Greta Thunberg

Her parents had a lot to do with the start of all this.

Have you got proof of this?
The only thing I saw was autistic school girl gets an idea in her head > goes on school strike > many join her > authorities start to get interested because kids aren't going to school > Daddy has to follow her around everywhere.
She may be a puppet now but certainly didn't start that way.
 
Have you got proof of this?
The only thing I saw was autistic school girl gets an idea in her head > goes on school strike > many join her > authorities start to get interested because kids aren't going to school > Daddy has to follow her around everywhere.
She may be a puppet now but certainly didn't start that way.


Nice of you to miss this out

"She then started writing a essay for her school about how she doesn't feel safe.
Bo Thorén picked up on this and Thorén suggested that school children could strike for climate change.
It was never her idea."
 
Again you missed the back story. . . .
It is hard to comment on your allegations when you fail to provide references but perhaps this from Wikipedia will help?
Wikipedia said:
In August 2018, Thunberg began the school climate strikes and public speeches for which she has become an internationally recognized climate activist. In an interview with Amy Goodman from Democracy Now!, she said she first got the idea of a climate strike after school shootings in the United States in February 2018 led to several youths refusing to go back to school.

These teen activists at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, went on to organize the March for Our Lives in support of greater gun control.

In May 2018, Thunberg won a climate change essay competition held by Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet. In part, she wrote "I want to feel safe. How can I feel safe when I know we are in the greatest crisis in human history?"

After the paper published her article, she was contacted by Bo Thorén from Fossil Free Dalsland, a group interested in doing something about climate change. Thunberg attended a few of their meetings. At one of them, Thorén suggested that school children could strike for climate change. Thunberg tried to persuade other young people to get involved but "no one was really interested", so eventually she decided to go ahead with the strike by herself.

On 20 August 2018, Thunberg, who had just started ninth grade, decided not to attend school until the 2018 Swedish general election on September 9th; her protest began after the heat waves and wildfires during Sweden's hottest summer in at least 262 years. Her demands were that the Swedish government reduce carbon emissions in accordance with the Paris Agreement, and she protested by sitting outside the Riksdag every day for three weeks during school hours with the sign Skolstrejk för klimatet (school strike for climate) (LINK)
So:
  • After reading an essay that Thunberg had written about climate change for a competition, Bo Thorén from Fossil Free Dalsland contacted her.
  • Thunberg attended a few meetings organised by Fossil Free Dalsland.
  • At one of those meetings, Bo Thorén suggested that "school children could strike for climate change".
  • Thunberg failed in her efforts to encourage her peers to strike for climate change.
  • Thunberg decided to begin a one person strike for climate change.
Yeah, the internationally recognized climate activist is clearly a Zombie manipulated by others :rolleyes:
 
The vitriol directed towards Greta Thunberg by climate change deniers amazes me. I have tried to work out what lies behind the personal attacks to which she is persistently subjected and have come up with the following possible explanations.
I'm not a climate change denier by any means.

You realise it *harms* the message when the messenger is not credible?

Greta has never been credible. Compare and contrast with Attenborough.
 
I'm not a climate change denier by any means.

You realise it *harms* the message when the messenger is not credible?

Greta has never been credible. Compare and contrast with Attenborough.
This exactly. I wouldn't listen to Greta because I think she's just a mouthpiece for people using her. But I absolutely do listen to Attenborough as he is so credible.
 
It seems there are quite a few World Leaders who disagree with you and invite her to climate meetings.
if she wasn't credible she wouldn't get through the door.

Most likely due to their wranglers/advisors telling them to do so because they don't want to face the onslaught of online criticism from the usual suspects if they dare to ignore her or tell her to 'do one'.
 
Greta has never been credible. Compare and contrast with Attenborough.
What is the difference? Attenborough (why use his surname but her first name?) isn't any kind of expert, isn't a researcher. He's just a presenter, and guess what, has an army of advisers telling him the state of the climate/world. Greta too, she only knows what she's been told.

I'd suggest the most significant difference in their credibility is that one is a young girl and the other an old man. That difference in credibility says a lot more about the audience than Greta or David.
 
I wouldn't listen to either Greta or Attenborough the climate is changing as it has done for centuries and will continue to do so I do not believe we have as much an affect as some would like you to think.
 
