|
Post by pg13 on Sept 30, 2019 0:14:11 GMT
Here's an example of Greta's doomsday rubbish:
"Why should I be studying for a future that soon may be no more, when no one is doing anything to save that future?"
"I want you to act as if the house is on fire, because it is."
Let's hear from an actual scientist:
“I’m willing to bet you a lot of money, a million dollars, that in 12 years there will still be human beings on the planet. There’s no cliff, but there's for sure a slope." - Dr Marvel is an associate research scientist at Columbia University and the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.
Who exactly am I going to listen to?
Greta Thunberg who is so obsessed with the end of the world that she willfully exaggerates and distorts the actual picture?
Or Dr Kate Marvel who actually studies climate change for a living? 🙄
From what I can see, a lot of people are reacting to Greta's constant doomsday statements - badly as well. There is no scientific evidence to support that.
And kids are increasingly needing counselling for eco-anxiety as a result of doomsday guff such as Greta's.
There is no cliff. But there is a slope.
Is Greta helping people understand the science of climate change?
I have to say NO. Instead, she's senationalising it which is not a good idea.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2019 7:59:47 GMT
Here's an example of Greta's doomsday rubbish: "Why should I be studying for a future that soon may be no more, when no one is doing anything to save that future?" "I want you to act as if the house is on fire, because it is." Let's hear from an actual scientist: “I’m willing to bet you a lot of money, a million dollars, that in 12 years there will still be human beings on the planet. There’s no cliff, but there's for sure a slope." - Dr Marvel is an associate research scientist at Columbia University and the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. Who exactly am I going to listen to? Greta Thunberg who is so obsessed with the end of the world that she willfully exaggerates and distorts the actual picture? Or Dr Kate Marvel who actually studies climate change for a living? 🙄 From what I can see, a lot of people are reacting to Greta's constant doomsday statements - badly as well. There is no scientific evidence to support that. And kids are increasingly needing counselling for eco-anxiety as a result of doomsday guff such as Greta's. There is no cliff. But there is a slope. Is Greta helping people understand the science of climate change? I have to say NO. Instead, she's senationalising it which is not a good idea. She's got people talking about it at least. No issue with her whatsoever myself.
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Sept 30, 2019 8:26:59 GMT
Here's an example of Greta's doomsday rubbish: "Why should I be studying for a future that soon may be no more, when no one is doing anything to save that future?" "I want you to act as if the house is on fire, because it is." Let's hear from an actual scientist: “I’m willing to bet you a lot of money, a million dollars, that in 12 years there will still be human beings on the planet. There’s no cliff, but there's for sure a slope." - Dr Marvel is an associate research scientist at Columbia University and the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. Who exactly am I going to listen to? Greta Thunberg who is so obsessed with the end of the world that she willfully exaggerates and distorts the actual picture? Or Dr Kate Marvel who actually studies climate change for a living? 🙄 From what I can see, a lot of people are reacting to Greta's constant doomsday statements - badly as well. There is no scientific evidence to support that. And kids are increasingly needing counselling for eco-anxiety as a result of doomsday guff such as Greta's. There is no cliff. But there is a slope. Is Greta helping people understand the science of climate change? I have to say NO. Instead, she's senationalising it which is not a good idea. She's got people talking about it at least. No issue with her whatsoever myself. Is that all? Does the ends really justify the means, especially when we have an increase in kids seeking metal health help as a result of listening to Greta's doomsday rubbish? And it IS rubbish. "The world is not going to end in 2030, even if we fail to avoid 1.5 degrees of warming. But we should still do the best we can, because the more we reduce emissions, the less the planet will warm and the less people will suffer.” - Simon Donner, a climatologist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. Once again, Greta's doomsday rants is not supported by the science. What's she's really trying to do is to manipulate people into doing things the way she manipulated her own family by refusing to eat amongst other things. We talk a lot here about media manipulation regarding MJ, but Greta seems to get a pass for her manipulation which has extended out from within her own family. Rhetoric like Greta's is NOT remotely helpful at all. She's both counterproductive and distorting the actual facts according to science. There is no impending apocalypse.
