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.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

What do you mean by the “popularity” being dependent on global warming being real? Do you mean like public concern about it or political concern?
I’d argue that even if we cannot prove climate change is real, the consequences are so great that we may as well treat it as if it is. It’s like Pascal’s wager.

Climate Change turns out to be a massive hoax perpetuated by “scientists paid off by governments to deceive people so they can get re-elected: If we denied it all along, nothing changes. If we treated it as if we were real,nothing changes, we have all this useful technology and a less polluted world anyways.

climate change is real: If we treated it as if were real- so once again the day is saved, thanks to the Scientists! If we denied it- everything goes to hell and Earth is burnt to a crisp.

Denial has the option of doing nothing or losing everything. Belief has the option of doing a little more than nothing or winning everything.

Even if the science doesn’t leave much room for skeptism, the stakes do not either, but it could still do good to be critical of movement tactics and media coverage when it comes to efficacy and transparency.

I mean financial concern. Global Warming is real ->
A lot more students come study it, bringing more money.
More interest from scientific community.
Corporations paying a pretty penny for "climate experts".
So why should the vast majority of scientists try to argue against it when they directly benefit from it?

I can't disagree enough with the Pascal’s wager argument. It's not some minor sacrifice, it's massive changes in the economy and politics that benefit some of the absolutely worse people and countries. I might as well argue that you should give me a million dollars or suffer infinite time in hell and by that same logic the million dollar is the better choice.

Edit: Also the "solutions" themselves do not solve global warming in any way, so there is no point to following them.

 

[AnOminous]

When people see failures but no success, they see the movement as futile, and don’t want to contribute to it. If you want empowered people who can act, you need to avoid darkness induced audience apathy and show them examples of positive change or even potential positive change no matter how big or small.

The sheer unlikableness of Greta has made me consider that she's literally an industry shill sent to discourage environmental activism by convincing people it's pointless and worthless and they should sink into a sea of impotent rage and emo bullshit instead. But then I look at her parents and the people pimping this bitterly angry and depressed autistic loli to the world and realize they're just such shitty people they actually think this is persuasive in a good way, that somehow this grimacing, scolding goblin is anything but someone for people like Trump to point at and say "this is what an environmentalist looks like."

 

[CWCissey]

Big Ears HAS to be taking the piss with that facial expression.

 

[ditto]

I’d argue that even if we cannot prove climate change is real, the consequences are so great that we may as well treat it as if it is. It’s like Pascal’s wager.

This argument only works if you believe that "climate action" will make the world better and not worse.

 

[TowinKarz]

This argument only works if you believe that "climate action" will make the world better and not worse.

The kind of "climate science" I despise is the kind that wrecks entire industries and puts hundreds of thousands out of work for a 3% change in the reduction of a given chemical in the environment, which is hailed as a great success.

Meanwhile, other people who need that chemical for THEIR industry just go and get it from China, which doesn't DO environment, so the numbers may end up going up.

Look, I agree that it's not a bad thing to reduce pollution, but diminishing returns kicks in at some point, and you end up paying for negligible improvements with human suffering in destabilized economies and lives, which is always justified by ignorance and strident moral superiority that makes us all look like Captain Planet villains to the average Green, existing to wreck nature for the thrill of it, if not obscene profit. At some point, you have to accept a measurable trace of humanity's activities is going to get into the "pure" environment.

But, they are fanatical in their defense of the Planet to the degree that in their world view a logger simply hates trees and the timber industry is full of people gathered round' a table smoking cigars while saying "Which forest to we clear-cut today boys?" Not that a logger has got to make a living, or the inconvenient hypocrisy that their own homes are made on a frame of wood and covered in wood shingles, provided by the logical response to that need, an industry to supply it.... you know that paper and lumber companies PLANT trees, right? Probably more than any of these whining Eco Warriors have, because, you know, even at their most mercenary, they need to keep the forests growing.

But that doesn't matter, they're doing things that have good outcomes for fundamentally WRONG reasons! (Profit vs wanting a tree to hug) and therefore, they are WRONG and those who do nothing, but wish so hard for good things to happen, are BETTER!

And that says it all. Leftism is a religion in the current year, facts be damned, moral fiber and purity tests all the way.....that's how humanity moves forward! Everything they scolded the right for doing in the name of Jesus 40 years ago (opinions stated as fact, moral scolding, hyperbolic claims about the end of days on the horizon) is now fine if you do it in the name of "Mother Earth", they have no solutions other than blind faith in their own assured righteousness.

To paraphrase Movie Bob: There are no bad crusades, only bad Gods.

 

[polonium]

All of which may be true, but the thing that got my tinfoil hat quivering was when being told about how high tech the control system was, and how it works through our WiFi so that we can check out the current output, the sales guy mentioned that the system for houses was made by Huawei.

The biggest problem with Huawei is that they steal IP, not necessarily that they're spying. That said, there's probably a backdoor in there so they can turn the power grid off when they finally declare war.

But in case of over-consumption it's purely cultural. You can have a capitalist society that tries to not over consume. You can have a Socialist society that will over-consume if they can (if anything they will likely have a higher rate of consumption due to resources being free). Countries with free healthcare are a great example of how it's abused. But I can point to primitive examples like Indians slaying massive number of animals and only using a fraction of the meat.

This is one of those curious things. Those on the left see the Tragedy of the Commons as an allegory about how bad capitalism is because something something people consume things, when it's actually about how if nobody owns something or has to work to maintain it then everyone will abuse the shit out of it to everyone's detriment. It's a cautionary tale about excessive state ownership of assets.

 

[DonaldLump]

Why I'm so 'triggered' by her? Because this entire cult around her is manufactured lunacy. This aspie-cunt that can see CO2 molecules is treated like a goddamn saint. Oh so rational, scientific thinking, big-brained faggots act like a bunch of religious fanatics who think the world will end in a few years. This entire shit has the exact same feeling to me like the media propaganda for the last wars had. Does anyone else feel the same way? 'Oh, Gaddafi oppresses and kills his population. If you aren't against him and don't support the freedom loving, clearly good rebels, you're a bigot' The same shit with Assad. And what was the result? The fucking migrant crisis. Millions of niggers and muslims flooding into Europe. I tell you this is the exact same shit. Who is the group that is most 'oppressed' by climate change? Africans. Politicians here in Europe have already started to talk about taking in 'climate refugees'. All this propaganda has the purpose to guilt western populations into maintaining a constant influx of migrants into their own countries.

Ok, I hear you, but why do they want migrants flooding in willingly? To what end?

 

[Kiwi Farms Lurker]

Dunno if this has been posted.

Dear Greta Thunberg

By Jason D. Hill ...
Professor at DePaul University in Chicago

Dear Greta Thunberg:

You have declared yourself a leader and said that your generation will start a revolution. You have comported yourself as a credentialed adult and climate change activist who has fearlessly addressed politicians and world leaders. You have dropped out of school and declared that there isn’t any reason to attend, or any reason for you to study since there will be no future for you to inherit. You have, rather than attend your classes, been leading Friday Climate Strikes for all students in your generation across the globe. Your attendance at oil pipelines has been striking. There, you unequivocally declare that all oil needs to remain in the ground where it belongs.

I shall, therefore, against the backdrop of your activism, address you as an adult rather than as a child.

In September of 2019 you crossed the Atlantic in a “zero carbon” racing yacht that had no toilet and electric light on board. You made an impassioned plea at the United Nations in which you claimed that, “we have stolen your dreams and our childhood with our empty words.” You claimed that adults and world leaders come to young people for answers and explained in anger: “How dare you!” You claimed that we are failing you and that young people are beginning to understand our betrayal. You further declared that if we continue to fail your generation: “We will never forgive you.”

You have stated that you want us to panic, and to act as if our homes are on fire. You insist that rich countries must reduce to zero emissions immediately. In your speeches you attack economic growth and have stated that our current climate crisis is caused by “buying and building things.” You call for climate justice and equity, without addressing the worst polluter on the planet China; the country that is economically annexing much of Africa and Latin America. You dare not lecture Iran about its uranium projects -- because that’s not part of the UN’s agenda, is it?

You proclaim that we need to live within the planetary boundaries, to focus on equity and “take a few steps back” for the sake of all living species. You resent the hierarchical distinctions between human and animals and entertain no qualitative distinction between a monkey, a malaria-infested mosquito and a snarling hyena. You mouth slogans such as: “We have set in motion an irreversible chain reaction beyond control,” and you advocate for universal veganism on the Ellen DeGeneres show. You do not buy new clothes, and you don’t want the rest of us to either. You want us all to stop flying in jet planes without giving us an alternative as to how we would re-transform our financial and trading systems—to say nothing of our personal enjoyment of the world—without regression to a primeval era. Few can afford to cross the Atlantic in a $6M zero carbon yacht financed by rich people who made their wealth by the very means you condemn as loathsome.

There are a few things that we, the rational adults of the world who are not bowing to you like guilt-ridden obsequious Babbitts need to say to you, Greta.

First, we did not rob you of your childhood or of your dreams. You are the legatee of a magnificent technological civilization which my generation and the one before it and several others preceding it all the way to the Industrial Revolution and the Renaissance, bequeathed to you. That growth-driven, capitalist technological civilization has created the conditions for you to harangue us over our betrayal. It is a civilization that eradicated diseases such as small pox from the word, and that lifted millions out of abject poverty in a universe you think is dying and decaying. It assured you a life expectancy that exceeded that of your ancestors. Most likely by focusing on economic growth which you demonize, and scientific advancement, that civilization will further enhance a robust quality of life and health for your descendants.

Here is a hard truth to ponder, Greta: if the great producers of this world whom you excoriate were to withdraw their productivity, wealth and talents—in short—their minds from the world today, your generation would simply perish. Why? Because as children you have done nothing as yet, with your lives besides being born. This is what we expect of children until such time as they can be producers by learning from their elders. You are understandably social and ecological ballast. You are not yet cognitively advanced to replicate the structures of survival of which you are the beneficiaries.

Children are important instalments on the future. We have invested in you. It is you and your smug generation which think they have nothing to learn from the older ones who are failing themselves. Whom do you expect to employ the majority of you if you have neither the job credentials or life competency skills to navigate the world? The future unemployable-skipping- school-on-Friday obstreperous children?

The truth, as one anonymous blogger aptly put it, is that your generation is unable to work up to forty hours per week without being chronically depressed and anxious. Its members cannot even decide if they want to be a boy or a girl, or both, or neither, or a “they.” They cannot eat meat without crying. I might add that your generation needs “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces” as pre-conditions for learning in school. Its members have a pathological need to be coddled and protected from the challenging realities of life. Your generation is the biggest demander and consumer of carbon spewing technological gadgets and devices. An hour without any of them and too many of you succumb to paralysing lethargy. Your generation is the least curious and most insular set of individuals one has ever encountered. Your hubris extends so far that you think you have nothing to learn from your elders.

Yes, we have betrayed you: by capitulating the world of leadership to bored, attention-deficit children who spout bromides, platitudes and slogans that a rudderless and morally relativistic culture accepts because a significant number of its denizens have become intellectually bankrupt and morally lazy.

The logical endpoint of your ecological vision would see us living in primeval conditions eking out an existence in jungle swamps in which we would regard poisonous snakes and man-eating tigers as our moral equals. We would have to adapt ourselves to nature rather than adapt nature to meet our needs, like all members of civilized civilizations do. Your vision would see us foraging for mushrooms and plants without knowing which were inimical to our digestive systems. Under your system we would swelter from heat, die from rampant plagues and starvation because there will be no air-conditioning units, no sophisticated plumbing and irrigations and sewer systems, no anti-bacterial soap made from animal matter, no pesticides and chemicals to sanitize our food and drinking supplies: just one primordial swamp of human putrefaction.

If civilization is left in the hands of your ecofascist supporters we will be living in grass huts, drinking animal faeces infested water, and shrinking in fear from polar bears instead of killing them for food when they attack us.

Greta, living in complete harmony with nature is the death of creativity. Understand this. All great civilizations were forged in the crucibles of proper exploitation of the earth. Those who lived on land with oil and did nothing with it never had a right to it in the first place. Non-usage of God’s resources is the cardinal sin because it results in the un-development of our human capabilities, and makes us indistinguishable from beasts.

Your generation needs to be taught the morality of wealth creation, rather than only parasitically benefiting from it. The only revolution you will lead is one into nihilism and civilization regression. You need to learn about the moral case for fossil fuel. You owe it to yourself to understand how as, Kathleen Hartnett White has detailed, the harnessing of the vast store of concentrated energy in fossil fuels allowed mankind, for the first time in human history, to escape intractable constraints and energy limits that had left all but the very privileged in total poverty and depravity. Before the Industrial Revolution all societies were dependent on a very limited flow of solar energy captured in living plants for subsistence needs such as food, fuel and shelter.

But we, the creative enterprisers, will not go back to the Dark Ages. Your philosophy can be summed up as follows:

What was good for my anthropoid ancestors is good for me. Do not rock the boat, or even build one as that will require cutting down a tree. Do not disrupt nature. Do not dare to see the earth as rightfully belonging to us. We don’t have the right to use our brains in a manner that can transform our needs into a material form. Let’s conveniently forget that production is the application of reason to the problems of survival. Let’s all diminish the grandeur of man and his luminous potential. Crush the Thomas Edisons of this world.

The apocalyptic world vision you hold has been a strip landing for those who have hated progress throughout history. Your apocalyptic predictions have been made for millennia, and, we’re still here. We will still be here long after you’ve grown up and we have forgiven you for skipping classes, thereby lowering the intelligence quotient of an entire generation.

 

[polonium]

We just looked into getting solar in my new house (in Australia). Lots of promises about how good the system was, how much we could save on our electricity bill etc...

Oh yeah here's the other reason solar is a shitshow: The amount you're saving off your bill is because the electricity generated by the panels is paid for at a hugely inflated rate, covered by everyone else's bills essentially. That's fine if there are only a few leeches trying to make money off the things, but if everyone has solar then whose paying for the subsidies? Either everyone's bills have to go up so the savings are negated, or they have to stop subsidising. Otherwise it's like the classic "trying to be lift yourself by standing in a bucket and pulling on the handle" except everyone is in the bucket and everyone is pulling on the handle.

People like Greta forget you need at least some people not standing in the bucket to be able to lift it up, and if everyone in the bucket is screaming about what an asshole you are for having enough money not to need welfare not standing in the bucket, then you'll eventually either get into that fucking bucket or you'll wander off and stop trying to lift it.

 

[George Floyd Sneed]

What do you mean by the “popularity” being dependent on global warming being real? Do you mean like public concern about it or political concern?
I’d argue that even if we cannot prove climate change is real, the consequences are so great that we may as well treat it as if it is. It’s like Pascal’s wager.

Climate Change turns out to be a massive hoax perpetuated by “scientists paid off by governments to deceive people so they can get re-elected: If we denied it all along, nothing changes. If we treated it as if we were real,nothing changes, we have all this useful technology and a less polluted world anyways.

climate change is real: If we treated it as if were real- so once again the day is saved, thanks to the Scientists! If we denied it- everything goes to hell and Earth is burnt to a crisp.

Denial has the option of doing nothing or losing everything. Belief has the option of doing a little more than nothing or winning everything.

Even if the science doesn’t leave much room for skeptism, the stakes do not either, but it could still do good to be critical of movement tactics and media coverage when it comes to efficacy and transparency.

Hmm...I’m with you. So let’s start by closing the border, deporting illegal immigrants, shipping condoms instead of food aid, enforce strict tariffs on polluting third world countries so we can get our manufactured goods from environmentally conscious first world factories with local labor, invest in carbon capture technologies, and build nuclear plants until all coal fired generators are decommissioned instead of environmentally hazardous generation from wind and solar, both proven to destroy ecological diversity in the areas they’re built.

 

[Sanshain]

both proven to destroy ecological diversity in the areas they’re built.

I'm as skeptical of Big Tech as the next person, but I always raise my eyebrows when I see commentary like this. How are wind and solar farms 'proven to destroy ecological diversity'? I am aware that intense solar energy production can render the nearly airspace hazardous for birds due to excess thermal radiation and that wind farms can potentially do the same, but how is this any more harmful than oil, coal and natural gas generators?

There's a lot of large wind turbines going up in the areas where I live. They don't exactly look amazing, and a lot of people have complained about them... but I don't see the slightest evidence that they cause ecological damage. People have claimed that birds fly into them, but what bird species flies at exactly a 50 meter altitude slowly enough to be hit by those giant, obvious, slow-ass turbines? This is unashamed correlation equals causation thinking, but my father is an avid birdwatcher, and bird populations in the region have only been increasing along with turbine presence. Songbirds, seabirds (I live in a coastal area), hunting birds, etc, are all on a general upwards trend. There have been zero reports of birds dead due to impact trauma to my knowledge, and most of the pissing and moaning by locals has been based on nonsense quackery about magnetic field disruption and stuff like that.

I also question the idea that solar panels destroy ecological diversity. I remember reading a study about this once (it was long enough ago I forget where, so sorry for not providing a source) that made the opposite case. It agreed that ground panels took up land area needed by ground-dwelling animals, but then it looked at new designs which featured raised, angled trusses that freed up the ground below. The structural supports then ended up contributing to ecological diversity, as they created large areas of permanent shelter for prey animals, and support for creepers, climbers and bushes to cling to. Meanwhile, I don't see any of that happening on a large industrialized coal or gas-fueled power-plant.

 

[CWCissey]

Can we just agree that windmills and speshul mirrors are generally shit MW-wise for energy generation in a Western urban conurbation?

 

[Stoneheart]

shipping condoms instead of food aid

Thats Cruel and ineffective, just spike the food aid with the right chemicals to make them sterile for a while(or forever)

 

[Sanshain]

Protect Eagles from Wind Turbine Fatalities – American Eagle Foundation

www.eagles.org

Maybe these niggas be lyin or something

The article does point out that this is due to human mismanagement. For example:

“Wind turbines may now be among the fastest-growing human-caused threats to our nation’s birds. Attempts to manage the wind industry with voluntary as opposed to mandatory permitting guidelines are clearly not working. Wind developers are siting turbines in areas of vital importance to birds and other wildlife, and this new data shows that the current voluntary system needs radical improvement”,

It also notes that there are new designs for turbines coming out that could eliminate this issue completely.

I don't really see this as an issue with the power generation, but with the people behind it. The last thing environmentalism can do is forget that it exists to serve nature and humanity in equal balance. Extremists on either end are bad for both sides of the partnership. I don't see any intrinsic difference between an article like this and an article talking about the dangers of nuclear energy. They're both dangerous in their own way if mishandled. If handled correctly then they both have the potential for great benefit.

tl;dr: don't demonize the method, demonize the idiots who allowed people to set up wind turbines in the middle of a major migration route for endangered species.

 

[Dante Alighieri]

The article does point out that this is due to human mismanagement. For example:



It also notes that there are new designs for turbines coming out that could eliminate this issue completely.

I don't really see this as an issue with the power generation, but with the people behind it. The last thing environmentalism can do is forget that it exists to serve nature and humanity in equal balance. Extremists on either end are bad for both sides of the partnership. I don't see any intrinsic difference between an article like this and an article talking about the dangers of nuclear energy. They're both dangerous in their own way if mishandled. If handled correctly then they both have the potential for great benefit.

tl;dr: don't demonize the method, demonize the idiots who allowed people to set up wind turbines in the middle of a major migration route for endangered species.

Okay so it doesn't kill ecological diversity, they're just incredibly inefficient and unreliable when it comes to land requirements and energy generation.

 

[Kaiser Wilhelm's Ghost]

I happened to be discussing Greta today with a work colleague. They didn't seem to like the fact that I'm not enamored by the cult of Greta or the people who are backing her.

Greta is a useful idiot. I have a feeling that she will be like most of those faces of youth movements who get the backing of lefties and the feelies brigades, she will be forgotten about in 5 years, irrelevant in 10, and likely the subject of those what are they doing now style click bait articles.

Let me straight up in saying that I wish Greta no ill will, she is an autistic 16 year old who has obviously been fed this horseshit from her superiors, handlers, and parents, and I doubt she would have come to this conclusion on her own if she hadn't been originally primed to react in this way and reinforced by the people around her.

When she speaks, it is not her words, just in the way that anyone who was in the Hitler Youth wasn't a fully responsible or ardent Nazi, or the same with the Communist party in Russia. Ironically those who are most primed to absorb rhetoric and ideological thinking are teenagers and young adults and such social experiments such as the Third Wave experiment show just how easy it is to take in young people with a structured form of leadership, because of their apparent need for a sense of belonging.

There are likely those who will point out that Greta being a 16 year old and part of this sit out of school movement would obviously be bringing down criticism on herself, but I don't feel that is true. If anything the way that Swedish culture is structured to celebrate and tolerate protest, (except when it's nationalist or patriotic) and furthermore with a teaching system that is heavily left leaning, as well as her parents who are part of this elite eco-cultist movement that seems to have enveloped the upper middle/wealthier classes, she's not exactly going against anything.

Anyone who has shown any level of doubt, since she was pushed into the spotlight has been decried by the media or the climate change cult as a non-believer. A Trump following, racist, redneck, backwards, etc. The amount of vitriol is amazing.

So according to Greta, AOC, and the Cult of Woke environmentalists.

1. Western society alone is responsible or seemingly responsible for all of the worlds industrial pollution, despite the fact that if you do any digging you can see that in terms of overall output the west has been reducing it manufacturing output for the last 60 years, leading to unemployment issues at home due to low skilled and semi-skilled labour jobs that effectively supported the working and lower middle class simply were removed over a long drawn out period of transferring manufacturing to the 3rd world and mainly China. Not only did this actually cause major issues in their home countries, due to unemployment and the resulting social issues, but had the knock on effect of handing the reigns over to the countries that would do the cheapest job, not necessarily the cleanest. So not only did those countries in their quest for cheap marketable goods, get their own working classes priced out of the global labor market, but the loss of those key industries and those companies that would support or comply with environmental controls were simply dismantled to be exchanged for countries that don't have or will not enforce the environmental laws on their books.
2. It is therefore the fault of the global minority of polluters, IE the western democracies, that should bare the brunt of the environmentalist movements guilt ridden ideas of returning the world to some sort of equilibrium with the planet, by expecting those in Western societies to essentially accept never ending austerity and grinding poverty, instead of trying to bring in line those developing economies. So instead of trying to bring everyone to the level of agreed environmental controls practiced in western economies, there is this push to bring everyone down to a 3rd world style of living situation. The further implication is that in order for us to actually be able as a society to actuate the dreams of the eco-fascists we would need to not only cut down our carbon emissions, but also remove a massive amount of people from the planet in order to make the cycle sustainable. It doesn't take a lot of imagination knowing how the 20th century worked for humanity in general when certain groups of people were considered surplus to requirement, by their own governments or governments hostile to them. Needless to say, the system would not only require and justify the mass removal of people from the planet through what ever means would be deemed acceptable, but it would also require further stringent controls on population, in as much as mass sterilization, one child families, and a social credit system similar to the Chinese idea currently in action, would dictate who could and would have the rights to reproduce and have families. (You may think that I'm being hyperbolic, I'm not, look at the agrarian reforms implemented by Communist regimes in Asia, and the resulting death tolls.)
3. The leftist environmentalist bloc that supports her isn't coming from a place of genuine concern. We all know the types of people who support this so called environmentalism. People who are generally ignorant of the world and the people in it. They come from it blinkered, usually from a middle class lifestyle. We all know the types, and millennial's seem to be the worse, empowered by their Chinese made smart phones and google and thinking they are smarter than they actually are, they have no problem telling you how you should feel guilty about eating meat on a semi-regular basis, while driving around in an SUV, complain about plastic in the oceans, while eating vegan take-away's. They are hypocrites of the highest order, and they don't even know what you are talking about half the time when you discuss any truly environmental topic. They don't know how to plant a tree. They don't know how to germinate seeds or plant gardens. They wouldn't bother to volunteer with a local clean up, since they don't care. They wouldn't even be able to identify a wild food if their lives depended on it. But they can sip their vegan latte's and virtue signal on twitter, or do something stupid like glue themselves to a bus and expect you to applaud them for all of the great change that they're doing. And that is all it is in the end with the majority of these people, involved in this cult. They don't care about actual action, they care about their activism and shoulder pats, like some weird form of internal circle jerk.
4. Their is no place for anyone who doesn't follow the code in their movement. As stated above, any actual mention of realistic environmentalism. IE banning single use plastics or improving recycling laws and not exporting recycling to China or Malaysia where the wastage gets burned, sanctions on countries that don't improve their actual environmental outputs, self grown environmentally friendly businesses and industrial improvements, using nuclear power stations to eradicate coal power, actually improving the clothing chain by buying less and ethical, and cutting down on cotton in lieu of hemp or other environmentally friendly fibres. Talking about hunting and the natural chain of predation and how it effects the biomes, including the fact that the majority of hunters are pro-environmentalist, pro-stewardship. The fact that fossil fuel usage in farming in addition to monocultural growing of crops is not sustainable in terms of an energy structure, pesticides, soil erosion, and decreased nutritional value, while things like aquaculture and permaculture, compositing and inclusion of animals in the farming food chain are much more beneficial for the planet in terms of soil fertility, nutritional value, and natural fertility. Or beneficial tree planting and habit restructuring. Or as mentioned above, just local community clean ups. Instead if you don't tow the line, then your an enemy of the people, and when people discuss things in terms of me or them, any opportunity they have to wield power over you, they will and if they're honest they will at least be willing to admit it.
5. It's basically another neo-marxist attempt at pushing the old maxims of revenge for colonialism, revenge for technological advancements, and ardent white guilt. If such was not the case, then why are their movements attached to the general eco-leftist movement, that advocate for sterility for only ethnically white populations? These movements are usually led or advocated for by women, but they always at their core have the same message. Stop having children. But it's only ever targeted at the native population, the same native population that has effectively seen it's fertility crater since the end of the war, and their governments won't allow a natural re-adjustment of population loss to happen, because it means that all of their social security apparatuses will crumble and fail without a mass of people to tax and pay into them. At the same time, the answer of just bringing in more migrants, many who lack the fundamentals of education or cultural sensibility to be a good fit into westernized culture, get brought in as economic welfare cases in the vain hopes that at least some of them will be able to be a net contribution to the economy and not a net drain. But of course saying as much brings up the inevitable specter of being accused of racism. As does pointing out that without food aid, and various other programs in place, the population booms in places like Africa would not be sustainable with their current economic outputs or agricultural industries. However expectations that they or India or any other developing third world country should try to curb their population growth, and have that tied implicitly to foreign aid delivered to those countries, is again shouted down as racist by the types of people who demand that all whites are implicitly privileged, and are happy to fork out $10 whenever Africa has food crisis, and a population begins to starve.

So, sorry but I have to say that whatever this puppet without strings says, I'm not inclined to agree with her. And I will revel in the fact that in 40 years when the polar caps haven't melted, and eco-fascism hasn't crippled the earth's economy and wiped out countless millions of people and species, and people will be laughing at Greta as much as they will be Al Gore, while the Polar Bear population is booming, and the Chinese are still the leading cause of world pollution.

 

[Yamma Damma]

Haven't seen it mentioned so here we go.

Greta's fearmongering activism inspired a number of picture books for kids. Here's one of the better-looking ones called Greta and the Giants, drawn by Zoe Persico. (Which is how I found out about it at all)

From A Mighty Girl, a girlpower website that teeter-totters between sweet and creepy:

"Greta is a little girl who lives in a beautiful forest threatened by Giants. When the Giants first came to the forest, they chopped down trees to make houses. Then they chopped down more trees and made even bigger homes. The houses grew into towns and the towns grew into cities, until now there is hardly any forest left. Greta knows she has to help the animals who live in the forest, but how? Luckily, Greta has an idea...

This inspiring picture book retells the story of Nobel Peace Prize nominee Greta Thunberg — the Swedish teenager who has led a global movement to raise awareness about the world's climate crisis — using allegory to make this important topic accessible to young children. A section at the back explains that, in reality, the fight against the "giants" isn't over and explains how you can help Greta in her fight.

This book has been printed sustainably in the US on 100% recycled paper. By buying a copy of this book, you are making a donation of 3% of the cover price to 350.org."

And from the Amazon page, most of the 5 star reviews are praising the art and not much about the writing. While the more saner reviews are the ones giving this 3, 2, or 1 stars, like this one:

(I like this artist and it's a shame to see her work wasted but if there's one thing porn and propaganda have in common it's how well it pays at the cost of your dignity.)

 

[ditto]

Greta is a little girl who lives in a beautiful forest threatened by Giants.

So that is what they're calling Jews nowdays.

 

[LetterlandMafia]

Haven't seen it mentioned so here we go.

Greta's fearmongering activism inspired a number of picture books for kids. Here's one of the better-looking ones called Greta and the Giants, drawn by Zoe Persico. (Which is how I found out about it at all)

View attachment 1116454

From A Mighty Girl, a girlpower website that teeter-totters between sweet and creepy:

"Greta is a little girl who lives in a beautiful forest threatened by Giants. When the Giants first came to the forest, they chopped down trees to make houses. Then they chopped down more trees and made even bigger homes. The houses grew into towns and the towns grew into cities, until now there is hardly any forest left. Greta knows she has to help the animals who live in the forest, but how? Luckily, Greta has an idea...

This inspiring picture book retells the story of Nobel Peace Prize nominee Greta Thunberg — the Swedish teenager who has led a global movement to raise awareness about the world's climate crisis — using allegory to make this important topic accessible to young children. A section at the back explains that, in reality, the fight against the "giants" isn't over and explains how you can help Greta in her fight.

This book has been printed sustainably in the US on 100% recycled paper. By buying a copy of this book, you are making a donation of 3% of the cover price to 350.org."

And from the Amazon page, most of the 5 star reviews are praising the art and not much about the writing. While the more saner reviews are the ones giving this 3, 2, or 1 stars, like this one:
View attachment 1116465

(I like this artist and it's a shame to see her work wasted but if there's one thing porn and propaganda have in common it's how well it pays at the cost of your dignity.)

I hope someone has called this out for the shameless cashgrab that it is. A Mighty Girl is another one of those communities of grown ass adults who are way too invested in what little kids are doing.

Also lol at Greta’s black friend back there. If the giants aren’t all white and male I’d be surprised.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Haven't seen it mentioned so here we go.

Greta's fearmongering activism inspired a number of picture books for kids. Here's one of the better-looking ones called Greta and the Giants, drawn by Zoe Persico. (Which is how I found out about it at all)

View attachment 1116454

From A Mighty Girl, a girlpower website that teeter-totters between sweet and creepy:

"Greta is a little girl who lives in a beautiful forest threatened by Giants. When the Giants first came to the forest, they chopped down trees to make houses. Then they chopped down more trees and made even bigger homes. The houses grew into towns and the towns grew into cities, until now there is hardly any forest left. Greta knows she has to help the animals who live in the forest, but how? Luckily, Greta has an idea...

This inspiring picture book retells the story of Nobel Peace Prize nominee Greta Thunberg — the Swedish teenager who has led a global movement to raise awareness about the world's climate crisis — using allegory to make this important topic accessible to young children. A section at the back explains that, in reality, the fight against the "giants" isn't over and explains how you can help Greta in her fight.

This book has been printed sustainably in the US on 100% recycled paper. By buying a copy of this book, you are making a donation of 3% of the cover price to 350.org."

And from the Amazon page, most of the 5 star reviews are praising the art and not much about the writing. While the more saner reviews are the ones giving this 3, 2, or 1 stars, like this one:
View attachment 1116465

(I like this artist and it's a shame to see her work wasted but if there's one thing porn and propaganda have in common it's how well it pays at the cost of your dignity.)

Sounds like a shittier The Giving Tree.