I guess I haven’t been paying enough attention. She has “significant psychological problems?”
I’m not sure what you mean by “a grossness to a kid with significant psychological problems being thrust into the spotlight”. She chose to speak out, it’s not like it was forced on her. The fact that she has some psychological issues is irrelevant (except for people who choose to criticize her for those issues, rather than for the issues she’s raised regarding climate change).
That’s the best thing I can say about her. Unfortunately that clown is trying to accelerate the crisis and he’ll do more of that just to show his anger at getting beat out for a cheesy award by a teenage girl.
BTW: How many of you remember who Jason Russell is?
Finally, despite my remarks here, underneath I hope that Greta Thunberg does turn out to be the catalyst for change that is needed. She doesn’t deserve any criticism, it’s really the rest of her generation that needs to stick to the plan and follow-up on this with real action as they become adults.
I’m very surprised they didn’t give the award to Vladimir Putin. He had a REALLY good year. He got the title once back on 2007, I think…but Gorbachev “won” twice.
But I REALLY wish they would’ve pulled a sort of repeat of 2002, and give it to the whistleblower.
So the alternative is do nothing at all, and then the clown would be all about trying to fight climate change?
No, what the clown chooses to do is on the clown. I don’t think the alternative world where nobody speaks up to the clown would yield any better behavior from the clown. At some point we need to hold the clown accountable for being a clown.
I’m not blaming her for the clown. The alternative is not nothing, it’s do something that will make an actual difference.
There’s very little the average person can do that will have anything more than a negligible impact. Voting Democrat, or their equivalent in other countries, is one of those things. By that standard whether or not her message has been successful is yet to be determined.
You are saying the clown is worse bc of her speaking out. That is blaming her for the clown increasing his clownishness.
Inspiring this conversation all over the globe is making a difference. Elections don’t happen immediately. There is no way to know what the future holds, so declaring that this publicity will not have an effect is premature at this stage.
Nope. Greta Thunberg is a figurehead. She has not lead anything, decided anything, controlled anything. Regardless of how any of us feel about climate change, or about climate change activism, or about climate change activism by uninformed children, she has no influence. If Time thought that the so-called “climate strike” was the most important thing that happened, then the Person of the year should have been the corporate executives who planned it. Saying Greta was the most impactful person is like saying that the guy in the Mickey Mouse suit at Disneyworld is the most important person in the entertainment industry.
To cover same basic facts that the liberal media coverage has mostly left out. (All covered in the Times of London, subscription required.) First, Greta was never just an ordinary girl. She’s the daughter of celebrities and the family has hobnobbed with Sweden’s rich and famous for a long time.
The reason we’ve all heard of Greta is because of two financial industry executives named Ingmar Rentzhog and David Olsson, who initially got rich in other industries but are currently working on a venture linking corporations in the renewable energy sector with social media groups. They’re involved with many charities, think tanks, etc… including a website called “We Don’t Have Time” where they recruited children to speak out on climate change issues. Greta was one of the children recruited there, though not the first.
So you mix together a family that really likes fame and money to some corporate executives running a publicity campaign and presto! You get the Greta Thunberg phenomenon. All the praise from the liberal media, all the children going on “climate strikes”, all the speeches at Parliament and Congress and the UN is all just because some rich executives wanted to be richer.
No it isn’t. It’s pointing out that she hasn’t done anything about the climate problem by doing that even though it is something she can wear as a badge of honor.
I agree, but I’ve seen the children’s crusades come and go over the years so I’m pessimistic.
I was responding to the following quote from you:
How is this not saying that what she is doing is making him be worse, thereby blaming her for making him be worse on the climate? How else can that be read?
Well, I’m pessimistic too, but I will not give up hope that humanity will find a way to survive ourselves. I can’t. Without that hope, what is the point of … well anything?
A terrible analogy. She has the reach and potential to create an awareness of the issue on a global scale. Better to compare her to Disney’s PR and advertising departments in her influence.
She’s not making him do anything, so read it as he being a clown that does random stupid things for random stupid reasons and he has coincidentally pointed at her instead of someone else.
Good question, I’m trying to figure that one out.
Gee, even if we take all that, it is too bad when people that have some power are concerned about the environment /s
Really, IMHO complains like this one are directed to what powerful interests do want people to fall for: a dislike for groups that are supposed to be with them seemingly being traitorous to their interests when the intention of the proponents of change is to also report to all that if the environment changes too much a lot of the industry, and not just renewables, will be affected too.
This angle of attack remains a fallacy too.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/attacking-the-motive-fallacy-explanation-examples.html
Agree with this 100%.
I also think that the framing of the issue as climate change versus economic growth, by Thunberg and others, is both substantively wrong and a deeply misguided messaging strategy. The world needs massive economic growth to lift billions of people out of poverty and also needs to fight climate change. If the issue gets framed as either/or, it isn’t growth that the world will give up.
If climate change activists want to make actual progress as opposed to make themselves feel good they have to understand the people they need to persuade and the kind of people who will do it. In the US, they need farmers, fishermen and preachers as figureheads to make their case not a 16-year old Swedish girl with Asperger’s.
I think we’ve had this conversation before and I know it sucks that we are all so helpless to actually fix this global warming thing but we are not going to politick our way out of this problem; we are not going to conserve our way out of this problem; and we are not going to scold out way out of this problem. We are going to science our way out of it if we get out of it at all.
80% of the world’s energy comes from fossil fuels, we would have to build several nuclear power plants every week from now until 2050 to bring that 80% down to 20%. By then we would already have so much carbon in our atmosphere that the effects will be almost irreversible.
We will need breakthroughs in science and technology to get us where we will eventually need to be. The savings we have seen from conservation efforts in wealthy industrialized nations is barely even slowing things down.
When someone invents breakthrough battery technology, that will spur immense economic growth.
When someone invents the sort of AI that will let us all use johnnycabs, it will create a lot of displacement but incredible economic growth.
But the science has to precede the change in the economy, not the other way around. You can’t mandate car emmission rules “as if” the battery technology already existed in the expectation that the technology would fill the regulatory need. Industry is already spending every dollar that can be effectively used to discover that battery technology.
I guess the choice is significant not for Thunberg’s own actions, but that she represents the first generation in the westernized democracies whose lives are likely to be worse than those of their parents, i.e. life expectancy, individual economic power and environmental conditions are likely to degrade for her cohort, and a number of them are aware of this and angry about it. Unlike previous cohorts of teenagers who, let’s face it, were just whiny and unappreciative of the luxury handed to them, she has legitimate demonstrable concerns and a bleak adulthood in her future.
Your outrage is noted; however, your frequent use of the phrase liberal media shows your extreme bias. I don’t have access to the Times story you linked, but I have found it (sort of) confirmed from other sources. However, she has disavowed the use of her name (and profit earned) by Olsen/Rentzhog, and it is not like she is dependent on them for anything. Additionally, while her parents may be “sort of” celebrities (her mother was an opera singer and her father a sometime actor), they’re not super-rich or super famous, and articles I’ve read indicate that it was Greta who made her parents aware of AGW and not the other way around.
With that choice, TIME proved that it has lost total touch with reality.
Greta is a child who does not realize that she has been brainwashed into believing the climate change BS. And she is being used by the left. She is their current media darling, but they will chew her up and spit her out when they have no more use for her. Next year, they won’t even remember her nam
The person of the year is supposed to be someone who has made a major impact on others’ lives. I would suggest that they should have chosen President Trump instead.