Greta Thunberg / Climate Change Summit (7 Viewers)

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I read up on her little while back and I don't think the pulling strings concept is valid to be honest.

'Thunberg says she first heard about climate change in 2011, when she was 8 years old, and could not understand why so little was being done about it. Three years later she became depressed and lethargic, stopped talking and eating, and was eventually diagnosed with Asperger's and selective mutism.

For about two years, Thunberg challenged her parents to lower the family's carbon footprint and give up flying, which in part meant her mother had to give up her international career as an opera singer.

Thunberg credits her parents' eventual response and lifestyle changes with giving her hope and belief that she could make a difference.'

That does also highlight her childish naivety on the issue. When I was young I wondered why some things weren't being done that seemed obvious, but it was because I didn't understand all the things related to it that would be affected.

For example if I'd asked my mum to not drive the car to work to save the environment I'd have been made acutely aware that the loss of earnings would result in no Christmas or birthday presents, no days out or treats, lower quality food, clothes coming from charity shops...

I think she could be the anti-Trump. He's obsessed with money and can't see beyond that. She could well become so obsessed with the environment she can't see the impact on people's lives and livelihoods, especially so with her autism.

 

---

[clint van damme]

That does also highlight her childish naivety on the issue. When I was young I wondered why some things weren't being done that seemed obvious, but it was because I didn't understand all the things related to it that would be affected.

For example if I'd asked my mum to not drive the car to work to save the environment I'd have been made acutely aware that the loss of earnings would result in no Christmas or birthday presents, no days out or treats, lower quality food, clothes coming from charity shops...

I think she could be the anti-Trump. He's obsessed with money and can't see beyond that. She could well become so obsessed with the environment she can't see the impact on people's lives and livelihoods, especially so with her autism.

yeah, but she's 15 he's 73. She's got an excuse for being ill informed.

 

[skybluetony176]

It strange as her parents have been activists for some time regarding this issue

Clearly she’s a communist then.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

yeah, but she's 15 he's 73. She's got an excuse for being ill informed.

The point I'm making is that both are completely fixated on one issue and so everything else becomes almost meaningless unless it works towards that main aim.

With her likely to become even more ensconced in the climate change movement it's going to become like an echo chamber reinforcing her views, just as Trump's has by being surrounded for his entire life by capitalists and businesspeople. I'm not sure I could see her going to learn about economics just as I couldn't see Trump going to a climate change camp to learn and try to understand the other sides view.

As she gets older I think her position will become more and more entrenched, with her condition just making the situation worse. As has been said on here some autistic kids can be extremely stubborn and difficult.

But I would wager she's far more intelligent than Trump.

 

[skybluegod]

That article is a decade out of date. We’ve have models updated and things are moving faster than ever.

seriously guys, there isn’t a conspiracy, this is really happening. Pull your heads out the sand.

I don't often agree with some of your football/political beliefs. But you are spot on here.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

she's sailed to New York in a yacht, lead a global protest and share a stage with the POTUS.
That beats drinking white lightening and getting fingered round the back of the local youth club.

It does indeed, but how do you get to do that at that age without help. I'm sure there's loads of kids (even adults) who'd love to be able to discuss their thoughts and ideas at summits with world leaders. They write to people, get involved in campaigning and interest groups. Just get ignored or brushed aside no matter how many times they make their views known.

Admittedly in a world of social media you can reach a lot of people very quickly, but it's not like she'll be the only one on Twitter highlighting climate change. And to organise a global protest - that takes a lot more to do than even a very highly capable teenager can manage in terms of support networks. It does suggest she's become the designated spokesperson for the movement rather than the organiser.

 

[fellatio_Martinez]

30% of the world's pollution comes from China and yet lil Greta didn't say a word about them in her speech.

Is she a Chinese shill?

 

[skybluetony176]

30% of the world's pollution comes from China and yet lil Greta didn't say a word about them in her speech.

Is she a Chinese shill?

She addressed everyone at the UN climate summit and as far as I’m aware China had a delegation there so yes she did aim her speech at China. That’s before you even get into the fact that China represents less than 19% of the worlds population.

 

[fellatio_Martinez]

She addressed everyone at the UN climate summit and as far as I’m aware China had a delegation there so yes she did aim her speech at China. That’s before you even get into the fact that China represents less than 19% of the worlds population.

She didn't directly address China and the massive role they play, no matter how you tart it up.

