He got it in 2016 and it’s been downhill ever since.
Admittedly, he wasn’t exactly starting from the peak of Everest. More like the top of a slightly-steep suburban driveway.
Well, IMHO the lengths that some in this thread are going to to tear her down indicate to me that whatever she is doing is working.
And which climate change BS would that be?
OK, so you’re one of those. About 97% of climate scientists (that is, scientists who have made a career out of studying earth’s climate) are convinced that man-made climate change is reality. Since you don’t believe them, maybe you can tell us:
[ol]
[li]What legitimate entities have evidence to the contrary?[/li][li]What is this evidence?[/li][li]What does the “left” have to gain by convincing others that climate change is real?[/li][/ol]
I see you have not accepted my challenge yet in the other climate change thread. If you’re right that climate change is fake, then it should be a very easy challenge for you to win. But you and I both know that you’re never going to reply to that challenge, and we both know why. But don’t you worry, I’m going to call you out on it every single time you post that climate change is BS.
Every word that you just said is projection.
It’s probably better to figure out from whom is she taking the talking points from, because a 13 year old doesn’t say things like this out of forming an informed opinion based on thorough analysis:
ITSM she’s a marketable figurehead for subversive extremists, that is to say people who seek to subvert an environmental issue into a tool to further an extremist agenda because it doesn’t get more extreme than wanting to tear down everything as the starting point for the Big Idea.
It may not have started that way but that’s how it looks to me at the moment.
The sum of all this is that on one hand people who support her will be unwittingly (being charitable) throwing their support into a cause that sees addressing climate change as a useful tool to achieve a different goal rather than the goal itself; on the other hand she’ll give credence to the idea that AWG is a hoax created to push other agendas, both things hamper efforts to bring people together into a consensus on the necessity of addressing the problem.
There’s also the problem that the apocalyptic narrative she is pushing (and others like Extinction Rebellion) will sooner or later lead to violence, I expect “Eco terrorism” to become more of an issue in the next years fuelled by rhetoric like hers. It’s the inevitable outcome of convincing people that they have no future unless they take matters in their own hands and smash the system.
Yes. That’s why I like to call him tanTrump.
That is all correct, but I like to frame it in Goethe’s “Faust”, where the devil presents himself as the “force that always strives for the bad and always produces the good.” The German original sounds better:
[Ich bin] ein Teil von jener Kraft,
Die stets das Böse will und stets das Gute schafft. …
Ich bin der Geist, der stets verneint!
Und das mit Recht; denn alles, was entsteht,
Ist wert, daß es zugrunde geht;
Drum besser wär’s, daß nichts entstünde.
So ist denn alles, was ihr Sünde,
Zerstörung, kurz das Böse nennt,
Mein eigentliches Element.
A difficult art: becoming an optimistic nihilist. I believe there is no point in nothing but we should all try to be happy.
This. I guess since there is no ‘face of the protest’, so to speak (because the last time the CCP and Hong Kong authorities rounded up leaders for a bit of torture and re-education) they couldn’t do it, but that’s definitely who it should have been.
Greta Thunberg? No. It’s pandering to the left and greens, IMHO. But it’s not a surprise.
The same way we scienced our way into fusion energy that was too cheap to meter? The problem with this is that the laws of physics don’t give a shit about how hard you work on a problem. Science does some amazing things, but scientific discoveries don’t come on demand, and betting the health of the planet, on faith that our scientists will come up with something is a bit too risky for my tastes.
Predictably, the right wing reaction is outrage. I saw one Facebook meme where Greta says “Time Magazine named me person of the year for helping save the planet!”, to which the smug white cat replies “100 Million trees are cut down to make magazines every year. Well done.” Oh, of course. The fact the particular winner has no impact on paper production is lost on this group. The other reaction is “Waaaah! They should have picked the troops!”, which happens every year. I suspect we’d see neither reaction if the Orange Anus had won.
We have a major problem with climate change. Ridiculing those who call attention to it is not productive. But bringing attention does not fix the problem, all it can do is get us to devote resources to fix the problem. So Thunberg deserves some credit for helping keep the issue alive, if it was up to the right wing we’d just ignore it.
