Greta Thunberg - brave campaigner or deeply disturbed?

[theprestige]

So now the criticism of Thunberg is that China and Russia are bad?

Are we scraping the barrel to find things to throw at her?

I don't know that it's criticism of Thunberg per se. More a critique of those who find it necessary to hype her campaign as something "brave" or even significant.

 

[ThatGuy11200]

I don't know that it's criticism of Thunberg per se. More a critique of those who find it necessary to hype her campaign as something "brave" or even significant.

Significant: sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy

It is significant, as we've seen from both the media attention and the actions taken by other school kids.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I don't know that it's criticism of Thunberg per se. More a critique of those who find it necessary to hype her campaign as something "brave" or even significant.

It would be a very weird critique then.

 

[catsmate]

Oh dear, and what are they supposed to do, hide in a corner and cry because little Johnny called them a 'hater'?

Assess their statements, actions and beliefs and reconsider them Perhaps

 

[catsmate]

So as far as you are concerned anyone who doesn't wholly support the mission statement of Greenpeace and Extinction Rebellion are 'haters'.

Lie #1

Yet they may have come to their views equally as scientifically as Greta and her parents.

Yes, so what? Of course denying teh reality of human caused climate change is utterly unscientific...

A more moderate view is to concur we should cut down on our carbon footprint and stop plastic and micro-particle pollution but are not convinced that schoolchildren going on strike or hurray Henry's blocking the roads to stop people going to work or visiting dying parents in hospital is so absolutely essential and urgent that anyone who doesn't fully back these activities is a 'hater'.

 

[catsmate]

Her dad is with her so it's not much different from a parent taking their kid along with them for the ride. To see the news reports one could be forgiven for thinking she was a lone traveller, aside from the crew. There are also two cameramen so I expect there'll be some lucrative commercial vlogging to pay their fees and for the charter of the yacht.

Will you be providmg some evidence for this claim?

 

[catsmate]

Also, why are you still so determined to deprive Greta Thunberg of any agency? Are you jealous that she's doing more at her age than you've managed to do during your whole life, so it just has to be her parents?

Ah, now that's an interesting question and one that, I believe, is linked to the psychological need to bolster one's ego in the face of apathy towards huge problems.
Similar to the Kennedy Assassination conspiracy nuts who need to deny the agency of Oswald because it makes nonsense of their own use of "we're powerless and can do nothing" to avoid doing anything to batter the world.

 

[catsmate]

There's something perversely comical about adults literally resorting to schoolyard style bullying against a teenage youth.

It really shows the entrenched immaturity doesn't it?

 

[catsmate]

Well, that might be a believable excuse, if you had some sort of track record of being consistently opposed to people being places where they weren't really contributing. That's something that happens pretty often, for instance with sports spectators, protestors, bloggers and other amateur journalists, tourists, non-presenting conference attendees, sightseers and so forth.

But you've singled out Thunberg on that basis. Curious, and not really plausible. I think my original assessment still stands up pretty well.

The rightists are determined to hound Thunberg; she scares them.

 

[catsmate]

If you look up the Thunbergs on Google you will will see Greta is backed by profit making organisations hoping to cash in on the green economy.

Let's see your evidence for this claim. Go on, just once actually provide facts to support your assertions...

All this gumpf that no-one is allowed to dare say a sceptical word because Greta is a 'sixteen-year-old child with autism' is a logical fallacy.

Ah dear jeebus.. Talking of logical fallacies let me introduce you to the Strawman Argument.

Greta is sincere but her parents and the big corporations pushing her forward are rubbing their hands in glee and can hear the kerching sounds the more PR she gets.

You keep claiming this, but never provide any evidence for it.

I am sorry if an obvious truth is too hard for you to bear but I am not going to act as though Greta is some kind of messiah.

Where's the evidence for your claims?

 

[catsmate]

He and his wife are ardent 'green' activists, are they not? Because of their social status they have had reams of articles in Dagens Nyheter, have they not?

Is there any actual point buries is this morass? I've had several pieces published in the Irish Times, what of it.

So why doesn't Greta and her parents all pose together? I'll tell you why, because the carefully constructed image of 'Greta the lone warrior' is a great media magnet.

And if they did you (and your ilk) would be commentling adversely about the staged 'happy family' pictures.

Rather like the secretly married pop stars of yesteryear had to pretend they were single so as not to put the fans off and ruin their earning power.

 

[catsmate]

He's just hungry for the attention.

Why doesn't he stay in the background?

Why did he keep her mother out of the picture?

Exactly. The nutters will. spew either way.

 

[lionking]

The rightists are determined to hound Thunberg; she scares them.

Indeed. They are terrified the millennials and younger generations will listen and call older generations to account. It’s the last hope of human survival on the planet I believe, as older generations, including mine (baby boomers) are collectively doing **** all.

 

[theprestige]

Significant: sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy



It is significant, as we've seen from both the media attention and the actions taken by other school kids.

What significant changes to global climate change have been accomplished by her students?

 

[theprestige]

It would be a very weird critique then.

It's a very weird topic. It shouldn't be, but it is. And don't blame me. It was like this when I got here.

 

[theprestige]

Indeed. They are terrified the millennials and younger generations will listen and call older generations to account. It’s the last hope of human survival on the planet I believe, as older generations, including mine (baby boomers) are collectively doing **** all.

Better get started on that Mars colony, then.

More seriously, I think you're being too hard on your generation. At least in the "west", the last couple of generations have actually done a pretty good job of reducing emissions. They weren't doing it to fight "global climate change", but the principles and the results are essentially the same: Increase efficiency, reduce pollution. Your "older generations" have been pretty successful with this program, and continue to improve upon it.

If it weren't for the spectre of global climate change, this would be more than sufficient. Keep improving efficiency and cutting back on pollution. Even the developing nations will follow the same evolution, as they develop and improve their industrial base over time.

Anyway, you're not the one that needs a lecture from Thunberg's generation. They're giving you one, because they're children and they don't know any better. The real question is, what's your excuse for putting up with it?

 

[ThatGuy11200]

What significant changes to global climate change have been accomplished by her students?

Did I say there had been? No.

The fact that her movement is significant enough to warrant media attention and student/pupil action is evident. Attempting to change the parameters of what 'significance' means in this context is simply dishonest.

Better get started on that Mars colony, then.

More seriously, I think you're being too hard on your generation. At least in the "west", the last couple of generations have actually done a pretty good job of reducing emissions. They weren't doing it to fight "global climate change", but the principles and the results are essentially the same: Increase efficiency, reduce pollution. Your "older generations" have been pretty successful with this program, and continue to improve upon it.

If it weren't for the spectre of global climate change, this would be more than sufficient. Keep improving efficiency and cutting back on pollution. Even the developing nations will follow the same evolution, as they develop and improve their industrial base over time.

Anyway, you're not the one that needs a lecture from Thunberg's generation. They're giving you one, because they're children and they don't know any better. The real question is, what's your excuse for putting up with it?

"...putting up with it?" As if hearing something you already know to be true is somehow a bad thing.

 

[theprestige]

"...putting up with it?" As if hearing something you already know to be true is somehow a bad thing.

I'm pretty sure that being lectured on something you already believe in and practice is generally considered to be intolerable.

 

[carlitos]

On the other hand, the US GDP is about 8x Germany's. 4x the population, 8x the economy, but only 2x the emissions per capita doesn't seem bad.

One interesting thing is that Germany spends less than the US on collective defense, both per capita and per GDP. It's effectively outsourcing some of its emissions to the US.

(source nb - all figures rounded up or down for easy math)

Measure|Germany|USA...|Multiple USA vs. Germany
Population (MM)|80|320|4x
GDP in Trillions|4|20|5x
Emissions (x1,000 metric tons)|730|5,000|7x
Defense Spending ($B)|50|650|13x

Looking at the above, the USA has 4 times the population of Germany, 5 times the GDP, 7 times the emissions and 13 times the defense spending.

Your hypothesis (one "interesting thing") was that we might explain some of the emissions per-capita difference by our defense spending covering some of Germany's security. Germany "outsources" some of their emissions and defense spending to the USA.

The absolute difference in Defense spending is 600 Billion, while the absolute difference in GDP is 16 Trillion. Unless defense spending has a carbon impact of around 30 times that of other kinds of spending, the (relatively) small difference in economic impact wouldn't appear to be large enough in absolute terms to explain such a variance in CO2 footprint between the two countries.

So, that's a provisional "no" from me on your hypothesis / interesting thing / "not so bad" emissions difference. If my reasoning isn't clear enough, let me know and I can do some graphs, but not right now.

 

[theprestige]

(source nb - all figures rounded up or down for easy math)

Measure|Germany|USA...|Multiple USA vs. Germany
Population (MM)|80|320|4x
GDP in Trillions|4|20|5x
Emissions (x1,000 metric tons)|730|5,000|7x
Defense Spending ($B)|50|650|13x

Looking at the above, the USA has 4 times the population of Germany, 5 times the GDP, 7 times the emissions and 13 times the defense spending.

Your hypothesis (one "interesting thing") was that we might explain some of the emissions per-capita difference by our defense spending covering some of Germany's security. Germany "outsources" some of their emissions and defense spending to the USA.

The absolute difference in Defense spending is 600 Billion, while the absolute difference in GDP is 16 Trillion. Unless defense spending has a carbon impact of around 30 times that of other kinds of spending, the (relatively) small difference in economic impact wouldn't appear to be large enough in absolute terms to explain such a variance in CO2 footprint between the two countries.

So, that's a provisional "no" from me on your hypothesis / interesting thing / "not so bad" emissions difference. If my reasoning isn't clear enough, let me know and I can do some graphs, but not right now.

You're good. Thanks for the details!