Science Greta Thunberg Megathread - Dax Herrera says he wouldn't have a day ago (I somewhat doubt that)

1609745385800.png

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.
1658867339488.png
 

Attachments

  • 1567905639950.png
    1567905639950.png
    201.7 KB · Views: 1,130
  • 1569527044335.png
    1569527044335.png
    450.1 KB · Views: 674
  • 1571204359689.png
    1571204359689.png
    2.7 MB · Views: 517
  • 1572839098505.png
    1572839098505.png
    2 MB · Views: 244
  • greta_108356458_gretaday5.jpg
    greta_108356458_gretaday5.jpg
    89.6 KB · Views: 1,056
  • 1580368884936.png
    1580368884936.png
    270.8 KB · Views: 290
  • 1582430340019.png
    1582430340019.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 1,055
  • 1609745217700.png
    1609745217700.png
    1.7 MB · Views: 619
  • 1616904732000.png
    1616904732000.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 1,283
  • 1658867385840.png
    1658867385840.png
    1 MB · Views: 38
Last edited:
I was gonna say to trust the hotter one but Naomi looks like someone seriously flattened her face
View attachment 1159998

She's very cute for a Yuropoor.

So apparently Greta's grandfather died several days ago. I wonder how she'll react/make herself the center of attention?

The only people giving her attention are autistic right wing turds with a hate boner for a little girl.

Don't know if this is real in any way but it's amusing and also gross

View attachment 1162566

RoboGreta will become sentient and purge the planet of human filth for a clean earth.
 
Nuclear power would solve all this bullshit. It'd create jobs,
You can’t “create” new jobs. You can only reallocate people to different tasks.
The biggest mistake people make when talking about nuclear programs, infrastructure programs, or building walls, is that they think “more jobs” is an added bonus. Really it’s just a reallocation of existing manpower.

It’s not like a bunch of NEETs are going to pop out of the ground and say, “I’m a construction worker now!” Just because a new infrastructure bill is passed.

Three Mile Island was due to someone being confused over an arcane piece of '60's era tech being weird, and something bad almost happened.
Three miles island was just a leaky coolant valve. That’s it.
The entire event was a humongous nothing-burger.
The township really, really, wanted there to be a health risk from the disaster, so they could get those sweet sweet lawsuit bucks.
But nothing.

I like how three mile has a “Nuclear disaster rating” on its wiki page, as if any other type of power plants don’t have accidents. Shows how making hysteria about nuclear is an industry of it’s own.
 
I like how three mile has a “Nuclear disaster rating” on its wiki page, as if any other type of power plants don’t have accidents. Shows how making hysteria about nuclear is an industry of it’s own.

Anything that took out much of a reactor permanently and cost over a billion dollars and 14 years to clean up is a disaster.
 
lol call the cops on creepy? We'd have all the lolcows on this site and some of users in jail for creepy.
Canadian (see the flag) customs endeavours to stop child sex dolls at the border, and there has been at least one prosecution of those who buy them. That guy got off on retarded legalistic grounds unfortunately.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/sex-d...graphy-prosecutors-tell-man-s-trial-1.4411484
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/kenneth-harrisson-not-guilty-1.5146259
That's obviously a render not any sort of doll/robot though.
 
Anything that took out much of a reactor permanently and cost over a billion dollars and 14 years to clean up is a disaster.

Much better than the BP oil spill which cost over 50+ billion and 6+ years to clean up. Yet I don’t see any “disaster ratings” for that. Because there doesn’t need to be. Everyone knows about the BP spill.
Especially those on the Gulf of Mexico. Yet I doubt many people in the US even know about Three Mile or at least the specifics of the accident.

Also the “disaster” at Three Mile Island didn’t even take the entire plant offline. It only took one unit out (TMI-2) and the other one (TMI-1) was kept online until the 2010’s
It only took so long because the clean up team took extremely cautious measures when cleaning it up. Which is good, because no one got hurt.
 
Also the “disaster” at Three Mile Island didn’t even take the entire plant offline. It only took one unit out (TMI-2) and the other one (TMI-1) was kept online until the 2010’s

But it took out TMI-2 because there was a partial fuel meltdown. Unlike Chernobyl, the reactor vessel remained intact, so the corium (the shit in the Elephant's Foot) didn't actually melt down into a solid mass separate from the vessel. It's not like the nearly "perfect" outcome was guaranteed, i.e. absolutely nobody injured and no significant radiation leak.

