Greta Thunberg

SexyGreyFox said:
I will agree that adults have now been advising her careful what you eat, what you wear and how you travel etc.
Click to expand...

My problem isn't with her or her message but that she is useful for some, some maybe well intended some with ulterior motives to set the dialogue for climate change and how it should be dealt with even as far as using her to try and silence those that disagree regardless of whether they are coming from a factual/objective position or not.
 
b0rn2sk8 said:
I do find it interesting that most people attack the person and not the message, how do you square that circle? [..]
Click to expand...

They don't have to. The whole point of Greta Thurnberg is that people can use her as a weapon against any dissent of any kind against anything and for any reason simply by accusing any person who isn't utterly obedient of being a scaredy-cat poopyhead or a vile bigot, i.e. attacking the person and not the message.
 
Nasher said:
...and she was never seen again:D
Click to expand...

:D

That there are only a handful of ships across the planet that she deem "worthy" to use for her cause, should raise an alarm about how idiotic the whole thing around her is.

What I do wonder is why her parents don't spend their vast fortune to build such ship to move her around the globe, so she won't get "marooned" on some far away land, like happened with her visit to USA. Where she was stuck for over a month with no suitable transportation available.

If her solution to "climate change" is wooden 17-18th century ships, crossing the atlantic, people dying from scurvy while whole trip lasting weeks at high seas then I rather keep using airplanes.

Because the vessels she is using, have created huge amount of polution to be made and are not recyclable. And that shows her hypocricy.
 
Last edited:
Rhetoric would imply Attenborough was not being sincere... is that really something you can label him with?

The fact is he's a very rich man near the end of his life, so he has no need for money, but he can be on one of two sides... the side of anti-scientific dogma or the right one. His legacy is all that remains in the end and the legacy that says he tried to do something good, is a better one than being on the same side as people who think vaccines give people autism.

Even if it were to be a big ol' dud, making the world a better place (cleaner air, cleaner water, keeping people fed) is still OBJECTIVELY the right side of the coin, and anyone saying otherwise is really testing the limits of civil conversation.
 
Last edited:
It's never as bad/good as the nut jobs on either far ends of the spectrum will say.
Personally I believe it's somewhere in the middle and nearly enough is being done around the climate, but more could be done in an ideal world.
Greta and her opposites are a necessary part of the very wide spectrum of viewpoints, listen to the moderates on each side of any argument and you would usually get a far more sensible conclusion.
It works in pretty much any subject tbh!
 
Malt_Vinegar said:
It's never as bad/good as the nut jobs on either far ends of the spectrum will say.
Personally I believe it's somewhere in the middle and nearly enough is being done around the climate, but more could be done in an ideal world.
Greta and her opposites are a necessary part of the very wide spectrum of viewpoints, listen to the moderates on each side of any argument and you would usually get a far more sensible conclusion.
It works in pretty much any subject tbh!
Click to expand...

Surely it would just make more sense to listen to the climate change scientists who have spent their entire lives studying this subject ?
 
neckbeardthethird said:
Surely it would just make more sense to listen to the climate change scientists who have spent their entire lives studying this subject ?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, we have some who are in the "pay" of certain groups who want certain "results" to show something they want. So those results are hard to agree with. And this happens a lot. Despite being "professional". So that's out.

Then we also have those who pronounce themselves God and able to tell you exactly what happens in 10/20/50/100/1000/X years time because it fits their "models" perfectly, but can't even tell if it's going to rain in the next hour. Their research needs the assumption that they have factored in everything (being God), otherwise their research is always undergoing "we will update our model and improve on results". ie. I'd get a better result from a Fortune Teller with just as high an accuracy rating. Much like Green Energy (like Tidal) being abundant and "free" and eco friendly, but steals energy away from its natural uses on earth (tidal energy that is taken calms the waters more, causing other issues, etc), no one seems to be bothered about that despite it being a thing. So... *shrugs*
 
neckbeardthethird said:
Surely it would just make more sense to listen to the climate change scientists who have spent their entire lives studying this subject ?
Click to expand...

This is one of my contentions - I'm not saying worrying climate changes aren't a thing - I've previously posted glacier data that clearly shows changes and concerning ones since ~2010 outside of the normal range of modern history however a lot of data on climate change is taken from or referenced against and corrected against the data of a US agency who factually has history for allowing their data to be tainted by bias (sometimes commercial or political), used consensus science in the past against those with a different model of solar cycles and turned out were wrong, 3rd place in terms of prediction accuracy in their weather models so I'm not confident in the current vision of climate change being an accurate one. I also find it concerning how much (partly due to the subject being so broad few people have an in-depth knowledge of multiple areas) small factors are written off with the perspective of small force + small force is still a fairly small impact when in reality some of these forces have a multiplicative effect rather than additive when combined.

Hence I am very against stuff like this with Greta that good intentions or otherwise has the effect of brow beating people towards one "accepted" vision of how climate change is unfolding and what the best "only" way is to deal with it.

On the other hand I am an advocate of being prepared and there is no harm in making our world a better one environment wise. For instance if you look back through some of my posts you'll see I've said for some years we should be making better preparation for increasing flooding with potential for quite severe floods in the future - can't find them all quickly but here is an example from 2017:

Rroff said:
There is an interesting trend in the ONI oscillations in regard to that which seems to be being largely ignored - future peak el nino events could be increasingly more severe - the flooding, etc. we saw on the rising edge of the last peak could potentially be increasingly worse over the next few cycles.
Click to expand...

The flooding like we saw recently up North is just a taste of what is to come IMO but I bet we won't be prepared.
 
Malt_Vinegar said:
It's never as bad/good as the nut jobs on either far ends of the spectrum will say.
Personally I believe it's somewhere in the middle and nearly enough is being done around the climate, but more could be done in an ideal world.
Greta and her opposites are a necessary part of the very wide spectrum of viewpoints, listen to the moderates on each side of any argument and you would usually get a far more sensible conclusion.
It works in pretty much any subject tbh!
Click to expand...
So, whenever person X is unhappy with some latest scientific finding, all person X need do is promote an opposing position as far the other way, and you will paint both opinions as equally "extreme" and settle on the view that "somewhere in the middle" - and exactly where person X wants you to be.

Is there anything you can post to disprove that?
 
majestyk said:
I don't know if David Attenborough is a puppet, but his documentaries are now spiked with climate change rhetoric.

His recent offerings on Netflix and the BBC showed walruses falling from clifftops. Sir David claimed this was due to CC. Others have refuted this, saying it has happened on other occasions and by polar bears cornering the walrus.

https://polarbearscience.com/2019/0...-about-walrus-cliff-deaths-heres-how-we-know/

What irritates me is the constant chipping away by the media. I notice Simon Reeve is also 'at it' in his otherwise excellent current travel series.
Click to expand...

Rhetoric? Simon Reeve 'at it'...

You do realise they are talking about what they see in the real world, those two, particularly Attenborough have seen over many years how humans have literally destroyed the natural world and now he is bringing it to our attention.

Also that link you posted, you do realise she is a climate change denier.

I doubt you will read my link so here is a quote..

'It is clear that Dr Crockford’s dismissal of the role of climate change and retreating Arctic sea ice lacks any scientific credibility. Nonetheless, her false allegations about the programme have been pushed widely by climate change deniers.'

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstit...acy-theory-about-attenboroughs-new-programme/
 
Unfortunately doing "your own research" these days just seems to be 'googling for support of your own position, without considering alternatives.'

Do I believe Sir David Attenborough, who has seen both the affects of man on wildlife habitats, and climate change in his 50+ years of broadcasting along with 95% of actual climate scientists or do I believe Dr Crockofshit? Tough choice.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom