to anyone who complains of the smell? — Ciceronianus the White

This is very true. But what we forget, is that we have ALL soiled ourselves. There are no humans who form any exception there. Greta included.

She's the typical person whose basic attitude is, "I soiled myself, too, but my shit don't smell".

We're all in it together. What I hate about these activists is that they are angry, but they direct their anger at a group, specifically, which does not exist... separately. "THEY don't care, we live in shit because THEY warmed up the world." Bullsack, she and everyone else on the planet is equally guilty, or equally non-guilty.

This can lead only, this specific-seaking hatred, into finding a scapegoat. And that is what I really resent she's trying to do.

Blonde, blue-eyed, fair, tall and muscular Germanic people have proved over the last century that they are very, very good at creating and finding scapegoats.

This is why I hate ficking Greta. She's doing it the worst possible way. "You destroyed my childhood." Like shit, we did. We just lived. Given a chance, she'd have lived, too.

that canary already died — Benkei

Most of the Canary Islands are under water.

did you know that there are no canaries on the Canary Islands? This is true.

And did you hear about the U.S. Virgin Islands?

There are no canaries there, either.

Fuck you Greta has nothing to do with whether her activism is valid or not.

We are pouring billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and there is consensus among the scientific community that there will be consequences. Exactly what the consequences are is a mixed bag of scientific observations, modeling, and extrapolations. But the fact is that regardless of the severity, there will be consequences.

So reaction to the sticker is nothing but a line separating those who give a shit and those who don't. Between those who are inclined to heed the warning and those who prefer to keep burning fuel and ignore the possibilities.

Fuck you Greta has nothing to do with whether her activism is valid or not. — staticphoton

Staticphoton, that's not valid. that's precisely what Fuck You Greta has to do with. I don't know where you live, but her entire activism is on blame throwing.

Everybody knows about tons of greenhouse gases and stuff. If you think you have just thrust light upon an unknown fact, you are mistaken.

it is precisely her activism that is dangerous -- seeking out a substratum of society to blame, and then persecute them.

That's what she is doing.

Those who keep burning fuel -- everybody is burning fuel until something better comes along.

Everybody is shitting the atmosphere -- you, me, Greta, everyone. You can't single out a single element that is not doing it.

So do please consider that Greta is a dangerous element. Nobody is disputing the green house stuff -- you would have to live on the moon or on Mars to not know about it.

She's not spreading knowledge, she's only spreading hatred. And hatred leads to dangerous things.

. I agree with Greta 100%, but I don't especially like listening to her talk.

She is getting used by the big fishes.

reaction to the sticker is nothing but a line separating those who give a shit and those who don't. — staticphoton

You are missing the point, Staticphotn. We are all keep on burning, no matter which side of the sticker line we are on. It does not matter whether one gives a shit or not. If you give a shit, you keep burning the fossil fuels. If you don't give a shit you keep on burning the fossil fuels. You are blind to this??

This is very true. But what we forget, is that we have ALL soiled ourselves. There are no humans who form any exception there. Greta included.

She's the typical person whose basic attitude is, "I soiled myself, too, but my shit don't smell". — god must be atheist

On the one hand there are those who are to blame for political inaction, intransigence, obfuscation, misdirection, absence of policy and forwarding lies and then there's Greta. Are you seriously suggesting her "shit" is in any way comparable to the people who are to blame? She was addressing UN politicians when she told them. Not you, or me.

We're all to blame means what exactly? We're all to blame so nobody is? Are you suggesting we're all equally involved in this farce?

Of course the extractive and energy industries are to blame for burying their own research from the 70's, influencing politicians and generally acting in a way so most of the costs will now be borne by future generations. Of course politicians are to blame for listening to people who were so obviously conflicted that it was morbidly obtuse of them to ignore it and shape government policy and political debate in line with those established economic interests. I was 4 years old, 4, when I already realised pollution was an issue. My dad worked for Shell and every day he worked late and my mum complained I said: "it's a good thing, because he's inventing things so there will be less pollution". That's 1982 for you.

Greta is taking up a cause because for some reason people are now actually paying attention. Unfortunately for her she's been catapulted to the forefront of a movement because the usual politics don't apply to her and politicians have been more or less forced to listen. And righfully so. But let's not pretend it's normal a girl her age is the face of climate action out of necessity. She should be in school and at most worry about her clothes, getting to school on time and her homework and maybe start thinking about what she'd like to be when she's older. Not this. In that respect it's a rather performative statement about the status of our political establishment.