4 ms·

Yeah, I've seen lots of comments on how she's a left-wing puppet, or why they didn't get some scientist knowing what they speak about up there instead of a kid.

Yeah, I've seen lots of comments on how she's a left-wing puppet, or why they didn't get some scientist knowing what they speak about up there instead of a kid. But - Why is caring about climate left-wing? - It's the same people ignoring the scientists, that write this crap, so no, a scientist speaking doesn't solve anthing. Unfortunately. It wouldn't have come to this then.

jansan 7y ago
Why is caring about climate left-wing? Very simple, because it will be used to increase taxes, taking an even greater share of people's hard earned money. I Germany especially the left loves the concept of a CO2 tax. I hope this helps you understand.
- lexapro 7y ago
  So spoiling the environment for everyone should be free?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- ocschwar 7y ago
  There's nothing stopping countries from lowering other taxes along with raising a CO2 tax.
- maaaats 7y ago
  If that's so, couldn't the right instead find some acceptable ways to handle it (without increasing taxes), instead of sweeping it under the rug?
bsaul 7y ago
"It would be best if cold, hard facts were enough" : I think that's the major problem with climate change. We don't observe anything out of the ordinary yet, climate change institutions are trying to warn people based on very complex simulations. You can call simulations cold hard facts, but i think that would be a stretch. The general audience prefer to focus on problems we're having right at the moment.
- telesilla 7y ago
  We are observing many things out of the ordinary already. A good summary here - https://www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-climate-change https://www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-...
  - bsaul 7y ago
    What the link mentions is that we're observing CO2 concentration going from 2% to 3% of the atmosphere in over a few centuries, and that it's due to humans. This, on its own (that is, without the simulated consequences) isn't something that's likely to alarm the general public and make it dramatically change its lifestyle.
- TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
  Mass extinction event not out of the ordinary enough for you? Pretty sure I read somewhere extreme weather events are occurring more frequently.
- neumann 7y ago
  Simulations and modelling is used to try and extrapolate trends to be predictive. And that is important, especially give the problems we are having right now. If people don't believe there are problems relating to climate change it is only because they aren't focusing on the right problem. And why do we have this modelling? Because we are trying to understand where we are heading based on historical data trends [0]. It is a wonderfully hand-drawn infographic sourcing those cold hard facts [1]. [0] https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ [1] https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1732:_Earth_Temperature_Timeline#Sources https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1732:_Earth_Tempe...
fnordsensei 7y ago
As far as I can tell, the reasoning is, - The left-wing hates prosperity (and freedom). - Prosperity comes from coal, oil, and cutting down forests to make cattle ranches. Freedom comes from buying weapons with the profits. - Climate scientists/advocates say we have to scale back the coal, oil and forest bits, or we're flirting with extinction-level risks. - Ergo, climate scientists/advocates are left-wing.
krapp 7y ago
>Why is caring about climate left-wing? It isn't. Why is it percieved as left-wing? Because President Reagan and business lobbyists pushed hard to associate climate science with a "big government, pro-regulation, anti-business" (in other words, "left-wing" according to their propaganda) agenda[0]. Also likely IMO because of associations between environmentalism, feminism and the left-wing hippie movement of the 1960s. [0]https://www.vox.com/2017/4/22/15377964/republicans-environmentalism https://www.vox.com/2017/4/22/15377964/republicans-environme...
nashashmi 7y ago
I have seen such arguments where the individual is criticized instead of the words simply because the words are beyond argument. Meaning she spoke strongly and powerfully and is difficult to argue against so they attack everything else.
- afiori 7y ago
  She is effectively preaching, there is no moral connotation in this statement, but her intention is clearly to rile up the masses and energize the so far slumbering climate activism. Personally I like different a rhetoric rather than fatalism, but it is undeniable that she is successful and that this is probably going to be a net positive. Regarding why some people react negatively to her I also understand that.
lr4444lr 7y ago
The "left" with their anti-nuclear positions in the 1970s have set back the environmental movement considerably. If you want to talk about the general human toll on human welfare, you might add DDT banning as well. To your point about being a puppet, if I were a 16 year old kid in front of the UN, I would be overwhelmed by the august honor of such a moment. I would not have it in me to speak so sharply and imperiously to these leaders regardless of the issue. It sounds coached, sorry to say.
- Freak_NL 7y ago
  Why wouldn't she take advantage of coaching to help her get her (genuine) message across? I would, if I was speaking at the United Nations.
- StavrosK 7y ago
  What speech in front of the UN, by anyone, is not coached?
- vharuck 7y ago
  While the average 16-year old may not be able to do this, it's unlikely no 16-year old would be capable, willing, and have a chance to do this. We can't use generalizations to dismiss individuals.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  Honestly, I can imagine only a 16 year old would have the confidence to be able to speak so sharply to people with significant political power. Teenagers are the most bullheaded people there are! They know everything! Seriously though, I think it’s well established that teenagers are in the unique positions where they aren’t beholden to many of the adult pressures of the world, but also are old enough to have significant and strong opinions about things around them. It makes perfect sense for me that a particularly ornery teenager would go to such lengths for their given cause!
- faissaloo 7y ago
  >If I were a 16 year old kid in front of the UN, I would be overwhelmed by the august honor of such a moment But you aren't, you also don't have aspergers syndrome and were never mute.
shawnz 7y ago
As a counterpoint, I am well aware of the reality of the climate emergency but I still believe Greta is being abused for PR reasons. I agree an impassioned plea can be just as helpful as an expert opinion. But is she mature enough at that age to understand the consequences of the celebrity status that is being put on her through this?
- spodek 7y ago
  I met her boat when it landed at New York and spoke a few words with her. I saw her speak in a fireside chat and spoke with people who have spent time with her. She's plenty mature.
  - ocschwar 7y ago
    As someone with an autistic kid, I'm in awe of her parents.
  - shawnz 7y ago
    With all due respect that doesn't really seem like enough exposure to understand how she is handling the fame.

jansan 7y ago

Why is caring about climate left-wing? Very simple, because it will be used to increase taxes, taking an even greater share of people's hard earned money. I Germany especially the left loves the concept of a CO2 tax. I hope this helps you understand.

lexapro 7y ago
So spoiling the environment for everyone should be free?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
ocschwar 7y ago
There's nothing stopping countries from lowering other taxes along with raising a CO2 tax.
maaaats 7y ago
If that's so, couldn't the right instead find some acceptable ways to handle it (without increasing taxes), instead of sweeping it under the rug?

bsaul 7y ago

"It would be best if cold, hard facts were enough" : I think that's the major problem with climate change. We don't observe anything out of the ordinary yet, climate change institutions are trying to warn people based on very complex simulations. You can call simulations cold hard facts, but i think that would be a stretch. The general audience prefer to focus on problems we're having right at the moment.

telesilla 7y ago
We are observing many things out of the ordinary already. A good summary here - https://www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-climate-change https://www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-...
- bsaul 7y ago
  What the link mentions is that we're observing CO2 concentration going from 2% to 3% of the atmosphere in over a few centuries, and that it's due to humans. This, on its own (that is, without the simulated consequences) isn't something that's likely to alarm the general public and make it dramatically change its lifestyle.
TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
Mass extinction event not out of the ordinary enough for you? Pretty sure I read somewhere extreme weather events are occurring more frequently.
neumann 7y ago
Simulations and modelling is used to try and extrapolate trends to be predictive. And that is important, especially give the problems we are having right now. If people don't believe there are problems relating to climate change it is only because they aren't focusing on the right problem. And why do we have this modelling? Because we are trying to understand where we are heading based on historical data trends [0]. It is a wonderfully hand-drawn infographic sourcing those cold hard facts [1]. [0] https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ [1] https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1732:_Earth_Temperature_Timeline#Sources https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1732:_Earth_Tempe...

fnordsensei 7y ago

As far as I can tell, the reasoning is, - The left-wing hates prosperity (and freedom). - Prosperity comes from coal, oil, and cutting down forests to make cattle ranches. Freedom comes from buying weapons with the profits. - Climate scientists/advocates say we have to scale back the coal, oil and forest bits, or we're flirting with extinction-level risks. - Ergo, climate scientists/advocates are left-wing.

krapp 7y ago

>Why is caring about climate left-wing? It isn't. Why is it percieved as left-wing? Because President Reagan and business lobbyists pushed hard to associate climate science with a "big government, pro-regulation, anti-business" (in other words, "left-wing" according to their propaganda) agenda[0]. Also likely IMO because of associations between environmentalism, feminism and the left-wing hippie movement of the 1960s. [0]https://www.vox.com/2017/4/22/15377964/republicans-environmentalism https://www.vox.com/2017/4/22/15377964/republicans-environme...

nashashmi 7y ago

I have seen such arguments where the individual is criticized instead of the words simply because the words are beyond argument. Meaning she spoke strongly and powerfully and is difficult to argue against so they attack everything else.

afiori 7y ago
She is effectively preaching, there is no moral connotation in this statement, but her intention is clearly to rile up the masses and energize the so far slumbering climate activism. Personally I like different a rhetoric rather than fatalism, but it is undeniable that she is successful and that this is probably going to be a net positive. Regarding why some people react negatively to her I also understand that.

lr4444lr 7y ago

The "left" with their anti-nuclear positions in the 1970s have set back the environmental movement considerably. If you want to talk about the general human toll on human welfare, you might add DDT banning as well. To your point about being a puppet, if I were a 16 year old kid in front of the UN, I would be overwhelmed by the august honor of such a moment. I would not have it in me to speak so sharply and imperiously to these leaders regardless of the issue. It sounds coached, sorry to say.

Freak_NL 7y ago
Why wouldn't she take advantage of coaching to help her get her (genuine) message across? I would, if I was speaking at the United Nations.
StavrosK 7y ago
What speech in front of the UN, by anyone, is not coached?
vharuck 7y ago
While the average 16-year old may not be able to do this, it's unlikely no 16-year old would be capable, willing, and have a chance to do this. We can't use generalizations to dismiss individuals.
SolaceQuantum 7y ago
Honestly, I can imagine only a 16 year old would have the confidence to be able to speak so sharply to people with significant political power. Teenagers are the most bullheaded people there are! They know everything! Seriously though, I think it’s well established that teenagers are in the unique positions where they aren’t beholden to many of the adult pressures of the world, but also are old enough to have significant and strong opinions about things around them. It makes perfect sense for me that a particularly ornery teenager would go to such lengths for their given cause!
faissaloo 7y ago
>If I were a 16 year old kid in front of the UN, I would be overwhelmed by the august honor of such a moment But you aren't, you also don't have aspergers syndrome and were never mute.

shawnz 7y ago

As a counterpoint, I am well aware of the reality of the climate emergency but I still believe Greta is being abused for PR reasons. I agree an impassioned plea can be just as helpful as an expert opinion. But is she mature enough at that age to understand the consequences of the celebrity status that is being put on her through this?

spodek 7y ago
I met her boat when it landed at New York and spoke a few words with her. I saw her speak in a fireside chat and spoke with people who have spent time with her. She's plenty mature.
- ocschwar 7y ago
  As someone with an autistic kid, I'm in awe of her parents.
- shawnz 7y ago
  With all due respect that doesn't really seem like enough exposure to understand how she is handling the fame.