Greta Thunberg speech

[sjk]

You remember that really annoying mature-age student from uni days whose sole redeeming feature was a moderately amusing and self-deprecating sense of humour?

This thread is like three or four of them, only with no redeeming feature whatsoever.

 

[tgh]

I feel better now..

 

[RooFlyer]

If the NYT is not right wing enough, perhaps read the actual right wing TV, press and commentators. They are not just "criticisms", they are violent and disgusting against a young person. My point it, is that they will backfire.

Oh, I agree re backfiring. Its as negative and stupid for the debate as putting a 16 year old up on the world stage and expect a temper tantrum and obvious hyperbole to sway any minds. If that's what it was intended to do, of course.

So, getting back to the topic - do you think her performance was designed to sway the world leaders that need swaying? Do temper tantrums and pulling faces work when dealing with world leaders?

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Oh, I agree re backfiring. Its as negative and stupid for the debate as putting a 16 year old up on the world stage and expect a temper tantrum and obvious hyperbole to sway any minds. If that's what it was intended to do, of course.

So, getting back to the topic - do you think her performance was designed to sway the world leaders that need swaying? Do temper tantrums and pulling faces work when dealing with world leaders?

What exactly do you think would work with Donald Trump?
Or Duterte? Or Bolsanaro? Or Erdogan? Or Orban?
I am waiting with baited breath as I am sure your expertise in international diplomacy is exceeded only by your expertise in climate science.

 

[RooFlyer]

What exactly do you think would work with Donald Trump?
Or Duterte? Or Bolsanaro? Or Erdogan? Or Orban?
I am waiting with baited breath as I am sure your expertise in international diplomacy is exceeded only by your expertise in climate science.

It was always going to get personal ... (It started in post #7).

I dunno what will convince Trump & co, but self preservation and self-interest would be up there. I'm pretty sure Thunberg's performance and script was never going to get close. So again, what was the point of it? Really, what was the point? If she was never going to convince or sway anyone who needs swaying, doesn't that hint that she was just a 16 year-old pawn for dramatic publicity? Don't you feel just a little sorry for her?

 

[love_the_life]

Does anyone recognise that she has Aspergers and perhaps doesn’t always react as society expects? Or how she would like on reflection.?

 

[RooFlyer]

Does anyone recognise that she has Aspergers and perhaps doesn’t always react as society expects? Or how she would like on reflection.?

Yes, that's been widely reported. Personally, I haven't mentioned 'reaction' - just the content of her speech and how she presented it. Oh, I did mention face pulling, sorry. But I though that was pretty normal for a 16 year old.

But obviously her parents and all the UN people were perfectly fine with that factor and how it might be observed. I mean, they knew that sectors of society and the press and social media wouldn't take her presentation well and there would be the inevitable results, didn't they? Like every single contentious issue these days. I don't do Facebook or Twitter but I hear about the awful bullying that goes on (one of many reasons I don't do them).

 

[Moody]

Yes, that's been widely reported. Personally, I haven't mentioned 'reaction' - just the content of her speech and how she presented it. Oh, I did mention face pulling, sorry. But I though that was pretty normal for a 16 year old.

But obviously her parents and all the UN people were perfectly fine with that factor and how it might be observed. I mean, they knew that sectors of society and the press and social media wouldn't take her presentation well and there would be the inevitable results, didn't they? Like every single contentious issue these days. I don't do Facebook or Twitter but I hear about the awful bullying that goes on (one of many reasons I don't do them).

So because there are cretins on the social media cesspools we should all just consume, be silent and die?

I think Greta was expecting the backlash from the soul-less and ill-informed deplorables, and seems to be coping fine. I particularly liked her response to the condescending "children should be children" put-down.

 

[juddles]

..... Don't you feel just a little sorry for her?

I really do.

I also think her speech is truly historic - but why I think it will become "historic" will not truly be recognized for a while yet - maybe many years. Because it will eventually be remembered as the example of just how far from decent human morality this obscene religion that "Climate Change" has veered.

To place a child on a pedestal, in front of a world audience, to express deep emotion, is just incomprehensible. The whole Climate Change thing is full of haters. On both sides. Anyone would have known that no matter how important or cool they thought it was to make her give that speech, it was still pushing a vulnerable young person through a door that she can never get back through.

I feel very very sorry for her indeed.

 

[RooFlyer]

So because there are cretins on the social media cesspools we should all just consume, be silent and die?

Of course not. But I'm not sure this is much better:



In spite of what you heard in New York, the world is not ending.

 

[juddles]

Of course not. But I'm not sure this is much better:

View attachment 190577

In spite of what you heard in New York, the world is not ending.

Rooflyer, love the picture - it is a very good illustration of much of the Climate Alarmists.

And for the record, I believe in Climate Change. I believe that human activities affect it. But I believe there are much more pressing concerns....

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Clearly poor immature, mentally ill, exploited Great Thunberg has completely and utterly failed to get people talking about climate change.

 

[RooFlyer]

Clearly poor immature, mentally ill, exploited Great Thunberg has completely and utterly failed to get people talking about climate change.

Was that what she was trying to do? Judging by her words, I think she was trying to achieve something more concrete. And good on her ... I just think she (and the people behind her) went about it in completely the wrong way - but worse, I think they knew that it couldn't achieve anything that they were demanding (he says, steering the thread back to topic ...).

 

[juddles]

Clearly poor immature, mentally ill, exploited Great Thunberg has completely and utterly failed to get people talking about climate change.

esseeeayeenn, here you touch on my raw nerve - because that is exactly my belief - way too much time is spent on talking about climate change already. It is a topic that has become overwhelming, and due to it's flavour-of-the-month following, it drowns out so many other pressing and urgent needs.

 

[dajop]

Because it will eventually be remembered as the example of just how far from decent human morality this obscene religion that "Climate Change" has veered.

I can't help but agree with this.

I work in an industry under constant attack from adherents to the green religion. They distort and misrepresent facts, and spend huge sums of money orchestrating campaigns to scare people and discredit our industry (Now I agree that an element of restraint is necessary, and regulations are important to keep a check on things, but no need to be completely OTT). I have no doubt that Greta is genuine - but her speech to the UN was a carefully orchestrated stunt. Those insulting and being offensive too her are misdirecting their energy - if they feel this way inclined - attack those who are orchestrating all of this.

Actually, irrespective of whether agreeing that human induced climate change is real or not, a lot of the actions do make sense - reduce reliance on fossil fuels, take steps to more energy efficient, reduce pollution etc, even place a price on carbon in the same way we put prices on minerals, water etc.... but also nuclear power has to be on the table, but isn't as that is a cardinal sin. But whatever just get on it with it, and stop the drain on the public purse. There's a standing joke, if you want to get some funding for research, find a climate change angle to it and you'll have no problems. I do wonder what other important research is being missed, because so much time, energy and money is going into evaluating climate change and its effects.

 

[juddles]

I can't help but agree with this.

I work in an industry under constant attack from adherents to the green religion. They distort and misrepresent facts, and spend huge sums of money orchestrating campaigns to scare people and discredit our industry (Now I agree that an element of restraint is necessary, and regulations are important to keep a check on things, but no need to be completely OTT). I have no doubt that Greta is genuine - but her speech to the UN was a carefully orchestrated stunt. Those insulting and being offensive too her are misdirecting their energy - if they feel this way inclined - attack those who are orchestrating all of this.

Actually, irrespective of whether agreeing that human induced climate change is real or not, a lot of the actions do make sense - reduce reliance on fossil fuels, take steps to more energy efficient, reduce pollution etc, even place a price on carbon in the same way we put prices on minerals, water etc.... but also nuclear power has to be on the table, but isn't as that is a cardinal sin. But whatever just get on it with it, and stop the drain on the public purse. There's a standing joke, if you want to get some funding for research, find a climate change angle to it and you'll have no problems. I do wonder what other important research is being missed, because so much time, energy and money is going into evaluating climate change and its effects.

This is the misery I face personally from these debates. I do agree that there are impacts by human activity. But I also want real and practical measures and improvements to take place - not mindless knee-jerk reactions to fatalistic nonsense.

The basics are, to me, very simple. We need to minimize our impact on the environment that we live in - pollute less, strive to minimize harm, etc. But this focus on doomsday climate rhetoric are IMHO far more damaging to human progression than the industries they target.

As always, something has to be "popular" to fight against. It is the eternal indulgence of youth to find something to crusade against. An indulgence that becomes more outspoken the better-off the financial circumstances of the youth involved. I don't see too many impoverished people worrying about the sea level rising a few centimeters in the next century - they have far more pressing concerns.

Why can't all these people go and crusade against something that is far more personal to me - save the trees! I mean stop everywhere from felling magnificent trees that take centuries to grow, just for the sake of getting enough cash to buy the latest iPhone. "We" are still doing this - destroying forests. This can be stopped now. But no, saving the trees is a past fad for youths. So now they just want to cripple the wealth that can actually protect forests, and oceans, and everything.

 

[Isochronous]

Emotional blackmail only works on people who care, so that's not in play here.

Interesting though that the only people that refer to her as "Saint Greta" and other labels are the Shyte News watching Alt-Right rabble. I wonder why they are so frightened that they need to place her on a pedestal so they can immediately knock her off it.

Nobody on the right thinks Thunberg is particularly deserving of attention moreso than anybody else, but the left and their media enablers seem to think she is the new saviour and cover her endlessly.

If the NYT is not right wing enough, perhaps read the actual right wing TV, press and commentators. They are not just "criticisms", they are violent and disgusting against a young person. My point it, is that they will backfire.

The criticisms of Thunberg are valid. If you want to see unhinged, vicious and unjustified criticism of a young person, look at the way the lunatic left vilified Nick Sandmann.

 

[Isochronous]

This is the misery I face personally from these debates. I do agree that there are impacts by human activity. But I also want real and practical measures and improvements to take place - not mindless knee-jerk reactions to fatalistic nonsense.

The basics are, to me, very simple. We need to minimize our impact on the environment that we live in - pollute less, strive to minimize harm, etc. But this focus on doomsday climate rhetoric are IMHO far more damaging to human progression than the industries they target.

As always, something has to be "popular" to fight against. It is the eternal indulgence of youth to find something to crusade against. An indulgence that becomes more outspoken the better-off the financial circumstances of the youth involved. I don't see too many impoverished people worrying about the sea level rising a few centimeters in the next century - they have far more pressing concerns.

Why can't all these people go and crusade against something that is far more personal to me - save the trees! I mean stop everywhere from felling magnificent trees that take centuries to grow, just for the sake of getting enough cash to buy the latest iPhone. "We" are still doing this - destroying forests. This can be stopped now. But no, saving the trees is a past fad for youths. So now they just want to cripple the wealth that can actually protect forests, and oceans, and everything.

Well said juddles - there are serious issues that need to be addressed regarding overfishing, biodiversity, waste management, water pollution etc but the political space for discussing environmental issues has been suffocated by the global warming cult. Hence even someone like Patrick Moore, who founded Greenpeace, finds himself a target of green vilification.

 

[get me outta here]

I think you missed out a few over escalating reactions.

The criticisms of Thunberg are valid. If you want to see unhinged, vicious and unjustified criticism of a young person, look at the way the lunatic left vilified Nick Sandmann.

 

[Quickstatus]

I particularly liked her response to the condescending "children should be children" put-down.

I prefer this: