I'm sorry, but that was truly awful. Why is it that if someone says that climate change isn't real, they are called stupid, but this girl can spout off outrageous alarmism and she gets applauded? Serious question: is there anything that she could say about the dangers of climate change that would be regarded as too extreme and not be cheered? The science is "crystal clear" yeah, okay...
Completely agree.
She's directly threatening world leaders now with some sort of implied punishment.
It definitely made me uncomfortable, because I get uncomfortable when I read online threats against Trudeau or Scheer, and this girl is straight up threatening leaders.
I don't even know what she wants to imply. Is it a death threat? I'm sure it's left vague for plausible deniability, but based on the rhetoric, I don't think it's very far off from what far-right memes say about what they want to do to Trudeau.
The Following User Says Thank You to Regorium For This Useful Post:
I don't understand why this girl is famous. She isn't a leading intellectual or someone with political gravitas. The media has anointed her the chosen one from her generation, but I don't see why.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to burn_this_city For This Useful Post:
You have to look at her comments with real squinty eyes to see any thing that can be construed as a threat imo. She's passionate about what she believes in, and I believe she's autistic and just doesn't do the speak softly thing, iirc from what i read earlier.
Whether you agree with her or not is different. One of the big issues with the social media world (and the rise of Trumpism) is the way fake information is believed and spread and goes viral without being fact checked, so I get being skeptical.
But where she's right is if you believe we are on the verge of life drastically changing, than what we are doing is nearly not enough.
I'm sorry, but that was truly awful. Why is it that if someone says that climate change isn't real, they are called stupid, but this girl can spout off outrageous alarmism and she gets applauded?
Well, because someone who says climate change isn't real is stupid. Those that claim otherwise have been sucked in by the half billion dollar climate science denial network that rich industrialists like the Koch family built to line their pockets.
That's money that is traceable. Most money is now dark money, funneled through shell companies. I mean, if things were on the up and up, why funnel your money through shell companies to hide where the money is coming from?
The stuff she is "spouting" is not alarmist, it is just good old fact. You know, like the stuff the denialists don't have on their side. Here's the actual article where this young woman got her information from.
Further support to her concerns. If the Thwaite Glacier in west Antarctica collapses, and there are every indication its collapse is inevitable, ocean levels will rise an astounding 11 feet!
There are parts of Antarctica that are gaining ice, but it does not come close to amount being lost, and certainly won't compensate for the loss of the Thwaite Glacier.
Serious question: is there anything that she could say about the dangers of climate change that would be regarded as too extreme and not be cheered? The science is "crystal clear" yeah, okay...
The science is crystal clear.
Yup, its called projection, and the fossil fuel industry is playing this game to a master's level. Claim that the other side is doing exactly what you are doing! Brilliant!
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
I don't understand why this girl is famous. She isn't a leading intellectual or someone with political gravitas. The media has anointed her the chosen one from her generation, but I don't see why.
-She’s young enough that she’ll likely live to see serious effects of climate change.
-She’s also articulate especially for someone with Aspergers.
-She practices what she preaches, unlike the celebrities that become the whipping boys of the climate movement.
Of course she still gets attacked by deniers. Dinesh D’Souza compared her to Nazi propaganda.
You have to look at her comments with real squinty eyes to see any thing that can be construed as a threat imo. She's passionate about what she believes in, and I believe she's autistic and just doesn't do the speak softly thing, iirc from what i read earlier.
This I agree with. We give her a lot of leeway because there's obvious passion, and she's autistic and she's a child.
I'm just saying we make fun of facebook memes that want Trudeau tried for treason, while applauding her for using words like "your betrayal" and "we will not let you get away with this."
Just not things I would say in adult discussion, but perhaps that's the novelty of it all.
She's a better role model than Leonardo DiCaprio, but I just find her a bit over the top. Nothing wrong with the message.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Regorium For This Useful Post:
If only there was some room for reasonable dialogue and planning between the two (apparently only available) positions of "mass extinction" and "I don't believe it"
If only there was some room for reasonable dialogue and planning between the two (apparently only available) positions of "mass extinction" and "I don't believe it"
We very well may be on the cusp of a mass extinction. That’s not an extreme position.
If only there was some room for reasonable dialogue and planning between the two (apparently only available) positions of "mass extinction" and "I don't believe it"
Your doctor: You have stage four cancer. We need to pursue aggressive remediation protocols immediately or you're going to be dead in two years.
You: I feel fine.
Your doctor: You may feel fine right now, but you have masses growing in a number of vital organs and its already spread to your lymphatic system and bones. We need to act.
You: Isn't there room for reasonable dialogue between dead in two years and I'm just fine?
Just so we're clear, this is be critical, but to poke fun at the suggestion of more dialogue. Things aren't getting better with more dialogue. We needed to act back in the 70's when the issue was first raised. We didn't, and now we're in real deep doo. Time for talk is over. It's time for action.
Last edited by Lanny_McDonald; 09-23-2019 at 04:56 PM.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Serious question: is there anything that she could say about the dangers of climate change that would be regarded as too extreme and not be cheered?
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
Well, because someone who says climate change isn't real is stupid. Those that claim otherwise have been sucked in by the half billion dollar climate science denial network that rich industrialists like the Koch family built to line their pockets.
That's money that is traceable. Most money is now dark money, funneled through shell companies. I mean, if things were on the up and up, why funnel your money through shell companies to hide where the money is coming from?
The stuff she is "spouting" is not alarmist, it is just good old fact. You know, like the stuff the denialists don't have on their side. Here's the actual article where this young woman got her information from.
Further support to her concerns. If the Thwaite Glacier in west Antarctica collapses, and there are every indication its collapse is inevitable, ocean levels will rise an astounding 11 feet!
There are parts of Antarctica that are gaining ice, but it does not come close to amount being lost, and certainly won't compensate for the loss of the Thwaite Glacier.
Yup, its called projection, and the fossil fuel industry is playing this game to a master's level. Claim that the other side is doing exactly what you are doing! Brilliant!
Well, at the very least, she practices what she preaches.
She sailed over instead of flying. She convinced her mother to quit her job due to her carbon footprint.
She's taking this seriously, but she's lived a pretty miserable life.
Ya, but the boat she took would have been impossible to make without oil and gas, and after she sailed over, 2 crew members flew back to Europe(and I assume she will too), so it's kind of a wash as far as emissions go. It was for publicity, not the environment. She also said how difficult it was, which kind of rolls into my next point.
The first bit of her speech talked about people suffering and impoverished, but cheap energy has made food more available, saved most of Canada from freezing to death(amoung other places), has allowed for modern medicine and on and on and on. Ya, they are inconvenient facts, but it's also the truth. It seems she wants us all to throw it all away tomorrow. And that would be way worse than a few degrees warming.
I'm not suggesting we don't need to do anything, but we need to be honest about what is being asked to be given up, too.
Your doctor: You have stage four cancer. We need to pursue aggressive remediation protocols immediately or you're going to be dead in two years.
You: I feel fine.
Your doctor: You may feel fine right now, but you have masses growing in a number of vital organs and its already spread to your lymphatic system and bones. We need to act.
You: Isn't there room for reasonable dialogue between dead in two years and I'm just fine?
Just so we're clear, this is be critical, but to poke fun at the suggestion of more dialogue. Things aren't getting better with more dialogue. We needed to act back in the 70's when the issue was first raised. We didn't, and now we're in real deep doo. Time for talk is over. It's time for action.
Brutally bad example. But I'll use it anyway.
When diagnosed with cancer - or any disease - it is reasonable to get a second opinion. It is also reasonable to discuss what the next steps are because, you know, there are options and different types of treatments.
Almost like climate change, where there are different options on how to facilitate change. It's almost like there is room for dialogue.
But you have done exactly what I was referring to: you assumed any call for discussion equates to denial. It is an extreme position that doesn't serve progress.
I didn't get that feeling at all. Seems like she's saying leaders who refuse to do anything about it will go down in history as complicit.
I didn't get the vibe of death threats or anything like that. She's passionate about it and she's tired of world leaders who aren't doing anything.
FFS are some people really that stupid? (not talking about you) SHE is complicit, I am, you are, everyone is. We all use and benefit tremendously from fossil fuels the good it has done for humanity is nearly incalculable. Of course it is far from perfect but at the same time technology has made using fossil fuels much cleaner than it used to be.
There is no magic technology just waiting for the switch to be flipped it will take decades before we can transition to truly clean energy, if we can do it at all.
But she thinks the world will end in 12 years, can't reason with any person that actually believes this is true.
The Following User Says Thank You to zamler For This Useful Post:
But she thinks the world will end in 12 years, can't reason with any person that actually believes this is true.
When did she say this? The IPCC has estimated that’s how long we have until the effects of climate change become irreversible. That’s not the same thing.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DownInFlames For This Useful Post:
When diagnosed with cancer - or any disease - it is reasonable to get a second opinion. It is also reasonable to discuss what the next steps are because, you know, there are options and different types of treatments.
Almost like climate change, where there are different options on how to facilitate change. It's almost like there is room for dialogue.
But you have done exactly what I was referring to: you assumed any call for discussion equates to denial. It is an extreme position that doesn't serve progress.
Did I miss something? Do we not have hundreds of second opinions all agreeing already?
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Scroopy Noopers For This Useful Post:
When did she say this? The IPCC has estimated that’s how long we have until the effects of climate change become irreversible. That’s not the same thing.
We are not going to stop using fossil fuel in 12 years, or even reduce usage by say 30% so we might as well consider the planet doomed.
The Following User Says Thank You to zamler For This Useful Post:
