Science Greta Thunberg Megathread - Dax Herrera says he wouldn't have a day ago (I somewhat doubt that)

Why is Greta Thunberg so triggering? How can a 16-year-old girl in plaits, who has dedicated herself to the not-exactly sinister, authoritarian plot of trying to save the planet from extinction, inspire such incandescent rage?

Last week, she tweeted that she had arrived into New York after her two week transatlantic voyage: “Finally here. Thank you everyone who came to see me off in Plymouth, and everyone who welcomed me in New York! Now I’m going to rest for a few days, and on Friday I’m going to participate in the strike outside the UN”, before promptly giving a press conference in English. Yes, her second language.

Her remarks were immediately greeted with a barrage of jibes about virtue signalling, and snide remarks about the three crew members who will have to fly out to take the yacht home.

This shouldn’t need to be spelled out, but as some people don’t seem to have grasped it yet, we’ll give it a lash: Thunberg’s trip was an act of protest, not a sacred commandment or an instruction manual for the rest of us. Like all acts of protest, it was designed to be symbolic and provocative. For those who missed the point – and oh, how they missed the point – she retweeted someone else’s “friendly reminder” that: “You don’t need to spend two weeks on a boat to do your part to avert our climate emergency. You just need to do everything you can, with everyone you can, to change everything you can.”

Part of the reason she inspires such rage, of course, is blindingly obvious. Climate change is terrifying. The Amazon is burning. So too is the Savannah. Parts of the Arctic are on fire. Sea levels are rising. There are more vicious storms and wildfires and droughts and floods. Denial is easier than confronting the terrifying truth.

Then there’s the fact that we don’t like being made to feel bad about our life choices. That’s human nature. It’s why we sneer at vegans. It’s why we’re suspicious of sober people at parties. And if anything is likely to make you feel bad about your life choices -- as you jet back home after your third Ryanair European minibreak this season – it’ll be the sight of small-boned child subjecting herself to a fortnight being tossed about on the Atlantic, with only a bucket bearing a “Poo Only Please” sign by way of luxury, in order to make a point about climate change.

But that’s not virtue signalling, which anyone can indulge in. As Meghan Markle, Prince Harry, and their-four-private-jets-in-11-days found recently, virtue practising is a lot harder.

Even for someone who spends a lot of time on Twitter, some of the criticism levelled at Thunberg is astonishing. It is, simultaneously, the most vicious and the most fatuous kind of playground bullying. The Australian conservative climate change denier Andrew Bolt called her “deeply disturbed” and “freakishly influential” (the use of “freakish”, we can assume, was not incidental.) The former UKIP funder, Arron Banks, tweeted “Freaking yacht accidents do happen in August” (as above.) Brendan O’Neill of Spiked called her a “millenarian weirdo” (nope, still not incidental) in a piece that referred nastily to her “monotone voice” and “the look of apocalyptic dread in her eyes”.

But who’s the real freak – the activist whose determination has single-handedly started a powerful global movement for change, or the middle-aged man taunting a child with Asperger syndrome from behind the safety of their computer screens?

And that, of course, is the real reason why Greta Thunberg is so triggering. They can’t admit it even to themselves, so they ridicule her instead. But the truth is that they’re afraid of her. The poor dears are terrified of her as an individual, and of what she stands for – youth, determination, change.

She is part of a generation who won’t be cowed. She isn’t about to be shamed into submission by trolls. That’s not actually a look of apocalyptic dread in her eyes. It’s a look that says “you’re not relevant”.

The reason they taunt her with childish insults is because that’s all they’ve got. They’re out of ideas. They can’t dismantle her arguments, because she has science – and David Attenborough – on her side. They can’t win the debate with the persuasive force of their arguments, because these bargain bin cranks trade in jaded cynicism, not youthful passion. They can harangue her with snide tweets and hot take blogposts, but they won’t get a reaction because, frankly, she has bigger worries on her mind.

That’s not to say that we should accept everything Thunberg says without question. She is an idealist who is young enough to see the world in black and white. We need voices like hers. We should listen to what she has to say, without tuning the more moderate voices of dissent out.

Why is Greta Thunberg so triggering? Because of what she represents. In an age when democracy is under assault, she hints at the emergency of new kind of power, a convergence of youth, popular protest and irrefutable science. And for her loudest detractors, she also represents something else: the sight of their impending obsolescence hurtling towards them.

joconnell@irishtimes.com
https://twitter.com/jenoconnell

https://web.archive.org/web/2019090...certain-men-1.4002264?localLinksEnabled=false
Found this thought-provoking indeed.

 

[Larry David's Opera Cape]

Eric Michael Garcia on Twitter

“You can’t make this up. I am at the Climate crisis rally to cover the rally with @GretaThunberg, probably the most famous #ActuallyAutistic person, and this dude outside has a sign about vaccines and autism.”

twitter.com

View attachment 935807

She looks quite jaundiced.

 

[bippu_as_fuck_ls400]

She looks quite jaundiced.

Does she only wear that one pair of tard shoes? It seems like she's wearing them in every picture.

Also, the girl/boy in front of her wearing a Hamilton:The Musical sweatshirt sums the whole thing up nicely.

 

[Dynastier]

What if she's actually right, though, and recklessly dumping unprecedented amounts of pollutants into the air actually does represent a grave threat to life in the world?

That's essentially what a fairly recent study on the air quality in India was saying, the air is so full of particles that it's noticibly affecting life expectancy.
It's weird though because you'd think you could just filter that crap out, instead of completely changing your infrastructure.

 

[AnOminous]

That's essentially what a fairly recent study on the air quality in India was saying, the air is so full of particles that it's noticibly affecting life expectancy.

Most things that reduce carbon emissions also reduce general pollution that actually kills people directly, too, and not just through speculative effects on climate.

Then we'd better shut down all the manufacturing in China, then

A few neutron bombs could solve that issue in a carbon neutral manner.

 

[Particle Bored]

That's essentially what a fairly recent study on the air quality in India was saying, the air is so full of particles that it's noticibly affecting life expectancy.
It's weird though because you'd think you could just filter that crap out, instead of completely changing your infrastructure.

It's hard to filter shit out of the air when it's just left to bake in the street.

 

[Rancid Flid]

Does she only wear that one pair of tard shoes? It seems like she's wearing them in every picture.

Also, the girl/boy in front of her wearing a Hamilton:The Musical sweatshirt sums the whole thing up nicely.

I bet she smells like a mixture of cheese, fish & cabbage.

 

[Cosmos]

once again the staff (whether they are mods or supervisors) show that they are a bunch of moralfags

Not gonna bother replying to the rest of the message because I know I won't change any minds, but I love how y'all discredit people who are passionate about certain issues as being "moralfags." I'll take being a moralfag over an apathetic slacker any day. The world never changed because people threw up their hands and gave up.

 

[The Pink Panther]

Not gonna bother replying to the rest of the message because I know I won't change any minds, but I love how y'all discredit people who are passionate about certain issues as being "moralfags." I'll take being a moralfag over an apathetic slacker any day.

Im not an apathetic slacker. I'm just a guy who is tired of environmental propaganda (the moralfaggotry in question) that has existed for decades when either way there is no preventing the invetiable. and people who constantly say all the SAVE MUH ENVIRONMENT shit over and over again when really the only solutions is to effectively fuck over society by completely revamping it or spending so much uneccessary money on the research, technology, and climate experiments to fight the climate that is already gonna get more fucked up to react to carbon emissions that the whole venture becomes pointless. That's all.

 

[Sīn the Moon Daddy]

I think Greta might have been groomed as a sex slave by the liberal elite. I bet Soros and AOC want to bone her.

I don't know why those two are so commonly associated. Soros is actively antagonistic towards Sanders and Cortez.

 

[Parson Weebs]

I don't know why those two are so commonly associated. Soros is actively antagonistic towards Sanders and Cortez.

It could be "bone" as in, "remove the bones". Ugh.

 

[Dante Alighieri]

Not gonna bother replying to the rest of the message because I know I won't change any minds, but I love how y'all discredit people who are passionate about certain issues as being "moralfags." I'll take being a moralfag over an apathetic slacker any day. The world never changed because people threw up their hands and gave up.

If you're passionate but don't take actions you're a moralfag.

Cub scouts have done more to "save the environment" than people who fly around the world on private jets or give speeches or make autistic art installations.

The western world is the greenest, and any discussion of pollution or "climate change" that doesn't mention China, India, and Africa, as well as nuclear power is a fucking scam.

 

[nekrataal]

Leftoids tend to like using children as their mouthpieces because they can get them to say anything they want and if you have anything to say against them then you’re labeled negatively.

 

[polonium]

Leftoids tend to like using children as their mouthpieces because they can get them to say anything they want and if you have anything to say against them then you’re labeled negatively.

Well, when you haven't got an argument that stands up to reasonable scrutiny, what else are you supposed to do?

 

[Dynastier]

Most things that reduce carbon emissions also reduce general pollution that actually kills people directly, too, and not just through speculative effects on climate.



A few neutron bombs could solve that issue in a carbon neutral manner.

Do they? You can treat and filter particles out of the exhaust, but you can't really filter out carbon dioxide. At least, not as easily.
I thought most co2 reduction happens by not producing it in the first place.

 

[Stoneheart]

Because i dont take orders from handicapped children, or other children?

I dont get the whole problem. their demonstrations are tiny, they are just better for the propaganda machine of the west than angry frenchpeople rioting because fuel is so expensive or Chinese people setting building on fire while under rubberbullet fire.

She is also a very good example why woman shouldnt be allowed to be in politics or vote, most of them have tiny brains.

 

[Trig.Point]

Looking at the circus surrounding Greta and the people surrounding her, I get the impression that a lot of prominent Activists and Politicians seem to be keeping their distance. AOC level intellects aside, I think the more savvy left wing types have a suspicion that the Greta Phenomenon might explode in everyone's faces.

 

[Particle Bored]

If you're passionate but don't take actions you're a moralfag.

Cub scouts have done more to "save the environment" than people who fly around the world on private jets or give speeches or make autistic art installations.

The western world is the greenest, and any discussion of pollution or "climate change" that doesn't mention China, India, and Africa, as well as nuclear power is a fucking scam.

Oh they're talking about Africa. Talking about aid being contingent on "green energy policies" that put them in further debt to international banks and benefit whitey's green tech manufacturers. Because they care about the poor brown people.

“Ultimately, if you think about all the youth that everybody has mentioned here in Africa, if everybody is raising living standards to the point where everybody has got a car and everybody has got air conditioning, and everybody has got a big house, well, the planet will boil over -- unless we find new ways of producing energy.”

 

[Dynastier]

Oh they're talking about Africa. Talking about aid being contingent on "green energy policies" that put them in further debt to international banks and benefit whitey's green tech manufacturers. Because they care about the poor brown people.

“Ultimately, if you think about all the youth that everybody has mentioned here in Africa, if everybody is raising living standards to the point where everybody has got a car and everybody has got air conditioning, and everybody has got a big house, well, the planet will boil over -- unless we find new ways of producing energy.”

Boil over? Obama confirmed flat earth believer.

 

[ConfederateIrishman]

, but I love how y'all

Please don't do this; Just say "you all" when you type it out.

 

[Dynastier]

Please don't do this; Just say "you all" when you type it out.

What's wrong with typing y'all? Assuming you actually talk that way I mean. Doing it for wokeness is silly of course.
@Cosmos what about the idea that "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"? You say the world was never changed by people throwing up their hands, but there have also been a lot of times the world WAS changed, and for the worse, by people who "Had to do something". Isn't it better to take a measured approach instead of a knee jerk one? Or, at least, can you suspend your disbelief for a moment and consider that some of the opposition to what you are calling "Moralfagging" comes from that POV?
For example, what do you make of the estimates that say reducing carbon to the goals set by the paris accord would end up killing more people through starvation than it would save from flooding and other climate ills?

To make a right wing example, consider Reaganomics, under the most generous interpretation. According to reagan's biggest fans, "supply side economics" rescued the US economy from out of control inflation. According to his detractors, it just hurt the average person while helping the rich. Either way, 'solving' one problem led to another, and some say it led to worse than the original problem. Its easy to see even the best intentioned climate policy lead to similar outcomes.