Greta Thunberg - brave campaigner or deeply disturbed?

[BobTheCoward]

Agreed. She's doing great.

Unless she isn't. We would actually have to figure out the marginal gain in attention.

 

[lionking]

Unless she isn't. We would actually have to figure out the marginal gain in attention.

And yet you are posting about her.

******* amazing. Win for Greta.

 

[BobTheCoward]

And yet you are posting about her.

******* amazing. Win for Greta.

No, because nothing on this forum matters.

 

[Wayward son]

Two cults? Those who accept the science are one cult and those who deny the science is the other. Then where does that leave you?

Neither of the cults care about, understand or accept science, unless it just so happens to conform with their ideology. They both think they do.

Let's just start off with what might be the central slogan of Greta and the Extinction Rebellion and I will quote you making the same claim:

"Also, keep in mind the time frame. 10 years, or we're looking at a catastrophic scenario."

And Greta:

"Now we probably don’t even have a future any more. Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it."

And Roger Hallam (co-founder of extinction rebellion) about "what the science predicts":

"We are facing mass starvation in the next 10 years, social collapse and the possible extinction of the human race." "By that time there could only be a billion people left. That is six billion who have died from starvation or slaughtered."

This is a "scientific" claim, straight from the IPCC, but not everyone would agree with it. Here is an article as an example:

"My biggest concern is with the much-touted line that “the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says we have 12 years” before triggering an irreversible slide into climate chaos. Slogan writers are vague on whether they mean climate chaos will happen after 12 years, or if we have 12 years to avert it. But both are misleading."

Now of course, this person is undoubtedly a climate change denier, right? He must be. It's not like he would be the relevant IPCC lead author of the very section of the report where activists and journalists "claim" their slogan was said...right? Well let's see how the article continues...

"As the relevant lead author of the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, I spent several days last October, literally under a spotlight, explaining to delegates of the world’s governments what we could, and could not, say about how close we are to that level of warming."

This is a apocalypse cult with the characteristics of the worst religious death cults. The fall from grace humans must be punished for their arrogance. It is nothing new. Environmentalist and scholar Martin Lewis wrote about the taking over of the environmental movement by deep ecology antihumanist anarchists 30 years ago and their philosophy of utopian politics. Nothing will be accomplished, except for more harm to the planet, as long as they have influence, and they have tons.

The cult believes that Greta is speaking truth to power and making world leaders tremble in her wrath. Please. World leaders - at least the majority who want to do something about climate change - love her, although not for the same reasons deniers do. World leaders love her because she actually gives them cover. When/If she comes to Canada the leaders of 3 of the 4 major political parties will be falling over themselves to be seen with her. There are basically two sides. The political parties that are not interested in doing anything about climate change, and the political parties that are, and have spent massive sums of money to tackle the problem but have accomplished little more than blowing money. When someone is in the news saying hysterical things about the end of days because climate change that is a massive boon for the leaders of political parties that have tried to tackle climate change but only wasted money because it shows the opposition parties as evil and gets their party off the hook for incompetent boondoggles.

It is not some mistake that Greta gets to speak to world leaders. They are not letting her talk to them so they can grovel about their failures and ask forgiveness.

Of course the problem is that the solutions proposed by environmental groups, and therefore political parties that want the support of environmental groups, have not worked, will not work, and can not work. They will be tried over and over again (and like communism, will just believe that their previous attempts were not applied properly) until eventually the ideological framework which is built on longstanding myths (like the balance of nature) completely falls apart and is replaced with a new framework that incorporates reality.

So where does that leave me. I am a scientist, who like almost all scientists I know avoids both cults. Ozone depletion was dealt with behind closed doors starting during the Nixon administration and slowly progressing, following the best science, and eventually becoming public in the 80s. Climate change has been dealt with out in open since the start. It put the exact opposite pressure on the scientific community as dealing with ozone did, and scientists who got the most attention and the most sway were not the ones who were conforming to the learned scientific view, but the few who were most on the extremes - either deniers saying what corporations who would benefit from denial would promote, or scientists saying what activists in environmental organizations wanted to hear. The general public has been polluted so thoroughly by both cults that I don't think that reasonable action or effective policy is possible anytime soon.

 

[Wayward son]

Your source for this?

Dave

If she is it will likely result in the same crew flights just in the opposite direction.

 

[Dave Rogers]

If she is it will likely result in the same crew flights just in the opposite direction.

Your source for this?

Dave

 

[Wayward son]

Your source for this?

Dave

Using my brain. Boat would need to come back.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Using my brain. Boat would need to come back.

So, basically, making stuff up. Did you see the bit where they said it was only because of a late change in schedule that they would need to fly out two crew members? Or have you decided that they have to do this every time based on actual information, rather than guesswork?

Dave

 

[Wayward son]

So, basically, making stuff up. Did you see the bit where they said it was only because of a late change in schedule that they would need to fly out two crew members? Or have you decided that they have to do this every time based on actual information, rather than guesswork?

Dave

Yes, it was a late change of schedule because of Greta. It would be the same on the way back because Greta and her father are doing a tour and don't know when they will return.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yes, it was a late change of schedule because of Greta. It would be the same on the way back because Greta and her father are doing a tour and don't know when they will return.

Guesswork. You don't know that the return trip will require crewmen to be flown out. You're making that assumption because it supports your argument.

Dave

 

[Checkmite]

Let's just start off with what might be the central slogan of Greta and the Extinction Rebellion and I will quote you making the same claim:

And apparently end with that as well, because the same editorial you quote says:

One of the most insidious myths about climate change is the pretence that we are all in it together. People ask me whether I’m kept awake at night by the prospect of five degrees of warming. I don’t think we’ll make it to five degrees. I’m far more worried about geopolitical breakdown as the injustices of climate change emerge as we steam from two to three degrees.

and

What about the other interpretation of the IPCC’s 12 years: that we have 12 years to act? What our report said was, in scenarios with a one-in-two to two-in-three chance of keeping global warming below 1.5°C, emissions are reduced to around half their present level by 2030. That doesn’t mean we have 12 years to act: it means we have to act now, and even if we do, success is not guaranteed.

It sounds to me like he's not disputing the direness of situation; activists citing a 12-year deadline when some of the world won't be feeling the harshest effects for more like 25 years doesn't make the concerns of climate change activists ignorable. Likewise, considering that the IPCC report from which the "12 year" figure emerged came out only late last year and climate change activism has been around far, far longer than that, referring to climate change activists as a "cult" based on that figure or even calling the "12 year" figure a "central slogan" of a movement that began over a decade before that figure was ever cited is either vastly ignorant or intentionally dishonest on your part. I'm leaning toward the latter, considering you claim to "avoid both cults" and yet the entirety of your criticism is reserved for only one of them; "I'm not on either side" being a common rhetorical tactic attempting to imply more credibility for one's ideas by falsely claiming a neutral-and-therefore-objective stance.

 

[Vixen]

Well said.

The contortions that conservatives in this thread are going through to discredit Greta are a sight to behold.

And you've worked that out, how?

 

[Vixen]

The difference, of course, is that millennials and younger generations are taking notice of her. Possibly the last generation with any chance of undoing the crap older generations have inflicted on the world.

So it is 'the cult of the personality'. As if millions of 'millenials and younger generations' didn't work it out for themselves without needing a promoted leader.

 

[Checkmite]

So it is 'the cult of the personality'. As if millions of 'millenials and younger generations' didn't work it out for themselves without needing a promoted leader.

This is like reducing the American Civil Rights movement to a "cult of personality" that worshipped Dr. Martin Luther King or Malcolm X.

 

[Vixen]

That's essentially what activism is; attracting publicity to a cause.

Ah, rather like Bob Geldof and Live Aid or Princess Diana and her minefields.

How did Africans even know it was Christmas before Geldof came along or that they are deprived of snow?

Gimme a break from the idle rich preaching at the rest of us and assuming leadership of their favourite cause.

 

[Vixen]

This is like reducing the American Civil Rights movement to a "cult of personality" that worshipped Dr. Martin Luther King or Malcolm X.

Are you likening Greta to Dr. Martin Luther King or Malcolm X?

 

[Checkmite]

Are you likening Greta to Dr. Martin Luther King or Malcolm X?

Whether she is even of nearly such importance to the climate change movement has yet to be seen. But if a person even attracting a modicum of publicity focused on their connection to a movement, like Greta has, constitutes a "cult of personality" by your definition, how does one ever get into the same league as King et al without being a "cult leader"?

 

[Wayward son]

And apparently end with that as well, because the same editorial you quote says:
and
It sounds to me like he's not disputing the direness of situation;

In the article he said this:

"That would indeed get us to 1.5°C by 2030: 12 years from 2018. But an additional quarter of a degree of warming, more-or-less what has happened since the 1990s, is not going to feel like Armageddon to the vast majority of today’s striking teenagers (the striving taxpayers of 2030). And what will they think then?"

and that quote linked this article which states this about hitting 1.5C in 2030:

"During that year we’d expect some extreme weather events somewhere in the world, as happens every year. Some of these heatwaves, heavy downpours or droughts may well have become more likely as part of the changing climate. Others, however, may not have changed in likelihood. Teasing out the signal of climate change from the noise of natural variability is hard work."

Is there a difference between that and these claims:

"Also, keep in mind the time frame. 10 years, or we're looking at a catastrophic scenario."

And Greta:

"Now we probably don’t even have a future any more. Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it."

And Roger Hallam (co-founder of extinction rebellion) about "what the science predicts":

"We are facing mass starvation in the next 10 years, social collapse and the possible extinction of the human race." "By that time there could only be a billion people left. That is six billion who have died from starvation or slaughtered."

Likewise, considering that the IPCC report from which the "12 year" figure emerged came out only late last year and climate change activism has been around far, far longer than that, referring to climate change activists as a "cult" based on that figure or even calling the "12 year" figure a "central slogan" of a movement that began over a decade before that figure was ever cited is either vastly ignorant or intentionally dishonest on your part.

What movement began over a decade ago? My own activism against climate change started 30 years ago. During that time the environmental community, of which I was very much a part of, repeatedly claimed that the world's end was just around the corner unless the climate change policies they demanded (which in general had little to do with climate change) were immediately enacted.

I'm leaning toward the latter, considering you claim to "avoid both cults" and yet the entirety of your criticism is reserved for only one of them; "I'm not on either side" being a common rhetorical tactic attempting to imply more credibility for one's ideas by falsely claiming a neutral-and-therefore-objective stance.

My vitriol used to go entirely to the deniers until I realized that what the deniers think is completely inconsequential. While what they believe is probably the most wrong, they have essentially no power. They don’t matter.

In 30 years I have watched (and in the odd case advised) many governments who have very earnestly wanted to tackle climate change and failed to accomplish much, if anything at all – except to generally dramatically increase the costs of electricity. This isn’t because of some grand denier conspiracy or due to the influence of the Koch brothers. This is due to bad ideas. Bad ideas that are pushed and demanded by environmental groups and in which governments take over the advice of their experts.
Most scientists will say, well at least they agree there is a problem and they mean well. I won’t.

There has been nothing more harmful to the fight against climate change than the belief spread by the environmental movement, and based purely on an ideology, that fighting climate change can only be accomplished by sacrificing and turning back the clock. When taxpayers find that their hydro rates have sky-rocketed because of completely useless wind and solar installations, which didn’t even result in decreasing emissions they (in the best case scenario) turn away from caring about the issue of climate change.

They shouldn’t. They should turn against the environmental movement and the antihumanist deep ecology philosophy that is being pushed by them. Again, nothing new, Amory Lovins many years ago said “If you ask me, it’d be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it.”

But, in part, because the scientific community has refused to separate themselves from the environmental movement because they are afraid that would give victory to the deniers, the general public thinks that they are pushing the same solutions.

Professor Allen (the same lead author) is calling for: 'Early investment in carbon dioxide disposal is critical, because most of the cheapest options, like underground storage, will take decades to develop and gain public acceptance. Currently, of the billions being spent on combating climate change, only a tiny fraction is remotely relevant to these vital "backstop" technologies.”

“He recommends focussing on the 'carbon intensity of growth', or maximising the rate of economic growth we achieve for a given rate of emission. 'Sacrificing economic growth to reduce emissions could even be counterproductive,' he notes, 'if it impairs the willingness and ability of future generations to reduce emissions to zero.'”

This type of true long-term investment in actually combating climate change is politically infeasible in an environment where people think (incorrectly) that we have 10 years left before a catastrophe.

 

[uke2se]

Neither of the cults care about, understand or accept science, unless it just so happens to conform with their ideology. They both think they do.

Let's just start off with what might be the central slogan of Greta and the Extinction Rebellion and I will quote you making the same claim:

"Also, keep in mind the time frame. 10 years, or we're looking at a catastrophic scenario."

And Greta:

"Now we probably don’t even have a future any more. Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it."

And Roger Hallam (co-founder of extinction rebellion) about "what the science predicts":

"We are facing mass starvation in the next 10 years, social collapse and the possible extinction of the human race." "By that time there could only be a billion people left. That is six billion who have died from starvation or slaughtered."

This is a "scientific" claim, straight from the IPCC, but not everyone would agree with it. Here is an article as an example:

"My biggest concern is with the much-touted line that “the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says we have 12 years” before triggering an irreversible slide into climate chaos. Slogan writers are vague on whether they mean climate chaos will happen after 12 years, or if we have 12 years to avert it. But both are misleading."

Now of course, this person is undoubtedly a climate change denier, right? He must be. It's not like he would be the relevant IPCC lead author of the very section of the report where activists and journalists "claim" their slogan was said...right? Well let's see how the article continues...

"As the relevant lead author of the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, I spent several days last October, literally under a spotlight, explaining to delegates of the world’s governments what we could, and could not, say about how close we are to that level of warming."

This is a apocalypse cult with the characteristics of the worst religious death cults. The fall from grace humans must be punished for their arrogance. It is nothing new. Environmentalist and scholar Martin Lewis wrote about the taking over of the environmental movement by deep ecology antihumanist anarchists 30 years ago and their philosophy of utopian politics. Nothing will be accomplished, except for more harm to the planet, as long as they have influence, and they have tons.

The cult believes that Greta is speaking truth to power and making world leaders tremble in her wrath. Please. World leaders - at least the majority who want to do something about climate change - love her, although not for the same reasons deniers do. World leaders love her because she actually gives them cover. When/If she comes to Canada the leaders of 3 of the 4 major political parties will be falling over themselves to be seen with her. There are basically two sides. The political parties that are not interested in doing anything about climate change, and the political parties that are, and have spent massive sums of money to tackle the problem but have accomplished little more than blowing money. When someone is in the news saying hysterical things about the end of days because climate change that is a massive boon for the leaders of political parties that have tried to tackle climate change but only wasted money because it shows the opposition parties as evil and gets their party off the hook for incompetent boondoggles.

It is not some mistake that Greta gets to speak to world leaders. They are not letting her talk to them so they can grovel about their failures and ask forgiveness.

Of course the problem is that the solutions proposed by environmental groups, and therefore political parties that want the support of environmental groups, have not worked, will not work, and can not work. They will be tried over and over again (and like communism, will just believe that their previous attempts were not applied properly) until eventually the ideological framework which is built on longstanding myths (like the balance of nature) completely falls apart and is replaced with a new framework that incorporates reality.

So where does that leave me. I am a scientist, who like almost all scientists I know avoids both cults. Ozone depletion was dealt with behind closed doors starting during the Nixon administration and slowly progressing, following the best science, and eventually becoming public in the 80s. Climate change has been dealt with out in open since the start. It put the exact opposite pressure on the scientific community as dealing with ozone did, and scientists who got the most attention and the most sway were not the ones who were conforming to the learned scientific view, but the few who were most on the extremes - either deniers saying what corporations who would benefit from denial would promote, or scientists saying what activists in environmental organizations wanted to hear. The general public has been polluted so thoroughly by both cults that I don't think that reasonable action or effective policy is possible anytime soon.

Are you saying the climate scientists who wrote the IPCC report are in the cult? Are you saying what's in the IPCC report isn't science?

It sounds to me that you are posting a whole lot of bogus conspiracy laden BS, but then again, you are a scientist, so surely you couldn't be doing that.

 

[uke2se]

There has been nothing more harmful to the fight against climate change than the belief spread by the environmental movement, and based purely on an ideology, that fighting climate change can only be accomplished by sacrificing and turning back the clock. When taxpayers find that their hydro rates have sky-rocketed because of completely useless wind and solar installations, which didn’t even result in decreasing emissions they (in the best case scenario) turn away from caring about the issue of climate change.

I'm going to have to see your evidence for... well, all of this.

Oh, and the part where you say that the deniers have no power. I'm going to need evidence for that as well, because that seems just completely bonkers.