I have already discussed it with him.FfsHe was joking to make a point. It seems that point (although pretty obvious given the analogy he used) was missed my many posters.
Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity
- Thread starter Buster15
- Start date
Did you read the whole exchange or just asking without knowing what we were talking about?
Please stop bashing everyone around without knowing the context, I know RT he is probably the nicest guy on the caf and his post was a definite joke.
She isn't half melodramatic, this kid.
I just find it perplexing why you'd be looking to her specifically for solutions. She lacks the expertise, knowledge and experience to provide that but it does not preclude her having an opinion on humanity's approach so far, especially because it really looks like we are prioritizing continued growth under our tried and true model rather than looking for a new approach.
Yes, it was so good it was almost impossible to spot.Ffs
Never mind RedTiger’s satire, this is the shameful post. Actually criticising a 16 year old girl who is part of the generation of kids who will be forced to grow up into a fecked up planet for not providing practical and workable solutions. Feck me dude.
She is bringing the issue of climate change to the fore, to front page news, she’s in part helping to galvanise support to force change.
How fecking dare she.
Your a local business man and you won't put in a few quid for crack fund.
You people used to be the pillars of society and now look at you. Shameful stuff.
Anyone who isn't already perfectly aware of the issue of climate change isn't going to be because of her speeches, given decades of scientific consensus. And awareness isn't going to solve the issue, practical ideas are.
Her parents should be ashamed though, it's clear they have a profit motive in exploiting her fixation on this issue (almost certainly because of her medical condition), but it's at the expense of her mental health and her education.
In the 1990s the prediction was that by 2020 (mostly) some cities would be flooded and temperatures would have risen far more than they actually have.
Imagine taking the view that fox news apologized for one of their guests saying and posting it on here.
When you put it like that I really cant say anything.
She doesn't provide any solution, because the solutions are already given. Change energy sources, change patterns of consumerism (yes, government can't do a lot on that like forbidding a lot of the packaging, meat consumption, polluting production systems and de-growth.
She is asking the implementation of what we know
Also, why she should provide any solution? we pay the politicians to find solutions to our problems. If we would have to do that, why we elect/pay them?
She is protesting because the politicians and adults in general are not addressing the issue. To dismiss her opinion because she isn't giving the politicians a complete detailed, costed plan and calling her an idiot because she is "Just a 16 year old girl" is right out of the triggered white man's handbook. Not a million miles from saying that she really should know her place - kitchen/school presumably.
Neither does your analogy.
She isn’t suggesting that we stop having sex (using electricity/eating meat/etc) but rather that we use the available science/scientific evidence to vastly reduce STI’s (greenhouse gases). In effect you are criticising her for suggesting that authorities should promote safe sex and medical treatment of STI’s. How stupid would that be?
Yet without the political will to make far more drastic steps to reduce greenhouse has emissions all this good work is nowhere near enough. And of course it isn’t a binary choice and she isn’t criticising this work in any way.
That is an idiotic argument. She has an iPhone and exists in the fossil fuel burning world created by adults, so she should shut up, relax and let the adults burn the world down? Go live in a cave little girl and then we might listen to you (we won’t but at least you won’t be annoying the grown men who find your impertinence triggering).
We are sleep walking to disaster. Wait until millions of people are displaced by global warming (won't be ling towait) and the current migrant issues will pale into insignificance. Yet we do next to nothing to prevent this happening.
Other historic idiots
If only there was a third option? Oh wait .....
I missed it. Hard to spot parody when some serious posts aren't much less despicable.Ffs
Extinction and death aren't the same thing, though. It's not double standards, it's an entirely different set of priorities. Ecosystems can't collapse because we kill a few more pigs.
As i said after i posted that;
I just think that if you're going to look at one component you need to look at all of them. I don't see how people can be environmentalists without being concerned about colonialism and being a vegetarian/vegan and vice versa. All are linked.
There's obviously a couple of problems with that.
1. Your definition of what an environmentalist is (or must adhere to) is not the definition
2. Not wanting entire ecosystems to collapse does not make you an environmentalist (in your definition, or theirs)
So getting back to the original point, your implication of hypocrisy is just your own misunderstanding of other people's views, it's not really hypocrisy.
When someone says they care about species extinction, you should try not to label them as environmentalists in your head, and then compare them against your own definition of it. The analysis is pointless if it's based on that incorrect starting point. Unless the point was to make yourself feel good through virtue signalling. In which case, you're not really helping the broader cause here. Which ironically is what you were chastising others for.
Are you seriously having a go at a 16 year old girl who speaks for something she and I'd wager the majority cares about? You're making yourself look like an idiot with a post like this.
Why do you keep calling her an idiot? She’s clearly not stupid. To label anyone an idiot while using such a moronic analogy takes some nerve, or delusion.
Ideally a holistic approach is the best way to combat the problem and as you pointed out the factors you noted are all linked. However I fully disagree with the point you’re making. It’s much better to do something rather than doing nothing because you feel you can’t commit fully. Your first comment in particular I can’t get on board with. If someone decides to cut their meat consumption by 75% but can’t fully exclude meat, I’d still urge them to go ahead with it as it’s still better than the previous arrangement.
You also can’t be from a colonial power, apparently? I don’t get that whole argument...
if i was greta thunberg i would simply solve climate change with practical and workable solutions
How do you would resolve the energy problems in UK? Wind farms kills thousands of birds every year including eagles and other protected species, solar is very inconsistent and about energy at night?
i would provide answers, not just shout with righteous indignation
So now you are saying she is right but she should shut up because it is futile saying anything? Or is it that little girls should be seen (if neccesary) but not heard?
Her parents should be ashamed though, it's clear they have a profit motive in exploiting her fixation on this issue (almost certainly because of her medical condition), but it's at the expense of her mental health and her education.[/QUOTE]
I'd join an organisation like the EU so we could build solar capacity in southern Europe. :-)
Battery storage for night/peak times and a combination of wind, wave and tidal to assist. If we reduce non-renewably massively it would be a huge benefit even if we don't totally eliminate fosdil fuel use in some countries.
I just find it difficult to comprehend how someone can care about an animals extinction but not about the systematic slaughter of animals but each to their own. I won't use the word environmentalist anymore though if it hurts your feelings despite it meaning people who care about the protection of the environment which I believed the majority of people here were concerned about and have stated. I don't think it's something people adhere to. As i say below you can eat meat in a sustainable and ethical (to an extent) manner, but people don't and buy into an industry that is inherently wrong for a multitude of reasons.
Eh, the fact that indigenous people are protectors of the majority of the worlds biodiversity, have been campaigning for climate action for decades, have been subjected to the colonial barrage which initiated this accelerated rate of industry that has meant we are in our current predicament as it began the belief that everything can be extracted and sold for huge profits hence the systematic slaughter of animals which meant the clearance of land on a huge scale at a time that indigenous people were eating meat on a sustainable level. People don't need to be a vegetarian/vegan necessarily (it's one option) but the issue is with the way the meat industry currently is in terms of its environmental impact. I hold no blame to Greta for this but the media has put a white girl as a token for climatic justice when indigenous children and adults have been campaigning for climatic action for decades as I have said and they are constantly overlooked and put to the side. They have been here again despite them being key players in the fight to rectify our problems.
Anyway, I don't really want to post anymore on the matter. There are far more issues at hand than what Greta Thunberg is raising and I don't expect her to be the one to raise the issues but they also need to be reviewed.
Last edited:
You don't understand because you choose not to listen, though. I've told you one reason and your only response is to shrug rather than engage. You have to really believe that your view of the world is so righteous, so well formed and so uninhibited by the petty problems of normal people to not even engage with alternative perceptions of the same problem. Which is the problem I have with the environmentalist label, on the context you've used. It becomes prescriptive, and a stick to beat others with when you have similar views of the challenges but different views of the solutions.
Here's one problem with your snarky statement, and the attitude underpinning it. The reasons for the rapid move into a mass extinction event are varied. We can say conclusively that human activity is one of the key drivers of it - and it's now uncontroversial to say it's the most important one. Within that, the factors are manifold. Habitat loss driven by our desire for more food is one of them, and meat is a significant part of that. However unfortunately our desire for vegetarian food is also a significant part of it. There are all sorts of other non food products driving it too. And much more besides.
Your lifestyle contributes to this habitat loss, for reasons you're both conscious and unconscious of. The extent of your knowledge is limited and always growing, and as that happens, you'll discover more ways that you're harming the planet.
So, using your logic I could say "I just don't understand how a supposed environmentalist can eat x, use y and demand z. Does he really care?" on any range of issues, including the one you chose to raise: animals. I find that incredibly unproductive, more than anything. Your very existence is a burden on the planet, based on the conditions you were born into. There are no good choices, at this point. Just less bad ones. Some of the things you'll do are good, some of them are bad, some are both simultaneously. Barros has very helpfully pointed out one example of it. Unfortunately some renewable energy sources will be one of those factors that contribute to the extinction of some species. I do not think that people who advocate for wind energy are betraying their belief that mass extinction is a bad thing.
I think this demand for perfection, and the desire to point out imperfection, is a significant problem with "environmentalists". It makes it easier for someone like barros to shrug his shoulders and point out that this idealistic environmentalists still can't find their perfect solution they keep striving for. It makes people dislike some of the values that the movement upholds, and thus less inclined to embrace it or be embraced by it. It wastes time. It's not all bad, obviously. As people gradually move closer to perfection, they're doing some good. It's clear that chastising people for bad behavior is one of the most effective forms of social control, which can lead to social progress, and hard-line attitudes to what constitutes bad behavior play an important role underpinning that.
I just don't think, overall, it's the best approach to achieve the goal. The alienation it causes is particularly unhelpful when the goal is so universal. However that's just my opinion from a very limited vantage point, limited experience, plenty of ignorance, and in a situation that is very hard to think about in a clear-headed way. I am mostly probably wrong about most things, because it's a combination of very complicated environmental, social, political, legal and economic factors that are impossible to have the required understanding of, simultaneously, to understand the problems in their entirety and propose perfect solutions. So I think imperfect solutions are things to be very happy about. And when comments like yours are made, yes, I find it sad, in part because it's a reminder of how some of our biggest challenges to making progress are so fundamentally human.
have scientists galvanized the type of protest and support she has in the last 20 years? no. arguably the scientific community hasn't done enough to make their voices heard. and yes, practical ideas are what we need but that isn't something Greta can contribute to right now. that's not the role of teenagers. what they can do is put constant pressure on politicians, the media, the general public at large, the adults who aren't doing enough, so that behavioural change may just occur to the point where innovation and 'practical ideas' can be better explored/researched/invested in.
this is also completely unfounded. what a pathetic comment.
god forbid scientists aren't mystical fortune tellers with 100% accuracy. guess we should just ignore them completely.
This is just utter horseshit and i dont believe you actually think that. You've got yourself too deep into this discussion so now you're just chatting any old shite.
Imagine seriously posting that raising awareness has no role to play in tackling climate change. Even if we assume everyone is aware (they're clearly fecking not) any movement needs continuous public pressure especially one that barely features in certain papers.
How old are you? Why does everything have to be said in absolutes...you are very young I'm guessing. The point is that current climate science is not definitive, the picture evolves as we understand more. The hysteria that right now and only now we have the complete picture, well its not exactly new.
my age is irrelevant (no, i'm not young) and a deflection. if you couldn't quite catch the sarcasm in my post then that's on you. i was using it to make a point.
i agree, climate science is not definitive, and yes it does evolve as we understand more. therefore perhaps you can apply that rationale to the predictions you're talking about in the early 90s.
what you're basically doing right now is ignoring or at least downplaying the current scientific community's warnings about the future because their predictions in the past haven't always been completely accurate. that's a gamble that might be fine for you (you are very old i'm guessing), but a pretty shitty gamble to make for our children and children's children.
Yes I agree with you. I have been in touch with RT and now understand his post. Most importantly we are both in agreement regarding climate change.
Yes. I agree and have discussed this with him and now understand his post.
This'll be my last post as I don't want to flood the thread with comments that the forum are seeming to take as "anti climate action", as that's certainly not the intention.
My simple points were that:
- She's 16 - people maybe took the "idiot" comment as inflammatory and personal. It wasn't meant to be... It was simply an acknowledgement that 16 year olds aren't emotionally and intellectually developed. That's why the can't vote, that's why they can't be married without parental consent. They're by definition immature.
- The way she's going about effecting change is in my view counterproductive. Righteous indignation might rally her base, but they're already changing their habits so they aren't the ones who need to be rallied. It's everyone else that needs to be convinced. The way to do this is not shouting "failure", it's building practical consensus.
- Practical solutions... She literally said in her speech in regards to the ideas that people had put forward "There will not be any solutions or plans presented in line with these figures here today." Ok fair enough, not a single world leader (or anyone else) has brought a solution to the table at a UN conference on the subject that's radical enough. What is the solution then? Nowhere in the biggest speech of her life did she even touch on one thing we could/should all do, she in fact poured scorn on other people's ideas/proposals.
- It's dangerous in my view to thrust her into the position she's in. I don't think any 16 year old could be prepared to be the face of a global cause, especially one with mental health issues. This situation could ultimately end in her health being irreperably damaged and I can't see any argument that should supercede safeguarding a child. We've seen 20 year old footballers go off the rail with this sort of fame. In any other position we'd say it was absurd... A 16 year old Surgeon, CEO, MP, Scientist... But somehow global ambassador is A-OK.
Because we've got all the time in the world to wait for that technology to come of age, right? The last 30 years could've been exclusively nuclear powered. And STILL there's a refusal to accept nuclear as the clear stop gap in our power grid. It's bat shit mental.
I think that fission is the lesser evil when it comes to it vs fossil energy, but the situation is more complex. First, it isn't clear if fission can solve the energy issue on its own. It is a very dangerous technology, it creates a shitload of waste, it needs radioactive materials (which are finite and not easy to be processed) and it can be used only from some countries. I believe that a combination of it with green energies could be the solution for the next few decades until we finally crack fusion which IMO is the long term solution. We know that stopping economic growth, not flying airplanes and the other bullshit presented by extremists while in theory will 'save the planet', it has 0 chance of getting implemented. What I believe states should do is to put an insane amount of money in fusion research and make it profitable, while at the same time putting another insane amount of money in stop-gaps like fission and green energy.
If there will be a solution, I think it is gonna be a technological/scientific solution, not a philosophical one when humans suddenly decide to not be humans anymore. It is in our DNA to be greedy, we ain't going to change it cause Greta screamed at our world leaders.
why does increased awareness need only relate to a philosophical solution? i'm pretty sure Greta herself would be open to technological solutions. the will to invest the amount of money required will come through leaders motivated by the direction of the voting public, or business motivated by the consumer. both the general voter and the consumer need all the awareness they can get.