7 ms·

Are you talking about Greta Thunberg, I would think so, I don't know enough about her, what do you recommend from her? I fail to see what or why she is importa

Are you talking about Greta Thunberg, I would think so, I don't know enough about her, what do you recommend from her? I fail to see what or why she is important, we are past good speech in terms of ecology, what actions does she recommends?

Tepix 7y ago
Of course. She is creating a lot of attention for the mismatch between scientists' (in particular IPCC) insights and recommendations and politicians (in)actions and failure to reach the goals they set themselves. > what actions does she recommend She recommends we listen to the science. Nothing more, nothing less.
- krona 7y ago
  She recommends we listen to the science. Consensus is a probability distribution. Greta talks about the 'findings' of approximately 4% of the IPCC scientists conclusions, on one extreme of the consensus. Obviously none of the models are available to examine, so we'll take their word for it, like a child would.
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    Care to explain what you are talking about? I'm going on a limb here to be charitable despite the anti-credibility marker in your last sentence.
    - garmaine 7y ago
      The world-ending alarmism she typifies is not the consensus view.
      - protastus 7y ago
        How is it not? The IPCC models predict a > 4°C average temperature increase for the business-as-usual scenario. This is means billions of people migrating across national boundaries and/or dead, extinction of most species, a dramatic reduction in farm land, tropical rainforests ceasing to exist. I doubt humanity's technological advances can be sustained when we can't even feed ourselves. Even a 2°C average increase is very, very bad, with intense weather events every year, countries like India not being able to support their population density, tropical rainforests turning into savannahs. It is also a mass extinction scenario.
        garmaine 7y ago
        > The IPCC models predict a > 4°C average temperature increase for the business-as-usual scenario. “Business-as-usual” is not the most likely outcome. It completely neglects technological development trajectories which make something like 2.5 deg absolutely achievable by simple market forces without radical action. But in any case... > This is means billions of people migrating across national boundaries and/or dead, extinction of most species, a dramatic reduction in farm land, tropical rainforests ceasing to exist. I doubt humanity's technological advances can be sustained when we can't even feed ourselves. All of that is rampant speculation. THIS is what I’m calling out as non-consensus. > Even a 2°C average increase is very, very bad, with intense weather events every year, countries like India not being able to support their population density, tropical rainforests turning into savannahs. It is also a mass extinction scenario. That’s a strange thing to say. How do you reconcile that statement with the fact that higher temperatures mean more rainfall, higher CO2 levels mean better plant growth, and geologic record which indicates that when the earth was previously that much warmer it was covered pole-to-pole with lush tropical rainforests?
- lone_haxx0r 7y ago
  > Of course. She is creating a lot of attention for the mismatch between scientists' (in particular IPCC) insights and recommendations and politicians (in)actions and failure to reach the goals they set themselves. Is she? I've only watched her "how dare you" speech and have read a couple of hit pieces about how she doesn't like Trump (granted, it's not necessarily her fault that journalists focus on this part), but I haven't been exposed to any actual content about climate change because of her.
jansan 7y ago
She recommends to panic.
- nxpnsv 7y ago
  That's not really a truthful reading of what she is communicating.
  - jansan 7y ago
    "I want you to panic" is exactly what she said: https://youtu.be/RjsLm5PCdVQ?t=145 https://youtu.be/RjsLm5PCdVQ?t=145
    - draugadrotten 7y ago
      ...and 30 years earlier, another girl, 12 year old Severn Cullis-Suzuki, said the same thing in the UN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOp5ATk_rlM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOp5ATk_rlM
      - jansan 7y ago
        ...and 30 years ago this infamous news article was published: https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 At that time we had only 10 years to fix the problem, now scientists graciously give us 12 years.
        lonelappde 7y ago
        10 years to start, not to finish, is what the article said. Fortunately, we did something in those 10 years, as the article pleaded. wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
    - nxpnsv 7y ago
      She said a whole lot more. You choose not to understand.
tzm 7y ago
Not sure on specific action, but her UN speech on climate change evokes a cultural of change https://time.com/5695968/fatboy-slim-greta-thunberg-united-nations-climate-speech/ https://time.com/5695968/fatboy-slim-greta-thunberg-united-n...

Tepix 7y ago

Of course. She is creating a lot of attention for the mismatch between scientists' (in particular IPCC) insights and recommendations and politicians (in)actions and failure to reach the goals they set themselves. > what actions does she recommend She recommends we listen to the science. Nothing more, nothing less.

krona 7y ago
She recommends we listen to the science. Consensus is a probability distribution. Greta talks about the 'findings' of approximately 4% of the IPCC scientists conclusions, on one extreme of the consensus. Obviously none of the models are available to examine, so we'll take their word for it, like a child would.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  Care to explain what you are talking about? I'm going on a limb here to be charitable despite the anti-credibility marker in your last sentence.
  - garmaine 7y ago
    The world-ending alarmism she typifies is not the consensus view.
    - protastus 7y ago
      How is it not? The IPCC models predict a > 4°C average temperature increase for the business-as-usual scenario. This is means billions of people migrating across national boundaries and/or dead, extinction of most species, a dramatic reduction in farm land, tropical rainforests ceasing to exist. I doubt humanity's technological advances can be sustained when we can't even feed ourselves. Even a 2°C average increase is very, very bad, with intense weather events every year, countries like India not being able to support their population density, tropical rainforests turning into savannahs. It is also a mass extinction scenario.
      - garmaine 7y ago
        > The IPCC models predict a > 4°C average temperature increase for the business-as-usual scenario. “Business-as-usual” is not the most likely outcome. It completely neglects technological development trajectories which make something like 2.5 deg absolutely achievable by simple market forces without radical action. But in any case... > This is means billions of people migrating across national boundaries and/or dead, extinction of most species, a dramatic reduction in farm land, tropical rainforests ceasing to exist. I doubt humanity's technological advances can be sustained when we can't even feed ourselves. All of that is rampant speculation. THIS is what I’m calling out as non-consensus. > Even a 2°C average increase is very, very bad, with intense weather events every year, countries like India not being able to support their population density, tropical rainforests turning into savannahs. It is also a mass extinction scenario. That’s a strange thing to say. How do you reconcile that statement with the fact that higher temperatures mean more rainfall, higher CO2 levels mean better plant growth, and geologic record which indicates that when the earth was previously that much warmer it was covered pole-to-pole with lush tropical rainforests?
lone_haxx0r 7y ago
> Of course. She is creating a lot of attention for the mismatch between scientists' (in particular IPCC) insights and recommendations and politicians (in)actions and failure to reach the goals they set themselves. Is she? I've only watched her "how dare you" speech and have read a couple of hit pieces about how she doesn't like Trump (granted, it's not necessarily her fault that journalists focus on this part), but I haven't been exposed to any actual content about climate change because of her.

jansan 7y ago

She recommends to panic.

nxpnsv 7y ago
That's not really a truthful reading of what she is communicating.
- jansan 7y ago
  "I want you to panic" is exactly what she said: https://youtu.be/RjsLm5PCdVQ?t=145 https://youtu.be/RjsLm5PCdVQ?t=145
  - draugadrotten 7y ago
    ...and 30 years earlier, another girl, 12 year old Severn Cullis-Suzuki, said the same thing in the UN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOp5ATk_rlM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOp5ATk_rlM
    - jansan 7y ago
      ...and 30 years ago this infamous news article was published: https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 At that time we had only 10 years to fix the problem, now scientists graciously give us 12 years.
      - lonelappde 7y ago
        10 years to start, not to finish, is what the article said. Fortunately, we did something in those 10 years, as the article pleaded. wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
  - nxpnsv 7y ago
    She said a whole lot more. You choose not to understand.

tzm 7y ago

Not sure on specific action, but her UN speech on climate change evokes a cultural of change https://time.com/5695968/fatboy-slim-greta-thunberg-united-nations-climate-speech/ https://time.com/5695968/fatboy-slim-greta-thunberg-united-n...