No. We COULD (possibly) have had fusion, but we didn’t want to pay the price. Basically, fusion has not gotten the funding it really needs to become viable. Look how long it’s taking to get ITER up and running. That’s an international consortium, and sure it’s billions of dollars, but if we poured in the money we could have been doing that 10 years ago. The problem is, no one wants to invest the really big bucks into a concerted effort. Or look at fission energy. We COULD already be at Damuri Ajashi’s 80% nuclear with the rest being done by renewable energy sources. Today. We aren’t because people didn’t want to do it, not because we couldn’t.
When we let politicians decide on our course, as we have, we get the cluster fuck that is the current wind and solar. In many places that have gone all in on solar the issue is they are having to dump energy because, well, the sun doesn’t shine all the time you need power. In the evening when people are coming home solar is either at it’s lowest point or doesn’t work at all. This is a pretty obvious problem to most, but we went ahead and over produced it while having no real backup power plan…oh, and in many cases decommissioning already working nuclear power plants along with coal and natural gas ones, taking out the base load but not filling the gap. MAYBE we can spin up some sort of power backup system to do that sometime down the road, but it’s going to be playing catch up. This isn’t a science problem, it’s a political problem along with populism. Which, to me, is a good indication why Time chose who they did…because it’s a feel good and Doing Something(tm, arr) measure, instead of a realistic and hard nosed approach to ACTUALLY doing something constructive. It’s like AOC’s New Green Deal…it’s fodder for the faithful instead of doing something that will actually, well, do something, other than gain votes and make folks feel like they are doing something.
Personally, those folks in Hong Kong are the ones who are putting it on the line, and should be honored for it, instead of someone who plays to the left and the greens and who politicians pay lip service too. She riles up the faithful, and the younger folks, but I don’t see that she is accomplishing much tangible. I’ll gauge that on how many nuclear power plants get built in the next 10 years, and what China does…and gets called out for doing.
It is like if backup batteries do not exist, 
or that if there are no new developments on that front.
It is also like if no conversation was ever made about what is happening with nuclear power plants, recently one nuclear power plant was decommissioned because the private energy company found that it was more economical to set a natural gas ones.
If only there had been a market based cap and trade system set to show companies that it would had been more economical to continue with a nuclear plant, that would had allowed them to trade for emissions… but the Republicans in power decided years ago that cap and trade, that worked for issues like acid rain, was a tax and a tool of the devil; even if they were for it in the past.
I never said they don’t exist. What they don’t do is exist at the sorts of scales we need, nor will they in the next decade. As for the rest, it’s your standard line and doesn’t really address the fact that regardless of the economics or who is at fault, we COULD have had those things, and it has nothing to do with the science or engineering. You want to blame the Republicans, they want to blame the Democrats, and I don’t give a fuck for the pissing contest as it has nothing to do with what I was saying.
Time will tell (pun intended), but I wonder where Miss Greta will be a year or a decade from now. Will she fade from view or grow into an influential factor for her causes? Is this just a personal “merit badge” project, a flash in the pan, or the start of a promising career?
More worryingly, where will the Hong Kong protesters be in a year or a decade from now? With the CCP trying to write them out of history like they have tried with the Tiananmen Square Massacre? 
Personally I think Greta will fade, but we shall see. To me, she doesn’t offer anything concrete, just fanfare for the faithful. Empty words without solid actionable plans, but with a left wing narrative that sounds like they are plans of the social engineering variety.
I’d probably be more sympathetic to her if she broadened her attacks to China, which, as far as I know, she hasn’t done. One wonders why…
The Climate strike idea began with her. By herself. It has grown to 4 million participants around the globe at 2,500 events scheduled in over 163 countries on all seven continents. Yes that may just disappear tomorrow, but somehow I doubt it.
And I’m just saying why is that what you said was grossly incomplete, I’m just saying.
Remember that a lot of information you rely on does that a lot, awhile ago there was a source you pointed at where cost of deploying renewables in California and the price alone was described as a big amount by the populist engineering source, making a case for that applied to the whole of the USA to be a dumb thing to do… only for me to notice later that researchers at MIT found that a very similar big amount was for the whole of the USA. Meaning that depending on the worst less supported estimates is not a good way to propose policy.
And reductions in costs are bound to make it more affordable thanks to government help too.
Government help that currently is the weakest link in the USA. It is not reasonable to ignore the elephant in the room, there are clearly political reasons for the relative lack of progress here and being ruled by deniers is not sustainable.