The Greta Thunberg Debate

Post Reply New Topic

And we need to make a big fuss about it now, before we in the developed world are really feeling the effects, because of the 'locked in' warming that means things inevitably getting worse.
It's like the momentum of a train - if someone warns of an object on the line, do you apply the brakes straight away, or wait until you see it?
I think Greta is incredibly brave for trying to do the right thing, when so many politicians are copping out because they're under pressure from 90% of the passengers to keep the train moving, telling themselves the object on the line is probably just a leaf.

I wonder if one's degree of autistic sensitivity (hyper or hypo) comes into play in this debate. For me, being hypersensitive to chemicals, bad air, loud noises, etc. - the answer is obvious, and I would prefer a world that is less artificial, and more natural.

But many autistics are hypo-sensitive, perhaps not troubled by these things at all. In which case the need to maintain stability and familiar habits is more important. (That's true of me in certain ways - I try my best to be environmentally conscious, but make exceptions when autistic special needs come into play.)

It would surprise me, at any rate, if a biologically hypersensitive autistic is nonetheless advocating an increase in pollution and environmental destruction.

I admit to being more of an environmentalist than a humanist - caring more about the needs of innocent creatures of nature, than the species that has wreaked so much havoc on this planet.

The central premise appears to be that “science” says that the world is rapidly heading towards disaster and there is an “existential crisis” and a “climate emergency”. But is this true?

* All objective/empirical measures of human development (e.g., absolute poverty levels, life expectancy, share of the population that is undernourished, education…. ) have been improving consistently, particularly in poorer countries, over the past few decades.

* World food production (and per capita food consumption, productivity per acre) has been increasing consistently over the past few decades ). India has just announced another bumper year for food production.

* A related point is that ‘From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.’ So this could repair the Earth’s climate since green plants would absorb CO2.

* According to the IPCC AR5, Ch4, the UN body which assesses the evidence for and about climate change, there is little or no empirical evidence to suggest that the incidence of tropical and extra-tropical storms, floods and droughts have increased in recent decades. The more recent IPCC report (on Global Warming of 1.5 C) does not alter these conclusions but says that there is evidence now of increased incidence of warm days and nights. However, this report also projects that such extreme weather events will increase based on model projections. To me this does not sound like an “existential crisis”, certainly not by 2030.

* Though there are many claims that forest fires have been increasing, empirical evidence shows that there is no global trend. Increase of forest fires in the U.S. in the recent past has causes other than climate change.

* Deaths attributed to natural disasters have declined drastically over the past century – and because of increased prosperity and development though the financial losses have increased for the same reason.

* There is a lot of concern about sea level rise. However, sea levels have been rising consistently for at least 150 years but there have been many reports that they are rising faster in recent years. However, there are very credible assessments of data that show that the current level of rise of 3 mm/year are not abnormal.

* Of course if there are catastrophic events like the melting of Antarctic ice, that would be a serious problem but human intervention could neither cause it nor prevent it. Anyway, how likely is this? The average annual temperature of Antarctica ranges from about −10°C on the Antarctic coast to −60°C at the highest parts of the interior.

* Incidentally, polar bear populations have been increasing or are stable apart from in a handful of locations.

* Again incidentally, I have heard many people talking about CO2 as a pollutant or even a poison but the concentration of CO2 in one’s nostril when one breathes out is around 40,000 ppm or 100 times that in the atmosphere; in a closed lecture room it is around 1000 ppm. So how can it be a poison? Without CO2, no photosynthesis and no green plants.

So in summary, there is no empirical evidence that there is an “existential threat”. The world is a far better place in almost all countries not affected by war, compared to the past. Of course, there will be some consequences of increasing temperature because of increasing greenhouse gases but as economies grow, they will be better able to cope with these changes and for growth, you need affordable energy.

Source: IS THERE AN ‘EXISTENTIAL CRISIS’ AND A ‘CLIMATE EMERGENCY’ & CAN THE WORLD BE ‘CARBON NEUTRAL’ BY 2030?

Oh boy, I need to reply to that. In a minute.
First I just wanted to explain that it is not the threat of climate change per se that is causing anxiety.
It is this feeling:

I'm sitting on this fast train, maybe I'm in the first class carriage with my feet up doing the crossword, and I hear the signalman warn of a large object on the track ahead. But we're not slowing down. So I'm getting worried. And the person next to me is saying "don't you fret now, dear, pranksters are always claiming to put objects on the line, just for s**ts and giggles, there's nothing to worry about," and someone else says "even if it's there, we don't have concensus on how large this object is, it's probably just a leaf," and someone else says "If I miss this meeting I'm going to lose business, we can't possibly stop," so I appeal to the driver and he says "well, I could slow down a little, but only if the number 4 does so too, because I don't want it to get ahead of us."

Trauma comes not from worrying about a future event, but from anticipating a bad event in the future and not being listened to by the people with the power to prevent it.

I understand that very well.

Even though the object in front of the train is most likely harmless----the POTENTIAL that it might not be harmless is enough for somebody to take vigilant action, and find out what the object actually is.

I have read the points and agree with some and don't agree with others, however for a start we cannot go off just one webpage for information as they may have bias or wrong information, instead it must be compared to other research to heed its accuracy.

Lands may be getting greener and more crops growing (in certain areas, due to heat rise of course) however, if the heat rises too much and rain ceases, instead of flourishing, there will be famine and burnt crops which are not of use..it may seem good now, but would be it in the future?

Forest fires may not have changed in the US, but this is not the only place forest fires are happening. In counties that were already hot, such as Australia, forest fires have been increasingly bad and on that note, heat rise in countries that are cooler such as England, its not such a problem, but when heat rises in countries that are already struggling and suffering such as Africa, problems are posed, also certain times of year in Africa there are rains that make lakes that supply water at important times for animals that will be there at this time such as flamingo flocks... However rising temperatures means this is less likely to happen and water dries up faster... Which puts species at risk

Again other animals such as polar bears have been in decline and are endangered along with penguins and other antarctic animals... The ice, you are right. We cannot stop it melting, however we can slow the process if we don't allow temperatures to keep rising at the rate they are and keep the climate stable

Other sites claim, sea. Level has risen 5 to 8 inches since 1900 when it had pretty much not changed at all since 2000 years before

Co2 is needed of course, however with forest fires and deforestation, there is more than the atmosphere can handle as it is not all going into photosynthesis and plants, it's going into the atmosphere, luckily with works done so far the o zone layer has been steadily decreasing, but more needs to. Be done so that it doesn't increase again and so that we don't get locked in

I wouldn't say there was an existential threat, right at this moment, perhaps the numbers are off.. However it will be a threat in the future and it is best to ensure we take care of the planet before it becomes even more difficult than it is now, as we don't know if we can control it, essentially, as it will be in the future if we do nothing. We know that the earth and climate works at the temperature it is/was not too long ago and its safer to try and preserve it than try and change with it if that can even be done

So, you have some valid points but this is just a few statements that would disagree with them

Just gonna jump in real quick.
As someone whose thesis the past three years has been about the sixth mass extinction (Holocene Extinction) and whether or not we are currently living in it and also causing it, Im going to point out a few things.

1) Climate Change is not new. In fact, this is a totally normal thing for the planet to do. Extreme climate change has certainly happened in the past (cough *Ice Age* cough). The difference this time is that humans are simply making it worse and causing it to happen quicker than normal.

2) The PLANET is not "doomed". Again, its a pattern. The planet will essentially go through an extreme change that will (possibly) wipe out large amounts of life and then it will start over and try again. As it has done several times in the past. The Earth is quite capable of reviving itself if given the chance.

3) The HUMANS are in fact "doomed". Buts that not news. Every species has an expiration date. Homo sapiens were never going to last forever on Earth. They will eventually go extinct and allow the planet the chance to bounce back from the damage they have done to it.

4) Its totally acceptable to ask everyone to do their part. Because it would take barely any effort on most peoples part. While yes, eradicating the beef industry and making other drastic changes would certainly go a long way to help, there are other much smaller ways to help as well. Ones that barely would make any difference to your average every day life.

5) We ARE doing something already. In fact, we're doing quite a lot. There are so many amazing new innovations being designed and tested that could go a long way in helping that the average citizen is simply not aware of. There is so much happening world wide. Its just....not enough. We arent exactly sitting on our asses, but we could be doing so much more. And the average citizen needs to know of it.

On the topic of Greta herself, I appreciate her being brave enough to speak passionately about a topic she clearly cares a lot about. And I definitely think that the hate should be aimed at her words and not the girl herself. Because it is a debate, and there will always be an opposing side. And sure, she's a little doomsday and has a bit too much of a black and white view on things, but remember that could be her ASD talking. She's a little blunt and stuck in her viewpoint, but Im not surprised by that after learning about her. And sure, her parents are probably encouraging her and happy to soak up the fame and money, but I dont think they are necessarily forcing her to do anything. She seems plenty passionate on her own.

I like what you said, Grace.

Humans weren’t capable of changing the earth environment back 10,000 years ago.

Back then, the human population was a few million at most, as compared with 7.7 billion today.

We were just starting to have agriculture, and most agriculture at that time was not in forested areas...so very few trees cut down to clear for land.

There was nothing mechanized then, or run by anything but humans, animals, or fire....so no “greenhouse emissions.”

We were, mostly, harmonious members of Nature, though we did kill off woolly mammoths and such around that time.