Greta Thunberg - brave campaigner or deeply disturbed?

[Giordano]

Are we really down to speculating about the food on board Thunberg’s boat with the hope of again somehow taking a swat at her?? Is she really vegan? Will she remain vegan?

My god, step back and look at what some of this thread has become.

I am going to take a break before I go insane.

Just a point of fact: I personally know of vegetarians maintaining their diets over multi week sailboats passages; I don’t know of any reason vegans could not.

 

[cullennz]

Are we really down to speculating about the food on board Thunberg’s boat with the hope of again somehow taking a swat at her?? Is she really vegan? Will she remain vegan?

My god, step back and look at what some of this thread has become.

I am going to take a break before I go insane.

Just a point of fact: I personally know of vegetarians maintaining their diets over multi week sailboats passages; I don’t know of any reason vegans could not.

TBF the person that brought up what food is on the boat was Greta.

Have no idea why either, so tend to agree

 

[Orphia Nay]

So what did you think of 2040 ? Groundbreaking and informative or futurist fluff piece ? Might it serve as an "antidote" or counterpoint to Seven Worlds, One Planet or might the two together inspire people to act ?

The 2040 filmmaker, Damon Gameau, made "That Sugar Film", which was a huge detriment to would-be dieters, making extreme statements that were too hard for people to live by.

I think this film will be just as extremist. There are other ways I'd use the time to learn.

 

[Orphia Nay]

I've got a few minutes, so I want to clear up the whole "11 years" confusion.

By 2030 we must not reach a total average annual temperature increase of 2.5% or there is no way to reverse the global temperature.

The Paris Agreement in 2015 said we should aim for less than 2% total increase since the pre-industrial era.


Here's where 2030 comes in:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Report_on_Global_Warming_of_1.5_°C

"The Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (SR15)[note 1] was published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on 8 October 2018.[1] The report, approved in Incheon, South Korea, includes over 6,000 scientific references, and was prepared by 91 authors from 40 countries.[2] In December 2015, the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference called for the report.[2] The report was delivered at the United Nations' 48th session of the IPCC to "deliver the authoritative, scientific guide for governments" to deal with climate change.[3]

"Its key finding is that meeting a 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) target is possible but would require "deep emissions reductions"[4] and "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society."[2] Furthermore, the report finds that "limiting global warming to 1.5 °C compared with 2 °C would reduce challenging impacts on ecosystems, human health and well-being" and that a 2 °C temperature increase would exacerbate extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice, coral bleaching, and loss of ecosystems, among other impacts.[2] SR15 also has modelling that shows that, for global warming to be limited to 1.5 °C, "Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching 'net zero' around 2050."[2] The reduction of emissions by 2030 and its associated changes and challenges, including rapid decarbonisation, was a key focus on much of the reporting which was repeated through the world."


The link shows uncertainties the report knows are missing ("known unknowns", still useful, thanks Dick Cheney), if you have any questions. Nobody knows how quickly we can change, just that we must.

 

[cullennz]

I've got a few minutes, so I want to clear up the whole "11 years" confusion.

By 2030 we must not reach a total average annual temperature increase of 2.5% or there is no way to reverse the global temperature.

The Paris Agreement in 2015 said we should aim for less than 2% total increase since the pre-industrial era.


Here's where 2030 comes in:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Report_on_Global_Warming_of_1.5_°C

"The Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (SR15)[note 1] was published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on 8 October 2018.[1] The report, approved in Incheon, South Korea, includes over 6,000 scientific references, and was prepared by 91 authors from 40 countries.[2] In December 2015, the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference called for the report.[2] The report was delivered at the United Nations' 48th session of the IPCC to "deliver the authoritative, scientific guide for governments" to deal with climate change.[3]

"Its key finding is that meeting a 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) target is possible but would require "deep emissions reductions"[4] and "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society."[2] Furthermore, the report finds that "limiting global warming to 1.5 °C compared with 2 °C would reduce challenging impacts on ecosystems, human health and well-being" and that a 2 °C temperature increase would exacerbate extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice, coral bleaching, and loss of ecosystems, among other impacts.[2] SR15 also has modelling that shows that, for global warming to be limited to 1.5 °C, "Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching 'net zero' around 2050."[2] The reduction of emissions by 2030 and its associated changes and challenges, including rapid decarbonisation, was a key focus on much of the reporting which was repeated through the world."


The link shows uncertainties the report knows are missing ("known unknowns", still useful, thanks Dick Cheney), if you have any questions. Nobody knows how quickly we can change, just that we must.

I read this. I get your message. Everyone on here probably does.

But do you seriously not understand your average punter on earth just turns off when this stuff is published in media?

