Greta Thunberg speech

[SRS65]

Hi AFF members
Would like to get your opinion on the Greta Thunberg speech where she scolded the audience at the UN Climate Action Summit on Monday, repeatedly asking, "how dare you?"
To quote part of her speech:
"I shouldn't be up here. I should be back at school on the other side of the ocean ... You come to us young people for hope. How dare you?" she said.
"We are in the beginning of mass extinction, and all you can talk about is the money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you."

My initial thoughts are that this poor girl is being used as a pawn by the Climate Change activists - which may be wrong - but seeing she is also an actor and hearing she is being sponsored by powerbrokers has made me question the validity of her speech.
I was also concerned for her mental welfare due to the "near breakdown" tone and mass hysteria rhetoric of global extinction.
Greta has also stated previously she has suffered depression, Asperger’s and anorexia yet is still being put in this vulnerable position - be it by her own doing, her parents or for political gain.
Stating she shouldn't be making the speech and should be at school also seems at odds with the promotion of schoolchildren protesting during school hours.
There is also a press conference which was held where basic climate change questions were posed to Greta unscripted - where she had no ability to answer these, couldn't understand the question and had to deflect to her broader party which further made me feel she was being used for political gain.
I also noted that her parents are releasing a book in early 2020 which has added to me questioning the speech validity.

This is by no means being placed as an opportunity to attack this poor child - but to gain AFF member opinion.

 

[Pushka]

I suspect she’s polarized people even further. And she has been carefully groomed according to news reports which may or may not be accurate.

 

[Isochronous]

I feel great sadness and sympathy for her. No responsible parent should allow their child to experience a psychological meltdown in front of a global TV audience; the way that Thunberg has been used by the green lobby is child abuse.

 

[RooFlyer]

Do a cost/benefit Greta. Do you think that speech, that temper tantrum ... and your face-pulling etc afterwards ... helped your cause? Did it convince anyone on the 'other' side to change their mind? USA? China? Or did the infantile antics and exaggerated hyperbole just antagonise them?

If not, then you've damaged your cause. If you want to play in the adult sphere, act like an adult.

But that's OK, I'm sure the book will sell well and you'll get a Nobel Prize. That'll help.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

For a start I wouldn't use the word "hysteria".
That word has an awful history of discrediting the concerns of women on the basis that their biology prevented them from thinking rationally.
Women complaining of domestic abuse were confined to mental institutions as "hysterics".

This is not mere pedantry on my part, I think it is relevant to the way many have received Greta's speech.
Anxiety over real threats is not a pathology or mental illness. It is rational. It is a survival mechanism which is the product of our evolution.
It enables us to function at a higher level than normal in response to threats.

The concerns over climate change are real. The predictions of generally accepted climate science are dire.
And if anything they have been conservative and underestimated the danger.
Ice is melting much faster than predicted. Ice sheets in Greenland and Antartica are in retreat. Glaciers are disappearing in Iceland, the Alps, the Himalayas and in South America. Sea levels are rising much faster than predicted as a result. Every beach you have ever visited will be gone by 2100. If not sooner.
In the arctic, thawing permafrost is releasing methane which has been captured for millenia. It is even bubbling up in the ocean as it is released from the sea floor.
Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. At the same time the retreating ice sheets are exposing more of the earth's surface to solar radiation which would have been reflected back into space. We have reached many tipping points which are now accelerating global warming, independent of ongoing human activity.

You may not agree with this assessment. You may think I am entirely wrong. That is not the point. The point is that the assessment is rational and based on science and evidence. It is not "hysterical" and therefore there is no reason to seek to pathologise someone holding a rational view based on the prevailing scientific assessment of objective evidence.

Aspergers syndrome does not make people think or behave irrationally. I don't want to generalise or pretend to be an expert, but from what I have read, if anything it tends to produce hyperrationality, and a difficulty in relating to other people on an emotional level. It is not a mental illness.

Depression is sometimes a mental illness, at other times it can be a perfectly healthy response to unhealthy circumstances. I don't know enough about Greta to speculate about any depression which she may have suffered. But many many people with depression continue to work and function at a high level despite their depression. Depression is not a reason to dismiss views which someone holds when those views have a rational basis. Again, whether you agree with those views is irrelevant. Greta's views on climate change, whether right or wrong, are not irrational.

Finally anorexia is an insidious disease and it can distort a person's sense of reality. But it is quite specific in the way it does this. It distorts a person's sense of their own body shape, weight, etc, and of the motives of people around them who are trying to help them fight the disease and who challenge their distorted self-perception. It does not make people generally irrational or stupid. It is not a reason to dismiss someone's views.

If you are truly concerned about the welfare of Greta Thunberg, billions of children like her, and all future generations, then rather than attempt to dismiss her rational views on the basis that she is young, sick or different, listen to them. if you think she should be back at school, then act, and force other adults to act, so she can go back to school.

There is no point insisting children educate themselves if they have no future.

I am quite aware that frequent flying causes carbon emissions and I acknowledge my own hypocrisy.
That is something I will have to give some thought. But my hypocrisy doesn't undermine the seriousness of the situation.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

I feel great sadness and sympathy for her. No responsible parent should allow their child to experience a psychological meltdown in front of a global TV audience; the way that Thunberg has been used by the green lobby is child abuse.

I find this highly offensive.
When I was Greta's age I was arrested for protesting against s54B of the Police Act (WA) which was a restriction on free speech.
I was also a victim of child abuse at home.
I know the difference.
I strongly suggest you rethink that remark.

 

[Cruiser Elite]

I find this highly offensive.................I strongly suggest you rethink that remark.

Not going to happen - a perennial abhorrent repulsive poster.

 

[SRS65]

For a start I wouldn't use the word "hysteria".
That word has an awful history of discrediting the concerns of women on the basis that their biology prevented them from thinking rationally.
Women complaining of domestic abuse were confined to mental institutions as "hysterics".

This is not mere pedantry on my part, I think it is relevant to the way many have received Greta's speech.
Anxiety over real threats is not a pathology or mental illness. It is rational. It is a survival mechanism which is the product of our evolution.
It enables us to function at a higher level than normal in response to threats.

The concerns over climate change are real. The predictions of generally accepted climate science are dire.
And if anything they have been conservative and underestimated the danger.
Ice is melting much faster than predicted. Ice sheets in Greenland and Antartica are in retreat. Glaciers are disappearing in Iceland, the Alps, the Himalayas and in South America. Sea levels are rising much faster than predicted as a result. Every beach you have ever visited will be gone by 2100. If not sooner.
In the arctic, thawing permafrost is releasing methane which has been captured for millenia. It is even bubbling up in the ocean as it is released from the sea floor.
Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. At the same time the retreating ice sheets are exposing more of the earth's surface to solar radiation which would have been reflected back into space. We have reached many tipping points which are now accelerating global warming, independent of ongoing human activity.

You may not agree with this assessment. You may think I am entirely wrong. That is not the point. The point is that the assessment is rational and based on science and evidence. It is not "hysterical" and therefore there is no reason to seek to pathologise someone holding a rational view based on the prevailing scientific assessment of objective evidence.

Aspergers syndrome does not make people think or behave irrationally. I don't want to generalise or pretend to be an expert, but from what I have read, if anything it tends to produce hyperrationality, and a difficulty in relating to other people on an emotional level. It is not a mental illness.

Depression is sometimes a mental illness, at other times it can be a perfectly healthy response to unhealthy circumstances. I don't know enough about Greta to speculate about any depression which she may have suffered. But many many people with depression continue to work and function at a high level despite their depression. Depression is not a reason to dismiss views which someone holds when those views have a rational basis. Again, whether you agree with those views is irrelevant. Greta's view on climate change, whether right or wrong, are not irrational.

Finally anorexia is an insidious disease and it can distort a person's sense of reality. But it is quite specific in the way it does this. It distorts a person's sense of their own body shape, weight, etc, and of the motives of people around them who are trying to help them fight the disease and who challenge their distorted self-perception. It does not make people generally irrational or stupid. It is not a reason to dismiss someone's views.

If you are truly concerned about the welfare of Greta Thunberg, billions of children like her, and all future generations, then rather than attempt to dismiss her rational views on the basis that she is young, sick or different, listen to them. if you think she should be back at school, then act, and force other adults to act, so she can go back to school.

There is no point insisting children educate themselves if they have no future.

I am quite aware that frequent flying causes carbon emissions and I acknowledge my own hypocrisy.
That is something I will have to give some thought. But my hypocrisy doesn't undermine the seriousness of the situation.

Thanks esseeeayeenn
I was primarily asking thoughts on her speech and being the person delivering the words as opposed to whether climate change is real as that is too big a subject to raise alongside Greta's speech.
I am also questioning the validity of the speech due to the apparent grooming and scriptwriting that has taken place - which became more apparent when she was presented in front of a press conference unscripted and unable to not only function but unable to consolidate her views.
Also, because the word "hysteria" has been used in a different context here, please understand that there was no intention of belittling the female gender, and as such should not be used within your response as I will take it offensively due to you judging me through my post (apologise if you took it that way inadvertently - which I am giving you the benefit of the doubt with)
The intention is to seek opinion as to whether this "person" should be subjected to worldwide scrutiny in a vulnerable situation and whether the opinion is hers.

 

[Pushka]

As a female I didn’t take an offence to the use of the word Hysteria and did not associate it with any gender.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Thanks esseeeayeenn
I was primarily asking thoughts on her speech and being the person delivering the words as opposed to whether climate change is real as that is too big a subject to raise alongside Greta's speech.
I am also questioning the validity of the speech due to the apparent grooming and scriptwriting that has taken place - which became more apparent when she was presented in front of a press conference unscripted and unable to not only function but unable to consolidate her views.
Also, because the word "hysteria" has been used in a different context here, please understand that there was no intention of belittling the female gender, and as such should not be used within your response as I will take it offensively due to you judging me through my post (apologise if you took it that way inadvertently - which I am giving you the benefit of the doubt with)
The intention is to seek opinion as to whether this "person" should be subjected to worldwide scrutiny in a vulnerable situation and whether the opinion is hers.

