I’m actually undecided what is worse on an individual level. Grown adults taking cues on climate change from a 16-year old girl, or grown adults openly mocking a 16-year old girl.
Both, to me, seem incredibly embarrassing. She’s 16.
I’m actually undecided what is worse on an individual level. Grown adults taking cues on climate change from a 16-year old girl, or grown adults openly mocking a 16-year old girl.
Both, to me, seem incredibly embarrassing. She’s 16.
Her age is irrelevant, once the decision is made to become an open and public figure on the policy then criticism and praise are going to follow respectively.
Its kind of the crux of the matter, the only thing that really works in her favour is her age, but concerning climate science her age really doesnt matter.
So take away the 'OMG she 16!!!' factor and shes really just some propped-up rando who doesnt know anything other than what shes read online or been told.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The Odds of the Flames winning the Cup this season are approximately 3,720-1
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
Why are some people so butthurt over people trying to make change in the world? Honestly all I see are people on Facebook complaining about this and even some people on here making fun of them. Good for them I want my kids and their kids to live in a better world.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Robo For This Useful Post:
Why are some people so butthurt over people trying to make change in the world? Honestly all I see are people on Facebook complaining about this and even some people on here making fun of them. Good for them I want my kids and their kids to live in a better world.
I'm not as vitriolic as some, but I do find her kind of annoying. It's probably just the overexposure, and not really her per se. I'm just kind of tired of hearing about her. Since she's not really bringing anything new to the discussion, why is she so omni-present currently? Just because she's 16?
Actually, I'd lean the opposite way. Individually, she's clearly praiseworthy. For a 16 year old she seems really impressive. Not more so than a million other sixteen year olds around the world, mind you. She's not Malala Yousafzai or anything.
There's nothing to mock her for; she's just not worthy of any public attention.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Will be interesting to see the turnouts for these (weather isn't so great). I suspect larger crowds in Eastern Canada (the Twitter videos make it seem like the weather is quite nice for a protest in Toronto, Halifax, Ottawa, Montreal, etc.).
Meanwhile at the Calgary rally:
The Following User Says Thank You to Cowboy89 For This Useful Post:
There was a protest here in Quebec city that was annoying. But I am also having Autistic meltdowns here so maybe I'm biased. But there are three cruise ships docked at the port and many pubs/restaurants have their doors open and heated patio's.
Again, go look at what those climate strike protesters want. There is no science behind anything they are saying.
The world is a strange place right now. Bill Gates came up with a nuclear reactor that could use the stockpiles of spent uranium that we have sitting around and doing nothing. But because of 'public perception' he can't build a prototype in North America.
What is public perception if not meaningless protests and 16 year kids talking as if they understand a single thing about what climate change is all about?
That is the problem. That 16 year is shaping public opinion because most people are too stupid to go educate themselves. That is why she needs to be criticized and called out for her SHEER ignorance on what is really going on.
She and all the other sheep that follow her beliefs are the reason we are in this mess. Nuclear could have saved us by now, but instead of the NIMBY crowd has made sure nothing has happened there and now they want to claim moral superiority in this fight? Screw that.
Again, go look at what those climate strike protesters want. There is no science behind anything they are saying.
What is public perception if not meaningless protests and 16 year kids talking as if they understand a single thing about what climate change is all about?
That is the problem. That 16 year is shaping public opinion because most people are too stupid to go educate themselves. That is why she needs to be criticized and called out for her SHEER ignorance on what is really going on.
What are they saying that lacks science? Do you even know what the message behind the climate strike is?
It’s fine to be critical of the information. Especially if providing better information. But just criticising or mocking a 16 year old girl, calling her ignorant, stupid, etc kind of just makes people look like ignorant babies themselves. Like, you could boil down her position to “you’re all not doing enough” and “just listen to the science.” That’s not really controversial. Her outcomes are extreme, but her intension is admirable at a basic level, and kudos to her for being that committed as a teenager.
You’re an adult. You do not actually need to take down a teenager.
I also find, generally speaking, that when posters like yourself or Mr.Coffee talk about how “most people are stupid” you’re not doing yourself any favours. Most people probably are stupid, but a lot of very intelligent people also disagree with you, so characterising people that way isn’t great. You could say most people who argue in favour of the oil patch are stupid, it’s probably true. You could say most people who support Trudeau are stupid, it’s probably true. You could say it about anything. It doesn’t actually mean anything.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
What are they saying that lacks science? Do you even know what the message behind the climate strike is?
It’s fine to be critical of the information. Especially if providing better information. But just criticising or mocking a 16 year old girl, calling her ignorant, stupid, etc kind of just makes people look like ignorant babies themselves. Like, you could boil down her position to “you’re all not doing enough” and “just listen to the science.” That’s not really controversial. Her outcomes are extreme, but her intension is admirable at a basic level, and kudos to her for being that committed as a teenager.
You’re an adult. You do not actually need to take down a teenager.
I also find, generally speaking, that when posters like yourself or Mr.Coffee talk about how “most people are stupid” you’re not doing yourself any favours. Most people probably are stupid, but a lot of very intelligent people also disagree with you, so characterising people that way isn’t great. You could say most people who argue in favour of the oil patch are stupid, it’s probably true. You could say most people who support Trudeau are stupid, it’s probably true. You could say it about anything. It doesn’t actually mean anything.
You edited out the most important part of my post.
Someone very smart, i.e. an intelligent person who tons of resources, money and know how, has come with a great idea to reduce emissions and make the world a better, cleaner place. Why isn't his idea being given a chance? At the VERY LEAST TerraPower should be allowed, hell encouraged to build a prototype in North America. But because of the negative public perception of nuclear power it is not happening. As the 3rd episode of 'Inside Bill's Brain' mentioned, no new research has been done on nuclear reactors in over 25 years. That is insane, and yet when you go look at why you realize it is again because of public perception.
Once you accept that, start asking yourself what public perception is. Most people in Canada are in favor of the pipeline, oil & gas, etc. Why isn't that going ahead then?
I feel strongly it is because of the ignorant sheep who march in protests and base their life on fancy slogans on signs "Life-line not, pipeline", and think if they stop eating meat or traveling by air they will change something.
Will they? Is there any scientific evidence to suggest that if I stop eating meat that something will change? That if I stop traveling on a plane something will change? There isn't, and that is why that viewpoint is dumb, ignorant and extremely naive.
We need to focus on BIGGER issues. And yet society constantly comes back to small-minded stupidity.
Public perception.
Based on a 16 year old's understanding of the world.
The Following User Says Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
Again, go look at what those climate strike protesters want. There is no science behind anything they are saying.
The world is a strange place right now. Bill Gates came up with a nuclear reactor that could use the stockpiles of spent uranium that we have sitting around and doing nothing. But because of 'public perception' he can't build a prototype in North America.
What is public perception if not meaningless protests and 16 year kids talking as if they understand a single thing about what climate change is all about?
That is the problem. That 16 year is shaping public opinion because most people are too stupid to go educate themselves. That is why she needs to be criticized and called out for her SHEER ignorance on what is really going on.
She and all the other sheep that follow her beliefs are the reason we are in this mess. Nuclear could have saved us by now, but instead of the NIMBY crowd has made sure nothing has happened there and now they want to claim moral superiority in this fight? Screw that.
This is such an ignorant post. All Thunburg is doing is asking people to listen to the actual science, not her personal beliefs or opinions. And it seems to me that she clearly DOES know what she's talking about and has obviously done her homework, as have many of the youth who are taking part in these marches I'll bet.
Seeing so many grown adults doing nothing but denigrating and mocking these inspiring and passionate young people is frankly embarrassing and shameful. They're simply demanding a better world for their futures and the futures of their children, and at least they're out there trying to raise awareness and make a difference. Personally, these kids have my full support and I hope they succeed in encouraging governments around the world to do more to combat this crisis.
Thunberg, the Swedish teenager who has ignited a global youth climate movement, said at a congressional hearing that she had no prepared remarks other than to submit the landmark IPCC report, published last year, that warned of the rapidly approaching catastrophe of global heating.
“I don’t want you to listen to me, I want you to listen to the scientists,” Thunberg told the US lawmakers. “I want you to unite behind the science and I want you to take real action.”
Here's the latest IPCC report that was submitted to Congress the other day, which features contributions from over 100 scientists and experts from 36 countries. I suggest you check it out.
Nuclear vaporware that will likely take decades (if ever) to be a viable commercial generation plant isn't a magic bullet. Particularly when nuclear is likely to become uneconomical and exceedingly inflexible relative to most other options in the coming decades.
I feel strongly it is because of the ignorant sheep who march in protests and base their life on fancy slogans on signs "Life-line not, pipeline", and think if they stop eating meat or traveling by air they will change something.
Will they? Is there any scientific evidence to suggest that if I stop eating meat that something will change? That if I stop traveling on a plane something will change? There isn't, and that is why that viewpoint is dumb, ignorant and extremely naive.
We need to focus on BIGGER issues. And yet society constantly comes back to small-minded stupidity.
Public perception.
Based on a 16 year old's understanding of the world.
But you’re really just assuming their beliefs and intentions and making a judgement based on your own assumptions. You don’t really know, and that’s clear by misinterpreting the 16-year old’s goal from the outset.
I’m just not sure I understand the criticism. They’re doing something, right? Is it effective? I guess probably not. But the intention is at least “hey, pay attention to science!” which seems okay to me.
What are you doing? Sitting around telling people to watch Netflix? What makes that interesting or admirable? It’s a whole lot of nothing.
“Watch this tv show! And then... uh... think!” Ok, nice. Tell me more. We solve the problem by listening to what Bill Gates says on a tv show?
EDIT: and to be clear, I disagree with stopping pipelines. I disagree with needing to cut emissions by 80% in ten years or whatever. I do not, in general, believe whole heartedly in the solutions. But I’m also not going to sit here and say “it’s my job to criticise a 16 year old who tells me to listen to science! She must be stopped! SHEEPLE!”
Feels like this whole climate change is the new Y2K. So much alarmist handwringing with no practical solutions other than "Zero carbon now! Or we're all doomed! DOOOOMMED!!! Won't someone please think of the children!"
I still think global warming is just something a lot of people hide behind who really just want wealth redistribution.
I do wonder how accurate some of the predictions of what might happen.
Huh? Maybe you should watch the show, listen and understand what Gates is trying to do before making such a stupid comment.
A heck of a lot better than another study saying how terrible climate change is.
lol, I’m all for what Gates is trying to do. But if you think sitting on your computer urging people to watch a tv show is a noble act while getting off your butt and urging leaders to listen to the science is some useless sheeple nonsense, you’re an idiot. That was my point. Absolutely nothing against Gates or nuclear.
I think the issue here really is materialistic and ease of living (convenience).
Every invention or cause in our lifetime has improved our lives, made is faster and easier. Inventions from the radio to the tv to the computer to the internet. From the tv, to cable, to HD to 4K. From tailor clothes, to buying it at a store, to buying it online. etc.. etc..
You are paying for perks. A computer was $5000 in the 70s, now it's $300.
But on the issue of fighting climate change, you're not taking convenience away.
Buy a Tesla for $100,000 but we don't have convenient charging stations.
Or don't drive at all, walk, bike or take transit which takes a little longer.
It may even mean your kid has to walk to school.
People have to decide how important fighting climate change really is? Is is important enough to inconvenience ourselves?
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Last edited by GirlySports; 09-27-2019 at 08:05 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to GirlySports For This Useful Post:
