The "Fuck You, Greta" Movement
This is starting to look like a death cult. The sacro-ludic bond of ecological catastrophe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DqwjlFNoWE
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2668476599895725&set=a.103890229687721&type=3&theater
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzQyQRa1Wio
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hofAsL8q4A&list=PLwO4FmB1PtMPvIKRaI5Tb36q8SB7DmCIc
https://www.rt.com/news/463252-f-you-greta-stickers-germany/
https://www.amazon.com/Fuck-You-Greta-Shirts-Sweatshirt/dp/B07V34PML7
https://www.vleporama.com/fuck-you-greta/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DqwjlFNoWE
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2668476599895725&set=a.103890229687721&type=3&theater
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzQyQRa1Wio
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hofAsL8q4A&list=PLwO4FmB1PtMPvIKRaI5Tb36q8SB7DmCIc
https://www.rt.com/news/463252-f-you-greta-stickers-germany/
https://www.amazon.com/Fuck-You-Greta-Shirts-Sweatshirt/dp/B07V34PML7
https://www.vleporama.com/fuck-you-greta/
Comments (157)
per @Tim Wood, since when is global warming an "ideology"?
I'd say when we let children do the talking for us, we have definitely left the realm of rational thought.
I suppose you think Trump (and his motley band of all-grown-ups) the paragon of rationality.
What precisely do you find irrational in Greta's plea?
Interesting take.
It doesn't matter, really. The guilty parties (major hydrocarbon producers and consumers) aren't listening anyway, and when they act it is to subvert the effort to reduce CO2 and Methane production. It's not Greta's fault. The fault is with they who have eyes but will not see, they who have ears and will not hear.
Ah yes, lets play the "supposing" game. That will certainly help the discussion.
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
Blaming the world for "stealing her childhood", for one.
Is that all?
Quoting tim wood
Greta does start by saying "This is all wrong. I shouldn't be up here. I should be back in school." and she sure is right about that.
The other group is screaming various batshit crazy conspiracies theories of which Greta is merely a puppet.
Let me know when they fawn over a teenager and become activists in her name.
Can you direct me to the scientific study suggesting the Netherlands should be half-underwater?
That's not a scientific study. That's a wikipedia page having precisely zip to do with it. I control-F'ed "climate" and "rise" and - precisely zip.
Show me a scientific study suggesting the Netherlands should be half-underwater.
I Googled it but failed to find a scientific study addressing the effects of climate change on sea-level rise in the Netherlands.
Because climate change and sea-level rise are a hoax.
https://www.vn.nl/rising-sea-levels-netherlands/
If you have children, read this to them tonight at bedtime.
"The success of this adaptation will to a large extent determine the viability of the Dutch society as a whole."
https://www.jcronline.org/doi/10.2112/07A-0010.1
etc
They do enjoy fairy tales, but not the left-wing pseudo-intellectual kind.
'It was beneficial in morphological terms during the mid-Holocene, but from Roman times, it has been a threat to the coastal zone evolution and human habitation."
Bloody Romans and their carbon emissions!
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.
So a climate denier. Good. End of discussion.
Quoting Tzeentch
No one in your little bubble.
I haven't gone door to door to ask every citizens whether sea level rise keeps them awake at night, if that's what you're asking.
From time to time I defend lawsuits brought by parents for their children, alleging sometimes bogus injuries from car accidents. They get no special consideration due to their youth. They can take as much money from my clients' pockets as any adult, so the defense against them can be no less vigorous.
So, if I felt Greta's words deserved a hearty "fuck off" had they been spoken by an old shrew, she gets it too. If little old insignificant Greta doesn't deserve an unfiltered response, then she doesn't deserve a spot speaking at the UN.
Maybe ask these people first:
"Dutch turn to floating homes to confront rising sea levels"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EQrGHCn828
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
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.
https://pixotale.com/story/7596751/
You don't speak Dutch, but pay attention to the dates below the photographs.
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).
Take a closer look at the sources I provided. They are a growing phenomenon in light of sea-level rise.
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?
What evidence is there that Greta is being used?
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.
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
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).
Quoting 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?
I asked you what evidence you can provide that Greta is being used. Your response suggests there's no evidence you can provide.
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.
Nope sorry, not interested in playing that game.
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.
Providing evidence to support an assertion - that's a game to you?
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.
Quoting 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".
Quoting 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.
Okay. I was interested to know if there was evidence of lib-nut foul play.
"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.
Eh. Anyway, climate deniers of all stripes are a dime a dozen.
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?
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.
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.
There's so many lies and contortions of fact on both sides. The more information I have, the less dizzy I feel.
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.
Quoting 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.
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...
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
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.
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.
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.
Quoting 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.
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.
The Venetians would like a word with you.....
perfect...I may not have been quite so polite :grin:
Quoting 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).
Quoting 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).
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/proof/2017/02/climate-change-pacific-islands/
hahaha, damn. Not sure how you came up with that, but good stuff.
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
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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
She is getting used by the big fishes.
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??
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.
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.
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.
Right, I agree.
And they should also stop trying to find a specific group to blame for their endtimes Armageddon scenarios. Real or imagined.
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.
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...
I didn't know it was physically possible to both suck and blow at the same time but well done.
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.
Please don't do this.
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.
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.
That is rather naïve. Science will lay down the facts, but sadly it is the politicians who influence people to vote, not the facts.
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.
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.
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.
Quoting 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.
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?
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?
This does not negate that you denounced scientific work. It only asserts that you ought not to have.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
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.
Quoting 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.
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 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.
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.
You are forgetting the most important way that proper systemic incentives are created (and to forget this is typical for our time). That is the markets and the market mechanism. Once renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels, there is no turning back anymore to them.
Usually people see the market mechanism as the evil cause of everything bad, yet it isn't so. Truly viable and sustainable choices are only firmly implemented once the market mechanism favors these choices. And that is totally possible, actually something that is already happening.
(A most simple chart)
Very simple, maybe a bit too simple. Who will own future energy? What will they charge, what will their bottom line business practice be?
Remember that the market isn't made just from the producers/suppliers/industry owners. That's just one side of the coin. There's also the aggregate demand, the buyers, consumers etc. Is as important.
Yes. Taxes and wealth transfers have been invented. But how you calculate 'public harm' is quite difficult when you think of it.
In my country one of the most heavily taxed issues are cars and fuel. About 75% of the price of gasoline is simply taxes... 25% goes to the producers, importers, retailers and to transport costs. Since the 70's the car has been the cash cow for the government. Yet for example in the US gas prices are far lower.
Same thing with subsidies, actually.
Let me tell a story from real life. I thought of investing in a private venture that was building wind farms in Finland in the 2000's. I remember the "roadshow" for investors which I participated in. The analyst from the venture talk NEARLY ONLY about subsidies, the implemented laws and the contributions and stances that the government had taken. Their basic message was that the investors will get a good return on investment before the government subsidies run out. They briefly mentioned also geography and where it was best to construct the farms... and that the military didn't like wind farms to be built on the eastern border because they would give radar blind spots (an issue they were happy to abide with).
So my point is that the "final nail in the coffin" is that renewables are cheaper than non-renewables. Then there's no turning back anywhere. That has to be the real objective.
Quoting ssu
Yes, I agree with you about how it works. But if the buyer/consumer really had that much effect on the market then we probably wouldn’t be in the situation we are in now, that is the general cost of living versus wages versus a consumerism that seems to be insatiable.
First, there's a great difference between an individual consumer and aggregate demand. And all those finished goods and services demanded in an economy aren't used just by 'us' as consumers. The demand side has within itself also producers and companies too as buyers. Add into the equation Global demand, the demand from other countries that make the exports of a country, which naturally are of huge importance to export oriented countries.
Hence even if the demand side is as important as the supply side, it is far more difficult to understand and especially far more difficult to influence. Hence the supply side is more often the one which is focused on. The narrative there is about companies and corporations trying to lower the production prices (through technology, outsourcing etc.), which basically falls to being the job of the leadership of those companies. Far easier to understand and handle.
Secondly, cost of living versus wages is a more complex issue (obviously).
1) have low carbon emissions as a percentage of the global total, bar the USA (so, Europe, Canada, Australia)
2) whose carbon emissions are already dropping year on year and have done since the early 1990s.
The "solutions" they come up with are all going to slow down innovation. And innovation is, funnily enough, the very thing that's allowed us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions per capita in the first place.
And then the EU politicians are all tripping over themselves and fawning over her with smiles in their faces while they get castrated by a little girl, because they're so terrified by the press, who mostly support the left/green parties of Europe.
Both, they have the power to approve it, to subsidise it, to negotiate with investors and constructors. To insure it, take responsibility for decommissioning. Also they do currently approve of it, two new stations are being commissioned right now. Although they have dithered for the last 15 years or so, but now there is a serious energy gap looming and they have little choice if they are going to keep the lights on.
Interestingly fracking has been halted due to seismic activity, I doubt it will resume now. I expect a big expansion of offshore wind now, an industry doing very well for us.
... because there is no such thing as bad publicity.
Greta will be remembered, and people's memories of seeing a particular politician or two with Greta, and a little while later when things have blown over, the politician can rightfully claim with being victorious supporting Greta agaisnt other (evil) politicians.
If I haven't seen it once, i havent' seen it a thousand times. One of the oldest tricks in the book of tricks for politicians to use.
(Incidentally: can anyone tell me who this Greta person is I used to keep hearing about?)
I love attacking children. They are useless lying, cheating, little bastards with no moral compass. They will sell their mothers down the river for a chocolate bar. They will betray their country for a Pokemon game, and sell their souls to the devil for some candy and a ride in Satanmobil.
I want my tombstone to read, "Here a man who once was a child remembers what it is to be a child."
I really appreciate her heart-felt outburst against you-know-who, the-one-who-must-not-be-named by which I mean the adults. Many unkind words and pictures directed towards the young Greta. Quite unfortunate.
What concerns me is the role-reversal; a child is tutoring adults on how to run the world in an impassioned speech to world leaders, all adults. When a man uses his feet to do something the hands are supposed to do, it means the hands are severely incapacitated. Likewise, when a child's trying so hard to bring what is an urgent issue like climate change to our attention, it doesn't bode well for the world - the adults have failed miserably.
Luckily this isn't Greta, the teen does know something, it is that she doesn't know everything and it's for the adults to solve the issues. This the good thing about Ms Thunberg.
Yet this can be the real problem even if it might be overblown, it Still is there. Energy policy towards nuclear energy shows that public policy can be very unrealistic and based on prejudices.
Hey, this is an age-old problem with men. Throughout the ages, we've used our wankolos when we ought to have used our heads.
Same effect.
:rofl:
We don't go shit where our children eat either.
What's the worst that can happen if we act on climate change? What's the worst that can happen if we do nothing? What's the responsible thing to do?
The economy collapses today and we all go hungry and die.Quoting jorndoe
The economy collapses tomorrow and we all go hungry and die.Quoting jorndoeCompromise.
The responsible thing to do, is for subject matter experts to go through the motions of sober thorough examination, weighing risks of in/actions (there be ethics), the usual. Like we do with Ebola outbreaks, high-speed traffic, wildlife extinctions, military interventions, garbage disposal, ...
We could, at the very least, go shit where our children eat less frequently, as a start. Does that work as a "compromise"?
I don't have a transcript to hand, but his basic message is that by being optimistic we can deliver unlimited power supplies, unlimited energy is within our grasp. Rather than listening to the doom mongers telling us that the apocalypse is upon us.
Here is her opening speech (if I got the correct one from yesterday). Might be some other speech, because in this one I don't hear anything optimistic, but only accusations.
Greta: "I'm here to tell you that unlike you, my generation will not give up without a fight. - People are not going to give up, your the one's giving up." Let's see what that fight will be.
And here's the comic relief:
Donald: "the US is in the midst of an economic boom the likes of which the World has never seen before". Perhaps the Chinese leader is angry about Trump stealing his line.
And the truth about Trump's economic boom:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/news/florida-lawmakers-create-a-task-force-on-sea-level-rise/vi-BBZeEYg?fbclid=IwAR1GxiMYFH6Crc878fTH6NDgnkpRxd5-GMx8yzprBT_AR7fLo6-vgF2knxE
That feels like a perfect set-up line....hmmm...
"The task force calls on Floridians to 'stand their ground' against sea level rise. Millions drive to the coast and begin firing on the encroaching sea."
Eh, I give that punchline a C+, someone can surely do better...
To @ZzzoneiroCosm, I will read your article...don't mean to be disrespectful (to you, obviously I am ok with some disrespect to Florida)
:grin:
Panhandlers will be prosecuted on the Panhandle.
Ribbons of green, blue and red, the most customary colours of the seas and oceans, will be sold for a dollar at Walmart, and the proceeds will go to finance the task force that organizes protests against sea rise.
There will be rides, politicians giving speeches, a beauty contest, a few drug related gunshots, a Taylor Swift tribute concert, and a "Jackie Onassis" look-alike contest, with free glasses of grapefruit juice sold for a dollar to finance the task force that organizes protests against sear rise.
There will be a panel of lawyers, judges and a jury of twelve of its peers, to discuss the illegality and un-American tendencies of sea level rise. The House Ethics Committee and Senators from all over the landscape will be in attendance as observers.
CN, CBB, CTI, and CAIEASOIF{POASDFJTV will be interviewing sharks, manatees, tigersharks, nuclear submarines and other sea life on the potential collapse of their real estate market now that more underwater area will be available for housing, spousing and spawning.
if you look at the same period of each of the three graphs, which period is filled in for Trump, the cute observer will notice that both during Bush and Obama there had been negative growths and during Trumps, no negative growth.
I am NOT ON THE SIDE OF TRUMP. I am on the side of those who say that Americans are so fucking dumb, that they can't read and interpret properly even a simple two-dimensional chart. This is of course not a naturally acquired denseness, but the result of a public education policy of keeping the masses as stupid as they possibly can be.
We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!
I do not disagree with what she says, but I disagree with what it entails: Her speech was to meant for politicians. So, it amounts to saying to these politicians:
What are you actually waiting for, to radically force other people to comply with what I believe?
My point of view is that it is not enough to merely vote over forcing other people. Sorry, that is simply too easy. If you want to force other people, you must also be willing to risk your life and die for what you believe in.
That is why I somehow appreciate the yellow-vest revolt in France. It was a reasonable beginning. As far as I am concerned, it is ok for the French government to impose new gasoline taxes based on what people like Greta Thunberg say, but then their side must also be willing to risk their lives and die for what they believe in.
Hence, I was a bit disappointed with the pacifism with which the yellow-vest protesters proceeded. That is really not how you successfully call the other side's bluff.
I think that we are finally discovering that there are problems that cannot be solved by merely voting over them. That approach does not work, because as Nassim Taleb so famously wrote:
You need to put skin the game; while merely voting is not the same as putting real skin the game.
It also seems there are people that struggle to read surrounding captions...that graph was responding to this:
Quoting ssu
Surely it 100% refutes this claim?? Sometimes these simple two dimensional charts can get tricky :grimace:
And for one more note...I don't think SSU is American...? Sweden or Finland maybe...?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7929735/Prince-Charles-flew-16-000-miles-just-11-days-proudly-posing-Greta-Thunberg-Davos.html
Do the older reader/posters here recall the Pons-Fleishman debacle over cold fusion? Because the science had such intensely important sociopolitical significance it got emotional and the science suffered. That was minor compared to the current "climate crisis" debate.
No "Gretta" could shed any light on the truth in the debate over cold fusion. I see no merit in dragging the poor girl up in front of audiences for this debate either. It is a bald-faced attempt to distract from actual, scientifically based, debate. "If you disagree you must want to kick poor Gretta in the teeth" or some such horror. She's being used in an abusive way, even if it turns out for the "right reasons".
Personally I don't buy the whole of the asserted claims. I've never seen any legitimate claim with influence in the sociopolitical realm that didn't point out that "well it's bad for some reasons but it's good for others". The complete lack of even hypothetical benefits for the proposed effect make me suspect the motives of those making the claims. "Give me the power to prevent those horrible things that will happen to all of you, no matter who you are or where you live!"
[edit:] "In other words... Give Me Power!!!"
Look closely people!!!
She's not getting involved in the scientific debate. She's involved in the political debate. She's making political demands and those opposed to her are doing so also. Only a handful of flat-earther's and paid for shills are still trying to debate the science.
I'm not sure she's a serious or relevant 'activist' to begin with using any more serious or intellectual methodology in relation to the approximations, mathematical or otherwise and logical planning and goal setting as opposed to just a niave young person who managed to appear in the 6th grade reading level media and generate a popular buzz, negative or positive which appeals to the superstitious and media voyeurs of all "political' or "religious" persuasions. (I don't believe anyone is completely "immune from it either" no matter how rational they are or wish to be).
Regardless, these types of reactions are definitely absurd; I don't even blame "Trump" specifically or want a scapegoat, as opposed to the overall "political climate" in general.
(There enough sound scientific evidence that people have a natural tendency to act "tribalistic", irrational or aggressive under the right circumstances, whether political violence, sports violence, etc which goes beyond any simplistic, mass marketed 'left/right' paradigm that I don't care to case blame at a "side" or fan the flames on this one)