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Sept 30, 2019 9:05:02 GMT
I feel sorry for her. People do not seem to realize that this is not an average child, who just happens to be very passionate about climate change. This is a girl with Asperger's and OCD. Her UN speech is being lauded for its passionate delivery, but imo what's on display there is genuine fear and anxiety. Not the type that the average person may feel about issues they care about - the type you feel strongly about but that does not wholly consume you - but the type stemming from the obsessiveness that characterizes her developmental disorder. Her obsession with climate change was cited as being a big part of the reason why she became severely depressed, stopped eating and going to school, and refused to speak to anyone outside of her family and a teacher, when she was 11. All alarm bells should have gone off at that point, and she should have been protected. Instead, she was hoisted into the spotlight. All the attention she is receiving now, both the negative (ridiculous mockery etc) and positive, won't do her any good imo. I feel she's being exploited. Once again, absolutely correct in saying Greta is afraid. This entire thing of hers is really about herself as opposed to the planet. It's about HER fears. She wants people to feel HER fear. Her Aspergers is key in this because it causes her to obsess in an unhealthy way. And that is now affecting children around the world. Her doomsday guff isn't supported by the science, but that isn't getting in the way of a good story that's making her famous, making millions for newspapers and affecting children's mental health negatively. Apparently, she's been nominated for a Nobel Prize?? 🤔
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2019 10:13:55 GMT
She's got people talking about it at least. No issue with her whatsoever myself. Is that all? Does the ends really justify the means, especially when we have an increase in kids seeking metal health help as a result of listening to Greta's doomsday rubbish? And it IS rubbish. "The world is not going to end in 2030, even if we fail to avoid 1.5 degrees of warming. But we should still do the best we can, because the more we reduce emissions, the less the planet will warm and the less people will suffer.” - Simon Donner, a climatologist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. Once again, Greta's doomsday rants is not supported by the science. What's she's really trying to do is to manipulate people into doing things the way she manipulated her own family by refusing to eat amongst other things. We talk a lot here about media manipulation regarding MJ, but Greta seems to get a pass for her manipulation which has extended out from within her own family. Rhetoric like Greta's is NOT remotely helpful at all. She's both counterproductive and distorting the actual facts according to science. There is no impending apocalypse. I don't feel that strong about her either way to be honest. All I know is I'm a little more mindful because of her anyway.
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Sept 30, 2019 13:50:42 GMT
Another example of Greta Thunberg's ridiculous rhetoric which she gave at the UN a few days ago:
"We are in the beginning of a mass extinction."
And here's what an expert in mass extinction says:
“People who claim we’re in the sixth mass extinction don’t understand enough about mass extinctions to understand the logical flaw in their argument. To a certain extent they’re claiming it as a way of frightening people into action, when in fact, if it’s actually true we’re in a sixth mass extinction, then there’s no point in conservation biology.
“If we’re really in a mass extinction—if we’re in the [End- Permian mass extinction 252 million years ago]—go get a case of scotch." - Smithsonian paleontologist Doug Erwin.
In other words, stop allowing a 16 year old child to manipulate your emotions. And start thinking for yourself.
By the, Erwin is NOT saying we don't need to be more environmentally friendly. He believes rhetoric like Greta's is very unhelpful and scientists have a duty to be accurate.
Greta is merely an activist who doesn't consider the bigger picture.
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Sept 30, 2019 17:50:58 GMT
Why should any adults believe this child? What credentials does she have? Anyone with an ounce of sense can see that this kid, who has zero scientific training and some mental health issues, is obviously being used as a mouthpiece. Aspergers is a condition, not "mental health issues." It's not mutually exclusive as Aspergers is in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5 (DSM-5). Greta does have what Russ G referred to as "some mental health issues" which is demonstrated by her sudden refusal to eat aged 8 as well as her refusal to speak to people other than her family and a single teacher. Russ didn't even refer to Aspergers specifically anyway.
