Greta Thunberg's Groupie

[soon]

8 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I'm with Trump on this one. She is utterly evil that girl. 

Surely you jest?

[DieselDaisy]

3 minutes ago, soon said:

Surely you jest?

Looks like Wednesday Adams. Has a cult surrounding her. Evil I say.

[EvanG]

You have said a lot of stupid things on here, DieselDaisy, but now you really outdo yourself. Congratulations.

[soon]

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Looks like Wednesday Adams. Has a cult surrounding her. Evil I say.

She has a cult around her? Nah. 

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, soon said:

She has a cult around her? Nah. 

There were a bunch of her loonies carrying a sort of icon of her through the streets recently. I'll try and find the picture...

Edit,

Well this is different from the one I saw but,

Edited September 24, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

35 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I'm with Trump on this one. She is utterly evil that girl. 

You are with Trump on many issues, I am sure. 

[Download]

51 minutes ago, EvanG said:

Just when you think he can't sink any lower, he starts mocking a girl's speech that is more sincere than anything that has ever come out of his mouth.

 

Sincere speech? It was pure propaganda.

You have told this girl that she’s going to die due to climate change. The left wanted to publicly dox and publicly attacked and smeared a 16 yr old boy (Nick Sandmann) over his Lincoln memorial confrontation, but how dare the right make fun of 16 year old for talking nonsensical lefty climate change talking points? The level of hypocrisy is overwhelming, lol. 

The earth is 4.5 billion years old and we’re so self important that humans are going to destroy it? 

I don’t deny the climate is changing. I don’t deny humans don’t contribute but Nobody and I mean nobody has come up with a solution, and whenever you do come up with one, please provide a projection that can be narrower than the margin of error for the amount of worldwide government legislation that’s going to be shoved down everyone’s throats. 

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

16 minutes ago, Download said:

 

Sincere speech? It was pure propaganda.

You have told this girl that she’s going to die due to climate change. The left wanted to publicly dox and publicly attacked and smeared a 16 yr old boy (Nick Sandmann) over his Lincoln memorial confrontation, but how dare the right make fun of 16 year old for talking nonsensical lefty climate change talking points? The level of hypocrisy is overwhelming, lol. 

The earth is 4.5 billion years old and we’re so self important that humans are going to destroy it? 

I don’t deny the climate is changing. I don’t deny humans don’t contribute but Nobody and I mean nobody has come up with a solution, and whenever you do come up with one, please provide a projection that can be narrower than the margin of error for the amount of worldwide government legislation that’s going to be shoved down everyone’s throats. 

That's my thing, on one hand these climate change activists tell us how dire the situation is, but then they also intersect heavily with the open borders movement which proposes migrating million of poor people from low carbon third world countries into high carbon first world nations. It's utter nonsense! Also, where is the nuclear energy policy, they are silent on our best bet right now for a carbon free and high energy output solution.

What the climate change crowd is proposing now is essentially green austerity which will hit the working class the hardest.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Basic_GnR_Fan

[soon]

22 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

There were a bunch of her loonies carrying a sort of icon of her through the streets recently. I'll try and find the picture...

Edit,

Well this is different from the one I saw but,

That large scale puppet doesnt look like her to the extent that they felt the need to label her forehead, so in that sense I can see how this pic comes off odd.

This is partly down to the way that Gen Z, who are digital natives, understand social movements much the same way that they understand social media influencers. Thats her digital avatar sticker to them. It might look one way to your sensibilities and a completely other way to them. Its fascinating, really. 

However the main point to be made is that large scale puppets are rather common place in protest, especially in countries outside of our own, although the Scots got their Trump blimp. Its for media spectacle and culture (the creativity and tradition). The two primary organizing concerns are Brand and Pics 

 

 

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

Greta isn't evil, she's just an autistic child for goodness sake. What's evil is hiding behind an autistic child because she essentially gives you a human shield. An autistic girl provides victimhood voltage that you can politicize against your enemies. A very Machiavellian move, I must say. 

[rendestroi95]

13 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Greta isn't evil, she's just an autistic child for goodness sake. What's evil is hiding behind an autistic child because she essentially gives you a human shield. An autistic girl provides victimhood voltage that you can politicize against your enemies. A very Machiavellian move, I must say. 

Thank You.

The Brainwash on this thread is hilarious, just like her speech.

[Graeme]

No, what's evil is wilfully ignoring the largest peer-reviewed scientific consensus in human history and continuing to act like there is any ambiguity whatsoever over the fact that significant, destructive environmental change is happening and a continually expanding fossil-fuel based global economy is the cause.

[EvanG]

37 minutes ago, Download said:

It was pure propaganda.

Right.

[Download]

14 minutes ago, Graeme said:

No, what's evil is wilfully ignoring the largest peer-reviewed scientific consensus in human history and continuing to act like there is any ambiguity whatsoever over the fact that significant, destructive environmental change is happening and a continually expanding fossil-fuel based global economy is the cause.

