Greta Thunberg

[zapatos]

49 minutes ago, MigL said:

It is not the fact that she is a girl, or supports a righteous cause that is problematic.
It is the fact that she is 15 yrs old and not even of voting age, and she is telling democratically elected world leaders what to do.

Well, that's the problem for YOU. It is not a problem for me.

13 minutes ago, mistermack said:

In the end, to change minds, it's evidence that doubters want.

LOL! 

[Ken Fabian]

44 minutes ago, MigL said:

It is the fact that she is 15 yrs old and not even of voting age, and she is telling democratically elected world leaders what to do.

She is telling elected world leaders to do something they already should be doing, that I would argue they have a fiduciary obligation to do - to take a known serious threat to enduring prosperity and security, that approaches 100% likelihood, seriously. Because she is 15 years old and cannot vote, all the more reason to speak out and ask that the adults act and choose responsibly.

[zapatos]

16 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I do get the impression that her speeches are written for her, and her delivery is rehearsed.

That is so weird. It also seems like world leaders have speeches written for them, and that they rehearse!!! Something spooky going on!

[mistermack]

Just now, zapatos said:

That is so weird. It also seems like world leaders have speeches written for them, and that they rehearse!!! Something spooky going on!

I was replying to the post by Geordief that I quoted, about her being used by others. I made it clear I have no problem with her getting help and found her performance impressive. You really ought to read the posts you reply to.

[Ken Fabian]

26 minutes ago, mistermack said:

It's easier than looking up evidence.

Yet Greta Thunberg repeatedly asks that world leaders to (my paraphrasing) look up the evidence and base their policy responses on it. Which, if they are not already (and most especially those who are holding hard to their doubts are not - willfully and deliberately are not) is an extreme indictment on their competency and fitness.

Edited September 28, 2019 by Ken Fabian

[Danijel Gorupec]

Still, minors should not be sent to war, even for righteous cause.

[geordief]

26 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

Still, minors should not be sent to war, even for righteous cause.

So who will speak for them?

[Danijel Gorupec]

1 minute ago, geordief said:

So who will speak for them?

She should speak for herself. But we should not make battle formations behind her... And I am afraid this is exactly what is happening.

[geordief]

3 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

She should speak for herself. But we should not make battle formations behind her... And I am afraid this is exactly what is happening.

How do you see that happening?

[Strange]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

That's just me. I'm sure others will be swayed by it all. It's easier than looking up evidence. 

One can always do both.

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

I like the performance, but it adds nothing to my own view on the matter.

As you are not swayed by the evidence, either, that is not surprising.

44 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

Still, minors should not be sent to war, even for righteous cause.

What makes you thinks is being "sent"?

15 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

She should speak for herself. But we should not make battle formations behind her... And I am afraid this is exactly what is happening.

So, what? We should ignore her? (It is notable that she has refused awards and told people not to make a hero of her; it is the message that is important, not the messenger.)

[Danijel Gorupec]

9 minutes ago, geordief said:

How do you see that happening?

I think I have this feeling because OP said that there are numerous facebook feeds about her.

[Sensei]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Just to splash some cold water on everyone's face.

I agree that AGW is a serious issue, BUT...
What if she had come out and said
"I'm sick and tired of all you old white men, living high off the hog and spending money that you don't have on social programs, pensions, health care,the arts, etc. This is all borrowed money, which you won't have to pay back ( because you'll be dead ), and it'll be my, and my generation's, debt; which I'll either have to repay at a considerable financial burden, or live my life without the benefits which you had."

This is also something which will affect her generation much more adversely than it does ours.
Who would be rushing to praise her in such a situation ?

It is not the fact that she is a girl, or supports a righteous cause that is problematic.
It is the fact that she is 15 yrs old and not even of voting age, and she is telling democratically elected world leaders what to do.

Let's keep a perspective, people.

It's not appropriate timing for polite speeches, stroking the head, selfies etc when your home is burning..

[Danijel Gorupec]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

What makes you thinks is being "sent"?

So, what? We should ignore her? (It is notable that she has refused awards and told people not to make a hero of her; it is the message that is important, not the messenger.)

