The Greta Thunberg Debate

Post Reply New Topic

You missed read my comment. I was criticizing those who mock and bully her for being different. Not for her views on climate change. Read all the nasty ad hominem statements about her. You can agree or disagree with her message. That is fine. But personal attacks because she is different is not.

She may be a symbol, but all you need to do is look at the symbols from the other side. I much prefer a brave young woman over a rich old man.

Last edited by goatfish57 on 27 Sep 2019, 5:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

I remember being her age and younger and wishing I could do something about climate change but vividly remember not doing anything because I "wasn't allowed" and adults "wouldn't take me seriously"

So I think she is being very brave and yes, some adults arent taking her seriously and on top of that using her diagnosis as an excuse.

I am unsure whether her parents are playing a part... But I know for sure I thought about climate change and wanting to do something about it myself with no adult influence... So it could just be that she really is passionate about it and isn't being coerced by adults

Either way. She is very brave and strong for standing up for what she believes in even when she knows many people will be against it

She’s brave.

But she shouldn’t assume that things are all doomsday, and she shouldn’t be so rough on people who don’t share her feelings.

Correspondingly, people shouldn’t be rough on her, either.

Be rough on the people who are exploiting her.

Last edited by kraftiekortie on 27 Sep 2019, 5:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

I can understand that, she shouldn't be so tough but I understand she is passionate and probably upsets her when people don't see the way she sees it

Hopefully it can come to a happy medium where people understand something needs to be done but not to such a detrimental effect, so that climate change is taken care of but so. Is everyone's needs.

I know where you are coming from but I wholeheartedly disagree. I could equally say that anyone over 35 shouldn't be listened to because they are generally set in their ways and in my experience no evidence will sway them. Let me add a couple of anecdotes to further illustrate my point.

* Back in 1992 (I was 9), the news regularly covered a 16 year old girl who was dying of a terminal illness. I will never forget to this day how mature, insightful and compassionate she was to the point they had to restrict the amount of visitors she got. She knew more about what it was to live and to die than almost everyone else and she bravely fought to her last day and the comfort she provided to adults was incredible even though she was the one who was dying.

* Around 1996 (14 years old) I was part of a email newsgroup (the precursor to message boards) for an NHL hockey team. I was probably one of the most respected posters on the site and looking back, while I didn't really understand things like contract negotiations, personal lives etc I had an unmatched ability to evaluate talent, set lineups and discuss potential new players. I am sure that an least one person on the team made note of what I said since the internet was quite small at the time and I wrote in a very professional tone. I eventually confessed my age and suddenly it was like I had leprosy! Nobody would discuss my points and any ideas I had were instantly shot down. I started acting more like a troll because I couldn't understand why nobody was paying attention to me: my ideas not my age were what should have been discussed!

I'm starting to ramble a bit but my point was how unbelievable it was that my age or position dictated how good my ideas were even if they were easily verifiable. I have also experience this is my career where my "laughable" or "stupid" ideas were later considered genius when someone higher up suggested them.

"Personalizing" is another common characteristic of autism also detailed in the same book. I also tend to "Personalize" things. Meaning, I can make assumptions that other's actions or inactions are in whole or in part directed toward me personally when in reality they're not. Example: "That car ahead of me in the queue is going far too slowly on purpose because the driver is probably enjoying the fact that he's making me late for work....."

It's frustrating to read all the comments here suggesting Greta lighten up a bit and stop catastrophising.
If you actually read up about climate change and what's going to happen, it is pretty catastrophic. Not something we should be allowing to happen through inaction.
Pacific island nations are going to be in serious strife, for one thing, with ocean level rise and more severe storms. We're going to lose all the coral this century (and many of our fish with it). Species that are on the edge of their range and have nowhere else to go will die out. Millions of people are likely to be displaced through drought and famine and the conflicts that will accompany them.
It's so sad - and without major action it looks to be an inevitable future. Why don't people care?

7

Tbh I agree with this

To be clear, my point isn't to say that there is or isn't a climate catastrophe. My point is that "catastrophizing" about anything can be irrational. Example: "I have a new pain in my abdomen. I think it's cancer!" Like firemonkey said, automatically going to the worst case scenario. The person very well may have cancer. The likelihood, however, is that they don't. If saying all humans as well as most other warm blooded mammals will literally be extinct in 15 years is catastrophizing and it doesn't happen, the discredit will further hurt the cause.

We should do something about climate change...but I don’t like to be browbeaten to “action.”

The problem is... Everyone recieves things differently. So, the way she is sending her message across now will work and help towards climate change for many people and for others it won't.

I personally think the way she's doing it is good as she needs to show anger and "catastrophise" (though not really because it actually could happen) for some people to listen and to make people aware that it could be a very bad turn out if we do nothing, alongside being young she needs to show understanding (which she does) so people don't use her age against her....

On the other hand some people no matter what will not recieve it well but that will always be the way no matter how she attempts to get the point across in my opinion

So she might as well keep going as she is

Yes, I take your point, that catastrophising in general can be problematic.
In the case of climate change, though, I think she is correct that we are looking at a severe problem. The science is there - so it's a bit like worrying about dying of cancer when you've actually had the tests done and know that you have Stage 4 cancer. Not exactly catastrophising in that case.
She hasn't said we're all going to be extinct in 15 years, though. No one is saying that.

Scientists should offer other possible scenarios (or at least publicize them) alongside the doomsday scenarios.

I’m not a climate change denier. I believe climate change is occurring. And I believe we should take action.

But I don’t like to be insulted for not totally believing in the doomsday scenarios.

I’m taking a plane tonight. And I’m eating meat right now.

But they do, Kraftie.

What they do is they take all the scientific observations and they feed it into their climate models and then extrapolate forward. And this is not just one climate model, there are different models used by different scientific organisations around the world, with each one trying to be the one who gets it right. And these models were started decades ago (because people have known about global warming since the middle of the last century), so there's been plenty of time to adjust the models as people have learnt more about climate change drivers, carbon sinks, albedo, feedback effects and the like. So now they're pretty advanced. So then they feed into these models different scenarios for future carbon emissions and see what comes out. What we get is data from multiple models under multiple scenarios. The UN IPCC takes that data and uses it to show the world the likely effects of those different scenarios to guide countries in setting appropriate emissions targets.

The unfortunate fact is, climate change has advanced even faster than was predicted. And even the best case scenario at the moment is looking pretty bleak.

And when people say it's a lot of money to spend on climate change... It makes me wonder... What they going to be spending their money on when things really do get bad because nothing was done

Money is worth nothing if we end up in a climate disaster, especially if it goes as far as getting very difficult to undo what's been done... (yes this sounds catastrophising but it is an actual poasibility)

And anyhow, what is so bad about making sure we take care of the literal one planet we can live on "just in case" and for the sake of conservation

There is action being taken. Maybe not enough, though.

I believe deniers like Trump are holding back progress.

I do believe elements in the Earth, if the mechanisms involved in climate change are reversed, can accelerate progress exponentially—more, perhaps, than is conceived by the models. I believe the natural world has the power to rejuvenate itself when, perhaps, given a boost by Humankind.

Nobody ever thought people would be fishing in the Hudson River in NYC...but they are!

Endangered species have been reintroduced—and some of are now flourishing where once extinction seemed inevitable.

Yes, we have to do something. What irks me is the statements of inevitability—that we are automatically doomed, no matter what.