I wouldn't listen to either Greta or Attenborough the climate is changing as it has done for centuries and will continue to do so I do not believe we have as much an affect as some would like you to think.
That's clearly because you spent your science lessons setting light to anything you could with a bunsen burner, rather than actually learn something. The evidence is OVERWHELMINGLY clear and agreed by nearly all of the scientists in the world, who account for a significantly high proportion of the initelligence of the human race.

But OK GIBURROWS, thanks for your input.
 
I wouldn't listen to either Greta or Attenborough the climate is changing as it has done for centuries and will continue to do so I do not believe we have as much an affect as some would like you to think.

I'd love to read your expert research.

Which people? She is promoting the same cause as Attenborough.

She is Attenborough's puppet, I've seen interviews between them and he fills her head with this stuff including mine.
The thing is I'm too old to change.
 
The evidence is OVERWHELMINGLY clear and agreed by nearly all of the scientists in the world, who account for a significantly high proportion of the initelligence of the human race.

Not trying to underplay the current presumed consensus, or undermine your belief in it - but - it helps to understand that each generation has had its own environmental wickerman to burn and its own version of doomsday clock striking milliseconds to midnight. And believe me - each of our respective generations before you or Greta also had a file/folder/stone tablet of the accumulative supporting works by the world class scientists, that "accounted for a significantly high proportion of the intelligence of the human race" of their time and in absolute unison proclaimed consensus that "this **** is real", "the end is nigh" and "something must be done now".

For my generation it was the acid rains and rivers polluted by the factories built by the generation before me. The looming evil of dams and nuclear power stations built on top of idillic rivers and nature reserves. And the upper class perfumed bourgeois burning holes in ozone layer and causing global cooling with their overuse of fancy deodorants.

For Dimples (SexyGreyFox), I'm sure, it was probably steaming chimneys of coal powered factories, the looming evil of concrete jungles and council estates replacing leafy green parks and suburbs and the inevitable threat of cold war global destruction. I bet he was pleading with the warmongering generation before him to "give peace a chance".

And I suppose, at least up until this generation, there was nothing particularly wrong with cultivating such hippy attitude, generational environmental scare of an impending doom, introducing green awareness and providing common globalist/corporate enemy to fight. And just like each and every generation should always have some sort of imprisoned martyr(s) to cheer for at big, televised concerts - every generation should also have camp fire tall tales about some distant relative saving whales/dolphins/tuna/swordfish by throwing molotov cocktails against third world fishing vessels from a pontoon boat in far away parts of the world in the name of Mother Earth. Nothing particularly wrong with that. A cleaner, healthier planet is universally appealing idea regardless of a decade. Tree planting, fighting for cleaner waters and learning how to produce less rubbish is good for every generation.

But what I particularly dislike about this generation and their "global climate change" wickerman altar, is not that their version of doomsday is just a rehash of old, tiresome, mostly debunked and overplayed (come on, that hockeystick data's been in play since seventies, just that back then Hansen and his glorified weathermen climatologists were using it to prove 'global cooling' for money). And it's not that they use now manufactured, weird, "spectrum" kids like Greta for shields.

For me it's the shameless crudeness and lack of finesse employed by the current "green agenda" constructs. I hate that this time it's not "the people" demanding from billionaires to stop killing the planet for money, it's literally billionaires jetting around the world in private planes to tell YOU, that YOU have to change. This time it's not "the people" shouting at the gates of parliaments to stop grubbing up green belts for profit, it's the Eaton toffs in .gov positions creating special fines, taxes and tolls because YOU should stop stop driving across Dartford bridge, or driving at all in YOUR fuel cars by 2030, YOU meat eating, methane farting, iceberg melting, ocean polluting, arctic bear drowning, rainforest prime next day delivered microplastic spreading planet murderers.

And I hate that this time it's so crudely put together that it's practically gone "full cretin" mode. It's no longer problem->solution agendas. It's not some "two thousand trees each for 2000", or "feed them, let them know it's Xmas time". The movement is aimless. Devoid of clear demands and lofty solutions. What do we want? (shouts voice on the tannoy) "Don't know but not this" (replies the crowd). When do we want it? "Right here right now".

"You destroyed our planet. How dare you?" pouts Greta. Well, I have some terrible news for you Greta. While you continue skipping primary education, some 75% of the worlds population continue to live and breed in forgotten a-holes of this world, in complete poverty and aspire to the lofty conditions you dwell in Greta. That vast majority of the world's population, mostly in Asia and Africa, look at you The OnePercent Greta and they would also like to have more than one set of clothes, washing machine to go with it and clean water on tap. They would also like to dwell in cities, shop in shopping malls and live by an asphalt road in a brick house with insulated roof above their heads. They would also like for their dwellings to be furnished by sustainably sourced wood byproducts, burn fossil fuels to cook three meals per day and heat or cool their rooms all day. They would also like to have electric power, internet, television and playstation, so they can also be full of green ideas and skip their local centrally heated, green energy lit up schools for some great environmental reasons or ef off to yacht across seas and zoom around the world with their family to proclaim lofty ideas to world leaders and billionaires. And what's more important - they have a gawd darn right to grow up like you and live like you Greta.

But unfortunately your agenda depends on keeping them chained to the sewers of this planet, in absolute poverty because we can't allow another 4 to 5 billion people to reach the same level as us, and live, travel, work, have a carbon footprint and emit like we do. We can't allow it because you know - that's like - 3 times more "How dare you"'s than we have in the "first world" at the moment, right?

But what I hate the most about Greta's generation of their environmental boo-hoo Ouiji board - is the narration that the basic gases our bodies emit and breathe out are the pollutants that will kill the planet in the next few milliseconds and it has to be stopped right here, right now, at all cost. Now, that is some amazingly evil ****, ef me. Once we stop all the cars, and that's not enough, then we'll stop breeding animals for meat, but that's not going to be enough. Then what? Hello eight billion people, Greta would like to know what have you done today to deserve your 20,000 CO2 emitting breaths per day?

Chill the **** out. The planet will survive. There is undeniable scientific consensus that the planet, over hundreds of millions of years, survived much worse things than anything you may do to it by eating burgers, driving cars and breathing out CO2. So far all the doomsday scenarios and environmental fears of all the generations before you never materialised. Cold war didn't annihilate human race. Acid rains didn't turn Europe into deserts. Nuclear power stations are, oddly, now considered one of the cleanest energy sources. We didn't die of global cooling, global warming and we are not going to die because of any mixture or the two. But there is like - 4 to 5 billion very unhappy people living in poverty out there and it's because we are actively blocking them from reaching our level of civilisation. Now, historically, evidence is OVERWHELMINGLY clear that we and our family lines are more likely to expire from their sticks and stones if we keep ignoring their needs than from some artic melt or presumed instability of weather.
 
The evidence is OVERWHELMINGLY clear and agreed by nearly all of the scientists in the world, who account for a significantly high proportion of the initelligence of the human race.

The consensus project, which I assume you are alluding to, is trash - look into the people behind it like really look (though sadly some of the most damning evidence has vanished from the internet of late) - I'm sorry people are mislead by it as much as they are Greta. Same with a lot of the presentation of climate change using misleading representation of data to make it look like an uncomplicated linear progression when it isn't and incorrectly using low points, below the long term average, as if they are the starting point for climate change to make it look worse than it [maybe] is.

If the progression as talked about by the likes of Brian Cox and others is correct then we are in a mess, a real mess, which every day we don't do something which positively improves the outcome means we have to go to much further lengths to avoid and stuff like the Paris accords are barely a drop in the ocean which will achieve absolutely nothing in the time we have - probably won't even buy any extra time of any significance let alone result in a solution.

That said - significant climate change is ongoing and the last few years concerningly so - glacial changes in the last 1-2 decades have been unprecedented in modern history - if you've travelled much abroad in the last 30-40+ years and paid attention to stuff like that it is noticeable with your own eyes that something is going on and we shouldn't ignore that and regardless of how much is or isn't due to man made contribution we should be doing everything we can to act responsibly and to keep our environment in as good a condition as possible as it isn't like we have much of a back up plan if this planet goes to ****.

And I hate that this time it's so crudely put together that it's practically gone "full cretin" mode. It's no longer problem->solution agendas. It's not some "two thousand trees each for 2000", or "feed them, let them know it's Xmas time". The movement is aimless. Devoid of clear demands and lofty solutions. What do we want? (shouts voice on the tannoy) "Don't know but not this" (replies the crowd). When do we want it? "Right here right now".

What gets me is when they decide a certain path is the best way and it has to be done NOW - even when someone points out with fact and reason that there is a better path or there is a more optimal solution from tweaking their path - they'll quickly gang up against that person and try to silence them - they only want to hear what they want to hear and have no ear for reason or fact.
 
Back
Top Bottom