It still qualifies for the disaster club, even as a junior member. The difference was all the main actors (even Exelon whose fault it was) acted frankly and the whole situation was dissected minutely as quickly as possible. Compare to the absolute incompetence, almost to the point of malice, of Chernobyl or the idiocy of how Fukushima was handled.

Nuclear power is no toy and certainly some national actors can't be trusted with it.

I don't think it's any coincidence, though, that even our nuclear disasters pale in significance to how badly others have screwed up.
 
Part of the fun of Greta is watching all of the unrelated clout-chasers desperately seek an audience with her. Gotta show the cameras just how environmentally friendly you are, never mind you had nothing to say about it prior to 2019.
Ms. Thunberg brings all the predators to the yard, and they're like it's woker than yours, damn right it's woker than yours.
 
Compare to the absolute incompetence, almost to the point of malice, of Chernobyl
Compare also the exploitation of Chernobyl in certain places. A little while after Chernobyl went all mushroomy, the UK government announced that it had discovered intense, wide-spread fallout across large parts of Wales that it was keen to attribute to the cloud of radiation Chernobyl had released. The fact that it was all downwind of Windscale (now Sellafield), which had a prolonged, uncontrolled leak in the late 50s, and was never really properly dealt with, is of course entirely a coincidence.

Nobody believed them, but for a while that was the official explanation for all the cancerous sheep and welshmen in Cumbria.

Makes me wonder what the world govs are sneaking out behind the Corona scaremongering.
 
But it took out TMI-2 because there was a partial fuel meltdown. Unlike Chernobyl, the reactor vessel remained intact, so the corium (the shit in the Elephant's Foot) didn't actually melt down into a solid mass separate from the vessel. It's not like the nearly "perfect" outcome was guaranteed, i.e. absolutely nobody injured and no significant radiation leak.

It still qualifies for the disaster club, even as a junior member. The difference was all the main actors (even Exelon whose fault it was) acted frankly and the whole situation was dissected minutely as quickly as possible. Compare to the absolute incompetence, almost to the point of malice, of Chernobyl or the idiocy of how Fukushima was handled.

Nuclear power is no toy and certainly some national actors can't be trusted with it.

I don't think it's any coincidence, though, that even our nuclear disasters pale in significance to how badly others have screwed up.
In Fukushima's defense, it was hit with a quake two orders of magnitude higher than it was rated for last I checked, said quake was the fourth strongest one recorded in history (it was magnitude 9+, if barely) and a Tsunami swept in too.

Against it, why the fuck did they put it in fucking Tsunami distance?
 
Against it, why the fuck did they put it in fucking Tsunami distance?
Easier cooling. You'll find that most power plants are preferentially sited close to large bodies of water so that they can have a reliable supply for their heat exchange systems.

Fukishima's flaw wasn't even its position, but the location of its backup generators. They were below the expected flood height, so they got wiped out by the tsunami. They should have been on the roof. It was an unpredictable, yet entirely understandable oversight.
 
You can’t “create” new jobs. You can only reallocate people to different tasks.
The biggest mistake people make when talking about nuclear programs, infrastructure programs, or building walls, is that they think “more jobs” is an added bonus. Really it’s just a reallocation of existing manpower.
New jobs for people who are being automated out of their current ones is something we actually need though.

Three miles island was just a leaky coolant valve. That’s it.
The entire event was a humongous nothing-burger.
The township really, really, wanted there to be a health risk from the disaster, so they could get those sweet sweet lawsuit bucks.
But nothing.
You're right that core meltdowns are overhyped and in and of themselves are not a big safety issue.
But in the three mile island case, steam pressure ruptured the coolant system, causing it to get mixed with the fuel.
Then the misapplied valve you mentioned caused the radioactive coolant to leave the containment building and some of it escaped into the atmosphere.
That's what made it a "disaster".

It's a bit autistic to say with hindsight that everything worked out fine so there was nothing to worry about.
When shit was actually going down, the people living nearby had no way of knowing how much radioactive material was leaking and how much they could trust the official statements.
 
I see zero contest here. Blue-eyed blond hair Aryan VS potato faced grumpy "fellow whitey".

They both look like they would stink if you met them in person. Greta conjuring an odor of funky onions and meth sweat and the other girl smelling like sour dishtowels left wet and misplaced behind the fridge.
 
Back