Greta Thunberg

[Del.Monte]

GubuOriginal you're dancing on the head of a pin now...you've quoted items from the last couple of years not 15 or 20 years ago when there many in politics, the scientific community etc. who were in denial about climate change. It's difficult to predict what Greta will achieve in the long term but it's good to see people of her age prepared to take to the streets.

As for governments wanting to see her off the scene - ever hear what the French did to the Rainbow Warrior?

[isha]

GubuOriginal you're dancing on the head of a pin now...you've quoted items from the last couple of years not 15 or 20 years ago when there many in politics, the scientific community etc. who were in denial about climate change. It's difficult to predict what Greta will achieve in the long term but it's good to see people of her age prepared to take to the streets.

As for governments wanting to see her off the scene - ever hear what the French did to the Rainbow Warrior?

Yerra come off it. Al Gore wrote An Inconvenient Truth in 2005, won a Nobel in 2007 for climate change activism or realism or something - he was only VP of the USA from 1993 to 2001, fewer people have been as well placed as him or ever will be again to effect actual change. Instead its been a bit of a decades long junket for him, with accumulation of massive wealth and a carbon-hungry lifestyle while preaching to the dumb beasts about their 'denialism'.

You do realise it is not us dumb animals who are fecking up the planet, right? Any scolding of us from any pulpit that pretends we are not serfs is a masquerade.

Greta is not ploughing virgin ground. Greenpeace were engaged in far more dangerous, meaningful direct action before she was born. Anyone with eyes to see or ears to hear has known about the climate and the environmental degradation for a very long time.

It is the blooming religiosity of everything nowadays that annoys me, saint Greta, the holy Trans, the sacred BLM, the church of Covid. Bring back a bit of compulsory hair shirt Calvinism or something and at least the masses would not have to be sublimating their religious impulses and need to worship while pretending it is something else.

[isha]

Isn't that kinda the whole point about Thunberg?

She's not a politician like Gore preaching down to people about what they should do, she's a young woman tackling Governments about what they're failing to do. Gore's film highlighted the problems but suggested it was up to us as individuals to change it, 20 years later and Thunberg has a different message and agenda, buying hybrid cars (the Gore solution) is not addressing the issues.

She is such a revolutionary that she is the beloved darling of the political classes. Addresses the UN multiple times, lauded by its Secretary General, goes to Davos, gets international awards, Times best person, embraced and cheered by world leaders like Biden, Merkele, Aherne and Harris. How does that outsider thing work again?
My point is it is ineffectual controlled opposition. It is as cynical as Nike putting BLM slogans on the footwear it has made by impoverished and enslaved brown-skinned people.

[Del.Monte]

She is such a revolutionary that she is the beloved darling of the political classes. Addresses the UN multiple times, lauded by its Secretary General, goes to Davos, gets international awards, Times best person, embraced and cheered by world leaders like Biden, Merkele, Aherne and Harris. How does that outsider thing work again?
My point is it is ineffectual controlled opposition. It is as cynical as Nike putting BLM slogans on the footwear it has made by impoverished and enslaved brown-skinned people.

I take it that you didn't bother watching her speech from yesterday then which was highly critical of the establishment including the Italian government who organised the event? What would you have her do instead of accepting invitations to speak at the UN etc. - write a stiff letter to the Irish Times?

[isha]

So for you the issue is that she's not radical enough and is too close to the Governments she criticises? She's part of the establishment?

Do you prefer the Extinction Rebellion approach?

No, ER are well off neurotic trustafarians with too much time on their hands. A person actually died in a traffic jam trying to get to the hospital a couple of weeks ago from some eco-protest in the UK.

Yes I think Greta is too close to those she criticises and I am a bigger fan of the anonymous people I know who have spent decades coaxing vegetables from acidic clay, maintained the art of composting, set up food co-ops, printed eco-mags in their sheds, quietly planted innumerable trees, kept stream and seashores clean, picked up litter, demonstrated to keep the frackers out, taught their kids to love nature and etc etc. I was also a great admirer of Greenpeace in the day.
I don't know how people thing this is something new and revolutionary. She is saying things people have said for aeons, The Worm Forgives the Plough, remember old John Stewart Collis, I read his book WAAAAHAY back when - but she is co-opted close in to the bosoms of the very people whose fat share investments leak oil all over poor communities in Nigeria etc. So they can mouth platitudes. Which is why I think she would have been better off living in a cabin in the woods - she could have made videos of growing vegetables and minding the place - there are lots of people doing that as well! I love those wild cooking videos - watch them on mute and just relax

[CelticRambler]

Please excuse the re-ordering of your

Greta is not ploughing virgin ground. Greenpeace were engaged in far more dangerous, meaningful direct action before she was born.

Al Gore wrote An Inconvenient Truth in 2005, won a Nobel in 2007 for climate change activism or realism or something - he was only VP of the USA from 1993 to 2001, fewer people have been as well placed as him or ever will be again to effect actual change.

And what did we get from Gore? Nothing. What has Greenpeace achieved by their "meaningful" action? Nothing. Everything that was known about back then has been swept under several carpets; what was bad back then is worse now. We're still burning fossil fuels, we're still chopping down virgin forest; despite the supposedly energy efficient appliances, we're consuming more energy than ever before.

You do realise it is not us dumb animals who are fecking up the planet, right? Any scolding of us from any pulpit that pretends we are not serfs is a masquerade.

Sorry, isha, but it is us. Massive amounts of electricity generated and used just so that companies like Amazon and Facebook and Google can store and share and mine whatever data they can extract from a million photos of half-eaten meals and a million selfies of some duck-faced wan in a bucket-list location. "We" - the rich westerner - are very much responsible for fecking up the planet with our gluttonous consumption, and unfortunately, for every one of us who's happy to use a compost toilet, there are ten more who will mindlessly flush massive amounts of luxury toilet paper into a sewer, chased by endless litres of pine-fresh disinfectant supplied in plastic bottles and diluted in however much drinking water the local authority can extract from our rivers, lakes and aquifers.

She is such a revolutionary that she is the beloved darling of the political classes. Addresses the UN multiple times, lauded by its Secretary General, goes to Davos, gets international awards, Times best person, embraced and cheered by world leaders like Biden, Merkele, Aherne and Harris. How does that outsider thing work again?

Isn't that just a warped version of shooting the messenger, on your part? Greta herself has said that she had to consider whether or not others were right in telling her that her work was done, that she'd made her point and she should invest her energies into something else; but after a year's reflection she decided that she'd achieved nothing other than to get herself invited to these events so that others could bask in her glory. Hence her new stance of telling the high and mighty that they can no longer count on her to help them mask their hypocrisy.

[isha]

No longer is a key phrase there.

[765489]

She is such a revolutionary that she is the beloved darling of the political classes. Addresses the UN multiple times, lauded by its Secretary General, goes to Davos, gets international awards, Times best person, embraced and cheered by world leaders like Biden, Merkele, Aherne and Harris. How does that outsider thing work again?
My point is it is ineffectual controlled opposition. It is as cynical as Nike putting BLM slogans on the footwear it has made by impoverished and enslaved brown-skinned people.

You need to do more Isha. You need to be more like this young lady, you need to moan about climate change and get paid by a bank. All that shit your doing at home to limit your carbon footprint is of no consequence.

I thanked all your posts by accident in this thread and due to a bug on my phone, every post you do in this thread will automatically be thanked by my phone

Greta will be so angry with me.

[765489]

No, ER are well off neurotic trustafarians with too much time on their hands. A person actually died in a traffic jam trying to get to the hospital a couple of weeks ago from some eco-protest in the UK.

Yes I think Greta is too close to those she criticises and I am a bigger fan of the anonymous people I know who have spent decades coaxing vegetables from acidic clay, maintained the art of composting, set up food co-ops, printed eco-mags in their sheds, quietly planted innumerable trees, kept stream and seashores clean, picked up litter, demonstrated to keep the frackers out, taught their kids to love nature and etc etc. I was also a great admirer of Greenpeace in the day.
I don't know how people thing this is something new and revolutionary. She is saying things people have said for aeons, The Worm Forgives the Plough, remember old John Stewart Collis, I read his book WAAAAHAY back when - but she is co-opted close in to the bosoms of the very people whose fat share investments leak oil all over poor communities in Nigeria etc. So they can mouth platitudes. Which is why I think she would have been better off living in a cabin in the woods - she could have made videos of growing vegetables and minding the place - there are lots of people doing that as well! I love those wild cooking videos - watch them on mute and just relax

Great Post.

Fookin phone is at it again.

[isha]

I thanked all your posts by accident in this thread and due to a bug on my phone, every post you do in this thread will automatically be thanked by my phone

What!

How Dare You!

[isha]

Thankety thank. Go on N...

[Scotty]

You seriously think some states want her dead?

The French government have killed activists before > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_o ... implicated

[Scotty]

I don't know how people thing this is something new and revolutionary. She is saying things people have said for aeons.

But people are listening to her, that's the difference. That's why this thread exists and with this thread title.

She has become a household name the world over and with it, climate change awareness, her primary goal.

She's doing a fantastic job an long may it continue. We need many many more like her.

[isha]

She has annoyed and polarised many. Rachel Carson was a household name for many. John Seymour. Loads more. People who genuinely changed peoples' lives. There used to be an old fashioned way of not melting some of the audience's heads while giving your message. The public also did not engage in mass worship/lip-service of celebrity figures quite as much as we do now.

[GubuOriginal]

But people are listening to her, that's the difference. That's why this thread exists and with this thread title.

She has become a household name the world over and with it, climate change awareness, her primary goal.

She's doing a fantastic job an long may it continue. We need many many more like her.

Again, I really think you are over blowing things. The majority of of people (outside of poor countries anyway) are already aware of climate change. I learned about in school back in 2004. What actual change of substance have come about due to Greta's activism? I suggest next to nothing. As another poster said, we are getting lip service, like we've always done. There is a bizarre hero worship that surrounds her, which, of course, isn't her fault. But one of the problems re fighting climate change is that there are too many activists and not enough people 'doers'. The aft used example is Bohan Slat, who at a young age helped come up with the concept of a device to help clean the oceans. Yet we hear a lot less about such people.

To suggest we need more activists is silly and misses the point. We need more people to actually implement change whether that be policy or technological, and we certainly need more of the latter in my view.

[GubuOriginal]

GubuOriginal you're dancing on the head of a pin now...you've quoted items from the last couple of years not 15 or 20 years ago when there many in politics, the scientific community etc. who were in denial about climate change. It's difficult to predict what Greta will achieve in the long term but it's good to see people of her age prepared to take to the streets.

As for governments wanting to see her off the scene - ever hear what the French did to the Rainbow Warrior?

The polling company (Pew) only started asking the questions posed back in 2013, which is 8 years ago. The point of showing 2018 data was to show that climate change was in people's minds before Greta came about. The market, so to speak, of climate change highlighting is saturated so to speak. It's in the news continuously (any extreme weather will automatically be linked to it, for example) .

Secondly, the scientific community have taken climate change seriously longer then anyone, no idea where you are getting the idea that is wasn't taken seriously there.

If you want an example of how climate change has been on the agenda for a while now, the green schools initiative started back in 2004, the Oscar winning documentary an inconvenient truth is from 2006 (11th highest grossing documentary of all time), renewable sources of energy began to be developed in the 70's and 80's, the production of CFC's was banned in 1987 as problems associated with the ozone layer and global heating were recognized, the Earth summit first took place in 1992, which eventually led to the Kyoto protocol from the same year (the precursor the Paris Agreements of 2015, 3 years before Greta supposedly woke everyone up to the problems of climate change). I could go on.

The intent with Rainbow Warrior was not to murder.

[GubuOriginal]

The French government have killed activists before > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_o ... implicated

Was the intention to murder?

[Del.Monte]

Was the intention to murder?

Who knows - the point is that they didn't care - that is unless you have inside information from the French secret service.

[GubuOriginal]

Who knows - the point is that they didn't care - that is unless you have inside information from the French secret service.

