|
|
Post by pg13 on Oct 1, 2019 22:26:17 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. Bingo! You're absolutely right on that and here's a study demonstrating exactly what you said: "Results indicate that stories with a solution focus were more effective in motivating proenvironmental intentions than catastrophic stories." www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/eco.2019.0023?journalCode=ecoWe've already had half a century of doomsday claims from some scientists such as Paul Erlich who then had to really, really downgrade his 1962 apocalyptic message because it didn't even come true! 🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Oct 1, 2019 22:35:20 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 Problem with Greta Thunberg is that she's literally cherry picking science on the issue. There's no doubt that science absolutely supports climate change and human driven ecological problems, including species extinction. But the science DOESN'T support Greta's mass extinction narrative. It simply doesn't support her impending doom narrative at all. Since Greta Thunberg openly admits she wants people to literally feel fear because she feels fear, we can conclude she believes that an apocalyptic message will help in her quest to help the environment. But she's very wrong on that. "Results indicate that stories with a solution focus were more effective in motivating proenvironmental intentions than catastrophic stories." www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/eco.2019.0023?journalCode=ecoNot only is it counterproductive to do, but it's blatantly manipulative as well. Especially when the science doesn't support her mass extinction narrative in the first place. If that makes me a cunt, then I'd rather be a cunt who thinks for himself based on the facts according to science than to allow some 16 year old child to emotionally manipulate me into freaking out about the impending doom according to St Greta! Promote environmental responsibility by all means. But don't lie or distort the science into something it doesn't even support. It's that simple. |
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Oct 1, 2019 23:06:14 GMT
To add to the above and to make people think: www.nbcnews.com/health/mental-health/climate-grief-growing-emotional-toll-climate-change-n946751Yep, a climate psychiatrist is a thing now as are grieving groups dealing with grief over the climate or Armageddon. The more people talk, the better able they are to deal with challenges. But that doesn't justify scaring the shit out of people. The more people research climate change, the more they'll realise that the subject is extremely complicated. And, crucially, that Armageddon is NOT upon us. Doom and gloom such as Greta Thunberg's simply does nothing to advance the cause of environmental responsibility. It paralyses people. It turns them off. Demoralises them. Saps them off energy. Exactly what you don't want to have happen. Especially in a much touted emergency situation. It's really sad to hear about adults and children suffering mentally due to irresponsible Armageddon rhetoric being popularised by the likes of Greta Thunberg. |
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Oct 2, 2019 2:12:41 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. IMO there is nothing wrong in calling out harmful climate alarmism. I generally think it is wrong to use children to shield yourself from criticism. IMO the use of Greta is very strategic, exactly because they can make people feel bad about criticising a "child". I find it actually a bit manipulative. But IMO once Greta stepped on the public stage, she opened herself to criticism and IMO that's fair. If she's talking nonsense call her out. She's 16,not 5. I also think it's fair to mention her mental illness because it's very likely to be a big factor in how she distorts the climate change message in her mind into this extreme fear mongering that she preaches out of her own extreme fears. Hell, she herself talked about how her Aspergers is a likely factor in her persistence. Only she considers it a strength. I'm not sure I agree with that part. It can make you extreme in ways that are just not healthy. |
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Oct 2, 2019 2:25:57 GMT
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. That's exactly how it sounds. Interestingly every religion grows rapidly when it preaches doomsday. Christianity started out as a doomsday cult ("Jesus is coming back soon and then the world ends in Armageddon in an epic world war). Fundamentalist Christians are until today waiting for doomsday to come "any day now" and they are the fastest growing branch of Christianity. ISIS too is basically a doomsday cult within Islam who think the end is near. It seems the secular West found its own doomsday cult now. Fear is a powerful tool. In religion fear works the best in recruiting new members. But it creates fanatics and extremists. We do need to make changes to protect the climate, but climate alarmism starts becoming very cult-like now that in many ways reminds me of doomsday religions. |
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Oct 2, 2019 3:00:29 GMT
To add to the above and to make people think: www.nbcnews.com/health/mental-health/climate-grief-growing-emotional-toll-climate-change-n946751Yep, a climate psychiatrist is a thing now as are grieving groups dealing with grief over the climate or Armageddon. The more people talk, the better able they are to deal with challenges. But that doesn't justify scaring the shit out of people. The more people research climate change, the more they'll realise that the subject is extremely complicated. And, crucially, that Armageddon is NOT upon us. Doom and gloom such as Greta Thunberg's simply does nothing to advance the cause of environmental responsibility. It paralyses people. It turns them off. Demoralises them. Saps them off energy. Exactly what you don't want to have happen. Especially in a much touted emergency situation. It's really sad to hear about adults and children suffering mentally due to irresponsible Armageddon rhetoric being popularised by the likes of Greta Thunberg. After I deconverted from fundamentalist Christianity, for a while I attended I message board for ex-Christians where they could talk about issues only they understand. It was a recurring theme in the testimonies how cruel of Christianity it is to indoctrinate children into believing that the world can end "any day now". How this message filled their childhood with constant fear and anxiety. How this made them unmotivated to seek education, pursue a career etc. because why bother if it all ends soon? So this is the kind of harm doomsday fear mongering can do to people. It has very real effects on people's life. Greta transmitting her own unhealthy fears to others is not cute. She is a victim of her own obsessive condition and thoughts, but it's not OK that it's portrayed as a good thing and she is enabled in transmitting that unhealthy fear onto others, especially onto impressionable children. I read it too that anxiety because of climate change (or better to say because of the doomsday scenarios in the media) is a real psychological condition now. That there are more and more people who go into therapy for this. So the doomsday message can have a very real effect on people. I also think the media does not do us any favors when they use any natural phenomenon as "evidence" of climate change. A big hurricane hits? Climate change. A heatwave? Climate change. Etc. And this just doesn't work this way. You can't say an individual weather phenomenon is a proof of climate change in itself, let alone man made climate change. There is climate change, there is warming, but I find it annoying how the media declares every individual weather phenomenon a result of climate change now. |
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Oct 2, 2019 8:49:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by HIStoric on Oct 2, 2019 11:04:46 GMT
I have to say, I still feel the same way about her as I did entering this thread. People can argue back and forth about the specific speech she uses, or whether climate change is man-made or not, but at the end of the day Greta has directly inspired millions of people to speak up and protest all over the world for a message that - at it's core - is important and something needs to be better worked on. Her UN speech has garnered a shit load of attention for climate change and still is making headlines a week and a half later (which, in this day and age of people moving on within a day or two isn't bad). Even if people try to focus on other things, Greta has become the face or poster child for the youth and climate change. Every time her face or name is published, it's only bringing the issue of climate change back to people's minds - even if the article tries to focus on other things.
I think the more extreme sides of her various speeches is a pretty valid issue to bring up... like actually, one of the few legitimate issues I've seen people brought up with her so I'm glad people are actually discussing it here. It's not one I've seen brought up too much though (though one's mileage may vary I'm sure).
I've been thinking about it as I've skimmed over this thread for a few days and honestly? If it actually results in good proper change by those in power... it might be one of those cases where the ends justify the means. Yes yes I know I know - dangerous thing to walk - there is the possibility of pushback like has been mentioned before... but at the same time, I feel like scientists have been speaking more objectively about this situation for a while now and yet only so much has actually been done. Some places have even gone backwards already (I'm looking at you Trump). It's not that typical for extreme drastic changes to happen overnight anyway, so if more emotional speak instead bumps things in the right direction... then it's quite possible the ends could justify the means. I'm cautiously optimistic when it comes to that, but I can see why some of you have issues with that at the same time.
I don't expect her to be perfect and evidently she isn't, but when I look at the bigger picture, I see her inspiring good, and people speaking out for an issue that does need to be dealt with better.
|
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Oct 2, 2019 11:53:29 GMT
I've been thinking about it as I've skimmed over this thread for a few days and honestly? If it actually results in good proper change by those in power... it might be one of those cases where the ends justify the means. Yes yes I know I know - dangerous thing to walk - there is the possibility of pushback like has been mentioned before... but at the same time, I feel like scientists have been speaking more objectively about this situation for a while now and yet only so much has actually been done. Some places have even gone backwards already (I'm looking at you Trump). It's not that typical for extreme drastic changes to happen overnight anyway, so if more emotional speak instead bumps things in the right direction... then it's quite possible the ends could justify the means. I'm cautiously optimistic when it comes to that, but I can see why some of you have issues with that at the same time I recommend not skimming through the thread because you will find that research tells us that catastrophic scenarios are far less likely to inspire people to pro-environmentalism compared to positive solution based proposals. In the end, Greta's doomsday preaching isn't changing anything. Indeed, her doomsday preaching completely obscured the positive things that has been done as was also spoken about at the same UN summit. Considered policies as a result of sound science is the key. Consider what happened to the worldwide banning of pesticides as a result of publication of the book, "The Silent Spring". Although the book doesn't call for the absolute banning of the DDT pesticide, it was banned in various places around the world. Yet malaria death rates went up. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1173321/Environmental groups had used Silent Spring to get DDT banned despite the fact that the book's author never once called for that! Carson just believed DDT should be used more responsibly. Those environmental groups were clearly biased and sensationalised Carson's book ever since. Negative outcomes results from people using a doomsday scenario and then pressuring for policy changes at government level very fast. Change should not come rapidly, but should come after careful consideration of the entire facts. This applies to the current issue of climate change too. It's nonsense to try to force policy changes at government level by using a mass extinction doomsday scenario. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."When people see how wrong a doomsday scenario is, they become more sceptical and more resistant to any type of pro-environmental change. So, forget good intentions, and concentrate on making the right impact. As Dr Kate Marvel said, we're not at a cliff edge. But there is a slope. |
|
|
|
Post by Snow White on Oct 2, 2019 19:56:01 GMT
PG13 is right about scientists and people involved in science not supporting what GT claims and her approach. Science data doesn't support her doomsday scenarios. This lady in particular encourages her to think for herself,not being manipulated. There's nothing wrong with being an activist for a good cause such as taking care of the planet but people like Greta do more harm than good, her hysteria and irrational fear poison people's minds and turn them off to want to do something.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cloudbuster on Oct 2, 2019 21:22:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Oct 2, 2019 22:02:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Oct 2, 2019 23:07:09 GMT
Anyone remember Severn Cullis-Suzuki? She gave a speech to the UN in 1992 11 years before Greta Thunberg was born.
The ozone is closing and the doomsday scenarios never came to pass.
Here's other doomsday prophecies and predictions that didn't happen:
"An Associated Press headline from 1989 read "Rising seas could obliterate nations: U.N. officials." The article detailed a U.N. environmental official warning that entire nations would be eliminated if the world failed to reverse warming by 2000."
"In 1970, The Boston Globe ran the headline, "Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century." The Washington Post, for its part, published a Columbia University scientist's claim that the world could be "as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age."
“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” - Kenneth Watt 1970s
And, of course, who can forget what Al Gore said about the Artic Ice?!
Doomsday scenarios do more harm than good every time.
|
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Oct 4, 2019 3:04:03 GMT
And doomsday predictions do a number on people's minds. When climate change alarmism meets mental illness, I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by Snow White on Oct 4, 2019 3:38:23 GMT
Damn, now some people are going to believe some of us atheist liberals eat babies! 😨 Greta or that woman in the video above need psychological and psychiatric help, not the spotlight. I genuinely worry about Greta's neglected wellbeing.
|
|
