4 ms·

For thousands of years, there has been a creepy-looking guy on the corner, with a cardboard sign that says "REPENT - THE END IS NEAR", and just because she's a

For thousands of years, there has been a creepy-looking guy on the corner, with a cardboard sign that says "REPENT - THE END IS NEAR", and just because she's a 20-year-old autistic Swede right now doesn't make the message any more credible or relevant. I personally prefer the guy carrying the sign that reads "KEEP CALM AND CARRY ON" because that's the best individual action we can take.

CyberDildonics 3y ago
The difference is that one view has an enormous amount of evidence behind it and your all caps sign examples are basically religion.
TheFattestNinja 3y ago
While I do agree that panic is unhelpful, the "who" is holding the doom sign does make quite the difference, in the same way you'd pay more attention to an oncologist giving you 6 months to live than you'd do to a random guy with a cardboard sign giving you 6 months to live. The issue is not so much the sign being held by a young activist, but from all the other 100's of k's of scientists and experts behind it.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  And what about when you get to see their doomsday come and go? I don't mean to pick on our young Swede, as she's hardly alone in this pattern. But this [1] is a Tweet from her from 5 years ago: "A top climate scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years." She chose to delete that Tweet recently, which makes it look even worse. One can try to argue that she was misinterpreting or misrepresenting something, or her source was junk, or whatever else. But in the end that's what she chose to put on her sign. Where were those "100's of k's of scientists and experts" 5 years ago, telling her that such comments were inappropriate sensationalism? This is really pushing people, including myself, away from caring at all about this issue. [1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210520015841/https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1009757391515156480 https://web.archive.org/web/20210520015841/https://twitter.c...
  - big-oof 3y ago
    > This is really pushing people, including myself, away from caring at all about this issue. That is, at best, a childish reaction and, at worst, a sign of oppositional behaviour disorder. Think about it. Virtually every climatologist is in unified agreement — a rarity among scientists — that extremely difficult climate conditions are going to cause extreme suffering and upheaval. Just the crop failures alone will force mass migration and, inevitably, mass conflict. But because some kid half a world away engaged in hyperbole, you reject it all. “I just don’t care any more, because «100’s of k’s of scientists and experts» didn’t put her in her place.” I mean, seriously? That’s just mental.
  - Hikikomori 3y ago
    So a 15 year old posting an article with bad predictions is enough for you to not care about climate change? Did it predict that the doomsday would be in 2023 or later if we did not reduce or stop emissions by 2023? EDIT: Found a Forbes article on it. Seems pretty reasonable, though Greta posted a sensationalised headline of it so I guess all climate change science can be safely ignored now. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/01/15/carbon-pollution-has-shoved-the-climate-backward-at-least-12-million-years-harvard-scientist-says/?sh=6b1354a6963e https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/01/15/carbon-p...
    - somenameforme 3y ago
      Read the post that started this, "The issue is not so much the sign being held by a young activist, but from all the other 100's of k's of scientists and experts behind it." Those "100's of k's of scientists and experts" are completely happy to abide sensationalism, and that's the problem. It leaves me with 0 confidence in anything of what's said, and climate papers are written, in my opinion, in an intentionally obfuscating fashion. I can comfortably read the latest papers in astrophysics or quantum mechanics, yet I find climate papers completely, and needlessly, obtuse. So I clearly cannot trust what anybody says, I cannot comfortably read the papers. That leaves me left to look at what I've seen happen over the past ~20 years (and what apparently happened in the 20 before it, though that was before my time) and assume that will be the ongoing trend. In that case, climate change is really just not a particular concern for me anymore.
zooi 3y ago
Her sign is more credible because it's backed by basically every scientific institution, not because she's an autistic Swede.
the_cramer 3y ago
I agree for some of us, Greta is not doing good PR for this topic. I like the more calm, scientific approach. That being said i think that many people really don't care UNTIL it hurts them directly. Until then i am on the Kepp calm and carry on boat, but i share my practices of ressourcefulness to others. That starts with how i wash my hands over better planning my food logistics to reduce spoilage/waste to driving around unnecessarily. I think small things multiplied by thousands of people go a long way and it's really the only thing i can do.
- neilalexander 3y ago
  The calm scientific approach has been failing to make a meaningful impact for the last couple decades. I am grateful that Greta gets people talking.
  - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
    I think part of the problem is that "the calm scientific approach" may be apparent to people who work with scientists, read original research study reports, sometimes listen to NPR for entertainment, and generally move in egghead circles. However, to the general public, science looks like the mild hysteria or sensations attached to every new study by the mainstream media that reports on them. The mainstream media is how the general public consumes their science, and so it's through a deliberately ignorant and sensationalistic filter that wants their engagement and enragement, not their thoughtful and curious discussion. But hey, it's been about the same for a long time. Remember Greenpeace, and the rainforest controversies in the 70s and 80s? Remember the hole in the ozone layer? There's always room to panic over the environment, calm scentific approach be damned.
- karmakurtisaani 3y ago
  I love how Greta annoys some predominantly 30+ men. "You're supposed to be talking about climate change, but not like that!" How to say you're an aging white man without saying it explicitly.
  - deleted 3y ago
bayesianbot 3y ago
People keeping calm and carrying on is the reason we are in this mess. I'm feeling quite weirded out myself how most don't want to talk or understand much about it, just pretending it's not there.

CyberDildonics 3y ago

The difference is that one view has an enormous amount of evidence behind it and your all caps sign examples are basically religion.

TheFattestNinja 3y ago

While I do agree that panic is unhelpful, the "who" is holding the doom sign does make quite the difference, in the same way you'd pay more attention to an oncologist giving you 6 months to live than you'd do to a random guy with a cardboard sign giving you 6 months to live. The issue is not so much the sign being held by a young activist, but from all the other 100's of k's of scientists and experts behind it.

somenameforme 3y ago
And what about when you get to see their doomsday come and go? I don't mean to pick on our young Swede, as she's hardly alone in this pattern. But this [1] is a Tweet from her from 5 years ago: "A top climate scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years." She chose to delete that Tweet recently, which makes it look even worse. One can try to argue that she was misinterpreting or misrepresenting something, or her source was junk, or whatever else. But in the end that's what she chose to put on her sign. Where were those "100's of k's of scientists and experts" 5 years ago, telling her that such comments were inappropriate sensationalism? This is really pushing people, including myself, away from caring at all about this issue. [1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210520015841/https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1009757391515156480 https://web.archive.org/web/20210520015841/https://twitter.c...
- big-oof 3y ago
  > This is really pushing people, including myself, away from caring at all about this issue. That is, at best, a childish reaction and, at worst, a sign of oppositional behaviour disorder. Think about it. Virtually every climatologist is in unified agreement — a rarity among scientists — that extremely difficult climate conditions are going to cause extreme suffering and upheaval. Just the crop failures alone will force mass migration and, inevitably, mass conflict. But because some kid half a world away engaged in hyperbole, you reject it all. “I just don’t care any more, because «100’s of k’s of scientists and experts» didn’t put her in her place.” I mean, seriously? That’s just mental.
- Hikikomori 3y ago
  So a 15 year old posting an article with bad predictions is enough for you to not care about climate change? Did it predict that the doomsday would be in 2023 or later if we did not reduce or stop emissions by 2023? EDIT: Found a Forbes article on it. Seems pretty reasonable, though Greta posted a sensationalised headline of it so I guess all climate change science can be safely ignored now. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/01/15/carbon-pollution-has-shoved-the-climate-backward-at-least-12-million-years-harvard-scientist-says/?sh=6b1354a6963e https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/01/15/carbon-p...
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    Read the post that started this, "The issue is not so much the sign being held by a young activist, but from all the other 100's of k's of scientists and experts behind it." Those "100's of k's of scientists and experts" are completely happy to abide sensationalism, and that's the problem. It leaves me with 0 confidence in anything of what's said, and climate papers are written, in my opinion, in an intentionally obfuscating fashion. I can comfortably read the latest papers in astrophysics or quantum mechanics, yet I find climate papers completely, and needlessly, obtuse. So I clearly cannot trust what anybody says, I cannot comfortably read the papers. That leaves me left to look at what I've seen happen over the past ~20 years (and what apparently happened in the 20 before it, though that was before my time) and assume that will be the ongoing trend. In that case, climate change is really just not a particular concern for me anymore.

zooi 3y ago

Her sign is more credible because it's backed by basically every scientific institution, not because she's an autistic Swede.

the_cramer 3y ago

I agree for some of us, Greta is not doing good PR for this topic. I like the more calm, scientific approach. That being said i think that many people really don't care UNTIL it hurts them directly. Until then i am on the Kepp calm and carry on boat, but i share my practices of ressourcefulness to others. That starts with how i wash my hands over better planning my food logistics to reduce spoilage/waste to driving around unnecessarily. I think small things multiplied by thousands of people go a long way and it's really the only thing i can do.

neilalexander 3y ago
The calm scientific approach has been failing to make a meaningful impact for the last couple decades. I am grateful that Greta gets people talking.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  I think part of the problem is that "the calm scientific approach" may be apparent to people who work with scientists, read original research study reports, sometimes listen to NPR for entertainment, and generally move in egghead circles. However, to the general public, science looks like the mild hysteria or sensations attached to every new study by the mainstream media that reports on them. The mainstream media is how the general public consumes their science, and so it's through a deliberately ignorant and sensationalistic filter that wants their engagement and enragement, not their thoughtful and curious discussion. But hey, it's been about the same for a long time. Remember Greenpeace, and the rainforest controversies in the 70s and 80s? Remember the hole in the ozone layer? There's always room to panic over the environment, calm scentific approach be damned.
karmakurtisaani 3y ago
I love how Greta annoys some predominantly 30+ men. "You're supposed to be talking about climate change, but not like that!" How to say you're an aging white man without saying it explicitly.
- deleted 3y ago

bayesianbot 3y ago

People keeping calm and carrying on is the reason we are in this mess. I'm feeling quite weirded out myself how most don't want to talk or understand much about it, just pretending it's not there.