What’s the solution? Shutting down fossil fuel based companies? Switch to what? Solar? How are you storing it? Wind? Countries have tried and you know what happens? Take a wild guess....

Still waiting on anyone to link some data to a projection that can actually be measured where the margin of error is small enough to actually see progress that could be made. 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Download

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

26 minutes ago, Graeme said:

No, what's evil is wilfully ignoring the largest peer-reviewed scientific consensus in human history and continuing to act like there is any ambiguity whatsoever over the fact that significant, destructive environmental change is happening and a continually expanding fossil-fuel based global economy is the cause.

That's not a reply to what I said. What are we going to do about it is where the rubber meets the road. Immigration, nuclear power. These are two pieces of the puzzle that have to be addressed. We aren't getting out of this by simply limiting beef consumption and using wind/solar.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Basic_GnR_Fan

[SoulMonster]

25 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

That's not a reply to what I said. What are we going to do about it is where the rubber meets the road. 

We are going to applaud brave girls like Thunberg who sets a global agenda, who forces us to discuss this issue, who challenges politicians and voters to do something - but most of all because she is a leading star among the young and it is them, not us, who will actually both find the solutions to this issue but will also have to live with the consequences if they don't.

Then we are, hopefully, going to vote for politicians who run on a platform of implementing policies that slow down the climate change, or even, hopefully, turn things around. Thunberg's message is that we are not doing enough today, and she is probably right. So hopefully, when the right solutions are presented, we, voters and politicians, will act.

The idea that current policies aren't good enough so we don't have to do anything, seems lazy to me and a cop-out from people who can't be bothered to recycle. Even slowing down climate change and making earth hospitable somewhat longer for future generations, is better than nothing. This is not an event with only discrete outcomes (failure or success); when total victory is unattainable we must settle for partial victory. And hopefully this extended runway will provide us with more solutions than what we might see today.

Edited September 24, 2019 by SoulMonster

[Graeme]

 

11 minutes ago, Download said:

What’s the solution? Shutting down fossil fuel based companies? Switch to what? Solar? How are you storing it? Wind? Countries have tried and you know what happens? Take a wild guess....

What's your solution? Business as usual? Continue to extract and burn fossil fuels at a continually growing rate until the finite resources cannot meet consumption demands and in the meantime continue to alter the atmosphere and the biosphere such that they make living conditions increasingly difficult - particularly for those in developing countries who, ironically, are least culpable for the whole situation?

My own country uses a combination of wind (onshore and offshore), solar, hydro and tidal and in the first quarter of 2019 generated enough electricity to power 88% of households for a year (74% of the whole country's demand), and that continues to grow. We're aiming for 100% of electricity consumption to be powered by those renewables in 2020 and 100% of total energy consumption by 2030.

The idea that those seeking an alternative to fossil fuel consumption have to present a holistic and flawless solution NOW, before we begin any sort of transition is ridiculous, this is a process that requires continual innovation and development, but that's not an excuse for ignoring it because we know what the problem is if we continue to do what we've been doing without making any effort to change.

[Lio]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

We are going to applaud brave girls like Thunberg who sets a global agenda, who forces us to discuss this issue, who challenges politicians and voters to do something - but most of all because she is a leading star among the young and it is them, not us, who will actually both find the solutions to this issue but will also have to live with the consequences if they don't.

Then we are, hopefully, going to vote for politicians who run on a platform of implementing policies that slow down the climate change, or even, hopefully, turn things around. Thunberg's message is that we are not doing enough today, and she is probably right. So hopefully, when the right solutions are presented, we, voters and politicians, will act.

The idea that current policies aren't good enough so we don't have to do anything, seems lazy to me and a cop-out from people who can't be bothered to recycle. Even slowing down climate change and making earth hospitable somewhat longer for future generations, is better than nothing. This is not an event with only discrete outcomes (failure or success); when total victory is unattainable we must settle for partial victory. And hopefully this extended runway will provide us with more solutions than what we might not see today.

I just don't like the hype around Greta. I admire her because of what she's doing, it's not that. But I hate that all the media are covering is Greta doing this, Greta doing that. Where are the scientists? Where are the solutions? When will we hear from them? Why is everyone listening to Greta, when she has no solutions? I mean, I'm not blaming her, but really, she's just saying the same over and over again and everyone's posting her speech, but meanwhile nothing at all is done. Or not that I can see. She's mainly preaching to the choir. The people applauding her are already aware of the problem. The others just find her annoying and make fun of her instead of addressing the problem.

So this is not against her at all, she can be a great example to young people in particular, inspiring them. I'm not saying she shouls shut up. But like she says herself, she has no solution. So please, let's hear more from scientists about possible viable solutions than another Greta speech, however right she is. Is there really no scientist who can convince or raise awareness with facts and graphs and such? Is a 16 year old girl the only one who can give a speech to raise awareness?

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

34 minutes ago, Graeme said:

 

What's your solution? Business as usual? Continue to extract and burn fossil fuels at a continually growing rate until the finite resources cannot meet consumption demands and in the meantime continue to alter the atmosphere and the biosphere such that they make living conditions increasingly difficult - particularly for those in developing countries who, ironically, are least culpable for the whole situation?

My own country uses a combination of wind (onshore and offshore), solar, hydro and tidal and in the first quarter of 2019 generated enough electricity to power 88% of households for a year (74% of the whole country's demand), and that continues to grow. We're aiming for 100% of electricity consumption to be powered by those renewables in 2020 and 100% of total energy consumption by 2030.

The idea that those seeking an alternative to fossil fuel consumption have to present a holistic and flawless solution NOW, before we begin any sort of transition is ridiculous, this is a process that requires continual innovation and development, but that's not an excuse for ignoring it because we know what the problem is if we continue to do what we've been doing without making any effort to change.

Thank you for asking. Let's actually get into the nitty gritty here.

My proposals would go something like this.

-Immigration moratorium (or severe restrictions) into high carbon countries. People and their energy/food needs are essentially the biggest driver of carbon emissions, makes no sense to add populations to countries that already have advanced/industrial economies

-Crash course on building new nuclear power plants with the most modern techniques for safety. This is our best best for a high energy output alternative to fossil fuels. Whatever needs beyond what nuclear can provide can be supplemented by wind/solar/hydro.

-Tax on beef, I'll give the climate change activists this one, you can't have 7 billion people eating cheeseburgers like the modern American does.

-And then, this isn't specific, but in general I favor a highly regulated, planned economy (I'm not a libertarian in this sense or a supporter of neoliberal capitalism). I support increasing our domestic regulation on companies externalities and bringing countries like China up to speed by forcing them out of the WTO if need be if they don't want to implement modern environmental standards.

Edit: including an extra tax on air travel on recommendation from DD!

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Basic_GnR_Fan

[soon]

So... if people in the Greta thread are sharing their opinions that more needs to be done, which are leaders currently aren’t doing, then we have definitive proof that Greta is effective. 

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, Lio said:

I just don't like the hype around Greta. I admire her because of what she's doing, it's not that. But I hate that all the media are covering is Greta doing this, Greta doing that. Where are the scientists? Where are the solutions? When will we hear from them? Why is everyone listening to Greta, when she has no solutions? 

The scientists are doing what they have been doing for the last 50 years or so, beavering away increasing our knowledge about climate change. It is not up to them, really, to necessarily present solutions. That being said, in the case of climate change they have done just that through, among others, the IPCC reports which is widely covered in the media, and specifically there are clear advice on how much reduction in emmision of greenhouse gases is required to halt climate change. The problem is not that we don't know this, but that most people don't care enough to elect politicians who will enforce such reductions (and instead we have our Trumps and Bolsaneros). Which is why Thunberg is so important, because she keeps climate change on the top of the agenda, forces public discourse, and forces us to take a stand. Of course she will be ridiculed and dismissed by us, that is a given, and we will likely not change our opinion because we now hear it from a young girl, if we haven't done so already, but I see that  younger generations, more flexible of mind and less likely to reject someone because of their age and sex, are standing behind her (at least in Norway), and that is heartwarming. 

[DieselDaisy]

If anyone was serious about the environment they'd ban cars. Cars and planes.

See? That is the elephant in the room. Nobody is willing to countenance doing without their gas guzzler or their two weeks in Magaluf, are they?

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

If anyone was serious about the environment they'd ban cars. Cars and planes.

See? That is the elephant in the room. Nobody is willing to countenance doing without their gas guzzler or their two weeks in Magaluf, are they?

Every liberal white woman just literally shook in fear at not being able to take their mandatory Machu Picchu picture for their instagram!

[DieselDaisy]

I mean Graeme there has been to Mexico and I don't believe for one second he went via rowing boat, whilst Soul has more air miles than Prince Harry. I bet they are not willing to forgo air travel in accordance with their beliefs. Same for all these champagne globe trotting celebs, vacuous actors and royals, who jet around on private jets to environmental functions. Emma Thompson there tucking into a sirloin steak in first class for crying out loud.

It is all a load of hypocritical bollocks. 

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

If anyone was serious about the environment they'd ban cars. Cars and planes.

See? That is the elephant in the room. Nobody is willing to countenance doing without their gas guzzler or their two weeks in Magaluf, are they?

Such a flawed logic. 

Anyway, people are willing to reduce their carbon emission. In Norway every 4th car sold now is an electric and the idea is that by 2025, 100 % will be electric. We also travel less with planes. And we cycle and walk more to work. We are making individual sacrifices not forced upon us. But going with your logic you might say, "why are we having pets?", "why are we keeping our houses warm?", and "why do we drink anything but water from the nearest creek if we were serious about climate change?" And the answer is that most people either don't care about future generations to make any changes to their lives or they expect that the governmental policies that are implemented will be sufficient and that we can still afford us some conveniences without this ruining everything.