It just reads like a giant "IF" and most people just care about paying rents and mortgages.

And btw

The goal posts have shifted

 

[cullennz]

That was harsh

I apologise

Just maybe putting it into simple statements, might be more inclusive to people not on here.

Mind you they tried that and are now changing

 

[Steve]

That was harsh

I apologise

Just maybe putting it into simple statements, might be more inclusive to people not on here.

Mind you they tried that and are now changing

Seems to me the main criticism of Thunberg here is that she is doing exactly that.

 

[theprestige]

Some, quite likely. Most, probably not. Do you have a proposal for the minimal amount of knowledge that should be required in order to address the conference? Is it required to have more knowledge than those others, or is a fresh perspective sufficient.?

I'm agnostic about the requirements for addressing COP25. I assume the organizers and attendees know what criteria makes sense for them.

I'm trying to relate her attendance back to the arguments offered in this thread for her attendance: That she knows something the other attendees don't, and that her message to them would be more effective if delivered in person.

As to whether she knows better than the other attendees: I'm skeptical. The primary audience at COP25 appears to be policy makers and subject matter experts. Call them the diplomats and the scientists.

I doubt she knows more than the scientists attending COP25. Her message is that she's listening to the scientists, and so should the rest of us. Surely the scientists attending COP25 are listening to themselves, and each other. If one of them is ignorant of something, they have other scientits in attendance to set them straight via personal encounter. The scientists probably don't need Greta at COP25.

What about the diplomats, the policy makers? Does Greta know things about policy that they don't? The whole point of COP25 is to get diplomats and scientists together. Even if Greta has policy ideas that haven't occurred to the diplomats, she got them from the scientists. If the diplomats aren't listening to those same scientists that they're going to COP25 specifically to talk to in person, why would they listen to Greta?

Given that Greta's main source of science and policy information seems to be the same people and organizations that put on and attend the COP conferences, why does Greta need to go there and talk to them at all?

I'm skeptical that anyone attending COP25 doesn't already know everything Greta knows, if not more.

I'm skeptical that anyone attending COP25 who doesn't already know what Greta knows, needs to hear it from Greta as opposed any of the other diplomats and scientists also attending COP25.

And I'm skeptical that anyone attending COP25 who wasn't already sympathetic to Greta's message, will be more sympathetic if they get it from her in person. Assuming anyone like that exists. And that Greta can get to them at the conference. And that they'll agree to listen to her talk to them.

---

My theory is that Greta's attendance at COP25 isn't about telling anyone there anything they don't already know. I think it is about meeting people in person, but not to try to persuade them.

I think the message is flowing out from COP25, not into it via Greta. Rather, Greta's attendance lends cachet to the proceedings. Schoolchildren who believe in Greta will see her at COP25, and believe in COP25 by extension. They'll see her with the various diplomats and scientists, and believe in those diplomats and scientists. It's good PR. It reinforces the general appeal to let the UN take charge of fighting global climate.

That's my theory, anyway. I think it's much more plausible than the theory that she has an important message for the diplomats and scientists attending COP25, and it she has to deliver it in person.

 

[theprestige]

Seems to me the main criticism of Thunberg here is that she is doing exactly that.

My main criticism of Thunberg... I don't really have one, actually. She's concerned, she's enthusiastic, and she's doing something. That's all good.

My main criticism is of Thunberg's fan club, which continues to misunderstand what's actually being criticized (among other clownery, such as being unable to explain why she needs to attend COP25).

 

[Scorpion]

I cannot see my way to read the last 76 pages, but the opening post askes if Greta is a brave campaigner. I should think that she is currently in the middle of the Atlantic ocean on a small yacht for the second time answers that question.

You can tweet your support to her on twitter. I sent her the message, "you are a light in the world".

 

[theprestige]

I cannot see my way to read the last 76 pages, but the opening post askes if Greta is a brave campaigner. I should think that she is currently in the middle of the Atlantic ocean on a small yacht for the second time answers that question.

It's certainly brave, but is it campaigning?

You can tweet your support to her on twitter. I sent her the message, "you are a light in the world".

In your own words, what enlightening message has Greta Thunberg brought to you?

 

[crescent]

My main criticism of Thunberg... I don't really have one, actually. She's concerned, she's enthusiastic, and she's doing something. That's all good.

My main criticism is of Thunberg's fan club, which continues to misunderstand what's actually being criticized (among other clownery, such as being unable to explain why she needs to attend COP25).

I think attending the summit in person has value as Thunberg is a visible reminder that the younger generations are (and will probably continue to be) more accepting of the science of climate change than the older generations have been. Any government or political party that wants to anticipate the needs of its constituents needs to know that - the political status quo is changing.

She is now a pretty high profile advocate, she may benefit from the in-person networking that goes on at such things, some of the other attendees may benefit if they can loop her into their local efforts at influencing policy-makers.

 

[Scorpion]

It's certainly brave, but is it campaigning?

She is sailing the Atlantic on principle, to avoid making a carbon footprint by flying.

In your own words, what enlightening message has Greta Thunberg brought to you?

She started a worldwide campaign by herself, sitting alone on the pavement outside a school when she was only 15 years old. I call that inspiring.

 

[sphenisc]

She is sailing the Atlantic on principle, to avoid making a carbon footprint by flying.



She started a worldwide campaign by herself, sitting alone on the pavement outside a school when she was only 15 years old. I call that inspiring.

It's possibly a bit problematic, if she's inspired you to sit alone outside a school.

 

[Steve]

She is sailing the Atlantic on principle, to avoid making a carbon footprint by flying.



She started a worldwide campaign by herself, sitting alone on the pavement outside a school when she was only 15 years old. I call that inspiring.

There are posters here who maintain that she is totally incapable of doing that and is merely the puppet of a group of adult handlers.

 

[Scorpion]

There are posters here who maintain that she is totally incapable of doing that and is merely the puppet of a group of adult handlers.

I just tweeted her the following message.

Dear Greta, I am currently defending you in a debate on the following forum, and I invite you to join the forum and speak for yourself. They are saying you are a puppet of adult handlers, and I am saying I think you have a mind of your own.

 

[theprestige]

I just tweeted her the following message.

Dear Greta, I am currently defending you in a debate on the following forum, and I invite you to join the forum and speak for yourself. They are saying you are a puppet of adult handlers, and I am saying I think you have a mind of your own.

Let us know when you tweet her the message that gives the forum address.

Also, you're not giving much of a defense. You haven't even read the discussion so far, and don't seem to have a clear idea of what you're defending or how to go about defending it.

Unless you think that tweeting messages of support (and cryptic calls to debate) is defending her. Which is kind of the Greta Fanclub thing I'm ridiculing. So hopefully it's not that.

 

[Scorpion]

Let us know when you tweet her the message that gives the forum address.

Also, you're not giving much of a defense. You haven't even read the discussion so far, and don't seem to have a clear idea of what you're defending or how to go about defending it.

Unless you think that tweeting messages of support (and cryptic calls to debate) is defending her. Which is kind of the Greta Fanclub thing I'm ridiculing. So hopefully it's not that.

I did include the forum address in my tweet. But I doubt she will act on it, as she gets thousands of tweets all the time.

 

[Steve]

Let us know when you tweet her the message that gives the forum address.

Also, you're not giving much of a defense. You haven't even read the discussion so far, and don't seem to have a clear idea of what you're defending or how to go about defending it.

Unless you think that tweeting messages of support (and cryptic calls to debate) is defending her. Which is kind of the Greta Fanclub thing I'm ridiculing. So hopefully it's not that.

In your zeal to criticize trivialities you may not realize that Scorpion has not posted any unnecessary "defense". He has posted support.

In reality there is very little in the way of "attacks" posted in this thread that needs any kind of defense. Few of the criticisms are based anything Thunberg has actually done. I had previously posted this list of irrelevant criticisms to be found in this thread:

- she is a child
- she is autistic
- her parents are putting her up to it
- she doesn’t speak out against forest fire retardants
- she should be in school
- her voice is irritating
- sometimes she uses an incorrect word
- people find her annoying
- she is out of touch with how real people live
- she says everyone should panic
- she does not say anything new
- her choice to turn down an award deserves criticism
- etc

To which I will now add:
- her supporters are a fan club.

Scorpion, or anyone else recently joining the thread would be wasting their time reading it.

 

[theprestige]

In your zeal to criticize trivialities you may not realize that Scorpion has not posted any unnecessary "defense". He has posted support.

I have noticed this. He claimed to Greta that he was defending her here. But as you say, that's not really true.

In reality there is very little in the way of "attacks" posted in this thread that needs any kind of defense. Few of the criticisms are based anything Thunberg has actually done.

Mostly the criticisms are of her fanclub.

I had previously posted this list of irrelevant criticisms to be found in this thread:

- she is a child
- she is autistic
- her parents are putting her up to it
- she doesn’t speak out against forest fire retardants
- she should be in school
- her voice is irritating
- sometimes she uses an incorrect word
- people find her annoying
- she is out of touch with how real people live
- she says everyone should panic
- she does not say anything new
- her choice to turn down an award deserves criticism
- etc

To which I will now add:
- her supporters are a fan club.

It's that last one that gets ya.

Scorpion, or anyone else recently joining the thread would be wasting their time reading it.

No argument there.