I’ve said what I wanted to say, so no problem.
I was just curious about these savage attacks on Thunberg that were referred to from some corners of the internet. Seemed like a very strange thing to bring up and then refuse to clarify. I didn’t think tossing out drive by insinuations was in line with the standards of Great Debates.
Could you show your work on this calculation, please? I can’t tell what assumptions you’re making about percentage of nuclear power for energy generation versus percentage of energy-generation contribution to total greenhouse-gas emissions, or even which nation(s) you’re making these assumptions for.
Hmm, I’m supposed to look at a rational and factual 5-minute speech discussing realistic concerns about specific targets and thresholds regarding climate change and the evident inadequacy of existing policies to meet recommended targets, and somehow be able to “see all through” it some evidence of “freaking hysteria”?
Sorry, not buying it. I suspect that, like a lot of people, you just don’t like hearing bad news and valid criticism, and feel a strong temptation to take it out on the messenger. Thunberg is absolutely correct that people are suffering and dying because of climate change, and will most likely continue to do so in greater numbers; that we’re seeing the start of an anthropogenic mass extinction (although not a universal extinction or anything like it, which she never claimed); and that current policies are not projected to be able to meet the targets recommended for even a moderately disastrous impact on environments and economies.
That’s not “hysteria”; that’s realism. You don’t like to hear it (who would?), so you filter it through a sort of mental extremism-amplifier so that what you hear is just people incontinently screaming “we are all doomed”, which you can comfortably dismiss and ignore as “hysteria”.
:dubious: So I say that you and other “‘hysteria’-hollerers” are reflexively trying to “equate any kind of accelerated emissions-reduction approach” with what you call “draconian left wing stuff” that’s much more far-reaching, and you instantly jump to the example of a “left wing stuff” proposal that is explicitly much more far-reaching. In other words, you’re proving my point.
It’s true that we have to do these things. But it’s also true that we have to be able to listen to someone realistically pointing out how insufficient they are likely to be, and how irresponsible it was for us older generations to have delayed so long in taking the problem seriously, without having a fit of the guilty-conscience vapors and automatically accusing her of “hysteria”.
What a load of bullshit.
Obviously you’ll need to try harder.
And also broadcast on Fox News.
I like how rather than being a discussion of world leaders’ responsibilities and capabilities regarding climate change, the discussion is about how the girl is just a terrible person for, like, all the reasons. How could anything she says be true? She’s a bad person!
Fox News apologized for one of the attacks, but there have been others:
(Response from Ingraham’s brother: “Clearly my sister’s paycheck is more important than the world her three adopted kids will inherit. I can no longer apologize for a sibling who I no longer recognize.”)
Some other attacks on Thunberg in right-wing media:
Kinda funny to see all the “Nazi” denunciations on the grounds that Thunberg is a fair-skinned white girl with braids. So many right-wingers are always on about how the “white race” is so victimized by unfair accusations of “racism” and “Nazism” and so forth. But as soon as a “Nordic-looking” white person says political stuff they don’t like, they start right in with the “Nazi” accusations themselves.
It’s a shame scientific discussions have become so political. It’s also ugly to bully teens for their political views or apparel.
It’s not funny even if they are hypocrites. All of those snippets (except possibly Johnson’s) are disgusting ad hominem attacks that mock a child for features that she has no control over. If she has Asperger’s syndrome that might mean she has very tough skin, but it doesn’t make what they said okay.
~Max
I wonder if any posters will make the connection between this and their posts about Nick Sandmann.
Well, they wouldn’t have to be if so many people didn’t keep on trying to misrepresent and discredit valid science for political reasons. As BeepKillBeep quoted back in post #23, “Climate denialism isn’t just a bunch of people who are wrong. It is a bunch of people being paid to be wrong on purpose to deliberately spread doubt about the truth.”
Everyone please drop the hijack regarding any personal characteristics of Greta Thunberg. The content of her message, the merit or demerit of it is fair game. Discussion about any other personal characteristics of her is not. One, it’s irrelevant to the message spoke about, and two, she’s a child and even though she put herself in the public sphere by speaking out, that’s not what this thread is about.
[/moderating]
And she’s using her “privileged position” to raise concerns about the sort of life she is going to have in the future, and not telling poor Asian farmers “fuck you, get air conditioning.”
Horrors.
Transnational corporations dominate the global economy, and global leaders (together with businesses, military forces, and households) are dependent on them for credit.
They need continuous growth of credit to thrive, and that means more use of material resources and energy worldwide. Most want the same because that’s how their income, returns on investment, etc., grow.
Meanwhile, several of these corporations, together with others as well as military and intelligence groups, have been publishing reports for personnel and clients about the effects of not just global warming but also peak oil.
So only a very poor person in imminent danger is allowed to be outraged; and no such person is in a position to express that outrage.
In which case, nobody can possibly effectively express outrage; and nothing will be done; at least, not until all the coastal cities in the rich countries are underwater. Or not then, because it can then be argued that the people in those cities – or at least the ones in a position to “step on the world stage” – will be able to afford to move elsewhere.
I think that’s an outrageous argument.
Again:
Rich people are not allowed to be outraged because they’re wealthy and hypocritical.
Poor people are not allowed to be outraged because they don’t pay taxes or understand the issues.
Middle-class people are not allowed to be outraged because it’s disloyal and unappreciative to complain about your very adequate lifestyle.
Nobody is allowed to be outraged. You must accede to the situation, whatever it may be. Case closed.
Well, no wonder change doesn’t happen. The only people allowed to be angry are the people without power or privilege. Anyone in a position to meaningfully effect change is to privileged for their opinion to count.
:rolleyes:
XT, how sure are you that the absence of a robust nuclear infrastructure is the keystone to the demise of future generations? For instance, there was a time in this country when most major cities had cable car systems. Companies like Ford and Esso (Rockefeller’s original oil company IIRC) didn’t like that because it reduced consumption of personal cars and oil. They pulled strings and arranged to have those systems mostly ripped out. Have you considered how much more efficient robust public transportation would be? I know, that’s Socialism, but think about it.
If that is really true, I am afraid the solution is to bring back the guillotine, on the basis of the universal right to self defense. Are we all supposed to stand idly by while a small claque of wealthy assholes ruins the lives of future generations? If rational argument can’t work, and if emotional appeals by affected young girls doesn’t work, tell me- is accepting that Nothing will work a viable option? We all just grab our ankles and kiss our asses goodbye because these wealthy destroyers need to spend a lifetime getting jerked off by teenagers and what have you?
Bringing back the guillotine and convincing the decision makers that they are absolutely, definitely next would have strong persuasive power for the argument that there are worse things than being a little less wealthy and powerful. Or, it would clear the way for decision makers who care about the human race. Bad for them, but win-win for the 7.5 billion rest of us.
Don’t you think so? I hate to raise such a point, but if this set of people are Literally Killing Us All and nothing else whatsoever can reach them, do we all just meekly lay down and die and sacrifice our grandchildren to their avarice? Does humankind not have a right to defend itself?
Butting in again on this topic: While I reiterate that I think nuclear power probably does need to play a role in combating climate change, I’m getting more and more skeptical about the frequent claims that nuclear is our Immense Missed Opportunity That Would Have Made All the Difference.
This (quantitatively unsupported) attitude is reminding me of the OP of a concurrent GD thread on gun violence insisting that the right way to address mass shootings would be to keep the media from publishing the names of the shooters. The general pattern of such rhetoric seems to be:
1) Confront a problem that more and more people are getting concerned about, as they are becoming more and more receptive to serious regulatory action to address it;
2) Object to the proposed regulatory actions as in some way or another Going Too Far;
3) Pick out some more tangential action that the public didn’t embrace in the past and is unlikely to embrace in the future, and claim (without adequate quantitative evidence) that this action would have had a huge positive effect on addressing the problem;
4) Lament the alleged shortsightedness of today’s action-proposers who allegedly didn’t do enough to promote your chosen action and thereby made us miss our big chance to solve the problem; and
5) Return to opposing the proposed regulatory actions to address the problem, with the comforting sensation of having successfully offloaded the blame for inaction onto somebody else.
Energy is everything, the arc of human progress has always been propelled by the exploitation of ever more powerful sources of energy, everything built around us is literally built out of applied energy, for example I’ve heard Aluminium being described as “solid electricity” because its refining is essentially zapping ore to separate the metal from the rest. Energy used to gather resources, process them and distribute them; used to break down, reprocess and dispose or recycle those resources again.
Climate change is, at the moment, the single most pressing danger against the environment, it is caused, majorly, by burning fossil fuels to generate power.
The largest source of CO2 emissions comes from power generation,
-25% directly to power generation.
-21% from industry and from that “emissions from industry primarily involve fossil fuels burned on site at facilities for energy.”
-14% from transportation and we know a large part of that could be substituted with energy produced without fossil fuels, i.e electric cars, buses and trains.
Nuclear power provides the only realistic alternative to fossil fuels as a source of energy (specially 40 or so years ago when activism against it began), it was, and is, the technology that would move us out of the use of fossil fuels as the primary source of energy and we’ve had it for over half a century, but it was kneecapped by scaremongering, non-science based propaganda.
It’s available now, not a pie in the sky fusion promise, or renewable “solutions” that have proven to be counterproductive (case in point Germany). Again, it was available half a century ago and if it would had been allowed to fulfil its capabilities we would be in a much, much better situation than what we are in now, it didn’t as a result of deliberate actions by people with an ideological axe to grind.
The impact humanity has had in the world has always been, specially since the Industrial Revolution, directly related to the extraction and use of power, when we gained the ability to use nuclear power we found a source of energy that far surpasses everything else in terms of environmental impact versus power output.
Therefore, by actively seeking to forbid the one source of energy that would have made the greatest impact in preventing global warming, that, right there, has been the single largest blow against the environment because, unlike the most important factor that impacts the environment, namely population numbers, it was done deliberately, hence a “blow”, as in a deliberate action carried out on (largely ideological) purpose.