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Oct 1, 2019 14:09:24 GMT
I think she's awesome. She's bringing lots of attention towards climate change, and has inspired millions of people around the globe to protest and make their voices heard. I'm glad that even at 16 years old, she's not afraid to stand up at the UN and call out all of the leaders for their inaction. I find it bizarre why so many people are against her and her message. See, I totally believe that gay marriage should be legalised everywhere, I also support a woman's right to abortion but I can also see where people who disagree with me come from. I understand that homosexuality may be against their religious beliefs, or that they see abortion as the act of killing a living being. I can see where they're coming from. But the fight for climate change? Why would you be against trying to help the environment? Heaven forbid all the big corporations have to spend more as a result of legislation that could significantly help us in the future 🙄 Heaven forbid we actually heed the word of scientists and work towards making this planet better? Why should any adults believe this child? What credentials does she have? Anyone with an ounce of sense can see that this kid, who has zero scientific training and some mental health issues, is obviously being used as a mouthpiece. I think what most people really object to regarding Greta Thunberg and her rhetoric is the way she pushes a mass extinction narrative. Doom and gloom ultimately creates pushback, especially when you realise it's nonsense. A mass extinction hasn't already started. If it has, then conservation efforts are absolutely pointless. But conservation isn't pointless precisely because mass extinction has NOT occurred yet. And won't for thousands of years to come. "Hull and other researchers may object to the term “sixth mass extinction” because it implies that scientists have made a reliable comparison between past mass extinctions and present ecosystem conditions using fossil records. But the researchers do not deny that we are living through a time of massive ecological change — caused mainly by us." And: "She claims that human beings cannot last another geologic period, tens of thousands of years, if they keep up their destructive activities." www.yalescientific.org/2016/04/is-time-running-out-scientists-rethink-the-idea-of-mass-extinction/So, humans will be around for thousands of years yet. But won't last tens of thousands of years if we keep being destructive. All of the science demonstrates the absurdity of Greta Thunberg talking as though we're already in a mass extinction and how the planet will be utterly destroyed in the next century! Climate change is one thing and not the same thing as a mass extinction. The science supports climate change. But it does not support Greta's mass extinction crap. Simple as that. The irony being that Greta says we should listen to scientists when she ignores the fact that science doesn't support her mass extinction is happening NOW narrative. See the several scientists already sourced in previous posts.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Oct 1, 2019 16:28:25 GMT
I think the reason why Greta got so much backlash was the style, the hyperbole and playing victim while she is very privileged. Gad Saad here puts her entitled rant well into a perspective.
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Oct 1, 2019 17:18:32 GMT
Do we really need drastic action now according to Greta and Extinction Rebellion? Both of whom use wildly inflammatory, emotive language unsupported by science? Meanwhile: "Lost amid the coverage of Swedish teen activist Greta Thunberg at last week’s U.N. Global Climate Summit were the 500 international scientists, engineers and other stakeholders sounding a very different message: “There is no climate emergency.” The European Climate Declaration, spearheaded by the Amsterdam-based Climate Intelligence Foundation [CLINTEL], described the leading climate models as “unfit” and urged UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to pursue a climate policy based on “sound science.” www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/29/scientists-tell-un-global-climate-summit-no-emerge/Didn't Greta Thunberg say to listen to the scientists? 🙄
|
|
TonyR
The Legend Continues
Posts: 8,393
|
Post by TonyR on Oct 1, 2019 18:55:17 GMT
My general rule of thumb on this is that this who choose to deride, patronise, put down and laugh at a 16 year old trying her best to change the world and make it better for generations to come are generally cunts.
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Oct 1, 2019 19:23:58 GMT
My general rule of thumb on this is that this who choose to deride, patronise, put down and laugh at a 16 year old trying her best to change the world and make it better for generations to come are generally cunts. My general rule of thumb is that those who are wilfully blind to the science and encourage the widespread perpetuation of unsupported claims, hyperbole and lies are generally thundercunts. Especially when they cause mental health issues for others very unnecessarily. Facts trump emotional claims, especially claims borne out of fear. There is no mass extinction occurring as Greta Thunberg keeps pushing as does Extinction Rebellion. Let me finish on this interesting point: "There is no doubt that the rate at which species are dying out is very high, and we could well be in for a ‘Big Sixth’ mass extinction. Yet, we also know that the Big Five mass extinctions of the past half billion years ultimately led to increases in diversity. This does not let us off the hook – species are genuinely dying out – but it does mean that we should not regard change per se as negative. We should perhaps think of ourselves as inmates and moulders of a dynamic, changing world, rather than as despoilers of a formerly pristine land.” - evolutionary biologist Chris Thomas, of the University of York. Quite.
|
|
|
Post by Snow White on Oct 1, 2019 20:58:14 GMT
I'd rather listen to what scientists have to say because they've studied more on the subject than regular people including Greta. I haven't studied in depth about climate change but instilling paranoia and fear mongering is not the right approach to do something against climate change.
I may be cruel but the only difference between those batshit crazy religious people predicting the Armageddon and Greta is that she doesn't use the religious crap. Maybe it's her multiple conditions talking but if she's in such a mental fragile state, she shouldn't be in the spotlight.
|
|
TonyR
The Legend Continues
Posts: 8,393
|
Post by TonyR on Oct 1, 2019 21:16:31 GMT
I'd rather listen to what scientists have to say because they've studied more on the subject than regular people including Greta. I haven't studied in depth about climate change but instilling paranoia and fear mongering is not the right approach to do something against climate change. I may be cruel but the only difference between those batshit crazy religious people predicting the Armageddon and Greta is that she doesn't use the religious crap. Maybe it's her multiple conditions talking but if she's in such a mental fragile state, she shouldn't be in the spotlight. She wants you to listen to the scientists. That's exactly what shes saying
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Oct 1, 2019 22:20:16 GMT
|
|