Yes please. Forward only the message, obscure the messenger.

[Strange]

Just now, Danijel Gorupec said:

Yes please. Forward only the message, obscure the messenger.

But 1,000s of people including scientists, politicians, activists, actors, industrialist, activists and general members of the public have been trying to spread this message for decades with limited effect.

If someone can encourage more people to listen, more people to demonstrate and (maybe, just maybe) get some politicians to take the necessary action, then I don't think criticism of that person for being an effective messenger is justified.

I find some of the adulation of her slightly worrying but it is just a minor distraction.

[geordief]

30 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

I think I have this feeling because OP said that there are numerous facebook feeds about her.

The OP said his Facebook feeds were flooded with unpleasant comments about her.

 

I don't see how it follows from that that "battle formations have been drawn up behind her."(rough quote)

I just deduce that her activity has caused acres of pages to have been written about her in the press and internet (with no doubt accompanying reams of comments below)

 

Edit:I do not use Facebook so "facebook feeds" Are a foreign country to me.

 

 

Edited September 28, 2019 by geordief

[Danijel Gorupec]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

But 1,000s of people including scientists, politicians, activists, actors, industrialist, activists and general members of the public have been trying to spread this message for decades with limited effect.

If someone can encourage more people to listen, more people to demonstrate and (maybe, just maybe) get some politicians to take the necessary action, then I don't think criticism of that person for being an effective messenger is justified.

I find some of the adulation of her slightly worrying but it is just a minor distraction.

I understand.

What worries me (except for Greta's well-being) is the fact that, as you said, 1000 scientist can speak without effect, but masses immediately get engaged when a fragile child is speaking. This means that masses are engaged emotionally, not rationally. This makes me feel uncomfortable... if you can find any way to engage masses without involving much emotion, you will be my hero.

[mistermack]

13 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

What worries me (except for Greta's well-being)

I wouldn't worry too much about her well-being. There's a whiff of Nobel Prize in the air, and they are worth a lot of money these days. 

I'd vote for her. If Al Gore can get one, she deserves at least five. 

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

I was replying to the post by Geordief that I quoted, about her being used by others. I made it clear I have no problem with her getting help and found her performance impressive. You really ought to read the posts you reply to.

Yes, I saw the post you were replying to. You were saying that having a speech written for you or rehearsing your speeches is a sign of being used by others. It is a ridiculous assertion.

[Strange]

33 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

What worries me (except for Greta's well-being) is the fact that, as you said, 1000 scientist can speak without effect, but masses immediately get engaged when a fragile child is speaking. This means that masses are engaged emotionally, not rationally. This makes me feel uncomfortable... if you can find any way to engage masses without involving much emotion, you will be my hero.

Sadly, it was ever thus. Most people base their decisions on emotion and gut feel, rather than a rational analysis of the facts.

The theory behind representative democracy is that the masses elect representatives who have the time and expertise to understand the issues in detail and make rational, evidence-based decisions on their behalf. It doesn't really work, of course.

[Ken Fabian]

7 hours ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

if you can find any way to engage masses without involving much emotion, you will be my hero.

That world leaders and mainstream political figures, faced with this most serious global problem fail to feel or show any real concern - expressed with emotion - and fail to engage the public using it just demonstrates a lack of concern that is deeply disturbing. That so many have no apparent difficulty with raising alarmist fears of extremist politics and economic disaster from taking the climate problem seriously - using emotion to engage the masses in the cause of opposing strong climate action - is doubly disturbing.

There is nothing wrong with politics and advocacy using emotion to engage with the public - but the assessments of the problem's seriousness that concern is grounded upon still needs to be based in science based expert advice that is not emotion based.

Edited September 29, 2019 by Ken Fabian

[Sensei]

30 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

That world leaders and mainstream political figures, faced with this most serious global problem fail to feel or show any real concern - expressed with emotion - and fail to engage the public using it just demonstrates a lack of concern that is deeply disturbing.

..there were emotions when D.T. withdraw US from Paris agreement..

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/01/trump-withdraw-paris-climate-deal-world-leaders-react

32 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

using emotion to engage the masses in the cause of opposing strong climate action - is doubly disturbing.

..emotion is bad advisor..

(reminds me hitler's speeches.. full of emotions)

46 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

There is nothing wrong with politics and advocacy using emotion to engage with the public

..absolutely everything is wrong if you use emotions instead of logical thinking...

 

54 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

but the assessments of the problem's seriousness that concern is grounded upon still needs to be based in science based expert advice that is not emotion based.

..opposite side have self-made "experts" from flat-Earth, anti-climate deniers experts, anti-vaccines, and so on, so on..

Self-made experts are booked by their TV channels to express their s**t to audience and stupefy them..

 

[dimreepr]

15 minutes ago, Sensei said:

..there were emotions when D.T. withdraw US from Paris agreement..

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/01/trump-withdraw-paris-climate-deal-world-leaders-react

..emotion is bad advisor..

(reminds me hitler's speeches.. full of emotions)

..absolutely everything is wrong if you use emotions instead of logical thinking...

 

Sometimes we need emotion, sometimes "first, you've got to get mad"

[Ken Fabian]

39 minutes ago, Sensei said:

..there were emotions when D.T. withdraw US from Paris agreement..

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/01/trump-withdraw-paris-climate-deal-world-leaders-react

..emotion is bad advisor..

(reminds me hitler's speeches.. full of emotions)

..absolutely everything is wrong if you use emotions instead of logical thinking...

 

..opposite side have self-made "experts" from flat-Earth, anti-climate deniers experts, anti-vaccines, and so on, so on..

Self-made experts are booked by their TV channels to express their s**t to audience and stupefy them..

 

I disagree - and with extra added emotion.

Greta's anger is well grounded in facts and it is effective - as, I believe, mine is well grounded. Not nearly so effective, but perhaps it takes someone who has no power besides their voice - a child whom adults should feel obligated to protect and offer hope of a better future to - to induce a modicum of shame in those sitting in the very Offices where decisions with far more weight than personal lifestyle choices are made.

I don't see how getting well informed can, let alone should result in an emotionless response; the fears about our future are justified, based on non-emotional assessments of the state of our climate system and engaging with that emotion is how to engage with a complacent (due to ignorance and misinformation) public. People who are, for the most part, ill equipped to assess the science directly.

There is a big difference between promoting falsehoods by preying on emotional and intellectual vulnerabilities and using emotion based appeals based on true and scientifically verifiable concerns.

I don't see how we can move the masses without engaging emotionally with their hopes and fears.

Getting that engagement is a different task to developing policy. But is nothing new or unique to the climate problem.

Edited September 29, 2019 by Ken Fabian

[Sensei]

Opposite side can use emotions more efficiently than you can. They are already on positions, just trying to keep status quo. They can say to coal miners they will lose jobs. Say to oil industry engineers, coal power plants engineers etc. they will lose jobs. Say to anybody working in coal, gas, fossil fuels, production, distribution, marketing, etc. they will lose jobs. They will lose jobs they have right now. What can you offer them? Nothing. Because they have to learn new things, learn new jobs, make new investments, change their entire settled down life, to adopt to new, unknown, renewable energy sources..

46 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

I don't see how we can move the masses without engaging emotionally with their hopes and fears.

"masses" should be intelligence.. who understand, being able to analyze provided (independent and reliable) data, being able to gather their own (independent and reliable) data, being able to make their own independent decisions, not based on their own personal and family interests, and keeping status quo just to get flow of money whatever happens with them..

"hard candy"

..your "masses" are easy to be manipulated by anybody.. e.g. politicians will scary them with immigrants (emotion: fear)..

 

Edited September 29, 2019 by Sensei

[Ken Fabian]

3 minutes ago, Sensei said:

your "masses" are easy to be manipulate by anybody.. e.g. politicians will scary them with immigrants (emotion: fear)..

I think this is reality, as it actually is. Politicians using emotion based arguments to engage the public with the truth is fine with me - it is not the use of emotion to engage with the public that makes the examples you give problematic, but that they are promoting false fears.

4 minutes ago, Sensei said:

"masses" should be intelligence.. who understand, being able to analyze provided data, being able to gather their own data, being able to make their own decisions..

That is not reality, as it actually is.