• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Greta Thunberg - brave campaigner or deeply disturbed? Part II.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why not instead actually promote the more moderate solutions you say you support, instead of focusing on a potential ally who may only be wrong in degree?

The problem is that she's not just wrong in degree, she's wrong about the type of solution that will work.

We can't just naively stop using fossil fuels. We need to use those fossil fuels to power the transition to renewable energy. We need to burn oil in order to build windmills and solar panels, to mine lithium for batteries, and in general to build the infrastructure that will be necessary to eventually get off fossil fuels. Degrowth makes that harder, not easier. Higher GDP includes more wealth that society can spend on R&D to develop cheaper solar panels or geothermal power, and more capital to invest in nuclear plants or wind farms.

A gradual transition is certainly possible, and is in fact already happening. We should do what we can to speed that up. Carbon taxes are an example of a good policy to do so. But there are also policies that are motivated in preventing climate change that will only make things worse, because they limit our power to make that transition quickly.
 
The problem is that she's not just wrong in degree, she's wrong about the type of solution that will work.

We can't just naively stop using fossil fuels. We need to use those fossil fuels to power the transition to renewable energy. We need to burn oil in order to build windmills and solar panels, to mine lithium for batteries, and in general to build the infrastructure that will be necessary to eventually get off fossil fuels. Degrowth makes that harder, not easier. Higher GDP includes more wealth that society can spend on R&D to develop cheaper solar panels or geothermal power, and more capital to invest in nuclear plants or wind farms.

A gradual transition is certainly possible, and is in fact already happening. We should do what we can to speed that up. Carbon taxes are an example of a good policy to do so. But there are also policies that are motivated in preventing climate change that will only make things worse, because they limit our power to make that transition quickly.

It's a balancing act. If all the energy goes into discrediting a solution that won't work, you risk giving the game to the nihilists and deniers. So to some extent it's better to sell the better answer than to attack the one that won't work right.
 
It's a balancing act. If all the energy goes into discrediting a solution that won't work, you risk giving the game to the nihilists and deniers. So to some extent it's better to sell the better answer than to attack the one that won't work right.

Yeah, I do think there's something to that point of view. Publicizing the problem, even when your favored solutions aren't the right ones, can still be useful.

I found this blog post (that touches on the same topic) pretty reasonable, and he ends with a similar conclusion to what you're saying.

(Let me know if that link doesn't work, I can't check right now as my VPN isn't working)
 
Yeah, I do think there's something to that point of view. Publicizing the problem, even when your favored solutions aren't the right ones, can still be useful.

I found this blog post (that touches on the same topic) pretty reasonable, and he ends with a similar conclusion to what you're saying.

(Let me know if that link doesn't work, I can't check right now as my VPN isn't working)

It's a "Happenings of Note" page, and I think that means the content cycles, because the topic seems different.
 
No one has argued about what she said she would accomplish.

It is about what she has demanded, which has been ignored by any entity with the ability to do anything about her demands.



The only tantrums I see are from you and others, against anyone who points out that Greta's activism has done nothing to mitigate the problems she calls for action on.

Her detractors, including me, are not saying she is wrong or not well intentioned; only that she is ineffective.

You are welcome to show otherwise..


That is obvious.
 
I'm trying to rank the mix of jealousy, being upstaged by someone 1/5th of their age, and the fact that Greta is encouraging socialism by default, that turns old white men so vehemently against her.

I think it's probably equal measures of those three, which a touch of miserable old git thrown in.
 
It's a "Happenings of Note" page, and I think that means the content cycles, because the topic seems different.

Yeah, I think I put the wrong link there. This should be it. Sorry about that. Same blog, just different entry.

Anyway, this was the part where I think you'd agree with him:
Seeing the prevalence of attitudes like this, I wonder if alarmism like Ehrlich’s isn’t a useful counterweight to human callousness. In economics jargon, perhaps overestimating the probability of a sixth mass extinction is a way to better match the private utility functions of the humans who make global economic policy with the social welfare function that includes all living, feeling beings. At the very least, alarmism might help to keep habitat destruction in the public consciousness.

(the post isn't really on the topic of climate change, but it's related)
 
The problem is that she's not just wrong in degree, she's wrong about the type of solution that will work.

Where does she talk about specific solutions? She argues for meeting IPCC targets for atmospheric CO2 and the associated goals for carbon neutrality. I've never seen her insist on a any one specific course of action to accomplish this. Indeed, like everyone else she seems to prognoses that many solutions are required to get there.
 
The only tantrums I see are from you and others, against anyone who points out that Greta's activism has done nothing to mitigate the problems she calls for action on.
If that's the "standard" then your criticism, which has zero impact on anyone or anything is a far bigger failure then her activism. Why do you insist on repeating an argument that by it's own terms is a complete failure?
 
If that's the "standard" then your criticism, which has zero impact on anyone or anything is a far bigger failure then her activism. Why do you insist on repeating an argument that by it's own terms is a complete failure?

I think the Atheist put to well a couple of posts ago.
 
Roger. I can appreciate and applaud your efforts to live an energy frugal lifestyle it's really not enough to get anywhere near the "real zero" Thungerg and her fans are demanding. Thunberg may claim her autism as some sort of superpower that puts her ability to see things more clearly than us mere mortals
She's in good company. :) And yes, autism is a 'superpower'.

Is Autism the Next Stage of Human Evolution?
Spend a bit of time around the sorts of autistic individuals who run blogs or work in Fortune 500 companies, and you might eventually hear a comment, repeated in many forms, sometimes quietly, usually smiling, perhaps in a moment of exasperation, which sounds something like ‘autism is the next stage in human evolution’...This characterisation is most likely to come from the sorts of autistic individuals who are highly intelligent, highly productive and hyper-rational. Not only do they notice their own high ability in certain domains, they also see those very domains as the quintessential components of a modern human.

This deliberately controversial stance is accompanied by a more common claim in the public sphere, that autistic individuals played important roles in moving humanity forward...

the majority of the autism spectrum is made up of individuals whose conditions can be better explained as evolutionary specialisations in cognition. This affects their behaviour and social abilities. We have been seeing those differences as negative, detrimental, and in some sense they are; but they also come with positives. The most obvious of these are in memory, and obsessions which lead to nigh-on superhuman expertise



however she still fails to predict the riots that would inevitably result in any meaningful attempt to avert 1.5C warming.

We're talking riots that would make the French Yellow Vest ones look like preschool. Maybe that's what she and her supporters want, a total destruction of the developed world.
Interesting 'prediction'. On what basis do you make it?

List of riots
1947 – Partition riots, India and modern-day Pakistan and Bangladesh, the hardest hit region was the densely populated state of Punjab (today divided between India and Pakistan), death toll estimates between 500,000 and 2,000,000, the deadliest riots known to humankind.
And the cause? Not failed economic policies, not the jackboot of authoritarianism, just simple cultural intolerence. While there have been riots over economic issues (eg. Luddites), cultural differences have been the trigger for far more.

Global warming is likely to be the cause of many more riots, as people become displaced and suffer economic hardships due to crop failures etc. But rich westerners don't (or shouldn't) face that future because we have the technology and resources to prevent it.

So who in the West is going to be rioting over reducing fossil fuel emissions? Only the lunatic fringe. It certainly won't be those who potentially have the most to lose - oil company execs. They will simply invest in more profitable areas. And there is plenty of profit to be made in mitigating global warming.

Achieving zero emissions rapidly is quite possible without 'total destruction of the developed world'. We have faced and overcome huge challenges in the past without the general population rioting, and we will do it again.

But I see where you are coming from. The vast majority of us will pull together to do what needs to be done, but there is still that lunatic fringe. Hopefully the FBI is reading this thread right now, keeping an eye on those who are 'predicting' massive rioting.

Which would of course lead to countries like Tuvalu reverting back to a pre-contact lifestyle as their landbases won't support a developing lifestyle and the foreign aid they rely on will dry up.
Tuvalu won't be 'reverting back' to anything. Their land is becoming uninhabitable due to global warming. If we manage to keep it below ~1.5°C they might save some of their country, otherwise they're screwed.

Of course if the developed nations do take a stab at massive emission reductions then naturally the developing nations, the ones that are still allowed to emit whatever they please a few of them, like China, will see their economies tank in response to reduced western buying power. Maybe other developing nations will take up the slack if China lowers their prices, I don't know.
China is already in trouble due to their botched Covid response and other economic and social issues that are catching up with them. But they are also committed to massive emissions reductions. We need to support them in that effort. Hopefully the old guard in the Chinese government will soon be pushed out by those who have a positive vision for the future.

