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.

 

[Super-Chevy454]

Her dad is an actor (Son of an actor/director who’s apparently big in Sweden) and mother a singer, Greta is from a very privileged backround.

I suspect they also practice the old mantra "do as I said, not as I do".

 

[Mikoyan]

words

Hoooooboy. I've never stepped in this particular minefield on this site, but it's worth noting that during the 2011 Durban conference the message from the developing world and especially China and India was crystal clear: Fuck you, it's our turn to pollute, go cripple your economy so we can take over. Nothing racial about it, just people who've seen the 'green revolution' as industrial suicide and know what's up. I've been saying ever since then that the path forward is just to prepare for the worst of climate change, the West could cut their emissions to zero and the BRICs will just see it as more emissions to use.

Hell, the preparations for coastal flooding will employ a lot of folks. It's like Zorg's broken glass speech, but you do it before the glass breaks.

You've got some points, but blaming China's horrible air quality on density alone is wacko. Like coastal California, they have some geographic challenges to clean air, but unlike them they give zero fucks about doing anything about it. Until people get uppity, that is, then they shut down a few plants and execute the managers until people are placated. Both these points get back to the same thing: People like the environment, but when push comes to shove they're not even going to slightly risk becoming jobless hobos to fix it.

 

[Tasty Tatty]

Not "Spain", but those Socialist assholes in charge of Spain. Most people are either laughing at Greta or mad that any money is/could be wasted on this.

@AltisticRight nice post, saving to read later.

 

[ADHD]

Spain are footing the bill for the Greta publicity tour.

(https://www.dw.com/en/spain-to-help-greta-thunberg-get-to-cop25-in-madrid/a-51091374
I can't archive it, but you get the point.)

Link to archive.

 

[Pickle Inspector]

I suspect they also practice the old mantra "do as I said, not as I do".

I agree especially in regards to the parents but I think Greta is probally just too autistic to have though that through (Autistic people taking far longer to mature/think more rationally than a normal person), like the backround to how it started was she started to refuse to go to school because she had what seems to be a mental breakdown when her parents kept scaring her about what's going to happen to the enviroment which would be ridiculous for most people at 15 but with autism it doesn't suprise me and then her parents being who they are were all for their daughter to drop out of school and travel round the world protesting the environment arranged by them.

 

[Just Some Other Guy]

Hoooooboy. I've never stepped in this particular minefield on this site, but it's worth noting that during the 2011 Durban conference the message from the developing world and especially China and India was crystal clear: Fuck you, it's our turn to pollute, go cripple your economy so we can take over. Nothing racial about it, just people who've seen the 'green revolution' as industrial suicide and know what's up. I've been saying ever since then that the path forward is just to prepare for the worst of climate change, the West could cut their emissions to zero and the BRICs will just see it as more emissions to use.

Hell, the preparations for coastal flooding will employ a lot of folks. It's like Zorg's broken glass speech, but you do it before the glass breaks.

You've got some points, but blaming China's horrible air quality on density alone is wacko. Like coastal California, they have some geographic challenges to clean air, but unlike them they give zero fucks about doing anything about it. Until people get uppity, that is, then they shut down a few plants and execute the managers until people are placated. Both these points get back to the same thing: People like the environment, but when push comes to shove they're not even going to slightly risk becoming jobless hobos to fix it.

Don't forget that source on "renewable energy". Take a read through it. Huh, seems to miss a big one. One that starts with the letter "N". I wonder why that is.

 

[CWCissey]

Don't forget that source on "renewable energy". Take a read through it. Huh, seems to miss a big one. One that starts with the letter "N". I wonder why that is.

Nuclear is technically not renewable. Uranium needs to be mined.

 

[Stoneheart]

Nuclear is technically not renewable. Uranium needs to be mined.

You can get it from seawater.

 

[Just Some Other Guy]

Nuclear is technically not renewable. Uranium needs to be mined.

Breeder reactors can easily be considered renewable, not to mention recycling waste, but it's all a technicality. We know why these sources that hype wind and solar really leave out nuclear.

 

[AnOminous]

Nuclear is technically not renewable. Uranium needs to be mined.

Ultimately, nothing is renewable. It all increases the net entropy in the universe.

 

[kūhaku]

Breeder reactors can easily be considered renewable, not to mention recycling waste, but it's all a technicality. We know why these sources that hype wind and solar really leave out nuclear.

Some reactors, not sure if they're breeder or not, do have the capacity to make their own fuel once the cycle is catalyzed and produce insignificant waste. I haven't researched this in a while but I remember some used thorium. Nuclear energy is based.

 

[Yotsubaaa]

I'm gonna repost and edit a small essay, the response was made in the Ralph thread. It's seems far more relevant to post here. There's also some sources to read and I'll edit out the autistic ramblings.

A 772 word essay in the Ralph thread vs. a twice as long, 1,359 word essay here. You promised!
I liked your take on it though, nice job with the research. That's a very interesting point about Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

However, one point I'd like to check. Is that list of countries you attached still recent enough for us to draw conclusions? It lists the Netherlands Antilles as number 5, but back in 2010,

Dutch Antilles no longer exists

The Dutch Caribbean dependency the Netherlands Antilles ceases to exist with a change of the five islands' constitutional status.

www.bbc.com

(https://archive.li/jA01o)

 

[Billy "the Bot" Bobson]

It's not just about raw energy, but about the processes its being used for. All the tech that goes into modern computers are made using incredibly dirty industrial processes. The processes we use in sewage and waste management are destructive to the environment (though it has been making great improvements). I despise environmentalists and climate changers because they're 80% correct and 20% batshit and people only ever remember the batshit and disqualify any valid concern because it's been tainted with batshit.

I wonder if there is a conservationist party.

 

[AnOminous]

It's not just about raw energy, but about the processes its being used for. All the tech that goes into modern computers are made using incredibly dirty industrial processes. The processes we use in sewage and waste management are destructive to the environment (though it has been making great improvements). I despise environmentalists and climate changers because they're 80% correct and 20% batshit and people only ever remember the batshit and disqualify any valid concern because it's been tainted with batshit.

They also have idiot batshit obsessions with things like GMOs that get them to push idiotic and sometimes even deadly policies. Like golden rice, a rice engineered to have vitamin A, literally can wipe out childhood blindness from vitamin A deficiency and hundreds of thousands of deaths on top of that, but they're against it because "muh GMO frankenfood" lunacy.

 

[Just Some Other Guy]

They also have idiot batshit obsessions with things like GMOs that get them to push idiotic and sometimes even deadly policies. Like golden rice, a rice engineered to have vitamin A, literally can wipe out childhood blindness from vitamin A deficiency and hundreds of thousands of deaths on top of that, but they're against it because "muh GMO frankenfood" lunacy.

It makes it all too easy to just ignore enviromentalists. You find yourself nodding along at the start, then before you know you it you're like "Wait, what the fuck was that?" and it goes downhill from there.

 

[Billy "the Bot" Bobson]

They also have idiot batshit obsessions with things like GMOs that get them to push idiotic and sometimes even deadly policies. Like golden rice, a rice engineered to have vitamin A, literally can wipe out childhood blindness from vitamin A deficiency and hundreds of thousands of deaths on top of that, but they're against it because "muh GMO frankenfood" lunacy.

I can understand why someone would be cautious and critical of any and all GMO's, just as much as I can understand why someone would be cautious and critical of any and all Nuclear Power or Alternative Energy Sources. There is no one perfect solution, we need to be constantly adapting and restructuring to meet the ever changing needs of our lives. An "environmentalist" isn't skeptical of GMO's because it may have an unintended side-effect (see: Africanized Honey Bees), but because it's "disturbing mother nature and that's bad!"

 

[TowinKarz]

Environmentalists have a habit of torpedoing "Better" ideas becasue they aren't "perfect", and pitching impossible "perfect" ideas as workable solutions -

Look at the GND, cleaner burning coal? Boo! Cleaner burning car engines? No way! Absolute ban on all CO2 emissions including all power plants and cars? YES!

 

[Strine]

She's a perfect example of millennial thinking.

She has victim credentials a priori because she's female and a child, which according to bastard-Marxist sophistry lends weight to her rhetoric (no matter how specious). The sentiments of her espousals are agreeable enough, but she has absolutely no solutions (and nor do her supporters) because they believe their emotional distress at reading clickbate doomsday articles constitutes an argument, when it's literally "I don't like this; someone else has to fix it".

The energy is also misdirected. The cultures in which her theatrics have actually had an effect are not substantially culpable for the problems, except for the ultra-wealthy who don't really come under fire anyway because none of the plebeians sperging about the climate do any research or any reasoning. Anybody smart enough to actually do these things is also smart enough either to profit from exploitation of the planet (and therefore have a vested interest in clouding and obfuscating dialogue about it) or, like us in this thread, smart enough to get on with our lives, because we know that only bloated capitalist machines (and countries flatly inhospitable to environmentalist thinking, like China) hold the reins here. You or I could live out our days planting trees and nursing endangered animals, and it wouldn't make any difference.

This is, I believe, the driving force behind the idiot passion of the Thunberg kind, and it goes beyond environmentalism. Young people are growing up to find themselves in a woke matrix controlled by almost-fascistic capitalism, where most Westerners are kept in a Plato's cave by soulless trend-whoring corporations and 1984-style monitoring by Google et al. The damage is so bad that the worst victims actually propagate the goals of their abuser, as in "cancel culture"; divesting cultural figures of their power with hysterical and puritan manifesti (political ambush which Paglia calls "the nadir of Marxism") accusing them of sinning against the invisible god of global capitalism, to which the woke zealot has surrendered all intellectual autonomy. The millennial's fixation on rhetorical victimhood may stem from their existential gut feelings of being exploited by ultra-powerful social engineers.

Greta Thunberg is a vengeful spirit of young Westerners who have been abused by their elders. Her anger is righteous, but she is attacking a symptom, not a cause, and not even attacking it effectively. The French considered themselves eminently enlightened and civilised, as the Western bourgeoisie does now. But when the ordinary citizens realised they were being preyed upon by the wealthy, they beheaded them in the streets. I think there will be bloodshed in the coming decades.

 

[heathercho]

Based Talking Cat about CO2 and how we need it. Do trees get the right to yell "How dare you? You have robbed me of my childhood" to Greta?

Climatologist talking about the need for CO2.

Pre-woke era, articles on trees/plants NEEDING more Co2 were plentiful in scientific lit, now you have "science beacons" like Mashable and NYT squeaking about the world's plants not needing more Co2. Really is quite strange.

Get on that airplane you nordic smurf.

 

[Dizzydent]