Greta Thunberg

FoxEye said:
She probably understands very little. That's what many of us find annoying. She's no authority. She lashes out and expects no less than world leaders to listen to her. Why? Why should they listen to her, specifically? Who is she? What does she know?
Click to expand...

It's a dirty job and someone's got to do it.
Like nobody before her, she seems to have the whole world discussing her.
 
I don't think she is claiming any expertise or authority on climate change. The point I feel she is making is that governments are not acting and it could be jeopardising the future. I think this point can be taken further. Governments target very short timescales for policies and their outcomes. Nobody *appears* to be looking at long-term outcomes. These long-term outcomes may require changesthat do not improve the wealth or lifestyles of the current voting demographic but could (should?) improve things for everyone in the future. Short-term political aims vs long-term sustainability.
 
I wouldn't say shes as bad as that.

I think her heart is in the right place. But shes been groomed by her parents in my opinion.

After this time in the spotlight is over and she returns to her normal life, she'll have no qualifications and will find she's got a lot of catching up to do.
 
deuse said:
Where is your evidence of the 3% of world Scientists you talked about.
Click to expand...
You'll be unsurprising to know it's the IPCC.

deuse said:
Do you believe the IPCC which is a political organization, not a scientific body.
Click to expand...
I think they're as political as they have to be to present and communicate scientific consensus. They are primarily a scientific body.

deuse said:
Or the NIPCC who have\are scientific body composed of scholars from more than two dozen countries.
Click to expand...
That is nothing short of a laughable idea.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
You'll be unsurprising to know it's the IPCC.


I think they're as political as they have to be to present and communicate scientific consensus. They are primarily a scientific body.


That is nothing short of a laughable idea.
Click to expand...


Looks like you haven't read the thread from where you left off. Please try and keep up.
 
Tuppy_Glossop said:
I don't think she is claiming any expertise or authority on climate change. The point I feel she is making is that governments are not acting and it could be jeopardising the future. I think this point can be taken further. Governments target very short timescales for policies and their outcomes. Nobody *appears* to be looking at long-term outcomes. These long-term outcomes may require changesthat do not improve the wealth or lifestyles of the current voting demographic but could (should?) improve things for everyone in the future. Short-term political aims vs long-term sustainability.
Click to expand...
The thing is, governments can't act unless they know the people are broadly consenting.

Now many people might say, "We'd give up some quality of life to save the planet." It's so easy to say stuff like that. So very hipster and feel-good.

Actually start doing that, and people start furiously complaining and resisting. Just look at all the people who object to wind farms, bio digesters, etc, etc.

People will fight tooth and nail to keep convenience, low-cost goods, luxuries. The list goes on. Start hurting people's quality of life, and watch what happens to support for tackling climate change.
 
She is abit weird but her message sound. Governments need to do something about climate change . But I didn't like it when she criticised unlimited economic growth. I believe we can have growth and care for the planet.
 
What I do find amusing is the duplicity with some of the right when it comes to Greta. For example there’s this 14 yr old alt righty girl on youtube think her channel or her name is Soph (before she was banned) but pretty much all right wing platforms were fawning over her. Not a whisper of the same criticisms heading towards Greta regarding her age or her being brainwashed by her parents.
 
Eurofighter said:
She is abit weird but her message sound. Governments need to do something about climate change . But I didn't like it when she criticised unlimited economic growth. I believe we can have growth and care for the planet.
Click to expand...
We don't need unlimited economic growth, tho, do we.

The idea that all businesses must grow, and that unlimited growth is possible.. apart from being a device to manage debt, I really don't see why it's desirable.

I mean it's great for shareholders, but in a lot of ways shareholders have a parasitic relationship with businesses. Often forcing companies to choose between their customers/employees, or the short-term demands of their shareholders.

It's funny that sustainable, non-growing businesses today are deemed as failures.

And conversely (+perversely), businesses that will never make a profit can be traded on the stock market for billions.

Frankly economics is bat+ship insane in many ways.
 
I think Clarkson summed it up well. The people who have the power to deal with these issues are already aware of them and are already trying to deal with them, and if she wants to make a difference she should put a sock in it, go back to school, and train to be a scientist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom