Greta Thunberg - brave campaigner or deeply disturbed? Part II.
View Single Post
14th January 2020, 10:47 AM
Join Date: May 2005
Originally Posted by
My point is that she's pretty consistent about deferring to the scientists in a vague, hand-wavy way that absolves her of any responsibility to say scientifically sound things.
And she's pretty consistent about making policy demands that don't actually relate to any specific recommendation by any actual climate scientists.
Look at her recent Guardian piece, cited upthread. She demands a complete and immediate cessation of fossil-fuel-related activity. She doesn't say "listen to the scientists." She doesn't cite a policy recommendation from climate scientists and say "do what these guys are telling you to do". The piece is literally her saying "listen to me and do what I'm telling you." Full stop.
I'd find her "listen to the scientists" more credible if she practiced what she preached, and if she demonstrated a nuanced understanding of the science in her own statements. The reality is that most of her statements seem to be designed to avoid any scientific evaluation.
Do you have
any examples at all
of her ever saying, "this is a science-based policy proposal from actual climate scientists; let's follow their recommendations"? Or is it really all just hand-wavy appeals to "listen to the science" followed by "listen to me say non-scientific stuff, and do what I say!"
Yes, your point is different than my point. Yet you keep asking me to provide examples of your point. I will not waste my time.
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon -
Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Steve