34 ms·
Greta Thunberg has done her science homework
- throwaway744678 7y agoThis thread is a total shitstorm, and yet thorourghly enjoyable. Nothing like a good disagreement!
- orbifold 7y agoIt‘s funny whole parts of the establishment have spent so much time fighting against „mansplaining“, white men as authority figures, for cultural relativism, and critical post-something, that they must be really relieved to finally have found someone championing a cause that actual experts (not al gore) have talked about a long time.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y agoDo we really need to diminish her message into identity politics? When I see she's doing that I think "I'm glad she's doing that, though I don't think it's going to convince those not otherwise convinced", not "Thank goodness, with her I finally have a leftist bingo".
- orbifold 7y agoI don’t care either way. I just hate that everything boils down to elaborate story telling. She had to travel by boat to the UN. All of this is highly theatrical. The facts have been known for a long time, just talking about it won’t change anything. Whatever she has to say is not new, interesting or particularly intelligent. It can’t be. She has to rely on experts and then packages their statements in digestible, made for TV, Twitter and Instagram form.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y agoThat's true, but doesn't the saying "Be excellent to each other!" have more impact when Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure is wrapped around it?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- andrepd 7y agoI honestly don't understand the point of this reasoning, and I'm forced to conclude (because it transpires in every word you say) that you are somehow massively jealous of the attention that is being given to her. So what? I don't get it, is she supposed to produce original research else she can't speak at all?? Well no shit she is not saying anything not already published in peer-reviewed papers. She is selling it to an audience that did not care but may begin to care because of all the publicity, and crucially, to an audience that needs to be on this side for any meaningful change to get done. Not new? Not particularly intelligent? But what, is she speaking at a climatology symposium? No, she is speaking to a general audience, she is speaking to be heard in the news and by word-of-mouth. Really, what do you actually want of her?
- orbifold 7y agoI wouldn't say I'm jealous, just highly annoyed to whom the public is paying attention to. It's the same environmental activism theatrics that Greenpeace and WWF have been doing for all of their existence. As a counterpoint take John Baez for example: He decided started beginning in 2010 to try to organise engineers, physicists and mathematicians around the global ecological crisis https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2010/08/27/this-weeks-finds-week-301/ https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2010/08/27/this-weeks-f.... Was he interviewed or reported on by CNN? Of course not. How often has David MacKay (https://withouthotair.com https://withouthotair.com) been given the chance to speak to the public?
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago> travel by boat to the UN. All of this is highly theatrical The hate would have been full of claims of hypocrisy had she hopped on a Boeing or a trans-Atlantic liner (if there are still liner services). She says she probably won't be able to go, the someone offers a place on a racing yacht. If she'd stayed at home the message would no doubt be trying to spin up her not feeling the UN important enough... Damned if she does, damned if she doesn't.
- playpause 7y agoStorytelling and theatrics are central to human progress and always have been. If the level of international collaboration needed to solve the climate crisis can be achieved, then it will be achieved in part by changing hearts and minds on an unprecedented scale, including through stories of iconic events and individuals, consumed by billions of people through social media. There is no point being cynical about this.
- throwaway744678 7y agoWe do not; but why would her opinion matter. Or more exactly why would it matter more than that of some random guy commenting on the Internet?
- SketchySeaBeast 7y agoTotally fair, if the list of opinions rejected includes 97 percent of actively publishing climate scientists, you're already rejecting the authority of those who have the ability, education, and training to speak to the problem, so a random girl nor internet user won't change one's mind.
- throwaway744678 7y agoIndeed; and if you're not rejecting these scientists, she won't change your mind either. So, why should anyone listen to her?
- andrepd 7y agoShe is high-profile and high-visibility now, and not because of arbitrary chance. Because, if you recall, she started the climate strike movement.
- throwaway744678 7y agoYeah, yeah. She stopped going to school. Strike? Do words still mean anything?
- erikpukinskis 7y agoPlease don’t argue with imaginary people about issues you imagine they care about. It’s really a waste of all our time, and it’s the easiest argument to win since you control both sides. There are plenty of actual people with present concerns you can talk to.
- maerF0x0 7y ago> finally have found someone championing a cause that actual experts (not al gore) have talked about a long time Though i dont agree with the Identity politics direction, This comment has some great insight. Look at who we listen to nowadays. People on IG and YT have more reach, more aggregate persuasive "voice" than experts do today. We listen to entrepreneurs, politicians, to actors and football players, but not the experts who have spent >10 years (often 20-40 yrs) intensely dedicated to mastering certain immensely difficult fields. So the next time a little girl stands up on a podium, give it a listen and then ask yourself why she got your attention and the pleading of 1000s of diverse scientists couldnt...
- throwaway744678 7y agoExcept she did not get our attention. She got that of the media (in a wide sense, including social media, etc.), that found it more newsworthy, hence pushed it onto the general public.
- ctdonath 7y agoGreta is a child being used for propaganda. This is wrong.
- TomMarius 7y agoWhy do you think so? Who and how is using her, for what benefit?
- whydoyoucare 7y agoShe is parroting ideas that the scientifically-inclined minds fed her. I am not sure if she understands everything she talked about (given her age). Using kids to sell ideas is "being used".
- rapind 7y agoOh those terrible scientists brainwashing our kids. Something must be done.
- whydoyoucare 7y agoFor a start, teach kids to think critically and reject anything that is shoved down their throats as "the truth". Science and religion included. ;-)
- andrepd 7y ago>She is parroting ideas that the scientifically-inclined minds fed her. Is this satire or am I missing something here?
- tempguy9999 7y ago> the scientifically-inclined minds fed her Oh come on, this is blatant trolling. Be more subtle or you lose your target trollee audience.
- TomMarius 7y agoEh, saying the truth is selling ideas? I had a software consulting company when I was 16, I am sure she understands.
- Bantros 7y agoIs this satire?
- the_mitsuhiko 7y agoIt's quite frustrating that even hackernews cannot have a reasonable conversation the moment Greta Thunberg is involved. Surely it's not so hard to avoid that at least the initial comments on a submission are ad hominem.
- busterarm 7y agoIt's OT anyway. There's so much mainstream news being posted the last few years here, it just keeps getting worse and worse.
- Analemma_ 7y agoI've definitely noticed that there's something people find uniquely infuriating about an intelligent, well-spoken child that makes good points they disagree with. I think it's because suddenly all the usual excuses to dismiss arguments-- they're a paid shill, they're a political agent-- sound ridiculous, and the people don't know how to cope with the fact now that they have to argue for real and they're losing to a kid. It happened with Malala and it's definitely happening with Greta Thunberg too.
- archagon 7y agoGood insight. See also: David Hogg.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- epistasis 7y agoThis phenomenon is strongly driven by political and us-vs-them psychology. Climate change denial has been tied to peoples' basic identities, which has been a huge factor in the US's inaction on climate change. This was a conscious strategy by the same PR people that fought tobacco regulation. As documents come out from the oil companies from decades ago, journalists are documenting it. Season 1 of this podcast was extremely enlightening (haven't gotten to further seasons) https://www.criticalfrequency.org/drilled https://www.criticalfrequency.org/drilled
- 7y ago
- newsreview1 7y agoHow about we listen, instead of simply disregarding, or going down the political rabbit hole bc of the age of the messenger?
- BrandonMarc 7y agoDiscuss climate change without discussing politics? Um ... how?
- saagarjha 7y agoYou separate it from politics and treat it like the scientifically-backed issue it is.
- DaiPlusPlus 7y agoBut action requires politics.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- dls2016 7y agoPolitics is the decision making around how to divide and use our shared resources. Addressing climate change in a meaningful way requires rethinking our current approach. It's a fundamentally political issue.
- delecti 7y agoThe science is already settled. All that's left is the politics of making changes.
- vinay427 7y ago> going down the political rabbit hole bc of the age of the messenger I read it as the OP advising avoiding the political rabbit hole specifically because of the age, not in general.
- svara 7y agoI do not understand the hate she consistently gets specifically in the anglosphere. Even the reddit thread about her the other day was full of hate. I honestly don't understand, can someone explain? Of course she's can't save the world alone, but she's generated a lot of attention for an important issue that a lot of people are ignoring. What's so terrible about that? I really like her. She's got this highly logical, consequential way of thinking that I've only seen in much older, highly successful people before. All she's saying essentially boils down to: If A leads to B, and you don't like B, you can't support A. She's not a figurehead, she's way ahead of the adults around her.
- bt848 7y agoYou are surprised by vitriol toward young women on Reddit? You must be new.
- Santosh83 7y agoThose who hate her either wish they could be as influential as her or hate the threats to their way of life that they believe will be the inevitable result of seriously addressing climate change.
- throwaway744678 7y agoCan't you really imagine anyone honestly disagreeing with this whole thing without being a total moron as you seem to describe?
- DanBC 7y ago> I honestly don't understand, can someone explain? She's a woman, she's young, she's autistic. She faces a triple-whammy of discrimination because of that. She's also calmly reminding people that climate change is real and poses a risk of harm to the world, and she's actually doing something to stop that. For some reason climate change is absurdly polarised.
- GaryNumanVevo 7y agoI'd think pointing out uncomfortable truths about our world play a big role in that too
- kawera 7y agoHer short interview with Trevor Noah two days ago is simply brilliant: http://www.cc.com/video-clips/ed6ma7/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-greta-thunberg---inspiring-others-to-take-a-stand-against-climate-change---extended-interview?xrs=synd_twitter_091219_tds_59 http://www.cc.com/video-clips/ed6ma7/the-daily-show-with-tre...
- BrandonMarc 7y agoIt's a shame Greta Thunberg's advisors, assistants, helpers, etc all fly around getting supplies & setting up meetings. Instead of, you know, the more carbon-efficient method of traveling the ocean via maritime ships. Great Thunberg's coterie of helpers have a larger carbon footprint than the majority of us. But hey ... at least it's not as bad as Prince Harry, who said every action matters (when telling the plebeians to stop their commercial air travel habit), and then took 4 private flights over the next two weeks. Gotta love Gulfstream environmentalists.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- andrepd 7y agoShe sailed across the Atlantic in an 18m carbon-neutral boat, but that still isn't enough for some people. Sheesh.
- vogre 7y agoShe would be very surprised if she see water cost of her hi-tech carbon-free yacht.
- mamon 7y agoAnd to prepare her trip 5 professional sailors needed to take trans-atlantic flights to US, in order to bring her boat back to Europe (boat belongs to Monaco monarchs) - so her "carbon-neutral" trip actually generates 5 times more CO2 than if she simply bought a plane ticket.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y agoIs hypocrisy sufficient grounds to reject a message?
- atoav 7y agoYeah. Bloody environmentalists! Even if they'd kill themself to safe the environment there'd be people like you, complaining that you'd done it in a much more environmental friendly way. Say a tiny bit more about you than it says about the topic at hand. Grow up.
- tyingq 7y agoOff topic, but I'm curious if all the backslash-escaped commas have something to do with an English article on a Finnish site...DB charset or similar, or unrelated?
- carlisle_ 7y agoHaving not heard the speech, this was news to me, and extremely alarming: > They do, however, include negative emission techniques on a huge planetary scale that is yet to be invented, and that many scientists fear will never be ready in time and will anyway be impossible to deliver at the scale assumed.” Imagine somebody said "a meteor is going to hit the Earth in 11 years and end life as we know it unless we made massive changes to our way of life and invented new technologies to thwart it." I fully believe we as a species could collectively band together to stop it. What's so horrible about climate change is it's not that the world ends in 11 years. It's that in 11 years we likely are doomed to watch our own extinction. On top of that, we're not even beginning to deal with the problem in a way that gives hope for the future. I can't think of a more existential crisis inducing reality.
- gnusty_gnurc 7y ago> It's that in 11 years we likely are doomed to watch our own extinction. This is precisely why I find Greta and her crowd insufferable. I don't think even the IPCC suggests we're going to watch our extinction. The report says we'll see somewhere around 5% global GDP reduction in 2100, in a world that's vastly wealthier than today. That's anything but extinction.
- jacobush 7y agoNot extinction. Only massive social upheaval, revolutions, war, famine, diseases and maybe even a pause for civilisation itself until things stabilise again.
- throwaway744678 7y agoOh, come on. At least make a good faith attempt.
- jacobush 7y agoI don't understand. Are you saying climate change could not lead to Global Thermonuclear War, as we liked to call it? Maybe I just have an active imagination.
- grecht 7y agoI’m not sure what to think about her. She has caused a much needed discussion about climate change, but there’s a lot of not so climate friendly marketing tricks involved. Like when she went to NYC on a boat to avoid taking a plane. Of course it was a one way trip, so her and her dad, 2 sailors, and 2 other people, who BTW took a flight to NYC just to organize getting the boat back to Europe, are flying back. And that’s what miss from her and her supporters: Reasonableness, and living in the “real world”.
- TheCabin 7y agoThe sailing was about more than just saving CO2, it was mainly a symbol (highlighting that air-traffic is not yet climate friendly and that something needs to be done about it, since feasible alternatives don't exist). I really don't get why people are so annoyed about this.
- grecht 7y agoWell, she didn’t save CO2 in the end. And the world already knows that flying isn’t climate friendly. She demands that people fly less, and people don’t like hypocrisy, so they’re annoyed.
- repolfx 7y agoBecause everyone knows already? Nobody asked Thunberg to "symbolically" demand tons of media attention on herself. People are reminded flying burns fuel every time they book a flight and are offered carbon credits, or in school, or whenever they read the newspaper, or really any one of dozens of different ways. Remember - Thunberg has no solutions. Nor do any of the climate activists like her. Planes will not stop flying, power stations will not stop emitting short of a totalitarian government taking over the world and rolling the global economy back a couple hundred years: an act that would involve mass destruction and death on an unimaginable scale. The only people who have solutions are scientists and engineers working on ways to power planes that don't involve burning fossil fuels, or make them more efficient. They won't work any faster because some random teenager sailed on a boat. Nor will people give up their vacations, miss out on an important business deal, or refuse to go see a dying loved one because Thunberg personally demands it. Her refusal to see this is a product of a desire for attention, not a helpful service to humanity. I'll respect this girl when she goes and gets an engineering degree, gets a job at Airbus and works on an electric plane. Then she'll be able to say she really made a difference.
- gnusty_gnurc 7y agoAs someone who's on board with climate change advocacy, I find it absolutely insipid to listen to her monotone, severe, apocalyptic proclamations.
- seppin 7y ago> severe, apocalyptic proclamations do you mean projections made by climate scientists that have, so far, been far too conservative in nature?
- gnusty_gnurc 7y agoAs I said elsewhere: the IPCC report says we'll see somewhere around 5% global GDP reduction in 2100, in a world that's vastly wealthier than today. In my opinion, she uses dramatic, condemnatory rhetoric far beyond the conclusions of scientists.
- seppin 7y agoI don't know why you are bringing up GDP numbers when the UN's conservative estimate for climate refugees is 1 billion people, but fine lets go there. The political problems we are seeing today, the threats to democracy and instability are due to a slow down in growth (most places still growing). If you were to stop that growth, or even contract the world economy, the effect on our societies, political systems, etc. would be catastrophic. In short, everyone's economy is built on perpetual growth. If that growth stops or reverse, everything falls down. And you don't need to get to 2100 before civil society breaks down. So either you think none of the above will happen (and do explain why) or you do and you still don't think it warrants immediate and drastic action. Which also requires an explanation.
- gnusty_gnurc 7y ago> In the no policy baseline temperature rises by 3.66°C by 2100, resulting in global GDP loss of 2.6% (5-95% percentile range 0.5–8.2%), as compared with 0.3% (0.1–0.5%) by 2100 in the 1.5°C scenario and 0.5% (0.1–1.0%) in the 2°C scenario. https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_chapter3.pdf https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_chapter3.pdf