What does population have to do with the fact that they're responsible for 30% of the world's pollution and one million people a year die in china due to pollution?

 

[skybluetony176]

What I don’t get about the hostility towards her, climate change scientists and the climate change issue is let’s assume that they’ve all got it 100% wrong and we’re not heading for a man made catastrophe of biblical proportions. What’s the worse case scenario if we listen to them and act meaningfully upon their advice? Aside from breathable air and a fall in deaths and illness linked to poor air quality?

Now let’s flip the coin over. Let’s say they’re 80% right. What’s the worse that could happen if we don’t take them seriously and act meaningfully upon their advice? Aside from a man made catastrophe of biblical proportions?

What sort of a Moran do you have to be to dispute it when if they’re wrong it’s still a bonus and really the least we should be expecting.

 

[skybluetony176]

She didn't directly address China and the massive role they play, no matter how you tart it up.

What does population have to do with the fact that they're responsible for 30% of the world's pollution and one million people a year die in china due to pollution?

Tart what up? They were there, she addressed them and China is only part of the problem. Besides if China was sticking it’s hands in a fire does that mean we have too? It’s too easy to dismiss our own inaction because we feel we have the right to point our fingers at China by way of distraction.

Apologies I misread pollution for population. Yes you’re quite right on that point.

 

[Astute]

I think people are being incredibly harsh on her to be honest.

My daughter says there are 15 year olds at her school in Birmingham getting really active and going down to parliament off their own backs to protest.

My question would be how could a young girl become known wirldwide without great help. She hasn't done it all alone. She has been placed at that level.

I don't disagree with what she is saying. But I disagree with a young girl being pushed in this direction. I know she isn't a young girl now but she was when she started out. And I disagree with the stories people say about her. This is both good and bad.

She should have been allowed to have a proper childhood and not been used as a mouthpiece.

 

[CovInEssex]

New York(CNN)Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg and 15 other children filed a complaint with the United Nations Monday alleging that five of the world's major economies have violated their human rights by not taking adequate action to stop the unfolding climate crisis.

The complaint was filed a short time after Thunberg delivered an impassioned rebuke to world leaders at the UN Climate Action Summit.

"You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words — and yet, I'm one of the lucky ones," Thunberg said Monday. "People are suffering, people are dying."

The petition names five countries -- Germany, France, Brazil, Argentina and Turkey -- which they say have failed to uphold their obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, a 30-year-old human rights treaty which is the most widely ratified in history.

No China or India, why?

 

[Astute]

She didn't directly address China and the massive role they play, no matter how you tart it up.

What does population have to do with the fact that they're responsible for 30% of the world's pollution and one million people a year die in china due to pollution?

China is the most poluting country in the world. They emit as much polutants as the next four in the list combined. America, which is second in the list combined with China, emit nearly half of all worldwide polutants.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

What I don’t get about the hostility towards her, climate change scientists and the climate change issue is let’s assume that they’ve all got it 100% wrong and we’re not heading for a man made catastrophe of biblical proportions. What’s the worse case scenario if we listen to them and act meaningfully upon their advice? Aside from breathable air and a fall in deaths and illness linked to poor air quality?

Now let’s flip the coin over. Let’s say they’re 80% right. What’s the worse that could happen if we don’t take them seriously and act meaningfully upon their advice? Aside from a man made catastrophe of biblical proportions?

What sort of a Moran do you have to be to dispute it when if they’re wrong it’s still a bonus and really the least we should be expecting.

With the first paragraph the worst case scenario for the economists/capitalists would be spending lots of money on something that isn't (in their eyes) a pressing issue. The money is of greater importance to them than any other benefits, inc. fewer deaths. Plus if you wanted to take a slightly skewed view the lives would be saved but that would lead to an increased global population thus increasing consumption and the pressure on the need for energy/housing etc. There are plenty of people that see things like the deaths as nature rebalancing.

As for the final paragraph, is the answer Kevin?

 

[Grendel]

No China or India, why?

I assume because they were not part of the agreement - China and US definitely were not

 

[fellatio_Martinez]

My question would be how could a young girl become known wirldwide without great help. She hasn't done it all alone. She has been placed at that level.

I was kind of on the fence until I saw the clip where she looks like an excited young girl waiting for Trump to appear only to change her expression to anger when he appears in front of the cameras.

She's quite obviously getting directions from somewhere.

 

[Grendel]

I see the Thunbergs have a book coming out next year

 

[fellatio_Martinez]

I see the Thunbergs have a book coming out next year

A free ebook to save on paper and be accessible to the younger generation who have little income I hope.

 

[skybluetony176]

I was kind of on the fence until I saw the clip where she looks like an excited young girl waiting for Trump to appear only to change her expression to anger when he appears in front of the cameras.

She's quite obviously getting directions from somewhere.

Either that or you’re never too young to understand how many types of a prick Trump is.

 

[skybluetony176]

I see the Thunbergs have a book coming out next year

What’s happening with the profits from the books out of interest?

 

[fellatio_Martinez]

Either that or you’re never too young to understand how many types of a prick Trump is.

I don’t care what her opinion on trump is but she was clearly acting up for the camera which I see as disingenuous and clearly orchestrated to amp up her persona even more.

 

[Skybluemichael]

In a carbon neutral boat IIRC.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Yes but the people who sailed the boat flew back after so was more damaging in the long run

 

[ccfc92]

I don’t care what her opinion on trump is but she was clearly acting up for the camera which I see as disingenuous and clearly orchestrated to amp up her persona even more.

"Thunberg is known for her blunt,[4] matter-of-fact speaking manner,[5] both in public and to political leaders and assemblies, in which she urges immediate action to address what she describes as the climate crisis."

 

[skybluetony176]

I don’t care what her opinion on trump is but she was clearly acting up for the camera which I see as disingenuous and clearly orchestrated to amp up her persona even more.

So is Fellatio your first or middle name?

 

[Sick Boy]

Fair play to her for raising awareness and I think the generation after mine are going to be very passionate about environmental issues and change will happen. I'm not surprised to see rich men start attacking her personally to try and discredit her and the movement.

 

[fellatio_Martinez]

I'm not surprised to see rich men start attacking her personally to try and discredit her and the movement.

As opposed to the mega 1% rich like Soros and Obama who support her?

 

[shmmeee]

The fact is who is bringing the message is irrelevant. It’s very telling that no one is arguing with her actual points and instead focusing on shit like her mental health and fucking haircut.

I don't often agree with some of your football/political beliefs. But you are spot on here.

It’s not a political issue. I’d vote BXP if I thought they would win a majority and implement a serious agenda for reducing our carbon output. Literally matters more than any political issue.

As opposed to the mega 1% rich like Soros and Obama who support her?

Fucking hell mate. You’ve gone full YouTube. Never go full YouTube.

you’ll be talking about the NWO and gay frogs next.

 

[fellatio_Martinez]

Fucking hell mate. You’ve gone full YouTube. Never go full YouTube.

you’ll be talking about the NWO and gay frogs next.

Haha it's got nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Someone said rich men were against her which shows she's doing something good but she also has rich men backing her so it's a moot point.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

The fact is who is bringing the message is irrelevant. It’s very telling that no one is arguing with her actual points and instead focusing on shit like her mental health and fucking haircut.

Unfortunately it does matter who's bringing the message. We are sadly living in an age of celebrity and who is delivering the message seems to be more important than the message itself.

A lot of people are saying how great it is that someone so young is spearheading (or at the very least is the spokesperson/mascot of it) but on the flip side the other side will just use the "they don't understand, they're young and don't get the issue" line. It is far easier for them to dismiss her due to her age, but then for years climate change have put forward eminent scientists and been ignored while some celebrity jumping on a bandwagon will be retweeted millions of times.

My biggest bugbear which isn't necessarily aimed at her is that it's all very generalised about the problem but little on the solutions or at least bridging the gap in the short term leading us to the long term goal.

We can spend forever bleating about how we're headed for disaster and billions will die in the ensuing apocalypse but this will have absolutely zero effect on those you need to convince on the other side because they don't care, either because they don't believe you or just feel the money is far more important.

You want to get those people on board the only way you'll do it talk in language they understand - £££. Talk up the economic opportunities and benefits in green energy and conservation. Show they there's money to be made going green - that is what will convince them.

 

[Grendel]

Even Owen Jones says she is a child and you can ignore views of children of that age

 

[Otis]

Even Owen Jones says she is a child and you can ignore views of children of that age

Yeah, look what happened with Jimmy Saville and Gary Glitter.

 

[Grendel]

Yeah, look what happened with Jimmy Saville and Gary Glitter.

Odd response

 

[shmmeee]

Unfortunately it does matter who's bringing the message. We are sadly living in an age of celebrity and who is delivering the message seems to be more important than the message itself.

A lot of people are saying how great it is that someone so young is spearheading (or at the very least is the spokesperson/mascot of it) but on the flip side the other side will just use the "they don't understand, they're young and don't get the issue" line. It is far easier for them to dismiss her due to her age, but then for years climate change have put forward eminent scientists and been ignored while some celebrity jumping on a bandwagon will be retweeted millions of times.

My biggest bugbear which isn't necessarily aimed at her is that it's all very generalised about the problem but little on the solutions or at least bridging the gap in the short term leading us to the long term goal.

We can spend forever bleating about how we're headed for disaster and billions will die in the ensuing apocalypse but this will have absolutely zero effect on those you need to convince on the other side because they don't care, either because they don't believe you or just feel the money is far more important.

You want to get those people on board the only way you'll do it talk in language they understand - £££. Talk up the economic opportunities and benefits in green energy and conservation. Show they there's money to be made going green - that is what will convince them.

The economic benefit is there’ll still be an economy to benefit from.

We’ve left it far too late and frankly it’s going to cost a shit ton and be disruptive as fuck at this point. If we’d been planning ten years ago like we should’ve been we could’ve had a nice smooth transition. Now we need to spend more and do it quicker and the longer we leave it the more it costs.

What was the economic benefit of the war? Did we have to worry about messaging when the country was threatened? Or did we just get on and so shit and tell people to get on board? That’s where we are. There are economic benefits, there are thousands of jobs in installation, maintenance, thousands of new sales of cars and house equipment. But that’s not the point and to couch it in that language both down plays the seriousness of the issue and allows people to halt progress because they aren’t seeing the economic benefits they want.

We need to be planning for net zero carbon within 10 years. Our current plan isn’t to even stop selling ICE cars for another twenty. Our actual plan is to hope our cash protects us against the rest of the world going to shit. And ignoring the immorality of that stance, it’s just not possible when you’ll have entire states collapsing and people flooding our shores for safety.

This always sums it up for me:

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

The economic benefit is there’ll still be an economy to benefit from.

We’ve left it far too late and frankly it’s going to cost a shit ton and be disruptive as fuck at this point. If we’d been planning ten years ago like we should’ve been we could’ve had a nice smooth transition. Now we need to spend more and do it quicker and the longer we leave it the more it costs.

What was the economic benefit of the war? Did we have to worry about messaging when the country was threatened? Or did we just get on and so shit and tell people to get on board? That’s where we are. There are economic benefits, there are thousands of jobs in installation, maintenance, thousands of new sales of cars and house equipment. But that’s not the point and to couch it in that language both down plays the seriousness of the issue and allows people to halt progress because they aren’t seeing the economic benefits they want.

We need to be planning for net zero carbon within 10 years. Our current plan isn’t to even stop selling ICE cars for another twenty. Our actual plan is to hope our cash protects us against the rest of the world going to shit. And ignoring the immorality of that stance, it’s just not possible when you’ll have entire states collapsing and people flooding our shores for safety.

This always sums it up for me:

View attachment 13105

I'm completely on board with you. But it isn't me you have to convince.

It's those who think short term and what am I getting NOW. They literally can't think long term, so if they can't see this apocalyptic future happening right in front of their face right now it isn't happening at all. Unless cracks are appearing in the earth's crust and lava spewing out across the planet and the seas were boiling they will not believe catastrophe is on the way. It's all alarmist nonsense in their eyes because they can't see it.

They've seen too many disaster movies where things don't happen slowly and gradually over time - they happen immediately and devastatingly and nothing could have stopped or prevented them in their eyes. For some it will be a simple as "God's will".

It's no point saying "at least there will be an economy left for you to benefit from" to them because for them it's "we'll have one anyway if we don't, just a lot bigger one than if we do this hippie crap because this stuff isn't happening"

You have to put yourself in their shoes and think like they do. What matters to them? Money. So how do you get them to follow your course of action? Get them to believe there is money in your course of action. Railways were rejected for quite some time despite the benefits to the population and infrastructure on the whole using quite spurious reasons and outrageous claims like the human body wouldn't be able to cope with the velocity until someone said there was money to be made. Work started almost immediately after that.

"To beat the enemy you must become the enemy"