China doesn't have to worry about 'reduced western buying power'. The previous US government was discouraging the purchase of technology that we need to combat global warming. Simply permitting free trade will go a long way towards improving the economies of both countries, and help us meet our emissions goals.

Germany, the greenest country in the world...
You're kidding, right?

Instead of trying to slip though lies like this to support your arguments, why don't you tell us why you oppose doing what needs to be done? I know why. The reason you are using irrational arguments is that your opposition is not rational, it's emotional. And the worst thing is you don't even realize it. That's where autism has an advantage.
 
We can't just naively stop using fossil fuels. We need to use those fossil fuels to power the transition to renewable energy. We need to burn oil in order to build windmills and solar panels, to mine lithium for batteries, and in general to build the infrastructure that will be necessary to eventually get off fossil fuels.
But do we really?

When Greta Thunberg says 'now' she doesn't mean it must done and dusted by 5pm today. She means we should be making the switch to renewables now, not procrastinating on the excuse that we 'need' fossil fuels to keep our infrastructure going. If we were serious it could be done PDQ.

Of course there must be a transition, but it doesn't have to last 20 years. 3 months to install a 1MW solar farm. 2 months to build a wind turbine. You power the mines and factories with renewables, which produce the other stuff. In a year or two you reach 'critical mass'. You're already making a big difference, but now it's not a fight anymore. The transition becomes a switch.

Suddenly fossil fuels are out of date and nobody wants them. Airplanes and trains are running on electricity and biofuels. Ships are using wind power. Almost everybody is driving an electric car. Meat is being produced in vats, the land reclaimed for forests etc. Crops are tended by solar powered robots, harvested with solar powered machinery. Products are designed to be maintained and recycled, reducing energy needs. The manufacturing jobs 'lost' are absorbed by the recycling and repair industry.

A few more years and you have excess capacity. Now you're using that extra energy to suck carbon out the atmosphere and halt or even reverse global warming. The 1.5°C becomes 1°C, then 0.5°C. The climate returns to normal and everybody is happy. We look back and think, "Well what do you know, it wasn't so hard after all!".

This is all technology we already have that is being deployed right now, just not fast enough because people are too afraid to give up their security blankets. The transition won't be perfectly smooth, but what is? Not doing it will be much worse. We need to start getting serious now.
 
As expected, the weirdos go quiet when faced with arguments they have no answer to. Or they try to change the subject, as someone will no doubt try to do presently.

Owning up to having been mistaken is not even an option for some folks. That is the essence of critical thinking, being able to recognize and acknowledge that you'd been wrong. But no. Cognitive dissonance is such a bitch.
 
A few more years and you have excess capacity. Now you're using that extra energy to suck carbon out the atmosphere and halt or even reverse global warming. The 1.5°C becomes 1°C, then 0.5°C. The climate returns to normal and everybody is happy. We look back and think, "Well what do you know, it wasn't so hard after all!".

Or they say "See, there was no problem so what were all of you eco-weenies worried about, the "market" fixed everything all by itself" :mad:
 
As expected, the weirdos go quiet when faced with arguments they have no answer to. Or they try to change the subject, as someone will no doubt try to do presently.

Owning up to having been mistaken is not even an option for some folks. That is the essence of critical thinking, being able to recognize and acknowledge that you'd been wrong. But no. Cognitive dissonance is such a bitch.

Am I one of the weirdoes here?

lolmiller posted what seems like a reasonable response to me, but as my VPN doesn't work I have no access to google, wikipedia, YouTube, twitter, or pretty much anywhere I could try to look for what I remember of things Thunberg has said. My impression has been that she is a promoter of degrowth as a solution to climate change, but I could be wrong. Didn't seem worth replying to that until my VPN can connect again.

I also don't really like getting into long arguments here, especially when the tone becomes heated. It just doesn't seem like a worthwhile use of my time. I think I made a reasonable point about the ways in which we should attempt to deal with climate change. Roger Ramjets post I think is optimistic about the timeframe in which we can shift to renewable energy (the transition from wind power and biofuels like wood and straw to coal took a long time, in spite of favorable economic conditions) but I don't think he's wrong in the direction of what should be done. We should be doing things to try to speed up that transition, and while it's possible that we disagree about what those things are, it's not obvious.

Personally when posting on these forums I might see what I think is a slight error and try to correct it (not in this thread) or have a thought that I think hasn't been expressed (which I thought I was doing here). When I don't have anything new to add, I try not to do so (sometimes I fail that that too).

If I'm not one of the weirdoes you're referring to, then sorry for misunderstanding. If I am maybe you could express what I said that makes that applicable?
 
Am I one of the weirdoes here?

lolmiller posted what seems like a reasonable response to me, but as my VPN doesn't work I have no access to google, wikipedia, YouTube, twitter, or pretty much anywhere I could try to look for what I remember of things Thunberg has said. My impression has been that she is a promoter of degrowth as a solution to climate change, but I could be wrong. Didn't seem worth replying to that until my VPN can connect again.

I also don't really like getting into long arguments here, especially when the tone becomes heated. It just doesn't seem like a worthwhile use of my time. I think I made a reasonable point about the ways in which we should attempt to deal with climate change. Roger Ramjets post I think is optimistic about the timeframe in which we can shift to renewable energy (the transition from wind power and biofuels like wood and straw to coal took a long time, in spite of favorable economic conditions) but I don't think he's wrong in the direction of what should be done. We should be doing things to try to speed up that transition, and while it's possible that we disagree about what those things are, it's not obvious.

Personally when posting on these forums I might see what I think is a slight error and try to correct it (not in this thread) or have a thought that I think hasn't been expressed (which I thought I was doing here). When I don't have anything new to add, I try not to do so (sometimes I fail that that too).

If I'm not one of the weirdoes you're referring to, then sorry for misunderstanding. If I am maybe you could express what I said that makes that applicable?


Haha, no you're not!

For that matter, no one is, not even who I had in mind. I got carried away there, I guess. Simply people with different opinions, is all. Aplogies are in order here, for what amounts to completely unnecessary name-calling.

Nevertheless, substitute that entirely-uncalled-for epithet with something more reasonable, but what I said stands. Again, not referring to you here. But I've seen this in more than one thread: people keep plugging away their own pet positions, jumping in on whatever soft argument they see (or as it appears to them); but when faced with solid arguments that I suppose they have no answer to, they either completely ignore it, or else try to deflect it by changing the subject. To me that looks like the complete obverse of critical thinking, no matter that people abide by the outer form of it, like asking for evidence, and sometimes even supplying evidence, or spouting names of logical fallacies, and so on. Because if someone's not able to clearly recognize it and admit it when they've been shown to be wrong, then that's simply not critical thinking. It's ...I don't know, propaganda? The T-word? Call it what you will.

You'll see a lot of this in R&P, but by no means exclusively there. I'm afraid the recent portions of this thread stand out as something very similar to that kind of thing, IMV.

...And of course, none of this is particularly on-topic here, no matter how apt my characterization (as it appears to me, at any rate). I won't complain if I find both thee posts of mine shunted off to the nether regions of this forum.
 
As expected, the weirdos go quiet when faced with arguments they have no answer to. Or they try to change the subject, as someone will no doubt try to do presently.

Owning up to having been mistaken is not even an option for some folks. That is the essence of critical thinking, being able to recognize and acknowledge that you'd been wrong. But no. Cognitive dissonance is such a bitch.
I'll bite.
What arguments did you have in mind?
Maybe take them one at a time.

Perhaps you could quote from a previous post, where I overlooked an actual argument..
 
Last edited:
I'll bite.
What arguments did you have in mind?
Maybe take them one at a time.

Perhaps you could quote from a previous post, where I overlooked an actual argument..


Damn, me and my big mouth. I'm beginning to majorly regret the name-calling. And it is right that I should!

Not you specifically. Although, fair's fair, let me not weasel out now, I'll admit it was partly about you, yes. Only in part, but still.

There are more, but let me just point at the three posts I'd addressed to you, and that you'd deflected off, and/or ad-hommed off, and/or simply not addressed, or so it appeared to me.



And also to this exchange here, that you did follow up on, but did not squarely address:


(...)The argument that it takes time for activism to get results, is irrelevant in her case, because she demanded immediate action.

"We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is not time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism." - Martin Luther King Jr.​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom