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.

 

[Mr. Skeltal]

Wow, and nobody in the mass media or 'climate emergency', anti-fossil fuel movements ever mention this. Once that thing gets producing power, the gig is up for 'renewables', isn't it? Going to be hard to sell wood pellets and endless little windmills that collectively produce a few percent of the nations' power needs when you have a fusion reactor online.

It's "nuclear", so the Greens will find a way to screech about it being the next worst thing since Fukushima. Despite being outwardly hip with the science, I contend most eco-autists are just anti-carbon, anti-nuclear luddites.

 

[Radical 38]

I would like to give special thanks to @Icasaracht for derailing this thread so badly that it became educational. Sperg on, you trolling faggot.

 

[Bob's Ghost]

I can't believe that no one has pointed out that she's basically Jason Stryker from X2. They even have the same default facial expression. https://youtu.be/uEK0vjwYgAU

 

[turboNIG-3k]

Wow, and nobody in the mass media or 'climate emergency', anti-fossil fuel movements ever mention this. Once that thing gets producing power, the gig is up for 'renewables', isn't it? Going to be hard to sell wood pellets and endless little windmills that collectively produce a few percent of the nations' power needs when you have a fusion reactor online.

What gets me is that yes, using fusion to actually generate power in a viable manner requires lots of research still; but the same applies to storing all the surplus our shiny new windmills and solar panels will generate during peak production and then using it when power generation drops off after dark etc.
I mean I saw some pretty nifty Israeli application of molten salt heat accumulation, but nigger we have neither the deserts nor the day-long intense sunlight; and all the answers I've been getting so far amount to "we'll figure something out".

 

[teriyakiburns]

What gets me is that yes, using fusion to actually generate power in a viable manner requires lots of research still; but the same applies to storing all the surplus our shiny new windmills and solar panels will generate during peak production and then using it when power generation drops off after dark etc.
I mean I saw some pretty nifty Israeli application of molten salt heat accumulation, but nigger we have neither the deserts nor the day-long intense sunlight; and all the answers I've been getting so far amount to "we'll figure something out".

They can't figure something out. It's physically impossible. Excuse my incoming rant.

It all comes down to density. The sun drops a peak power of about 1kw per square meter at the equator, at midday. Nothing at night. By various lumps of mathematics you can get a maximum average energy of about 300kWh per square meter per year with solar. Obviously this varies by location; the further you are from the equator, the less energy you get. Any technology that uses the sun as its energy source has a hard upper limit as a result, and that upper limit is not remotely high enough to provide a viable replacement for existing energy production sources.

Every "renewable" energy source, save for hydrothermal, which is bad because fracking, is ultimate solar energy that has gone through a transformation to mechanical energy, with all the losses that would entail. Even hydro relies on solar energy to transport water to the head of a dam's catchment. Each one has the same energy density issue of solar, but with less energy to begin with due to those losses. That hard limit of 1kW per square meter at peak is as much power as is available to any renewable.

Compare all of that with, to pick a random example, Dampierre nuclear power station in France. Dampierre covers about 0.71 square kilometres, or about 710,000 square meters, and produces around 24600 GWh per year, or about 34000 kWh per square meter (that's if I got my decimals right but even if I'm off by a factor of 10, that's still 3400kWh per m² per year). To get that amount of energy from solar, you'd need to cover the entire Loire valley in solar panels, from Angers to Nevers, and that's assuming you're getting the maximum energy available. France receives about half the energy you'd get at the equator, so you'd need to double that. That's just to replace one average sized power plant.

Again, assuming my maths is right. I am a rətard at the best of times.

tl;dr no renewable produces the energy required to service the current needs of our civilisation, never mind the predicted future needs of the all-electric utopia we're being herded into. They can't "figure out" a way around the laws of physics. The only way to resolve the energy density problem of solar is to reduce energy requirements to a fraction of their current level.

You can probably guess how they're going to "figure out" that particular solution.

Edited slightly to fix a factor error on solar. It's still crap.

 

[#zzz]

Current year has completely ruined hyperbole. I used to love to exaggerate things just to make a point. Now I can just literally describe shit exactly as it actually happens and still sound like I'm making completely unbelievable claims.

And people say we've evolved beyond our neanderthal ancestors who called out to the sky gods. No... people are just monkeymen in suits.

 

[Turnip_Head]

Both natural gas and Nuclear power are the best way to generate power.

Clean and cost efficient.
Nuclear is just bananas expensive for the first 5-10 years, but makes up for it with fantastical low operating costs. The down payments for development are pretty crippling. If nuclear-boos want to make Nuclear great again, they should focusing on halfing the development costs of existing reactor templates. Not chasing after wunderwaffen tech like Fusion, Imo.

Having a dynamic system of both natural gas and nuclear is the best strategy logistically. Which is what the US has, though their development of nuclear is a bit hamstrung at the moment.

You have natural gas for rapid development low cost demands, and you have nuclear for long term investments that can afford the up front cost.

The big flaw of nuclear is the economic risk rather than an environmental one. Once you build a reactor, your economic development is basically anchored to that area for 20 years. So if you build a reactor to synergize with some newly developed area, but then that area goes belly up, you are left with a humongous bill as a civic official. However if the plant pays off, it can pay off pretty substantially. Far more profitable over a 20+ year period than a fossil fuel plant would in 20+ years.

The thing that makes natural gas so good is that in addition to the rapid development and low cost advantages of fossil fuels, it’s basically the cleanest fossil fuel you can burn. This is because it only really produces CO2. For example lean over a propane stove and you are perfectly fine. Lean over a charcoal grill and you’ll start coughing and wheezing. (Because the charcoal is releasing sulfur and other eye watering chemicals)

And you can crucify me if you want but I don’t think CO2 is all that bad. I find that CO2’s properties of absorbing radiation to be a little... overhyped? For example your bedroom probably has 800 ppm of CO2 while the air outside is 440ppm on average. A university classroom or office space could have anywhere from 1000-3000ppm depending on the density of people in the room. And these people want you to believe that the earth will melt at 500ppm. Pssshhh.
Also CO2 is where the Carbon in “Carbon-based-lifeform” comes from with it being plant food and all that. So yeah, something-something world hunger?

Every other fossil fuel has some chemical other than CO2 which makes its emissions hazardous. (The Nitrogen and Carbon Monoxide of car exhaust will fucking kill you, and coal is basically the same with a more sulfurous flavoring.)
So ideally we would have NGL powered cars, but that would be hard to pull off. But hey Tesla made their cars work, so I guess some things are possible.

 

[AnOminous]

Every other fossil fuel has some chemical other than CO2 which makes its emissions hazardous. (The Nitrogen and Carbon Monoxide of car exhaust will fucking kill you, and coal is basically the same with a more sulfurous flavoring.)

Fun fact: coal-fired power plants release vastly more radioactivity than nuclear power plants, because uranium and thorium are released, concentrated in coal ash.

 

[Wendy Wheelchair]

BBC to produce TV series about Greta Thunberg's life

The BBC will produce a series about 17-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg, the studio’s science unit announced Monday at its BBC Showcase trade show.

thehill.com

Archive

The real question is, who has the FASe to play Greta?

 

[CWCissey]

BBC to produce TV series about Greta Thunberg's life

The BBC will produce a series about 17-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg, the studio’s science unit announced Monday at its BBC Showcase trade show.

thehill.com

Archive

The real question is, who has the FASe to play Greta?

I would say some cute kid is going to play Greta because BBC, but then I remembered they had an actual Downie play Shannon Matthews in the drama about her fake kidnapping.

 

[Wendy Wheelchair]

I would say some cute kid is going to play Greta because BBC, but then I remembered they had an actual Downie play Shannon Matthews in the drama about her fake kidnapping.

Well, since it's the BBC, it's gotta be a black downie at least.

 

[CWCissey]

Well, since it's the BBC, it's gotta be a black downie at least.

Nah just one ticked box is fine.

You know they'd just cast Ruth Madeley if they could.

 

[Fliddaroonie]

Nah just one ticked box is fine.

You know they'd just cast Ruth Madeley if they could.

Naw, they're all over multiple woko haram points these days. Can't just have a cripple, they have to be LGBTQIAP++ too, no regular barn variety Muslims here. Noooo, they're Gay too.

Bonus points if they talk like a moron and sound basic as fuck too, which explains all of Radio One.


Greta would love it though. I wonder of the Beeb wil breed a FAS midget intentionally fitting their needs?

 

[⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛]

Just so all you haters know, an authoritative news source has revealed that there is apparently Greta themed porn out there.

 

[neverendingmidi]

Just so all you haters know, an authoritative news source has revealed that there is apparently Greta themed porn out there.

99.99999% of themed porn just has me shaking my head and asking "whyyyyyyyyyy?!?"

 

[Super-Chevy454]

99.99999% of themed porn just has me shaking my head and asking "whyyyyyyyyyy?‽"

And how long before Greta said to them: "How dare you?".

 

[737 MAX Stan Account]

Just so all you haters know, an authoritative news source has revealed that there is apparently Greta themed porn out there.

Nigger, was that something we really needed to be informed of?

 

[Mola Ram]

And how long before Greta said to them: "How dare you?".

She says that when the dude nuts on her face.

 

[CWCissey]

Just so all you haters know, an authoritative news source has revealed that there is apparently Greta themed porn out there.

Not that one with the couple fucking on a dirty beach is it?

 

[LetThemEatCake]

So, I see Extinction Rebellion's social media editor (but claimed to be a scientist because he did a biology undergrad), a unwashed, drug-faced gingery bollox with digusting dreadlocks and former child actor (lunacy klaxon), has cacked it unexpectedly whilst in South Africa.

Nanny McPhee actor Raphael Coleman dies

Raphael Coleman who starred in the film Nanny McPhee has died, after collapsing, at 25.

www.bbc.co.uk

No loss, him and his hipster job, lack of hygiene and climate hysteria. I just wondered how he got to South Africa (and Thailand, and Costa Rica, and Indonesia, and the rest of his globe trotting) apart from via airplane? He had no reason to be there other than to be a white saviour and advance his own career and also get himself some sun in winter (Thailand was for a diving course which you can do in UK)... hardly 'genuine need', is it?

Sorry, I'm going to hold each of these Greta-inspired weirdoes to the same standards they want to impose on the rest of us. Just shows that the worst screechers spend more time in the air in a year than most of us do in ten. Which says to me even they don't believe their own bullshit, but want to simply create an us vs them situation and cause unrest.