I very clearly said "I would not use the word" and "I think it is relevant to the way many have received Greta's speech".
There was no attack on you, personally.
However, again on a general, not a personal level, the history of words is a part of their meaning.
One cannot simply use a word with so much baggage and say "But I didn't mean it that way".

 

[JohnK]

My thoughts on climate change are very simple.

You want to do something about it then please go ahead and do it.

- Don't drag me into it
- Don't waste my time with stupid protests interrupting my time
- Don't expect me to pay for it

We are not destroying the planet. Giant corporations are destroying the planet making a tidy profit in the process and then you want me to fund the solution.

Noooo....

 

[get me outta here]

Hysteria is very rarely if ever attributed to men and boys.

As a female I didn’t take an offence to the use of the word Hysteria and did not associate it with any gender.

 

[SRS65]

I very clearly said "I would not use the word" and "I think it is relevant to the way many have received Greta's speech".
There was no attack on you, personally.
However, again on a general, not a personal level, the history of words is a part of their meaning.
One cannot simply use a word with so much baggage and say "But I didn't mean it that way".

Thanks again esseeeayeenn
No offence taken
Here is the unscripted version of Greta: (sorry but it is a twitter feed so please disregard the comments attached)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1176480120191750150

This consolidated my concern for the child and her being put in such a vulnerable position.

 

[cosi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1174952987837394945

Alan Jones thoughts on this matter.

Its a good laugh

 

[SRS65]

Hysteria is very rarely if ever attributed to men and boys.

Ever reliable Wiki (or not so ever reliable sometimes)
In the nineteenth and early twentieth century, hysteria was a common psychiatric diagnosis made primarily in women. The existence and nature of a purported male hysteria (hysteria masculina[1]) was a debated topic around the turn of the century. It was originally believed that men could not suffer from hysteria because of their lack of uterus.[2] This belief was discarded in the 17th century when discourse identified the brain or mind, and not reproductive organs, as the root cause of hysteria.[3] During World War I, hysterical men were diagnosed with shell shock or war neurosis, which later went on to shape modern theories on PTSD. The notion of male hysteria was initially connected to the post-traumatic disorder known as railway spine; later, it became associated with war neurosis.

BUT - Hey, let's get back on topic !

 

[RooFlyer]

One cannot simply use a word with so much baggage and say "But I didn't mean it that way".

Apologies, I can't resist:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

Carroll, Through the looking glass

And if we are looking at offence, I find much of what is said in the name of 'Climate Change' offensive, in as much as its emotional, quasi-religious hyperbole.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Apologies, I can't resist:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

Carroll, Through the looking glass

And if we are look at offence, I find much of what is said in the name of 'Climate Change' offensive, in as much as its emotional, quasi-religious hyperbole.

You are obviously taking Humpty Dumpty's advice when you use the word "offensive".

 

[drron]

No the threats of climate change have been grossly exaggerated and are not proven science.
people are more likely to die in cold weather than hot weather.Two observational studies published in the Lancet show more people die on days that are 5C below the average than days 5C above the average.And that holds wherever in the world you live.Even in Bangkok and Rio.

There is little evidence of mass extinctions.Extinctions generally are due to habitat reduction.

There is no evidence of an increase in extreme weather events-cyclones(hurricanes and typhoons) Severe storms.fire and flooding events.Droughts are more prevalent in some areas and less in others.
Deaths from extreme weather events has dropped 99% in the last 100 years.

The planet has greened significantly since CO2 began increasing.Indeed before the Industrial revolution the world was heading to levels of CO2 that were incompatible with life.

The GBR is not dying because of Climate Change.Corals grow faster in warmer waters.The reefs with the most coral species are around the equator.Nutrient run off is a more serious problem

Combating Climate Change with wind and solar is crazy.Just look at Germany and California.electricity costs are way higher than neighbouring countries and emissions are going up.This was predicted by electrical engineers many years ago with 40% being about the maximum before serious problems.
The countries with lower power costs and low emissions are those with low emission base load electricity generation.basically hydro and nuclear.

As to melting ice it has been melting for 20000 years.Indeed then Manhattan was under anywhere from 700 metre to 3 Km of ice.It began melting there 16000 years ago.
Recent evidence has shown that the Arctic ocean temperature doesn't fall any further when you pass ~1000 metres.IE there must be a heat source below the water.

Now if we put the money we are wasting with further renewable madness into R&D to find new technology to combat changes we would be in a much better place and there would be little reason for any child to be anxious.

 

[RooFlyer]

You are obviously taking Humpty Dumpty's advice when you use the word "offensive".

We are all in the same boat ... unless you want to instigate the 'reforms' of Newspeak (Orwell, 1984).

 

[Moody]

Not going to happen - a perennial abhorrent repulsive poster.

You are FAR more restrained than I, Cruiser Elite, but as I don't want to be banned .....