Greta Thunberg - brave campaigner or deeply disturbed?

[Bob001]

Relevant to the discussion:

WASHINGTON — Earth’s oceans are under severe strain from climate change, a major new United Nations report warns, which threatens everything from the ability to harvest seafood to the well-being of hundreds of millions of people living along the coasts.
Rising temperatures are contributing to a drop in fish populations in many regions, and oxygen levels in the ocean are declining while acidity levels are on the rise, posing risks to important marine ecosystems, according to the report issued Wednesday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of scientists convened by the United Nations to guide world leaders in policymaking.

In addition, warmer ocean waters, when combined with rising sea levels, threaten to fuel ever more powerful tropical cyclones and floods, the report said, further imperiling coastal regions and worsening a phenomenon that is already contributing to storms like Hurricane Harvey, which devastated Houston two years ago.
“The oceans are sending us so many warning signals that we need to get emissions under control,” said Hans-Otto Pörtner, a marine biologist at the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany and a lead author of the report. “Ecosystems are changing, food webs are changing, fish stocks are changing, and this turmoil is affecting humans.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/climate/climate-change-oceans-united-nations.html

 

[theprestige]

No.

In lomiller's analogy you'd pull the cord on your parachute. You might well get hurt - possibly even die - but it's positive action to mitigate certain catastrophe.

There's no parachute in lomiller's analogy.

In a parachute analogy, you're not falling off a building and facing a crisis. You're planning a BASE jump off a building and having some fun. You've made preparations ahead of time to avert the crisis, and if everything goes according to plan you'll deploy the parachute and land safely without ever actually seeing a crisis.

Is that the analogy you're proposing for combating the effects of global climate change? Everything is going according to plan, we have a solution spring-loaded, and we're going to pull the rip-cord at the right time and exit this period of human history with all the benefits of the industrial revolution but none of the awkward brain matter spread on the pavement?

theprestige - what you're presenting here is not skepticism, it's presenting plausible statements that appear to be designed to just plain irritate others who are trying to discuss a subject seriously.

It seems to me that someone wanting to seriously discuss the looming crisis of flooded and uninhabitable cities would be ready with a concrete proposal for averting this crisis when asked.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

And the only bit of her message I disagree with is the CRISIS!!!!!!!! bit

.....

Pretty sure your complaints were broader than that but no matter, if this is your issue, this is my reply.

Of course you don't believe we have reached a crisis point, if we did, people who don't want to would have to act. If it's not a crisis, you can just roll over 'till another day.

 

[lionking]

Climate change denial isn’t just one thing, it’s a mishmash of false claims who’s only unifying theme is that they object to taking actions that would reduce CO2 emissions or even slow down their growth. Even though there are many completely different arguments (all wrong) they are all pushed by the same people, websites and news outlets even though most of them are mutually contradictory.

The following arguments and more and more are all interchangeably promoted by the same usual suspects:
1) It's not warming
2) it's warming but it's not CO2
3) It's the CO2 but it's not our CO2
4) It's our CO2 but the warming is small
5) It's our CO2 but the warming is not unusual
6) It's our CO2 but warming is good!
7) It's our CO2 but we need to wait longer to know how much warming
8) It's already to late to reduce CO2
9) There is a magic fix that can remove the CO2

All these and more are circulated on the same web sites ad media outlets and people that stick to just one regularly ally with people who promote something completely contradictory

There are a couple more in this thread alone:
10) The serious effects of global warming might not happen in the near future, so NO CRISIS!!!
11) On a cosmic timescale the human race is doomed, so why worry

And one from Australian PM, coal lover and climate denier (who was in the US at the time but didn’t have the guts to face Thunberg in the UN):

12) Don’t talk to children about climate change as it will only make them anxious and their future will be great anyway.

Denial takes many forms today.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Did you want to post some proof she is actually converting mass man made climate disbelievers from her preaching?

Do you think all those teenagers who have been taking part in the school strikes had their minds made up long before Greta convinced their peers to begin acting?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Seems to be more a case of parents using their kid as a tool to be fair.

Just my opinion though.

I have to wonder how many people with this unsupported belief have never been around teens?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

Why are you so upset about any criticisim of Greta? Why don’t you just ignore people who question the handlers of her? Why are people that label other posters with no proof, climate deniers such haters?

For one, it's typical propaganda being repeated by climate change deniers. I hate to see people being fooled into sucking it up and repeating it.

 

[luchog]

It seems to me that someone wanting to seriously discuss the looming crisis of flooded and uninhabitable cities would be ready with a concrete proposal for averting this crisis when asked.

Did you bother to read the IPCC website linked earlier? Cause it's all on there if you actually cared to look and aren't engaging in yet more denialist evasion.

 

[a_unique_person]

I said her speech made her come across as irritating to me.

I didn't say anything about her voice.

I couldn't give a rats she is "foreign"

And the only bit of her message I disagree with is the CRISIS!!!!!!!! bit

But you know this yet still ignore it and insist on posters saying things they haven't

That is fine. Why do you insist she is a goddess child, who is the most intelligent person in the world?

There is no other explanation for the devotion and deifying from you I have seen in this thread.

I don't think she's got anything to say that has any magical qualities. For some reason people are listening to her and not other people who said pretty much the same thing.

 

[Checkmite]

Why stop a natural phenomenon?

Sunburn, food poisoning, and attacks by mountain lions are natural phenomena. We do our best to mitigate such phenomena, or even stop it completely, because maintaining our health, quality of life, or continued existence depends on doing so.

 

[Cavemonster]

That is fine. Why do you insist she is a goddess child, who is the most intelligent person in the world?

There is no other explanation for the devotion and deifying from you I have seen in this thread.

You really can think of no reason to spend a few minute long sessions typing on an internet forum short of abject deification?

That's really weird dude.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Do you think all those teenagers who have been taking part in the school strikes had their minds made up long before Greta convinced their peers to begin acting?

Children will support any cause that gives them an excuse to skip school.

 

[a_unique_person]

Why stop a natural phenomenon?

Read the IPCC report and then stop asking such ignorant questions.

 

[applecorped]

Read the IPCC report and then stop asking such ignorant questions.

Who are you to tell him to stop asking questions?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Sunburn, food poisoning, and attacks by mountain lions are natural phenomena. We do our best to mitigate such phenomena, or even stop it completely, because maintaining our health, quality of life, or continued existence depends on doing so.

I'm unconvinced those things should be maintained and continued.

 

[Stout]

One person cancelling one flight or tearing up their driving license does one thing, it lowers the lifestyle of the person doing it. If we're going to screw the planet anyway, why bother.

No, what's required is mandated action by governments. I will vote for the most extreme climate action plan available because that's what's required. Individual action cannot change this.

Maybe, you could be right.

When Greta Thunberg politely disputed the arguments from Republicans in the room, like Louisiana Rep. Garret Graves, who argued that the U.S. isn’t culpable for climate change because countries like China continue to pollute with impunity.

Thunberg replies

Just another perspective — I’m from Sweden. It’s a small country. And there, it is the same argument. ‘Why should we do anything? Just look at the U.S.,’ they say,”

Same thing really, Sweden with it's mere 10 million inhabitants might as well go back to burning coal until the USA does something, until somebody else does something.

If one person tears up their drivers licence, then yes, not much of a difference. If a million people ? If 10 million ? If 100 million, people all work to drastically reduce their carbon footprints in light of this climate emergency

 

[Distracted1]

There's no parachute in lomiller's analogy.

In a parachute analogy, you're not falling off a building and facing a crisis. You're planning a BASE jump off a building and having some fun. You've made preparations ahead of time to avert the crisis, and if everything goes according to plan you'll deploy the parachute and land safely without ever actually seeing a crisis.

Is that the analogy you're proposing for combating the effects of global climate change? Everything is going according to plan, we have a solution spring-loaded, and we're going to pull the rip-cord at the right time and exit this period of human history with all the benefits of the industrial revolution but none of the awkward brain matter spread on the pavement?


It seems to me that someone wanting to seriously discuss the looming crisis of flooded and uninhabitable cities would be ready with a concrete proposal for averting this crisis when asked.

You answer your own questions.
Step 1: devote a very considerable amount of attention to examining what means you may possess to slow your fall to to a rate that will be less catastrophic. Checking to see if you have a parachute is probably a pretty good example of such.
Step 2: do it quickly.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

You answer your own questions.
Step 1: devote a very considerable amount of attention to examining what means you may possess to slow your fall to to a rate that will be less catastrophic.

What means might one posses to mitigate rising water in the long term? ( besides moving )

Checking to see if you have a parachute is probably a pretty good example of such.

What would be analogous to a parachute in the rising water scenario ?

Step 2: do it quickly.

Do " what " quickly ? ( besides move )

No one has answered the question:

It seems to me that someone wanting to seriously discuss the looming crisis of flooded and uninhabitable cities would be ready with a concrete proposal for averting this crisis when asked.

There have been several references to the IPPC report..

What does it suggest?

 

[cullennz]

Then you haven't actually been reading or listening to Cox.

What are you going on about now?

 

[Distracted1]

What means might one posses to mitigate rising water in the long term? ( besides moving )


What would be analogous to a parachute in the rising water scenario ?




Do " what " quickly ? ( besides move )

No one has answered the question:



There have been several references to the IPPC report..

What does it suggest?

In answer to your first query, I don't know what the most effective means for mitigating the rising waters might be. Relocating, as you suggest, as flippant as it sounds may be the most effective means of coping that is sustainable. But such massive relocations will undoubtedly produce further problems.
In answer to your second query, it depends upon how much rise will occur- and how quickly. Merely limiting the amount of rise- or slowing it- may serve to impede velocity of the fall.

More broadly, you miss the first part of the first step: examination of possible solutions. Why has the government of the U.S. not done so to an extent to be able to offer some methods of mitigation?
We can create a Space Force, and a Department of Homeland Security at massive expense- yet no department tasked with studying the expected effects of climate change, then devising overseeing and executing mitigation plans in coordination with efforts of other agencies.