Greta Thunberg

Australia. Senior Subjects - may or may not be equivalent. For example, first year uni engineering students do projects both kids did at high school (along with at least 30 peers). Also, doing relational QT (Quantification Theory) trees, called 'semantic tableux' in some places, in high school Logic is considered a university calculus topic in some Australian and Euro universities.
 
Last edited:
^^ I think, again according to the intrawebs, that you are mistaking your A levels to be equivilant to our gcses, which were the quoted Sweden's equivalent to our gcses.

So I believe its your O levels which are the equivalent to gcses. Not your A levels.

Can you remember what your daughters O level results were? That way I can satisfy my own somewhere on the spectrums curiosity, by comparing oranges to oranges! :p
 
They aren't at hand, memory-wise (I'm still a bit traumatized by the occasional tantrums I had to put up with during the uni years that quite put me off even asking how the kid was going there), but I get your point of making a fair comparison.

I do remember there were no blips in the kids straight run except for 1 semester during the divorce and custody case. Rome wasn't suddenly built in a day.
 
Last edited:
Ok, I guess this is a good opportunity to work on there being no closure! :p

A belated congrats on your daughters results, even though it must have been difficult for you at times dealing with moods, you must have been very proud of her.
 
greta-vs-booomers.png
 
RxR said:
One Australian lecturer in critical thinking reckons we should learn to "win" debates like Greta:

https://abc.net.au/news/2019-12-11/how-to-win-a-climate-change-debate/11787486?pfmredir=sm

@Threepwood thanks. I will be prouder when the Breakthrough Starshot project launched by Stephen Hawking in 2016 achieves its aim of near 100million miles an hour spaceprobe speed.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I'm aware Greta has never debated anyone on climate change.
 
The "This is how you win any climate-change debate like Greta Thunberg" title does seem to somewhat imply that she may have won a debate, and perhaps a climate-change debate given that she's a climate-change activist.

The title is capable of misleading - if she has in fact never debated the matter, versus just uttered pronouncements she hasn't had to defend.
 
RxR said:
The "This is how you win any climate-change debate like Greta Thunberg" title does seem to somewhat imply that she may have won a debate, and perhaps a climate-change debate given that she's a climate-change activist.

The title is capable of misleading - if she has in fact never debated the matter, versus just uttered pronouncements she hasn't had to defend.
Click to expand...

I really don't understand. She is the primary reason to reach this important result and milestone:

European Investment Bank drops fossil fuel funding
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50427873
 
RxR said:
That drop in funding, if true, is good for crisis capitalists.
Click to expand...
Indeed, oil industry investment has plummeted since the down turn and the traditional sources of funding have turned their back since so there’s plenty of opportunities available.
 
I think we're talked out on most of this, so I'm just going to address one point:

Amp34 said:
[..] So you're going down the semantics argument. You're the one that brought up mass killing. I used genocide as a catch all term for that... If you want to go down that route I'm out.
Click to expand...

Why anyone thinks that dismissing language as "semantics" is a valid argument I don't know - semantics is a key part of language. But anyway..."genocide" explicitly refers only to targetted mass killing. It literally means "killing a type". It is not a catch all term for mass killing. If you killed a billion people at random, that would not be genocide. If you killed the last remaining 50 people in a tribe specifically because of their tribe, that would be genocide. You brought up genocide. I didn't.

This is not about and has never been about mass killing, genocide or any other way of removing billions of humans from the earth. YOU are the only one that brought that up and arguing semantics is not going to change that.
Click to expand...

1) I did not bring up reducing population by a large enough amount quickly enough to solve the problem of CO2 emissions. You did that. I just pointed out that mass killing is the only way to do that. Natural population reduction by voluntary reduction in breeding occurs far more slowly and as a result of improved standards of living, not as a cause of them. As I said before, you have the cart before the horse.

2) If you don't understand what a word means and you don't understand the importance of semantics, that's not my problem.
 
RxR said:
14 A's at O level (she's only 16, after all) is no great achievement for an Aspie kid, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

I think that's overstating the case a fair bit. 14 A's at O level is a bloody good start on an education and about as good as possible at 16. Asperger's would help in that respect, but I think "no great achievement" is far too dismissive.

Maybe in 10 years time she'll actually know what she's talking about and maybe even do something useful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom