Greta Thunberg is Simpal Cindy?
Discussion
Randy Winkman said:
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: I'm not sure the calling of a child "retard" and all the slightly creepy photos are going after the shadowy figures manipulating this poor young girl who you all seem so concerned about.
Exactly. I get the impression that most people who are "concerned" about her just want her to shut up.That one's easy to work out.
turbobloke said:
Randy Winkman said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I'm not sure the calling of a child "retard" and all the slightly creepy photos are going after the shadowy figures manipulating this poor young girl who you all seem so concerned about.
Exactly. I get the impression that most people who are "concerned" about her just want her to shut up.That one's easy to work out.
Randy Winkman said:
turbobloke said:
Randy Winkman said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I'm not sure the calling of a child "retard" and all the slightly creepy photos are going after the shadowy figures manipulating this poor young girl who you all seem so concerned about.
Exactly. I get the impression that most people who are "concerned" about her just want her to shut up.That one's easy to work out.
Greta is a victim. That's one aspect of this saga. Another is that the more extreme her rhetoric gets and the more of it there is, the easier it becomes for Workington Woman and Coventry Chap to do the sums and get the right answer. Melodrama is a catalyst in this process, we need more of that as well.
jshell said:
I think they're less angry at her than the obvious way that some influential and financially powerful people have weaponised and exploited a child for their own political gain...
I doubt that many middle aged men would allow their 16 year old daughter to cross the North Atlantic in Nov/Dec in a 14.5m catamaran with a family she's just met when at this time average wave swell is 3m/4m. Especially while they themselves travel in comfort - even if the woman is a professional !!turbobloke said:
Randy Winkman said:
turbobloke said:
Randy Winkman said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I'm not sure the calling of a child "retard" and all the slightly creepy photos are going after the shadowy figures manipulating this poor young girl who you all seem so concerned about.
Exactly. I get the impression that most people who are "concerned" about her just want her to shut up.That one's easy to work out.
Greta is a victim. That's one aspect of this saga. Another is that the more extreme her rhetoric gets and the more of it there is, the easier it becomes for Workington Woman and Coventry Chap to do the sums and get the right answer. Melodrama is a catalyst in this process, we need more of that as well.
Of course the other problem with all these doomsday cults is what happens when after 12 years and between 300 to 500 new Chinese coal fired power stations have been built, and we are all still here, watching Strictly on the box, commuting into work, having kids etc etc and nothing has happened. Indeed people are looking around at each other saying "WTF, surely billions should be dead by now. Ed Davey promised a climate catastrophy."
What usually happens at this juncture, is the cultists kill themselves. A self fulfilling prophecy.
Or will then just fade into obscurity?
drdel said:
jshell said:
I think they're less angry at her than the obvious way that some influential and financially powerful people have weaponised and exploited a child for their own political gain...
I doubt that many middle aged men would allow their 16 year old daughter to cross the North Atlantic in Nov/Dec in a 14.5m catamaran with a family she's just met when at this time average wave swell is 3m/4m. Especially while they themselves travel in comfort - even if the woman is a professional !!Tony427 said:
I believe that Greta really is victim and has been subject to abuse and situational programming to which her fragile mental state has left her without a defence mechanism. Manipulated and forced into ever more stressfull situations the poor girl will probably become even more mentally unstable than she is currently. The politicians didn't steal your childhood, your parents did.
Of course the other problem with all these doomsday cults is what happens when after 12 years and between 300 to 500 new Chinese coal fired power stations have been built, and we are all still here, watching Strictly on the box, commuting into work, having kids etc etc and nothing has happened. Indeed people are looking around at each other saying "WTF, surely billions should be dead by now. Ed Davey promised a climate catastrophy."
What usually happens at this juncture, is the cultists kill themselves. A self fulfilling prophecy.
Or will then just fade into obscurity?
Most of the believers will finish school and get a job, marry, have kids, buy ever more expensive EV's (extraction of rare metals is killing the planet) and wonder why they are being forced to invest in coal fired steam SUV's. This they will struggle with as Sky Fairy and Moon (their parents) spent the inheritance finding themselves in Tuscany when younger leaving Trinitarian and Storm-child to fund their care.Of course the other problem with all these doomsday cults is what happens when after 12 years and between 300 to 500 new Chinese coal fired power stations have been built, and we are all still here, watching Strictly on the box, commuting into work, having kids etc etc and nothing has happened. Indeed people are looking around at each other saying "WTF, surely billions should be dead by now. Ed Davey promised a climate catastrophy."
What usually happens at this juncture, is the cultists kill themselves. A self fulfilling prophecy.
Or will then just fade into obscurity?
Edited by Dont like rolls on Friday 15th November 20:29
Randy Winkman said:
drdel said:
jshell said:
I think they're less angry at her than the obvious way that some influential and financially powerful people have weaponised and exploited a child for their own political gain...
I doubt that many middle aged men would allow their 16 year old daughter to cross the North Atlantic in Nov/Dec in a 14.5m catamaran with a family she's just met when at this time average wave swell is 3m/4m. Especially while they themselves travel in comfort - even if the woman is a professional !!Helicopter123 said:
Randy Winkman said:
drdel said:
jshell said:
I think they're less angry at her than the obvious way that some influential and financially powerful people have weaponised and exploited a child for their own political gain...
I doubt that many middle aged men would allow their 16 year old daughter to cross the North Atlantic in Nov/Dec in a 14.5m catamaran with a family she's just met when at this time average wave swell is 3m/4m. Especially while they themselves travel in comfort - even if the woman is a professional !!McKitrick and Christy in Earth & Space Science (2018) show that the difference between actual data and agw climate model predictions is significant such that the agw null hypothesis must be rejected "the major hypothesis in contemporary climate models...is incorrect".
Varotsos and Efstathiou in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2019) "it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities"
Mao et al in Atmospheric and Climate Sciences (2019) show that 1880-2013 temperature changes fit extremely well into a calculation utilizing periodic functions of natural climate variation, the pape relegates any anthropogenic factor to a minor secondary role given that natural cycles are so dominant.
More where they came from, see links over in the Climate Politics thread.
Meanwhile back on topic, a freebie on a
https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/...
Randy Winkman said:
drdel said:
jshell said:
I think they're less angry at her than the obvious way that some influential and financially powerful people have weaponised and exploited a child for their own political gain...
I doubt that many middle aged men would allow their 16 year old daughter to cross the North Atlantic in Nov/Dec in a 14.5m catamaran with a family she's just met when at this time average wave swell is 3m/4m. Especially while they themselves travel in comfort - even if the woman is a professional !!turbobloke said:
Helicopter123 said:
Randy Winkman said:
drdel said:
jshell said:
I think they're less angry at her than the obvious way that some influential and financially powerful people have weaponised and exploited a child for their own political gain...
I doubt that many middle aged men would allow their 16 year old daughter to cross the North Atlantic in Nov/Dec in a 14.5m catamaran with a family she's just met when at this time average wave swell is 3m/4m. Especially while they themselves travel in comfort - even if the woman is a professional !!McKitrick and Christy in Earth & Space Science (2018) show that the difference between actual data and agw climate model predictions is significant such that the agw null hypothesis must be rejected "the major hypothesis in contemporary climate models...is incorrect".
Varotsos and Efstathiou in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2019) "it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities"
Mao et al in Atmospheric and Climate Sciences (2019) show that 1880-2013 temperature changes fit extremely well into a calculation utilizing periodic functions of natural climate variation, the pape relegates any anthropogenic factor to a minor secondary role given that natural cycles are so dominant.
More where they came from, see links over in the Climate Politics thread.
Meanwhile back on topic, a freebie on a
https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/...
Randy Winkman said:
I suspect most of the negativity on PH comes from those that don't support her aims. Happy to be proved wrong though.
I think most people would support her aims of moving away from a reliance on fossil fuels and the desire for a clean environment irrespective of AGW theories. She's definitely not the first to want that and the West began the process long before she was born. The problem is her hysterical claims that humanity is facing an existential crisis, that we must cut CO2 emissions at an improbable rate, that her childhood has been stolen from her and that her generation are suffering from the actions of previous generations.Her arguments are:
1) humanity is facing an existential crisis due to climate change
Is humanity really facing an existential crisis? Even if you side with the AGW argument, a degree or two of warming does not an existential crisis make.
For decades we've been given predictions of doom, of ice free polar caps, of children not knowing what snow is, etc etc and yet they stubbornly refuse to happen.
"Snowdon will be snow-free in 13 years, scientists warn" (The Independent, 18th January 2007). 13 years is just about up, how's that prediction going?
Claims that the end is nigh are nothing new but we're still here, as is the planet.
2) that the current generation of adults is responsible for climate change
The current generation, the generation before that, and the one before, and so on have each in turn been making massive improvements to the environment and to pollution thanks primarily to continuing technological advances built on the back of fossil fuels. Pollution existed long before fossil fuels and whilst they in turn have created pollution of their own, continued use of them has allowed us to clean up our environment to a degree unimaginable to inhabitants of cities 200, 500, 2000 years ago. Gone is the need for stepping stones in the street a la Pompeii to avoid treading in human waste, gone is the stench of Paris in the late 1800s caused by "the daunting volume of all organic matter produced, consumed and excreted by nearly a million Parisians — uneaten foodstuffs, animal hides, carcasses, dung, all human body fluids and solids", gone are the smogs of London that in 1952 killed between 8 and 12 thousand people. Our cities in the West are now cleaner and healthier than they ever have been. Her generation will in turn take that baton and continue to improve things, it's nothing new.
3) that climate change will have a disproportionate effect on young people
As will the benefits from the technological advances that fossil fuels have brought them such as lives free of hardship, penury and premature death. Global deaths from natural disasters have been declining over the last 100 years thanks to technology that would not exist without our use of fossil fuels.
4) too little is being done about the situation
All too easy to demand that "more must be done" without any consideration for the negative consequences of such actions. But then when you're 16 you don't need to concern yourself with the details, you don't need to provide answers, only stamp your feet and demand action. What would be the consequences if we did as she wished, how many people would die from cold and cold related illnesses? What of the poverty that would result and of the needless deaths as a consequence of that - her generation really would feel the effect of that.
Were it not for fossil fuels then population levels would be much much lower as would life expectancy. Were it not for fossil fuels there's a good chance Greta would never have been born, and even if she had then she may well have never reached her 5th birthday.
Were Greta lucky enough to survive to 16 there's a good chance she wouldn't be able to read or write and her life would be one of continuous struggle and hardship, working every daylight hour just to earn enough to eat. Much like the 3 billion people currently alive that live on less than $2.50 per day, but for whom she and her fellow activists would deny access to cheap energy to help lift them out of that poverty, all in the name of CO2.
Greta continues to ignore the most polluting countries whilst berating those that have done the most to switch to renewables. She berates previous generations for stealing her childhood whilst ignoring the position of privilege and wealth that she has been born into thanks to their efforts, one where she has never had to choose between fuel and food. She preaches to the converted and believes that it's making a difference. She creates discord between generations where there should be none. She creates anxiety and distress amongst her generation who she claims to stand for. She is not open to debate but would rather her critics be silenced.
She is a self absorbed, naive child that that can't see the sustainable wood for the trees. She is being used by others (including her parents) for political and financial gain. I pity her but that does not give her or those behind her a free pass when it comes to being criticised, parodied, mocked or satirised.
jagnet said:
Randy Winkman said:
I suspect most of the negativity on PH comes from those that don't support her aims. Happy to be proved wrong though.
I think most people would support her aims of moving away from a reliance on fossil fuels and the desire for a clean environment irrespective of AGW theories. She's definitely not the first to want that and the West began the process long before she was born. The problem is her hysterical claims that humanity is facing an existential crisis, that we must cut CO2 emissions at an improbable rate, that her childhood has been stolen from her and that her generation are suffering from the actions of previous generations.Her arguments are:
1) humanity is facing an existential crisis due to climate change
Is humanity really facing an existential crisis? Even if you side with the AGW argument, a degree or two of warming does not an existential crisis make.
