News0 min ago
Greta's Back
She needed to keep herself in the public eye, so shes now an expert in virology.
https:/
\\Thunberg said in a statement that “like the climate crisis, the coronavirus pandemic is a child-rights crisis” that will affect youngsters now and in the long-term, especially the most vulnerable.//
Childs rights ?, its affecting everyone.
https:/
\\Thunberg said in a statement that “like the climate crisis, the coronavirus pandemic is a child-rights crisis” that will affect youngsters now and in the long-term, especially the most vulnerable.//
Childs rights ?, its affecting everyone.
Answers
//She's not wrong about climate change,...// She's wrong insofar as her criticism should be directed towards those who are exacerbating the problem to the greatest degree. That is China (30% of global emissions) the USA (14%) and India (7%). That's half of all global emissions. The UK is responsible for just over 1%. It could reduce its share to nothing...
15:49 Thu 30th Apr 2020
//-- Is Climate Change a threat?
-- Can we do something about it, at least the parts that are in our control?
-- Are we doing enough? Collectively, as a species.
-- Should we try to move faster to mitigate the threat?
Given that the answers are yes, yes, no, and yes,//
Those answers are not "given" by any means, Jim, and thereby hangs the problem (that people who see the answers differently are castigated).
My answers are (and others are available):
(1) Possibly. Nobody knows what threats it will present. Mankind has faced many threats and the forecast outcome has often been spectacularly incorrect.
(2) My earlier answer (somewhere) suggested that the UK has done about all it reasonably can (note "reasonably"). In fact I think it's already strayed into "unreasonable" territory. If Ms T's musings are directed towards the UK she should look elsewhere.
(3) Possibly. Possibly not.
(4) No (back to "reasonableness").
I believe most of the animosity towards Ms T is that she is naïve. Again, as I said earlier, people don't mind being advised to desist from doing something if they are presented with an suitable alternative. Ms T's mantra is (to precis considerably) "don't burn things". Well mankind has developed a lifestyle over many generations that revolves around burning things. If they are being told to stop they will not do so unless and until some suitable alternatives are available or the stuff they burn runs out. Suddenly they see a young fanatic on their telly telling them to adopt a different lifestyle and being given the airtime to shame their leaders. They don't like the message and alas as a consequence many of them don't like the messenger.
Now they see the same messenger prattling on about something totally unrelated and which is giving most people all sorts or grief. More than that, despite your disagreement with the point, she is portraying it, completely inappropriately, as simply a problem of "child rights". It's little wonder she attracts so much venom. People across the world are struggling with the new restrictions placed on them and are suffering all sorts of problems. Then up pops the Messiah and declares it is simply a problem of "child rights". You couldn't make it up.
-- Can we do something about it, at least the parts that are in our control?
-- Are we doing enough? Collectively, as a species.
-- Should we try to move faster to mitigate the threat?
Given that the answers are yes, yes, no, and yes,//
Those answers are not "given" by any means, Jim, and thereby hangs the problem (that people who see the answers differently are castigated).
My answers are (and others are available):
(1) Possibly. Nobody knows what threats it will present. Mankind has faced many threats and the forecast outcome has often been spectacularly incorrect.
(2) My earlier answer (somewhere) suggested that the UK has done about all it reasonably can (note "reasonably"). In fact I think it's already strayed into "unreasonable" territory. If Ms T's musings are directed towards the UK she should look elsewhere.
(3) Possibly. Possibly not.
(4) No (back to "reasonableness").
I believe most of the animosity towards Ms T is that she is naïve. Again, as I said earlier, people don't mind being advised to desist from doing something if they are presented with an suitable alternative. Ms T's mantra is (to precis considerably) "don't burn things". Well mankind has developed a lifestyle over many generations that revolves around burning things. If they are being told to stop they will not do so unless and until some suitable alternatives are available or the stuff they burn runs out. Suddenly they see a young fanatic on their telly telling them to adopt a different lifestyle and being given the airtime to shame their leaders. They don't like the message and alas as a consequence many of them don't like the messenger.
Now they see the same messenger prattling on about something totally unrelated and which is giving most people all sorts or grief. More than that, despite your disagreement with the point, she is portraying it, completely inappropriately, as simply a problem of "child rights". It's little wonder she attracts so much venom. People across the world are struggling with the new restrictions placed on them and are suffering all sorts of problems. Then up pops the Messiah and declares it is simply a problem of "child rights". You couldn't make it up.
From what I have seen, it does tend to be only those who don't believe in anthropogenic climate change who think she is being exploited. That either implies those who do are willing to overlook it, or those who don't are using her condition as a pretty poor means of attack.
I am a bit uncomfortable watching her, but that could easily be down to my limited experience with people with Asperger's syndrome, well total lack of experience actually. She certainly seems to me to believe in her cause.
I am a bit uncomfortable watching her, but that could easily be down to my limited experience with people with Asperger's syndrome, well total lack of experience actually. She certainly seems to me to believe in her cause.
There is no disputing that it is a person's right to choose whether to take a given threat seriously or not. The key criteria for doing so ought to be the evidence, which, in this case, leans very strongly in one direction.
In response to NJ's post:
1) It should be understood here that a "threat" covers all manner of sins. Humanity as a whole will presumably survive even the worst excesses of Climate Change, but that doesn't mean that for many individuals there are serious dangers. It shouldn't need mentioning, though, that the "forecast outcome" of various threats in recent years has turned out to be incorrect because of our response, rather than in spite of it. Obvious and important examples of this would include the damage to the ozone layer (largely reversed once we took action), increasing risk of acid rain (largely reversed once we took action, and the dangers of excessive lead exposure (largely reversed etc etc).
Which leads me to (3): I very deliberately made clear that the question is "collectively [have we done enough]"; the UK may, or may not, individually have responded adequately, but global problems require global solutions. Ditto (4): since we haven't done enough it stands to reason that we'll need to respond faster.
I suspect your answers got (accidentally) muddled a bit, as it seems to me that your (2) belongs properly to (3). There's not really any room left for reasonable doubt that human activities are the cause for recent changes, and therefore that changing such activities can be the solution.
In response to NJ's post:
1) It should be understood here that a "threat" covers all manner of sins. Humanity as a whole will presumably survive even the worst excesses of Climate Change, but that doesn't mean that for many individuals there are serious dangers. It shouldn't need mentioning, though, that the "forecast outcome" of various threats in recent years has turned out to be incorrect because of our response, rather than in spite of it. Obvious and important examples of this would include the damage to the ozone layer (largely reversed once we took action), increasing risk of acid rain (largely reversed once we took action, and the dangers of excessive lead exposure (largely reversed etc etc).
Which leads me to (3): I very deliberately made clear that the question is "collectively [have we done enough]"; the UK may, or may not, individually have responded adequately, but global problems require global solutions. Ditto (4): since we haven't done enough it stands to reason that we'll need to respond faster.
I suspect your answers got (accidentally) muddled a bit, as it seems to me that your (2) belongs properly to (3). There's not really any room left for reasonable doubt that human activities are the cause for recent changes, and therefore that changing such activities can be the solution.
New Judge it's disingenuous to suggest Greta, or UNICEF are saying the virus is simply a problem of child rights - their message is about the right of children to have access to key supplies, education, protective equipment, etc.
She's giving money to UNICEF - a separate charity who's focus is obviously on children, who are a vulnerable group. Age Concern, RSPCA, Alzheimer Society even, god forbid, Save the Children and Muslim Hands also have their Corona virus appeals focused on specific groups and nobody is getting out of their tree about those.
The appeal was partly in response to this recent report by the UN which gives more detail on the specific impact on children.
https:/
She's giving money to UNICEF - a separate charity who's focus is obviously on children, who are a vulnerable group. Age Concern, RSPCA, Alzheimer Society even, god forbid, Save the Children and Muslim Hands also have their Corona virus appeals focused on specific groups and nobody is getting out of their tree about those.
The appeal was partly in response to this recent report by the UN which gives more detail on the specific impact on children.
https:/
No there's nothing muddled about my answers to (2) and (3), Jim.
(2) No. We (the UK) have done all that is reasonably possible (as well as a lot that is unreasonable). Ms T's efforts should be directed elsewhere.
(3) Are we doing enough? Who knows? I have read reports that the damage is done and cannot now be reversed. In 2009 Gordon Brown pronounced that we had 50 days "to save the planet". I don't recall anything significant happening in the seven weeks that followed so from that I must assume that we didn't save it and it is now beyond redemption. In March of that year the Prince of Wales announced that we had (a more forgiving) 100 months to save the world before irreversible damage was done. That expired in the summer of 2017. Ms Thunberg is still telling us the error of our ways so I assume that deadline wasn't met either. If Mr Brown or the PoW was correct the damage has been done, cannot be reversed and whatever we now do is futile.
I think you can understand why sceptical old goats like me are the way we are. We have so-called "influencers" telling us all manner of things, setting all sorts of deadlines from 50 days to 100 months (a strange length of time to quote, I must say - sounds good though) so how do I (or anybody else) know whether we're doing enough or not.
The Climate Change campaign would be better off if it got its act together and agreed a common message to be presented by its spokespeople. Meanwhile Ms Thunberg would do better to concentrate on the issue she feels so passionate about and not stray inappropriately into other matters. Then I only have to ignore her the once.
(2) No. We (the UK) have done all that is reasonably possible (as well as a lot that is unreasonable). Ms T's efforts should be directed elsewhere.
(3) Are we doing enough? Who knows? I have read reports that the damage is done and cannot now be reversed. In 2009 Gordon Brown pronounced that we had 50 days "to save the planet". I don't recall anything significant happening in the seven weeks that followed so from that I must assume that we didn't save it and it is now beyond redemption. In March of that year the Prince of Wales announced that we had (a more forgiving) 100 months to save the world before irreversible damage was done. That expired in the summer of 2017. Ms Thunberg is still telling us the error of our ways so I assume that deadline wasn't met either. If Mr Brown or the PoW was correct the damage has been done, cannot be reversed and whatever we now do is futile.
I think you can understand why sceptical old goats like me are the way we are. We have so-called "influencers" telling us all manner of things, setting all sorts of deadlines from 50 days to 100 months (a strange length of time to quote, I must say - sounds good though) so how do I (or anybody else) know whether we're doing enough or not.
The Climate Change campaign would be better off if it got its act together and agreed a common message to be presented by its spokespeople. Meanwhile Ms Thunberg would do better to concentrate on the issue she feels so passionate about and not stray inappropriately into other matters. Then I only have to ignore her the once.
jim - // … because what people should care about is the issue she represents. If you'd rather focus on the messenger over the message that's your choice, but it's a mistake. Always has been a mistake and always will be. //
If I understand your point correctly, you are saying that it's OK to manipulate a vulnerable teenager because the message she is being manipulated into giving is a good one.
Really?
I think Gary Glitter made some of the best pop singles ever committed to vinyl, but that doesn't mean I'm going to give him a serve over being a convicted paedophile.
Just because something is OK on one aspect of a public persona's life is not an excuse to turn a blind eye at another aspect of their life that is anything but OK
If I understand your point correctly, you are saying that it's OK to manipulate a vulnerable teenager because the message she is being manipulated into giving is a good one.
Really?
I think Gary Glitter made some of the best pop singles ever committed to vinyl, but that doesn't mean I'm going to give him a serve over being a convicted paedophile.
Just because something is OK on one aspect of a public persona's life is not an excuse to turn a blind eye at another aspect of their life that is anything but OK
In that case, I don't understand your answer to (2), as it seems to be more appropriate to answer (3). "*Can* we do something" is a separate issue from "have we done enough/can we do more" etc. It's possible I've misunderstood your point, and just to be clear I only thought your answers were in the wrong order.
As to Gordon Brown's speech, it's important to put it in the proper context, which was the Copenhagen Climate Conference. Such conferences will continue to be vital since inevitably no one country can solve a global problem alone.
As to Gordon Brown's speech, it's important to put it in the proper context, which was the Copenhagen Climate Conference. Such conferences will continue to be vital since inevitably no one country can solve a global problem alone.
jim360 - // I believe that's a variation of the "so" rule. //
Something wrong with your believer then.
// It's flawed anyway because I don't take seriously for a second this guff that Thunberg is being manipulated. //
It suits you not to believe it, fine - I think the evidence is clearly there for anyone to see, but if you choose not to see it, as I say, that's fine.
Something wrong with your believer then.
// It's flawed anyway because I don't take seriously for a second this guff that Thunberg is being manipulated. //
It suits you not to believe it, fine - I think the evidence is clearly there for anyone to see, but if you choose not to see it, as I say, that's fine.
Latest Posts
News3 mins ago
Uk Diplomats Meet Rebel Leader In...
News5 mins ago
Is Musk In Touch With Reality?
Science8 mins ago
Jokes17 mins ago
