Greta Thunberg - brave campaigner or deeply disturbed?

[lionking]

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.

Indeed. It certainly doesn’t sound like anything from a climate scientist. Full of logical fallacies to start with.

 

[crescent]

This one:

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."

May have sort of half truth to it. Here's what I've heard.

At the current rate of carbon buildup, we will eventually hit the point where things get warm enough to trigger a feedback loop caused by methane releases from thawing permafrost and volatilization of methane clathrates in warming seas. The suggestion is that we'll hit the point where the feedback loop begins in about 20 years (not ten). The year 2040, more or less.


Then they (IPCC? I'm not clear on that, but it is feature of the Green New Deal and quite a few policy proposals) set goals to prevent that. They decided that the industrial world, with its greater wealth and resources should lead the way. So they set a goal of the U.S., Western Europe and other developed nations to be carbon neutral by 2030, giving the developing world a bit of breathing room to meet the goal.

So, she may have a solid concept there, but the timing is wrong. The idea of methane releases creating climate feedback seems pretty well supported though.

 

[Wayward son]

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?

No. Those in the cult don't read the IPCC reports.

 

[Checkmite]

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.

Right now the deniers dictate environmental policy, so what they believe very much does matter. This statement is preposterous on its face.

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.

So, shadowy repentant advisor-to-many-governments, exactly what government initiatives have been enacted that you assert have "failed to accomplish much"? Whom have they been enacted by, and why and by what measure exactly have they failed? Please be more specific than "because climate activists are wrong".

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'd like some numbers showing that switching to wind and solar installations as opposed to fossil-fuel plants "does not decrease emissions". Further, I'd like you to explain why switching to renewable energy sources as opposed to fossil fuel necessarily involves a "sacrifice" or "turning back the clock". Surely the electrons work the same no matter the method used to produce them. Additionally, these energy sources can demonstrably become equivalent cost or even cheaper in many cases than the fossil-fuel sources they replace. In what modern country have people misguidedly regressed to antiquated technology in an effort to combat climate change as opposed to actively developing new technology? Are solar panels "turning back the clock"? Are new nuclear reactor designs a regression of humanity compared to a coal furnace?

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.”

It is incredibly odd that you accuse climate-change science of being motivated by an antihumanist philosophy, and then follow this proclamation up with an explicitly antihumanist question-begging quote in the very next sentence.

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.

Absurd conclusion. Emission-reduction and carbon disposal aren't mutually-exclusive or zero-sum choices. Perhaps you would like to show evidence of real-world instances of climate activists actively campaigning against suggestions for developing methods of carbon capture and disposal?

 

[Wayward son]

This one:



May have sort of half truth to it. Here's what I've heard.

At the current rate of carbon buildup, we will eventually hit the point where things get warm enough to trigger a feedback loop caused by methane releases from thawing permafrost and volatilization of methane clathrates in warming seas. The suggestion is that we'll hit the point where the feedback loop begins in about 20 years (not ten). The year 2040, more or less.


Then they (IPCC? I'm not clear on that, but it is feature of the Green New Deal and quite a few policy proposals) set goals to prevent that. They decided that the industrial world, with its greater wealth and resources should lead the way. So they set a goal of the U.S., Western Europe and other developed nations to be carbon neutral by 2030, giving the developing world a bit of breathing room to meet the goal.

So, she may have a solid concept there, but the timing is wrong. The idea of methane releases creating climate feedback seems pretty well supported though.

The IPCC has modeled release of methane reservoirs and yes that would be bad. However, the IPCC considers the possibility of such occuring to be extremely unlikely (less than 1% chance).

 

[Wayward son]

Right now the deniers dictate environmental policy, so what they believe very much does matter. This statement is preposterous on its face.

There are loads of places where deniers have had no impact on policy. Germany. Ontario for a decade under the Liberal government. Canada under Trudeau.

So, shadowy repentant advisor-to-many-governments, exactly what government initiatives have been enacted that you assert have "failed to accomplish much"? Whom have they been enacted by, and why and by what measure exactly have they failed? Please be more specific than "because climate activists are wrong".

Many places. Ontario is one example. Throughout the 1980s environmental groups dramatically slowed nuclear plants coming online dramatically increasing the costs. Then in the 1990s they got nuclear plants shut down, which led to the lots of coal going online. Then in the early 2000s they were outraged about the emissions of coal plants and convinced the Liberal government to shut those down by building tons of wind and solar facilities. However, as wind and solar are completely useless the government finally had to restart nuclear power plants (which did shut down the coal plants). The continued cost of this useless wind and solar are astronomically expensive, as is the case elsewhere. Germany spent a ton of money pushing wind and solar only to make their electricity 10 times dirtier and twice as expensive as France. Of course, if there was actually a successful example of large-scale solar and/or wind deployment everyone would know about it.

I'd like some numbers showing that switching to wind and solar installations as opposed to fossil-fuel plants "does not decrease emissions". Further, I'd like you to explain why switching to renewable energy sources as opposed to fossil fuel necessarily involves a "sacrifice" or "turning back the clock".

Wind and solar don't shut down fossil fuels. They are unreliable energy sources and require fossil fuels.

Surely the electrons work the same no matter the method used to produce them.

Surely. But electrons from wind and solar don't provide frequency control ancillary services. They are generally non-synchronous, non-dispatchable generators. Is that a big deal? It is if you want a grid that functions.

Additionally, these energy sources can demonstrably become equivalent cost or even cheaper in many cases than the fossil-fuel sources they replace.

Solar and wind can provide energy cheaply, but as market share of it increases the value of it drops dramatically and it drives up costs throughout the rest of the grid. It is a problem overlooked by people who think we are just talking about electrons.
On a basic level it is a lot like running a coffee shop. You need to be able to match the number of cups of coffee produced to the number of customers that want coffee. Wind and solar is the equivalent of an employee for which you never know when they are going to show up. It is not terrible if you have one employee like that. It is if half your staff is like that and one hour they could all show up putting out 500 cups of coffee for 100 customers and the next hour they are all gone and you can't meet the demand.

In what modern country have people misguidedly regressed to antiquated technology in an effort to combat climate change as opposed to actively developing new technology? Are solar panels "turning back the clock"? Are new nuclear reactor designs a regression of humanity compared to a coal furnace?

No country can or would. That is the disconnect. The environmental movement is pushing a turn back the clock philosophy. Governments don’t feel that they can enact climate change policies unless they have the support of environmental groups.

It is incredibly odd that you accuse climate-change science of being motivated by an antihumanist philosophy

I don’t. I accuse the environmental movement of that. And it is why their proposed solutions for climate change have had more to do with pushing their own pre-climate change agenda than to do with alleviating climate change. As is the case with the quote that followed from an environmental leader.

Absurd conclusion. Emission-reduction and carbon disposal aren't mutually-exclusive or zero-sum choices. Perhaps you would like to show evidence of real-world instances of climate activists actively campaigning against suggestions for developing methods of carbon capture and disposal?

Some 626 environmental groups, including Greenpeace, the Center for Biological Diversity and 350, recently laid out their vision in a letter they sent to U.S. lawmakers. They warned that they “vigorously oppose” several strategies, including the use of carbon capture and storage.

 

[Checkmite]

There are loads of places where deniers have had no impact on policy. Germany. Ontario for a decade under the Liberal government. Canada under Trudeau.

And how much of the world's emissions are contributed by Germany and Ontario?

A neighborhood consisting of a hundred houses and three factories is not going to see its water usage drop substantially if three of the houses pledge to start actively conserving water and nobody else does. If you expected Ontario's and Germany's environmental initiatives to produce dramatic results with regard to the progression of global climate change you're setting yourself up for failure.

Many places. Ontario is one example. Throughout the 1980s environmental groups dramatically slowed nuclear plants coming online dramatically increasing the costs.

That had nothing to do with climate change activism. Anti-nuclear activism isn't the same thing as climate change activism.

Then in the 1990s they got nuclear plants shut down, which led to the lots of coal going online. Then in the early 2000s they were outraged about the emissions of coal plants and convinced the Liberal government to shut those down by building tons of wind and solar facilities. However, as wind and solar are completely useless the government finally had to restart nuclear power plants (which did shut down the coal plants). The continued cost of this useless wind and solar are astronomically expensive, as is the case elsewhere.

Numbers, please? I just posted a link showing this technology isn't even moderately expensive in China compared to the fossil-powered grid it's replacing, let alone "astronomically" so. And when we talk about China we're talking about systems in use by between a fifth and a quarter of the world's population. Does it work okay there but not here for Magical Reasons?

Germany spent a ton of money pushing wind and solar only to make their electricity 10 times dirtier and twice as expensive as France. Of course, if there was actually a successful example of large-scale solar and/or wind deployment everyone would know about it.

Germany's emissions for 2017 were only a little over twice France's, not "ten times". This is in fact quite a dramatic improvement, as in 2010 its emissions were three times France's. In fact, Germany reduced its emissions from 2010 to 2017 about 22 percent, while France has only improved by around 12% - which is still extremely good.

As far as more "more expensive", this isn't the fault of renewable energy, it's the fault of Germany using fossil fuels to backup atmospheric energy production while France uses nuclear.

Wind and solar don't shut down fossil fuels. They are unreliable energy sources and require fossil fuels.

Or nuclear energy. Or hydroelectric energy.

Surely. But electrons from wind and solar don't provide frequency control ancillary services. They are generally non-synchronous, non-dispatchable generators. Is that a big deal? It is if you want a grid that functions.

This problem is trivially solvable using voltage regulation (which, coincidentally, is how utility companies using these sources solve it). Again, China is already doing this on a massive scale, so it's not a question that the technology exists and works.

Solar and wind can provide energy cheaply, but as market share of it increases the value of it drops dramatically and it drives up costs throughout the rest of the grid. It is a problem overlooked by people who think we are just talking about electrons.
On a basic level it is a lot like running a coffee shop. You need to be able to match the number of cups of coffee produced to the number of customers that want coffee. Wind and solar is the equivalent of an employee for which you never know when they are going to show up. It is not terrible if you have one employee like that. It is if half your staff is like that and one hour they could all show up putting out 500 cups of coffee for 100 customers and the next hour they are all gone and you can't meet the demand.

i.e., so "and nuclear energy. Or hydroelectric." Researching improved technology that increases solar panel efficiency in lower-light conditions will also help.

I don’t. I accuse the environmental movement of that. And it is why their proposed solutions for climate change have had more to do with pushing their own pre-climate change agenda than to do with alleviating climate change. As is the case with the quote that followed from an environmental leader.

I think I see your problem here. Multiple times you have conflated climate change activism with a general "environmental movement", as if this is one homogeneous entity with one homogeneous policy, or as if climate change activism is just a subset of environmentalism. Wrong on both counts. For instance, there are many climate-change activists who see nuclear as a key resource in weaning ourselves off of fossil-fuel dependence, while it's apparent from your writing that you think the monolithic "environmental movement" is entirely opposed to nuclear at any cost.

It makes sense that environmentalists who hop on board the climate change initiatives are going to retain anti-nuclear stances if they started out with them. But that doesn't mean "climate chance activism is anti-nuclear", and that goes for any other individual policy as well.

Some 626 environmental groups, including Greenpeace, the Center for Biological Diversity and 350, recently laid out their vision in a letter they sent to U.S. lawmakers. They warned that they “vigorously oppose” several strategies, including the use of carbon capture and storage.

From the context in which it is mentioned, I think it's very clear that they are opposed to companies seeking to develop use this technology purely as a profit-making gimmick. I suspect many would not be opposed to the development of this technology as for instance a government-funded endeavor.

But this is becoming a thread hijack about climate science advocacy vs denialism in general; I will end my part in this tangent simply by pointing out that when you use the word "cult" to describe people with whom you have a minor policy disagreement you're deliberately abusing language for emotional shock value and you should know that everyone sees through it.

 

[Vixen]

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"?

Likening Greta Thunberg to Martin Luther King shows you have clearly lost the plot and are 'appealing to the emotions' (Logical Fallacy #23).

 

[angrysoba]

Likening Greta Thunberg to Martin Luther King shows you have clearly lost the plot and are 'appealing to the emotions' (Logical Fallacy #23).

How so? Are your emotions stirred by the fact that if you declare a leader of a movement a cult leader by virtue of them being a leader of a movement that it follows from your argument that MLK must also be a cult leader? If you resist the conclusion then you defeat your own argument against Greta, no?

Besides, the relevant information is whether or not she is correct about climate change or not. It is not about whether she is a young girl or autistic or a cult leader which are well-poisoning and ad hominem fallacies (Fallacy 53 and Fallacy Number 1).

 

[Vixen]

How so? Are your emotions stirred by the fact that if you declare a leader of a movement a cult leader by virtue of them being a leader of a movement that it follows from your argument that MLK must also be a cult leader? If you resist the conclusion then you defeat your own argument against Greta, no?

Besides, the relevant information is whether or not she is correct about climate change or not. It is not about whether she is a young girl or autistic or a cult leader which are well-poisoning and ad hominem fallacies (Fallacy 53 and Fallacy Number 1).

The fallacy holds that 'MLK was a leading Civil Rights Movement' (= "He is some kind of an official hero " <fx dabs eyes>) and therefore Greta must be of the same ilk as she gets so much publicity, albeit engendered by her own parents' manipulation of the press [a team of camera crew following her around and two on the boat as hired and paid for by Pappa to do some vlogging on her behalf]. Anybody who doesn't agree is a horrible nasty person, the type who doesn't respect MLK <fx tones of outrage and disbelief>.

 

[angrysoba]

The fallacy holds that 'MLK was a leading Civil Rights Movement' (= "He is some kind of an official hero " <fx dabs eyes>) and therefore Greta must be of the same ilk as she gets so much publicity, albeit engendered by her own parents' manipulation of the press [a team of camera crew following her around and two on the boat as hired and paid for by Pappa to do some vlogging on her behalf]. Anybody who doesn't agree is a horrible nasty person, the type who doesn't respect MLK <fx tones of outrage and disbelief>.

No. Nobody said any of that crap you pulled from your arse. It was merely pointed out that if the following is true...

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.

...then it must be *even more true* of MLK who was obviously a leader of millions. In fact, his importance outranking that of Greta, must make him an even bigger cult of personality. If you bite the bullet then you are being logically consistent. If not then YOU are making no logical sense.

 

[uke2se]

No. Those in the cult don't read the IPCC reports.

Great. That means I'm not in the cult. I suppose it means Greta isn't as well, as her message is that we all should listen to the people who wrote the IPCC reports.

 

[Checkmite]

The fallacy holds that 'MLK was a leading Civil Rights Movement' (= "He is some kind of an official hero " <fx dabs eyes>) and therefore Greta must be of the same ilk as she gets so much publicity, albeit engendered by her own parents' manipulation of the press [a team of camera crew following her around and two on the boat as hired and paid for by Pappa to do some vlogging on her behalf]. Anybody who doesn't agree is a horrible nasty person, the type who doesn't respect MLK <fx tones of outrage and disbelief>.

You are going to quite amazing lengths to avoid dealing with the point; I'm actually impressed.

 

[Vixen]

You are going to quite amazing lengths to avoid dealing with the point; I'm actually impressed.

Oh please. You brought up Martin Luther King! Next you'll be trying out Bambi.

 

[Vixen]

Vlogging from Greta:

Day 11. Very bumpy and wet, south of Newfoundland.

 

[Vixen]

Today in the Finnish newspaper, ILTA-SANOMAT, attacking Greta for being Swedish, ex-MEP Lasse Lehtinen writes [google translate], with the headline: 'The cute warrior of the Climate War':

The neighboring country has a long and well-established tradition of declaring one and doing another, writes
We are watching the life of the Swedish Greta Thunberg across the Atlantic, holding her breath. The true grown-up left the British Isles last week for a UN climate conference in New York. Greta sails on a borrowed racing boat with her father Svante, two real sailors and a filmmaker.

The girl opposes flying and does not want to be emitted when traveling by airplane or cruise ship, so she set off by boat. Of course, its carbon footprint remains small, and the ship is powered by solar panels and water turbines.

Instead, everything else associated with the journey generates emissions over many intercontinental flights. Dozens of interested people turned to Plymouth to watch young Sissi leave, and not all came by boat or bicycle. Hundreds of reporters fly around the continents around the hustle and bustle.

Emissions also occur when sailing professionals fly to New York to receive a boat. They also sail the boat back to Europe. Five of the releases, the boat crew, are well suited to the publicity brought by Greta.

SOMETHING, this is also a Swedish project. The neighboring country has a long and well-established tradition of proclaiming one and doing another. The phenomenon is called Den Kungliga svenska falskheten. [The Royal Swedish falsehood] Sweden is a class society where everyone democratically insists on one another but still does not tolerate one another.

In the autumn of 1941 King Gustav V wrote a letter to Hitler congratulating him on his success on the eastern front. "Most of my people agree." The National Bank of Sweden bought gold that had been robbed by Germany of the countries it occupied and bankers were seizing securities stolen from Jews. The neutral country sold the ore to Germany and allowed the troops to transit north.

Olof Palme preached peace and love and marched against the Vietnam War while Bofors sold cannons to the willing. The Swede is a Social Democrat with a small royalty and an imperialist.

Children frightened by climate fears are also used as human shields

And ends with:

The 1980 referendum called for the decommissioning of nuclear power. Since then, the country's nuclear capacity has tripled. Half of the electricity is still generated by nuclear power, but the name of the power company is disgracefully Vattenfall. [waterfall] For the EU, too, Sweden managed to believe that it would lower its nuclear power and thus be relieved of its emissions trading targets.

Now, a slogan flygskam [air shame] has been invented in the neighborhood, which commits long-distance travelers. Flying hardly diminishes, but bad spirits are sure to increase.

WE WELCOME the use of child soldiers in wars and crises. Children frightened by climate fears and other vulnerable groups are now being used against society and also being used as human shields. If someone were to be injured or even lost their lives, the movement would get martyred and add the desired visibility.

Girl Greta may not be well aware of the many contradictions in climate science, but she is undoubtedly in the faith of the end. World page sectarian leaders have used the middle-aged for their purposes.

Greta has already become one of a kind Shirley Temple, with which parents funded Hollywood in the golden years. Is she in danger of growing into this time Petra Kelly, who was supposed to be sanctified by any means?

Mii-aowww! And you thought Andrew Bolt was a bit strong?


Who remembers Petra Kelly?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Today in the Finnish newspaper, ILTA-SANOMAT, attacking Greta for being Swedish, ex-MEP Lasse Lehtinen writes [google translate], with the headline: 'The cute warrior of the Climate War':

Children frightened by climate fears are also used as human shields

Human shields against what? Increased CO2 emissions? Flooding?
Quoting bilge does not reinforce your already weak-to-nonexistent argument.

 

[Vixen]

Lasse Lehtinen has caused quite a lot of controversy with his article.

A counter blog writes:

lta-Sanomat released on August 25th. The cute warrior of the Lasse Lehtinen Column War .

Of course , with the cute warrior, Lehtinen means Greta Thunberg , whom the columnist describes in other colorful terms as well.

Uncle Man does not forget, for example, tytötellä Gretaa, a Swedish tabloid Expressen chose Women's Day 2019 V female T he in Sweden . Also Aftonbladet by an opinion poll according to Thunberg was the Swedish view of the woman. Meanwhile, Time magazine picked Greta last year among the world's 25 most influential youngsters. According to Lehtinen, this child, frightened by climate fears, has also been nominated for the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize.

But for Lasse Lehtinen, Greta is a cute girl.

Lehtinen also suspects that "the girl Greta cannot be very aware of the many contradictions in climate science . " Unlike in Kymenlaakso, born in Kymenlaakso kinds of parents wannabe-Savo. Transgenic , like Lehtinen himself, illuminates his inheritance to Savon Sanomat .

"The leaders of the sects have used the world page for their inferior purposes," says Lehtinen, painting a depiction of Thunberg as a gullible fool.

That Kymijoki River of Metaphors also compares Greta to Shirley Temple , whose parents funded her daughter's publicity in the golden years of Hollywood .

And that's not all.

The columnist suspects that Greta will become Petra Kelly this time . Kelly was a German politician and an environmental activist with the Right Livelihood Award , who was found murdered in her apartment in Bonn in 1992. The murder was never solved with certainty.

What makes the longtime MP and EU parliamentarian demarche his or her verbal coffin in the way of a Swedish environmental activist and innocent media consumer?

Often the reasons for strange behavior are found in the person's past. So let's take a quick look at Lehtinen's childhood.

Lehtinen, who is well on his way to his eighth tenth, started his journalistic hobby at a young age.

He says on his website that he " had his first story published in the youth column of a newspaper when he was ten . "

And then little Lasse decided that one beautiful day he would still be a real journalist.

And it wasn't long before a busy journalist started getting a job in the magazine. Only at the age of fifteen!

So younger than the cute and inferior Greta baby.

Could it be that Lehtinen is going, as the old people say, to become a child again? That the journalist-writer comes back to those golden days of his youth.

The days when girls were girls and boys were boys and nothing was supposed.

The days when you could pull the counter and pinch the butt.

This theory is supported, at least, by Lehtinen's very obscure and even teen-angst text, which Greta Thunberg was chosen to target.

But what makes a baby kid transformed into a toddler to bully his little one?

Kivakoulu.fi describes the features found in research that are typical of bullying children.

Or so in a downturn.

Some bullies may have severe problems in different areas of their lives, may be aggressive in their personality, or may have difficulty sympathizing with others.

Lehtinen's writing was certainly not very empathetic. Not only was the climate activist found there, but also the Demarian Brotherhood and all of Sweden, including the late Prime Minister and the King.

Kivakoulu.fi also says that one of the most important reasons for bullying today is the desire to bolster the bully's own position, the desire to be seen and heard, to be admired and to seek power in the group.

Groups from all over the world should also be counted as groups.

The subject of bullying is often a child or adolescent who has, for example, an abnormal body composition such as being overweight or underweight, motor clumsiness or tenderness, low sociability or impulsivity. Or else, just a different feature.

In this case, the idealistic young man with Asperger's syndrome, who was expressing his opinions, was the target of bullying.

If it is indeed Lehtinen's recession, it is difficult to accurately estimate the age at which he has returned.

But there are some signs of a defiant land in his behavior.

Defiance and experimentation of boundaries are therefore part of the normal development of the child or of the child who has returned.

In severe cases, in addition to consistent guidance, various methods of teaching emotion and behavior management, and sometimes medication, may be used to treat the disorder.

Proper treatment of such disorders and diseases is important.

Lehtinen writes on his website :

“The writer writes for the same reason as the singer sings or the caller plays. Everyone presents their talents to different audiences according to their abilities, but willingly and earnestly, defying self-criticism - that worst enemy of creativity. ”

After successfully defying self-criticism, the author continues:

“According to the Latin saying, my kind has insanabile scribendis cacoethes, the incurable scab of writing. You just have to learn to live with it. ”

Is that scabies a kind of disorder or illness like the one for which there is a cure?

Bullying free week for kids to schools and child minds everywhere.

Anzio

google translate

 

[Vixen]

Latest from Greta:

Day 12. We are getting closer to the North American mainland. Rough conditions, but downwind sailing.

 

[jimbob]

Lasse Lehtinen has caused quite a lot of controversy with his article.

A counter blog writes:

google translate

You seem to have found something even sillier than the initial article.

Why bother with either? They don't seem to be making much traction and both seem silly.