It was explicitly stated that these states would want to murder her. Unless you know the intent was to murder then the given example is pointless.

[Scotty]

She has annoyed and polarised many.

Yes she has, but so what? Look at all the discussion she has generated, millions and millions of articles highlighting climate change, including this thread, 58,000,000 results on Google. How long have YOU spent TODAY reading and writing about her? As long as people are discussing her and her cause it's a good thing, even if they are complaining about her.

Rachel Carson was a household name for many. John Seymour. Loads more.

I've honestly never heard of them.

[Del.Monte]

The polling company (Pew) only started asking the questions posed back in 2013, which is 8 years ago. The point of showing 2018 data was to show that climate change was in people's minds before Greta came about. The market, so to speak, of climate change highlighting is saturated so to speak. It's in the news continuously (any extreme weather will automatically be linked to it, for example) .

Secondly, the scientific community have taken climate change seriously longer then anyone, no idea where you are getting the idea that is wasn't taken seriously there.

If you want an example of how climate change has been on the agenda for a while now, the green schools initiative started back in 2004, the Oscar winning documentary an inconvenient truth is from 2006 (11th highest grossing documentary of all time), renewable sources of energy began to be developed in the 70's and 80's, the production of CFC's was banned in 1987 as problems associated with the ozone layer and global heating were recognized, the Earth summit first took place in 1992, which eventually led to the Kyoto protocol from the same year (the precursor the Paris Agreements of 2015, 3 years before Greta supposedly woke everyone up to the problems of climate change). I could go on.

The intent with Rainbow Warrior was not to murder.

Climate change denial due to beliefs and mistakes by those in the scientific community has been around for decades too and it's not as simplistically one-sided as you try and portray it. Here's a link to Wiki - knock yourself out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

As an aside, do you have any solutions or should we just keep going in the same old way and expect different results - like the Michael O'Leary school of sustainability?

[Scotty]

Was the intention to murder?

I don't think they cared. They could have easily avoided death by calling in a bomb warning but no such warning was given.

[GubuOriginal]

I don't think they cared. They could have easily avoided death by calling in a bomb warning but no such warning was given.

See post 48.

[Scotty]

See post 48

It was suggested that some countries might like to see the back of Thunberg.

Your response was...

You seriously think some states want her dead?

"Do you 'seriously' think..." as if it' some kind of wild outrageous notion that a country might interfere with an activist or activism and then you throw in a laughing smiley face at the end just to highlight how ridiculous you think the notion is.

Then when it's pointed out to you that countries have gone to extreme measures against activists before, by planting not one but two bombs on a ship they knew people to be living aboard, your response is that they weren't intending to murder anyone!?! What difference does that make?? They were willing to bomb a ship to stop the activists and to hell with the consequences. They were extremely lucky that only one person was killed and not 10's more of rescue personnel considering the bombs were 10 minutes apart.

I don't think the Thunberg's life is in imminent danger but if I read tomorrow that she'd been bumped off I can't say I'd be utterly shocked. She's definitely become a thorn in the side of some very powerful people.

[GubuOriginal]

It was suggested that some countries might like to see the back of Thunberg.

Your response was...

"Do you 'seriously' think..." as if it' some kind of wild outrageous notion that a country might interfere with an activist or activism and then you throw in a laughing smiley face at the end just to highlight how ridiculous you think the notion is.

Then when it's pointed out to you that countries have gone to extreme measures against activists before, by planting not one but two bombs on a ship they knew people to be living aboard, your response is that they weren't intending to murder anyone!?! What difference does that make?? They were willing to bomb a ship to stop the activists and to hell with the consequences. They were extremely lucky that only one person was killed and not 10's more of rescue personnel considering the bombs were 10 minutes apart.

I don't think the Thunberg's life is in imminent danger but if I read tomorrow that she'd been bumped off I can't say I'd be utterly shocked. She's definitely become a thorn in the side of some very powerful people.

I really don't think she's a thorn in anyone's side. Again, a complete over blowing of her status and effectiveness, which is why the idea of any state wanting her dead is laughable to me.