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.

 

[Tootsie Bear]

Greta just got BTFO.
EU politician tells Greta Thunberg to ‘go back to school’ (Washington Examiner via archive.li)
Choice quote:


I can't even hope to imagine her face. Based Italian.

Brussels’ climate ambitions run into national resistance (Politico.eu via archive.li)

I'll be blunt. I appreciate young people do care about their futures and the future of the planet. But Greta is a poster child who not only needs to go back to school and live her life normally, but she could help the environmental movement out so much more if she pursed a career in science that will benefit the movement.

 

[Autistic lurker]

Greta Thunberg condemns EU climate change plan as 'surrender'

Swedish environmental activist meets with EU officials in Brussels

www.independent.co.uk

Spoiler: Article

The EU's plan to stop climate change is so weak that it amounts to "surrender", Greta Thunberg has said.

Speaking at the European Parliament in Brussels the environmental campaigner said the climate law unveiled by the bloc amounted to "empty words".

"You said that this was an existential treat, now you must prove that you mean it," she said at a press conference.

"We will not be satisfied with anything less than a science-based pathway that gives us the best possible chance to safeguard the future living conditions for humanity and life on earth as we know it.

"Anything else is surrender: this climate law is surrender, because nature doesn't bargain, and you cannot make deals with physics. We will not allow you to surrender on our future."

The high-profile 17-year old Swedish activist, who has acted as a lightning rod of the climate movement, accused the EU nations of "pretending that you can be a climate leader" while it continues "building and subsidising new fossil fuel infrastructure".

The EU has agreed a package of measures to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, the same as the UK's target. The UN's climate authority the IPCC says that globally, carbon emissions must be cut to net zero by 2050 in order to limit global warming to 1.5C.

While global warming of 1.5C will still have significant negative effects, the effects are less pronounced than if warming reached 2.0C. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says.

Some countries have decided to go to net zero faster; Finland has said it will achieve the target by 2035.

The less ambitious 2050 target is controversial for developed countries like EU member states because under the Paris climate agreement, richer countries are expected to take the lead in decarbonising their economies.

Ms Thunberg added: "We don't just need goals for 2030 or 2050, we above all need them for 2020 and every year to come. We need to start cutting carbon emissions drastically at the source, now. Your distant targets will mean nothing is high emissions continue for business as usual even for just a few more years, because that will use up our remaining carbon budget before you have the chance to even deliver on your 2030 goals."

"When your house is on fire you don't wait a few more years to start putting it out. And yet, this is what the Commission are proposing today," Ms Thunberg said, following a meeting with Commission president Ursula von der Leyen earlier in the day.

"When the EU presents this climate law and net zero by 2050 you indirectly admit surrender: that you are giving up on the Paris agreement, giving up on your promises and giving up on doing everything that you possibly can to ensure a safe future for your children."

The activist added: "Such a law sends a strong signal that real sufficient action is taking place when in fact it is not. The hard truth is that neither the awareness not politics needed are in sight. We are still in a crisis that has never once been treated for a crisis."

The European Parliament has closed its doors and cancelled most of its events due to the the coronavirus threat, however Ms Thunberg's visit was allowed to proceed. The visit coincides with the European Commission's adoption of the EU's new climate law.

President of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said: “We are acting today to make the EU the world’s first climate neutral economic bloc by 2050. The Climate Law is the legal translation of our political commitment, and sets us irreversibly on the path to a more sustainable future. It is the heart of the European Green Deal.”

Executive Vice-President for the European Green Deal, Frans Timmermans, added: “We are turning words into action today, to show our European citizens that we are serious about reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The Climate Law will ensure we stay focused and disciplined, remain on the right track and are accountable for delivery.”

The law proposes the legally binding 2050 target, and sets targets for the amount of carbon member states should reduce by 2030. From 2023 there would be five-yearly audits by Brussels on the progress member states were making towars the target.

The new law, which has to formally approved by MEPs and member states, also allows the Commission to issue recommendations to EU countries whose actions are "inconsistent with the climate-neutrality objective".

I liked this part: "...accused the EU nations of "pretending that you can be a climate leader" while it continues "building and subsidising new fossil fuel infrastructure..." She clearly doesn't understand that the fossil fuel is the most reliable source of energy we have. If she actually cared about science, Greta wouldn't be so mad over this. There's no way to achieve zero carbon emission in such a time without lowering the quality of life back to the stone age. She's been spoiled by the bubble of civilization and urbanisation too much, it would be a nice idea to leave her somewhere deep in Africa, so she wouldn't suffer herself thinking how bad the infrastructure is.

 

[Wallace]

I liked this part: "...accused the EU nations of "pretending that you can be a climate leader" while it continues "building and subsidising new fossil fuel infrastructure..." She clearly doesn't understand that the fossil fuel is the most reliable source of energy we have. If she actually cared about science, Greta wouldn't be so mad over this. There's no way to achieve zero carbon emission in such a time without lowering the quality of life back to the stone age. She's been spoiled by the bubble of civilization and urbanisation too much, it would be a nice idea to leave her somewhere deep in Africa, so she wouldn't suffer herself thinking how bad the infrastructure is.

She's gotten so used to her parents rolling over and acceding to her demands that she tardrages when other people don't do the same. In that regard, she's the ideal poster child for SocJus.

 

[Adamska]

Greta just got BTFO.
EU politician tells Greta Thunberg to ‘go back to school’ (Washington Examiner via archive.li)
Choice quote:


I can't even hope to imagine her face. Based Italian.

Brussels’ climate ambitions run into national resistance (Politico.eu via archive.li)

He's too nice, he should've gone after her parents and that creepy Indian man who writes her scripts for her for keeping her out of school too.

I'll be blunt. I appreciate young people do care about their futures and the future of the planet. But Greta is a poster child who not only needs to go back to school and live her life normally, but she could help the environmental movement out so much more if she pursed a career in science that will benefit the movement.

But then her subhuman narcissist parents won't be able to be vicariously famous through her and her disabilities.

 

[Kiwi Farms Lurker]

Greta conjuring an odor of funky onions and meth sweat

Don't forget this:

 

[bippu_as_fuck_ls400]

Don't forget this:
View attachment 1173671

Thinking about thos beans.

 

[Antipathy]

This whole show wouldn't even be that infuriating if Greta's handlers shat out ideas that were even remotely plausible or practical. But instead it's just the most asinine, condescending, impossible shit. Let's talk about carbon emissions, shall we?

It took the human race 150 fucking years of burning all the coal, oil, and whatever they could get their hands on to get to where we are now. A similar amount of effort MUST be expended in order to reverse that. Yelling at people in Brussels for not performing the impossible does not help at all.

 

[Adamska]

This whole show wouldn't even be that infuriating if Greta's handlers shat out ideas that were even remotely plausible or practical. But instead it's just the most asinine, condescending, impossible shit. Let's talk about carbon emissions, shall we?

It took the human race 150 fucking years of burning all the coal, oil, and whatever they could get their hands on to get to where we are now. A similar amount of effort MUST be expended in order to reverse that. Yelling at people in Brussels for not performing the impossible does not help at all.

Any green movement that doesn't include nuclear plant construction as a part of their plans also automatically fail the ideas test too.

Especially since last I checked, besides France the Euros would just buy from Russia to make up for the shortfalls that Solar and Wind will create once they yeet their economies with that plan. The same Russia they don't like, but will buy from and prop their industry on like utter brainlets.

 

[King Dead]

Any green movement that doesn't include nuclear plant construction as a part of their plans also automatically fail the ideas test too.

Especially since last I checked, besides France the Euros would just buy from Russia to make up for the shortfalls that Solar and Wind will create once they yeet their economies with that plan. The same Russia they don't like, but will buy from and prop their industry on like utter brainlets.

Anyone who's falling for the renewables scam is fucking retarded and will inevitably have to go back to fossil fuels (or nuclear, but good luck getting around regulations) to keep the lights on. I could go on, but I'm gonna take the lazy route and quote @teriyakiburns's post from a while ago:

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 8.6kWh per square meter per year with solar, which is pitiful. 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 100, that's still 340kWh 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.

Solar panels and windmills are fine if you're living innawoods far from any electrical grid, consuming little power and able to deal with the occasional outage due to cloudy or still days. They're not fine as a replacement for existing energy needs if you want to keep living in the first world. The rich would be fine with sending the rest of us back to the Middle Ages (or worse), but I guarantee there would be riots if they tried to take away people's phones, fridges, or A/C en masse.

The sensible approach is to continue to work on improving efficiency of existing technologies, allowing fuel supplies to go farther. Renewables are grossly inefficient, whether you're talking about collecting energy in the first place or storing it for when they're not working. It's madness to think that solar/wind farms are the solution to the problem (if you even think there is a problem, but that's a whole other story).

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Any green movement that doesn't include nuclear plant construction as a part of their plans also automatically fail the ideas test too.

Especially since last I checked, besides France the Euros would just buy from Russia to make up for the shortfalls that Solar and Wind will create once they yeet their economies with that plan. The same Russia they don't like, but will buy from and prop their industry on like utter brainlets.

You can add to that any green movement that doesn't include toning down consumerism in general. People can live the same life quality without 90% of the electrical expenditure that only exist for mild convenience. And that's without going into the 1% that, unlike economic politics, gets completely ignored.

 

[Positron]

Fiocchi said. "Your childhood is as precious as the climate, and if you don't do something about it, you will lose it forever."

But...but... you already stole her childhood!!!!

Thinking about thos beans.

Every single interviewee is white, middle-class, and dumb. That bearded dude at 3:30 is the worst.

 

[Ex Cummunicated Sasser HD]

Thinking about thos beans.

Massive powerlevel but my ex wife was in that video

 

[Doug_S1]

Massive powerlevel but my ex wife was in that video

Your ex-wife is Keean Bexte? Nice.

 

[ditto]

lol @ the davros how dare you face. Looks a little over it.

View attachment 1169090

"Raincoat Greta" seems to be the go-to for her book covers.

 

[vertexwindi]

"Raincoat Greta" seems to be the go-to for her book covers.

View attachment 1193046 View attachment 1193048

Very subtle, trying to make her look more like a kid than she already does.

 

[Antipathy]

Very subtle, trying to make her look more like a kid than she already does.

Instead of Pennywise in the sewer it's just some Indian guy.

 

[teriyakiburns]

"Raincoat Greta" seems to be the go-to for her book covers.

View attachment 1193046 View attachment 1193048

She'll be pulling the same shit 30 years from now.

 

[Iron Hamster]

Greta Thunberg condemns EU climate change plan as 'surrender'

Swedish environmental activist meets with EU officials in Brussels

www.independent.co.uk

Spoiler: Article

The EU's plan to stop climate change is so weak that it amounts to "surrender", Greta Thunberg has said.

Speaking at the European Parliament in Brussels the environmental campaigner said the climate law unveiled by the bloc amounted to "empty words".

"You said that this was an existential treat, now you must prove that you mean it," she said at a press conference.

"We will not be satisfied with anything less than a science-based pathway that gives us the best possible chance to safeguard the future living conditions for humanity and life on earth as we know it.

"Anything else is surrender: this climate law is surrender, because nature doesn't bargain, and you cannot make deals with physics. We will not allow you to surrender on our future."

The high-profile 17-year old Swedish activist, who has acted as a lightning rod of the climate movement, accused the EU nations of "pretending that you can be a climate leader" while it continues "building and subsidising new fossil fuel infrastructure".

The EU has agreed a package of measures to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, the same as the UK's target. The UN's climate authority the IPCC says that globally, carbon emissions must be cut to net zero by 2050 in order to limit global warming to 1.5C.

While global warming of 1.5C will still have significant negative effects, the effects are less pronounced than if warming reached 2.0C. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says.

Some countries have decided to go to net zero faster; Finland has said it will achieve the target by 2035.

The less ambitious 2050 target is controversial for developed countries like EU member states because under the Paris climate agreement, richer countries are expected to take the lead in decarbonising their economies.

Ms Thunberg added: "We don't just need goals for 2030 or 2050, we above all need them for 2020 and every year to come. We need to start cutting carbon emissions drastically at the source, now. Your distant targets will mean nothing is high emissions continue for business as usual even for just a few more years, because that will use up our remaining carbon budget before you have the chance to even deliver on your 2030 goals."

"When your house is on fire you don't wait a few more years to start putting it out. And yet, this is what the Commission are proposing today," Ms Thunberg said, following a meeting with Commission president Ursula von der Leyen earlier in the day.

"When the EU presents this climate law and net zero by 2050 you indirectly admit surrender: that you are giving up on the Paris agreement, giving up on your promises and giving up on doing everything that you possibly can to ensure a safe future for your children."

The activist added: "Such a law sends a strong signal that real sufficient action is taking place when in fact it is not. The hard truth is that neither the awareness not politics needed are in sight. We are still in a crisis that has never once been treated for a crisis."

The European Parliament has closed its doors and cancelled most of its events due to the the coronavirus threat, however Ms Thunberg's visit was allowed to proceed. The visit coincides with the European Commission's adoption of the EU's new climate law.

President of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said: “We are acting today to make the EU the world’s first climate neutral economic bloc by 2050. The Climate Law is the legal translation of our political commitment, and sets us irreversibly on the path to a more sustainable future. It is the heart of the European Green Deal.”

Executive Vice-President for the European Green Deal, Frans Timmermans, added: “We are turning words into action today, to show our European citizens that we are serious about reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The Climate Law will ensure we stay focused and disciplined, remain on the right track and are accountable for delivery.”

The law proposes the legally binding 2050 target, and sets targets for the amount of carbon member states should reduce by 2030. From 2023 there would be five-yearly audits by Brussels on the progress member states were making towars the target.

The new law, which has to formally approved by MEPs and member states, also allows the Commission to issue recommendations to EU countries whose actions are "inconsistent with the climate-neutrality objective".

I liked this part: "...accused the EU nations of "pretending that you can be a climate leader" while it continues "building and subsidising new fossil fuel infrastructure..." She clearly doesn't understand that the fossil fuel is the most reliable source of energy we have. If she actually cared about science, Greta wouldn't be so mad over this. There's no way to achieve zero carbon emission in such a time without lowering the quality of life back to the stone age. She's been spoiled by the bubble of civilization and urbanisation too much, it would be a nice idea to leave her somewhere deep in Africa, so she wouldn't suffer herself thinking how bad the infrastructure is.

Says the girl using those fossil fuels to jet set around the world. She needed to commit to the bit and pedal her ass around.
I wonder if she only has so many s=days to live and this is her way to get funded to see the world before she dies.

"Raincoat Greta" seems to be the go-to for her book covers.

View attachment 1193046 View attachment 1193048

lol. "MOM! why do I always have to stand in the rain?".
Seriously, has she ever lectured anyone on a sunny day? Are they using the weather to help portray doom and gloom?

 

[Mr. Skeltal]

You can add to that any green movement that doesn't include toning down consumerism in general. People can live the same life quality without 90% of the electrical expenditure that only exist for mild convenience. And that's without going into the 1% that, unlike economic politics, gets completely ignored.

I've found that life is more worthwhile if you're not in some mad rat-race to have the best car or newest gadget. Appreciate what you have and maintain it to the best of your abilities. The environment has already been damaged by making that thing you like, the least you can do is keep it working instead of buying a new one. If Greta and co. are going to keep screeching about climate shit during the WuFlu Pandemic then they should at least extol the 4 R's - Reduce, Repair, Reuse, Recycle.

People who have an irresistible urge to CONSOOM are vapid, hollow, and useless. They think things can make them interesting and useful. They are wrong.

 

[ColtWalker1847]

I've found that life is more worthwhile if you're not in some mad rat-race to have the best car or newest gadget. Appreciate what you have and maintain it to the best of your abilities. The environment has already been damaged by making that thing you like, the least you can do is keep it working instead of buying a new one. If Greta and co. are going to keep screeching about climate shit during the WuFlu Pandemic then they should at least extol the 4 R's - Reduce, Repair, Reuse, Recycle.

People who have an irresistible urge to CONSOOM are vapid, hollow, and useless. They think things can make them interesting and useful. They are wrong.

They have leveraged that too.
"Get rid of your old dirty car and buy a new cleaner one. It's for the environment. Look it even has a leaf on it!"
The Prius cult is the worst.