For decades we've been given predictions of doom, of ice free polar caps, of children not knowing what snow is, etc etc and yet they stubbornly refuse to happen.
"Snowdon will be snow-free in 13 years, scientists warn" (The Independent, 18th January 2007). 13 years is just about up, how's that prediction going?
Claims that the end is nigh are nothing new but we're still here, as is the planet.
2) that the current generation of adults is responsible for climate change
The current generation, the generation before that, and the one before, and so on have each in turn been making massive improvements to the environment and to pollution thanks primarily to continuing technological advances built on the back of fossil fuels. Pollution existed long before fossil fuels and whilst they in turn have created pollution of their own, continued use of them has allowed us to clean up our environment to a degree unimaginable to inhabitants of cities 200, 500, 2000 years ago. Gone is the need for stepping stones in the street a la Pompeii to avoid treading in human waste, gone is the stench of Paris in the late 1800s caused by "the daunting volume of all organic matter produced, consumed and excreted by nearly a million Parisians — uneaten foodstuffs, animal hides, carcasses, dung, all human body fluids and solids", gone are the smogs of London that in 1952 killed between 8 and 12 thousand people. Our cities in the West are now cleaner and healthier than they ever have been. Her generation will in turn take that baton and continue to improve things, it's nothing new.
3) that climate change will have a disproportionate effect on young people
As will the benefits from the technological advances that fossil fuels have brought them such as lives free of hardship, penury and premature death. Global deaths from natural disasters have been declining over the last 100 years thanks to technology that would not exist without our use of fossil fuels.
4) too little is being done about the situation
All too easy to demand that "more must be done" without any consideration for the negative consequences of such actions. But then when you're 16 you don't need to concern yourself with the details, you don't need to provide answers, only stamp your feet and demand action. What would be the consequences if we did as she wished, how many people would die from cold and cold related illnesses? What of the poverty that would result and of the needless deaths as a consequence of that - her generation really would feel the effect of that.
Were it not for fossil fuels then population levels would be much much lower as would life expectancy. Were it not for fossil fuels there's a good chance Greta would never have been born, and even if she had then she may well have never reached her 5th birthday.
Were Greta lucky enough to survive to 16 there's a good chance she wouldn't be able to read or write and her life would be one of continuous struggle and hardship, working every daylight hour just to earn enough to eat. Much like the 3 billion people currently alive that live on less than $2.50 per day, but for whom she and her fellow activists would deny access to cheap energy to help lift them out of that poverty, all in the name of CO2.
Greta continues to ignore the most polluting countries whilst berating those that have done the most to switch to renewables. She berates previous generations for stealing her childhood whilst ignoring the position of privilege and wealth that she has been born into thanks to their efforts, one where she has never had to choose between fuel and food. She preaches to the converted and believes that it's making a difference. She creates discord between generations where there should be none. She creates anxiety and distress amongst her generation who she claims to stand for. She is not open to debate but would rather her critics be silenced.
She is a self absorbed, naive child that that can't see the sustainable wood for the trees. She is being used by others (including her parents) for political and financial gain. I pity her but that does not give her or those behind her a free pass when it comes to being criticised, parodied, mocked or satirised.
Randy Winkman said:
jagnet said:
Randy Winkman said:
So you seem to be in the "she should shut up" camp?
Really? That's what you took from that? No, quite the opposite. The more she speaks the more people can see her ambitions (in reality, those of her backers) for what they really are. My only wish is that many of those in the media and those charged with running their respective countries for the benefit of the people that elected them would occasionally apply a little critical thought to what's being asked.
Of Greta I would only ask that she perhaps thinks a little about what her life would currently be like if we hadn't been burning fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution, whether she really would prefer that alternative to a little CO2, and to remind herself what a privilege it is that she has the opportunity to worry about CO2 rather than how she's going to survive another day and another winter. There's many in the world that would happily swap their worries for hers.
Edited by jagnet on Saturday 16th November 09:40
Randy Winkman said:
jagnet said:
Randy Winkman said:
I suspect most of the negativity on PH comes from those that don't support her aims. Happy to be proved wrong though.
I think most people would support her aims of moving away from a reliance on fossil fuels and the desire for a clean environment irrespective of AGW theories. She's definitely not the first to want that and the West began the process long before she was born. The problem is her hysterical claims that humanity is facing an existential crisis, that we must cut CO2 emissions at an improbable rate, that her childhood has been stolen from her and that her generation are suffering from the actions of previous generations.Her arguments are:
1) humanity is facing an existential crisis due to climate change
Is humanity really facing an existential crisis? Even if you side with the AGW argument, a degree or two of warming does not an existential crisis make.
For decades we've been given predictions of doom, of ice free polar caps, of children not knowing what snow is, etc etc and yet they stubbornly refuse to happen.
"Snowdon will be snow-free in 13 years, scientists warn" (The Independent, 18th January 2007). 13 years is just about up, how's that prediction going?
Claims that the end is nigh are nothing new but we're still here, as is the planet.
2) that the current generation of adults is responsible for climate change
The current generation, the generation before that, and the one before, and so on have each in turn been making massive improvements to the environment and to pollution thanks primarily to continuing technological advances built on the back of fossil fuels. Pollution existed long before fossil fuels and whilst they in turn have created pollution of their own, continued use of them has allowed us to clean up our environment to a degree unimaginable to inhabitants of cities 200, 500, 2000 years ago. Gone is the need for stepping stones in the street a la Pompeii to avoid treading in human waste, gone is the stench of Paris in the late 1800s caused by "the daunting volume of all organic matter produced, consumed and excreted by nearly a million Parisians — uneaten foodstuffs, animal hides, carcasses, dung, all human body fluids and solids", gone are the smogs of London that in 1952 killed between 8 and 12 thousand people. Our cities in the West are now cleaner and healthier than they ever have been. Her generation will in turn take that baton and continue to improve things, it's nothing new.
3) that climate change will have a disproportionate effect on young people
As will the benefits from the technological advances that fossil fuels have brought them such as lives free of hardship, penury and premature death. Global deaths from natural disasters have been declining over the last 100 years thanks to technology that would not exist without our use of fossil fuels.
4) too little is being done about the situation
All too easy to demand that "more must be done" without any consideration for the negative consequences of such actions. But then when you're 16 you don't need to concern yourself with the details, you don't need to provide answers, only stamp your feet and demand action. What would be the consequences if we did as she wished, how many people would die from cold and cold related illnesses? What of the poverty that would result and of the needless deaths as a consequence of that - her generation really would feel the effect of that.
Were it not for fossil fuels then population levels would be much much lower as would life expectancy. Were it not for fossil fuels there's a good chance Greta would never have been born, and even if she had then she may well have never reached her 5th birthday.
Were Greta lucky enough to survive to 16 there's a good chance she wouldn't be able to read or write and her life would be one of continuous struggle and hardship, working every daylight hour just to earn enough to eat. Much like the 3 billion people currently alive that live on less than $2.50 per day, but for whom she and her fellow activists would deny access to cheap energy to help lift them out of that poverty, all in the name of CO2.
Greta continues to ignore the most polluting countries whilst berating those that have done the most to switch to renewables. She berates previous generations for stealing her childhood whilst ignoring the position of privilege and wealth that she has been born into thanks to their efforts, one where she has never had to choose between fuel and food. She preaches to the converted and believes that it's making a difference. She creates discord between generations where there should be none. She creates anxiety and distress amongst her generation who she claims to stand for. She is not open to debate but would rather her critics be silenced.
She is a self absorbed, naive child that that can't see the sustainable wood for the trees. She is being used by others (including her parents) for political and financial gain. I pity her but that does not give her or those behind her a free pass when it comes to being criticised, parodied, mocked or satirised.
She doesn't do that, I'd be happy if she did. She won't though, maybe with an earpiece.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff