Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
Nobody listens to the qualified people. What makes someone qualified? You can accuse anyone of being unqualified. The 'experts' are experts in their narrow fields...the emissions guy doesn't know enough about the economics; the economics guy doesn't know enough about public policy; the policy guy doesn't know enough about oceanography, etc. Bill Nye has been one decent spokesperson, but you could easily argue that he is unqualified.
They have done an decent job of bringing their knowledge together and figuring what is likely to happen in scenarios A through Z. They've probably done an almost okay job of coming up with [relatively] pragmatic plans that could help correct course, but this is a pretty darn tough thing to do considering the innumerable interests and variables involved. What they've utterly failed to do is get many people to actually care [very much].
Enter Greta. Certainly she is unqualified - probably moreso than most who have come before her. But, she has succeeded in one area where all others have failed - she has gotten more people to demonstrate that they care about this than ever before.
Cynically, you can say that anger and frustration are the easiest emotions to exploit. You can also say that she has used a lot of hyperbole and idealism. You can also say that these protests are unproductive.
All of these things are true, so we might as well pack it in and go home. Nitpicking Greta is really just advocating apathy. Which is pretty silly when you really think about it. What major social reforms have occurred without anger, hyperbole, idealism, and a bunch of unproductive protests?
|
I just don’t agree that no one listens to experts. We all know about climate change and we all know we need to take some action to deal with it. What that action should be and what we need to do is the debate. I could be wrong, but I don’t think Greta has added to that portion of the discussion at all?