In the period 1890-2014 the sea levels observed in the Netherlands rose linearly with 1.9mm/year, amounting to a whopping 23cm over the course of more than a century; roughly similar to global sea level rise which amounted to 22cm over the same period.

Source: https://www.clo.nl/en/indicators/en0229-sea-level-dutch-coast-and-worldwide

I'm not saying the climate doesn't change. The climate is always changing. I'm saying people should stop announcing the end of times.

Are you seriously suggesting her "shit" is in any way comparable to the people who are to blame? — Benkei

WE are all to blame, Yes, I am saying that. And if you want to not believe that, then you are also propagating hate, trying to identfify a group to blame, and sending them eventually to crematoria.

That is wrong.

We have to find a solution; blaming and hating is not the way. That is just venting and throwing tantrums.

The damage has been done. Now we have to undo the damage. Do you think propagating hate and division is going to help any in the finding of the solution?

You and your kind, like Greta, would rather find a group to hate, than find a solution.

I am on the solution party. Go out, hate with Greta.

I'm saying people should stop announcing the end of times. — Tzeentch

Right, I agree.

And they should also stop trying to find a specific group to blame for their endtimes Armageddon scenarios. Real or imagined.

You and your kind, like Greta, would rather find a group to hate, than find a solution.

I am on the solution party. Go out, hate with Greta. — god must be atheist

Sanctimonious nonsense. There still is no political will to solve this problem. Greta is doing a lot more in getting political interests aligned to actually do something about it than you ever will. The hubris to suggest your ostrich politics of denialism are part of the solution is simply laughable.

I was saying I'd rather not be the canary for the rest of the world, if you don't mind.

There still is no political will to solve this problem. — Benkei

If you want to solve something physical with political, good luck to you.

The solution ought to have a scientific, technological solution, not a political one.

that's one of the biggest fallacies of real life: people getting political over science. They figure if more and more people vote for less gas emissions, it will happen. Sanctamonious nonsense. It is only technology and science that can solve that problem, not votes.

Sometimes I wonder...

Scientism.

I didn't know it was physically possible to both suck and blow at the same time but well done.

Sanctimonious nonsense. There still is no political will to solve this problem. Greta is doing a lot more in getting political interests aligned to actually do something about it than you ever will. The hubris to suggest your ostrich politics of denialism are part of the solution is simply laughable. — Benkei

Please stay away from insults. Your post contained one argument (political solution must be found) and seven insults.

That is not right. This can only lead to flame war, which is not my cup of tea.

Please stick to philosophical terms, since this is a philosophy forum. You must state your point with reason backing them up, not insults and personal attacks.

Sorry, but what you wrote is not acceptable to me.

Benkei
2.2k
↪god must be atheist Scientism.

I didn't know it was physically possible to both suck and blow at the same time but well done. — Benkei

Please don't do this.

I haven't insulted you. I've called you out on nonsense statements and if you feel insulted... well, permit me to shed some crocodile tears for you.

I always wanted to quote Bart Simpson and your "science solves everything" skit was asking for a science joke. You're welcome. Grow a sense of humour.

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?? . — god must be atheist

I'm not sure what I'm being blind to. What you state is painfully obvious and besides the point, one can behave a certain way due to limited options and either care or not care.

It is only technology and science that can solve that problem, not votes. — god must be atheist

That is rather naïve. Science will lay down the facts, but sadly it is the politicians who influence people to vote, not the facts.

Science tells us what solutions are possible, engineers have to actually make those solutions happen, entrepreneurs have to fund those engineers in order for them to be able to do so, and politics has to create the proper systemic incentives (some combination of carrots and sticks) to make it more obviously in those entrepreneurs best interests to pay the engineers to use the science to fix the damn problem already.

It is only technology and science that can solve that problem, not votes.
— god must be atheist

That is rather naïve. Science will lay down the facts, but sadly it is the politicians who influence people to vote, not the facts. — staticphoton

So... Greta is a politician?

It is not only the politician that makes people vote one way or another. it is the scientists who have given us the facts about global warming / climate change. It is not the politicians who've given us that insight.

The successful politician will check out a movement, a mass movement, and stand in front of them and pretend to have lead them there.

There is nothing a politician does but 1. serve the mandate s/he has been given, and 2. serve him- or herself.

A politician never discovered radium, the steam engine, the third law of thermodynamics, nothing.

A politician is an organizer, who is necessary to the betterment of a society, but a politician never actually does anything in the way of creating something tangible.

It is only technology and science that can solve that problem, not votes.
— god must be atheist

That is rather naïve. Science will lay down the facts, but sadly it is the politicians who influence people to vote, not the facts. — staticphoton

Let's see if I had been naive.

I propose this question to you:

If all the politicians were employed in political ways to reverse or stop the global warming effects, but all scientists were forbidden to work on it, (as a hypothetical situation), how far would we get to solving the problem?

I put it to you that we would not get anywhere by talking about it, voting this way, voting that way, voting in any way. All we would accomplish, thanks to Greta, is finding a group to blame, then to hate, discriminate against, punish and eventually eliminate.

So... Greta is a politician?
It is not only the politician that makes people vote one way or another. it is the scientists who have given us the facts about global warming / climate change. It is not the politicians who've given us that insight. — god must be atheist

I applaud you for being a person who gets his information from scientific journals, but I'm pretty sure most people become acquainted with current events through television and the internet. For the most part, news TV is heavily slanted with political agenda, and people typically search the internet for what they want to find. They don't have time to work on their insight and prefer to be handed all the "necessary" information on a platter neatly wrapped by their favorite political platform. That way they don't have to take time from their busy schedules to think for themselves.

If all the politicians were employed in political ways to reverse or stop the global warming effects, but all scientists were forbidden to work on it, (as a hypothetical situation), how far would we get to solving the problem? — god must be atheist

The work of scientists only becomes accessible and relevant to the vast majority of people through the work of politicians who are maneuvered by special interests. Funding for scientific research is secured by either tax appropriation (political) or corporate interests. Scientific work and research for the sake of knowledge alone is fringe work, and most people really are too uninterested and time-limited to care about the value of pure knowledge.

I applaud you for being a person who gets his information from scientific journals, but I'm pretty sure most people become acquainted with current events through television and the internet. — staticphoton

This completely discounts the fact that it is scientists who have discovered global warming, and it is media's job to deliver the scientific findings to the people.

You somehow proved to yourself that it is the media that discovered global warming, and predicts its dire effects.

The political agendas are there in the Internet and other media, but NEWS reporting is in there, too.

I really can't tell you how you misplaced the importance of scientific discovery and washed it down to being mere Internet noise. Why did you do that? Just to win an argument? I hope you see the error of your ways.

The Internet and other media could not report the global warming and climate change, without there being a global warming and climate change. And it is not Greta and not politicians who first discovered the phenomenon, but scientists. The Internet and the media is just a news reporting vehicle in this instance. Why are you fighting that, and why are you trying to distort the truth, denouncing scientific work and denouncing the importance of it?

Why are you fighting that, and why are you trying to distort the truth, denouncing scientific work and denouncing the importance of it? — god must be atheist

Denouncing scientific work? I'm a scientist.

You didn't pick up the fact that my argument was against people, not science. Regardless of the fact that scientists discovered global warming, half the world's population doesn't believe in it. Why do you think that is?

Denouncing scientific work? I'm a scientist. — staticphoton

This does not negate that you denounced scientific work. It only asserts that you ought not to have.

You didn't pick up the fact that my argument was against people, not science. — staticphoton

This was not a fact. Your argument was, as far as I can tell, to tell me it is a politicians who will stop global warming not scientists, if anyone IS going to stop it.

global warming, half the world's population doesn't believe in it. Why do you think that is? — staticphoton

It is actually immaterial what half the people of the world think.

The topic of the argument here is that Greta is trying to find a group to blame, and that is what I, personally, vehemently oppose, and find deplorable. This thread is about "fuck Greta". She is a woman, young woman, old child, whatever, who is pissed off at the world, much like everyone else is, and talks about third person singular about those who have created this problem -- not realizing the she, and everyone else, is equally guilty of contributing to the problem, or woudl be if given a chance.

I suggested it is scientists who we must rely on to solve the situation and we must not rely on finding and segregating a group to be the target of our anger because that will lead to no solution and because that would be unfair to the segregated group.

I suggested it is scientists who we must rely on to solve the situation and we must not rely on finding and segregating a group to be the target of our anger because that will lead to no solution — god must be atheist

Your suggestion is well intended. It is also true that scientists are the ones to find the solution.
Unfortunately it is politics that create the gretas and anti-gretras of the world.

Thank you.

In the UK, it is the government who provided financial incentives for the installation of onshore wind turbines, they then removed them and stopped giving permission for them to be built. They have now supported offshore wind, but they are heavily involved in where permission is given for them to be built. They also provided financial incentives for small scale and domestic solar generation, then stopped the incentive just as it was taking off, putting a number of suppliers out of business and depriving users of the incentive they were promised. They also decide on the procurement of nuclear power. So in the UK politicians play the primary role in how our power generation is provided and how green it is. Indeed these politicians have been promising action on climate change, riding on the tails of the popularity of Greta.

who is pissed off at the world, much like everyone else is, and talks about third person singular about those who have created this problem -- not realizing the she, and everyone else, is equally guilty of contributing to the problem, or would be if given a chance. — god must be atheist

So much wrong with this. Equally guilty? Of what? Of what, exactly, is she and everyone else equally guilty? And are you quite sure she is making no - as in zero - contribution to a solution? Because it seems to me she is making a contribution, and about the best that she, or anyone like her, can make. You seem to be very confused about media, your perception and attitudes about the media, and the message.

In a way, she is a goose that cackles and warns. What else can she do? And you can get your suspenders in a bunch about her voice and words, but maybe better to be grateful for her efforts and to focus on what she's talking about. Her anger? I reckon that's defensible on many grounds.

It would be worth your while to investigate how much electricity a solar panel produces on an average day. Or rather, on a daily average taken over a year. Then compare it to the consumption of electric power of the household where it's erected; then add to it the cost of the manufacturing and installation. As an exercise.

They also decide on the procurement of nuclear power. — Punshhh

I am not sure from your English if they have approved the use of nuclear power or they just have the power (political power) to approve it or not. Please report back to me what you meant.

We all wear clothes, we all go to school, we all watch tv or computer, we all use telephone, public transportation, we all heat our rooms when it's cold, we all buy groceries in the grocery stores that have been grown, harvested and processed by the aid of machines and they have been transported to our grocery stores.

This is the "guilt" I am talking about. I used the word "guilt" becuase in Greta's imagination the previous generations shouldn't have squandered non-renewable resources and that she blames them for.

I really don't understand why I have to explain the simplest and most obvious things to you. You are on a philosophy website, don't just argue your side, but use your brain a bit, too, please, s'il vous plait, bitte schon, kerem szepen, pazhaluysta.

Because it seems to me she is making a contribution, and about the best that she, or anyone like her, can make. — tim wood

No she is not, Young Grasshopper. She is trying to find a scape goat; she is inciting anger; she is segregating a group or trying to find one to segregate, to take her anger out on. THIS IS NOT HELPFUL, AND SHE IS NOT HELPING THE SITUATION, SHE IS ONLY BUILDING HATRED AND DISSENT.

Unfortunately you are right in saying she is doing the same thing in this aspect as everyone else. Hatred. Hatred. Hatred. That's what everyone feels. And they want to take it out on a group that they will blame, that they will find guilty.

And why is she not helping the situation? because the situation is NOT EASY TO HELP. It is a headache, and a problem of biblical proportions. It will take a while before mankind finds a solution. But inciting hatred and freely venting anger is not leading to a solution at all, it is not helpful at all.

This is the "guilt" I am talking about. — god must be atheist

It seems, then, that you

vehemently oppose, and find deplorable. — god must be atheist

not just humanity, but the human condition. That's neither reasonable nor balanced.

because in Greta's imagination the previous generations have squandered non-renewable resources and that she blames them for. — god must be atheist

Her imagination? If anyone's squandered non-renewable resources it wasn't her. Whom do you think did squander them? And further, I am not a student of her rhetoric, but I am under the impression that her arguments are towards and against those squandering.

This is the "guilt" I am talking about. I used the word "guilt" becuase in Greta's imagination the previous generations shouldn't have squandered non-renewable resources and that she blames them for. — god must be atheist

This is what I corrected my script to. Please wait a few minutes to reply to my comments, because I edit my comments after I have written them. This was not the first and not the last time that I edit my posts.

It seems, then, that you
vehemently oppose, and find deplorable.
— god must be atheist
not just humanity, but the human condition. That's neither reasonable nor balanced. — tim wood

You win, Tim Wood. Let's hate each other, beat each other up on the street, rape each other's wives and daughters, because according to you this is the human condition that we ought not to fight.

I have had enough of you, and of your mindless babble, of your unthinking opinions. I am so sorry.

No she is not, Little Brain. She is trying to find a scape goat; she is inciting anger; she is segregating a group or trying to find one to segregate, to take her anger out on. THIS IS NOT HELPFUL, AND SHE IS NOT HELPING THE SITUATION, SHE IS ONLY BUILDING HATRED AND DISSENT. — god must be atheist

Consider the orchestra. Every instrument has its place and purpose in the composition. Strings, brass, woodwinds, percussion, each with its own sound. Greta, it would seem, is an instrument, and with a purpose and a place. Or would you have all those outraged restrain their outrage to silence because it disturbs you. Maybe she's not your idea of appropriate, or likable, or even lovable, but these are manifestly your problem, not hers. Nor, near as I can tell, is she trying to be.

So this bend in the thread isn't about her or her message, but rather about your annoyance and judgment. Not a topic at the moment that warrants further expenditure of any kind.