Greta Thunberg - brave campaigner or deeply disturbed? Part II.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Every example if “Greta's hyperbole and rhetoric” has been looked at and it’s turned out that she is presenting an accurate and nuanced take on the published science.

Can you give even one example in this thread, where the published science has been examined and a nuanced take from Greta has been demonstrated?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Can you give even one example in this thread, where the published science has been examined and a nuanced take from Greta has been demonstrated?

Hell, at this point I'd even settle for a nuanced take from Adarsh Prathap.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Most of her comments brought up for discussion in this thread have little or nothing to do with mainstream science. Not that they contradict mainstream science. They're just not related to any scientific discussion, mainstream or otherwise.

(Please indulge my paraphrases.)

"My childhood has been stolen."

"I'm trying to send a message that luxury sailboat travel isn't scalable for the masses, and politicians need to fix that ASAP."

"I'm rejecting a climate activism award because the time for awards is over, and the time for action is now."

"I welcome Vogue Magazine awarding me Woman of the Year. This represents significant action in the flight against global climate change."

Etc.

There's a thread about the science and policy of global climate change.

These comments have everything to do with mainstream climate science. Specifically they are addressing the inadequate political action on the recommendations set out in the science.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Can you give even one example in this thread, where the published science has been examined and a nuanced take from Greta has been demonstrated?

Her comments on potential catastrophic impacts that could once CO2 concentrations reach ~450ppm were called “alarmist” even though the threshold is well documented, as is time left before that happens with CO2 with current CO2 emissions.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by lomiller

These comments have everything to do with mainstream climate science. Specifically they are addressing the inadequate political action on the recommendations set out in the science.

They have to do with the politics, not the science. You're conflating the question of what is going on and what could be done about it, and the question of what should be done about it.

Pretty much all of Greta's stuff is about policy - what should be done. There's very little examination of the underlying science, and even less nuanced examination.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Her comments on potential catastrophic impacts that could once CO2 concentrations reach ~450ppm were called “alarmist” even though the threshold is well documented, as is time left before that happens with CO2 with current CO2 emissions.

Can you give an example in this thread?

[shuttlt]

Does Greta actually say very much beyond hyperbole? I just read the Guardian article attributed to her:
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...climate-crisis

Looking at it, what is she actually asking for is:
"We demand that at this year’s forum, participants from all companies, banks, institutions and governments immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction, immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies and immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels.

We don’t want these things done by 2050, 2030 or even 2021, we want this done now – as in right now."
Beyond that she doesn't say anything concrete.

Assuming this is all supposed to be voluntary, how are all these companies, banks, institutions and governments supposed to divest from fossil fuels "right now"? CO2 production in the west is dropping already, and the percentage of renewables is increasing, so she can't be asking for these governments to begin doing these things. What would happen if we tried to implement what she is asking for and the banks, government etc all dropped fossil fuels over night, wouldn't the immediate collapse of most of the energy generation companies be just the beginning?

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by theprestige

They have to do with the politics, not the science. You're conflating the question of what is going on and what could be done about it, and the question of what should be done about it.

Pretty much all of Greta's stuff is about policy - what should be done. There's very little examination of the underlying science, and even less nuanced examination.

Greta doesn't spend time "examining" the underlying science because that task is best left to scientists, whose analyses should be heeded. In essence, she considers the science settled because climatologists at large consider it settled. "Listen to the scientists".

So yes, her motivation is in the area of policy.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Greta doesn't spend time "examining" the underlying science because that task is best left to scientists, whose analyses should be heeded. In essence, she considers the science settled because climatologists at large consider it settled. "Listen to the scientists".

So yes, her motivation is in the area of policy.

I just reread her UN speech. I can't find any concrete demands in it. It seems like she wants everything now, and how ever fast things improve she is going to want it faster. I don't see her dealing with the consequences of going as fast as possible beyond hand waving it away as saying we need to deal with discomfort.

If it is upthread, I apologise... but what is her actual policy proposal? From the way she talks it seems like it's obvious how to go carbon neutral by the end of the year and governments are just to wicked to do it.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Greta doesn't spend time "examining" the underlying science because that task is best left to scientists, whose analyses should be heeded. In essence, she considers the science settled because climatologists at large consider it settled. "Listen to the scientists".

So yes, her motivation is in the area of policy.

This is all correct. It also all misses the point.

lomiller claimed that whenever we've examined her claims, we've discovered they are science-based, and also nuanced. I'm asking him for an example of where that's kind of examination has happened in this thread.

All of the examination I can think of in this thread has focused on the policy questions, not the scientific questions.

Like when Greta says, ""We demand that at this year’s forum, participants from all companies, banks, institutions and governments immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction, immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies and immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels."

That's not a science thing. That's a policy thing. I'm sure there's some underlying science, having to do with the amount of emissions reductions that would cause, and the amount of temperature/sea level increase that would result, but that's not what Greta is talking about in her demand.

I doubt there's any science anywhere that says that what should be done right now is an immediate cessation of all carbon fuel activity of any kind.

And that is definitely not a "nuanced" demand. Sorry, lomiller, but without an actual example, I fear you are waaay off base.

[Checkmite]

I think the urgency of her rhetoric is a direct function of how urgent the problem of climate change is, and perhaps the fact that many governments are all-too-willing to hypocritically pay lip service to that while at the same time behaving as though there's no great hurry when it comes down to walking the walk. It may be true that absolute carbon neutrality "by the end of the year" is not possible; but I think there's little room for doubt that a considerable lot more can be done that is currently being done, and that the reason very much is financial (and not as in "it's too expensive, etc").

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

I think the urgency of her rhetoric is a direct function of how urgent the problem of climate change is, and perhaps the fact that many governments are all-too-willing to hypocritically pay lip service to that while at the same time behaving as though there's no great hurry when it comes down to walking the walk. It may be true that absolute carbon neutrality "by the end of the year" is not possible; but I think there's little room for doubt that a considerable lot more can be done that is currently being done, and that the reason very much is financial (and not as in "it's too expensive, etc").

Sure. All of that is totally understandable to me. I get the the reasons for the urgency, and the frustration, that animate her rhetoric.

But again, that's beside the point. lomiller was claiming that her rhetoric is both science-based and nuanced.

What we actually see is that her rhetoric is typically policy-based and non-nuanced. Or at least, that's what I've seen over the course of this thread. If there are examples of the other thing in this thread, I'd like to see them.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

I think the urgency of her rhetoric is a direct function of how urgent the problem of climate change is, and perhaps the fact that many governments are all-too-willing to hypocritically pay lip service to that while at the same time behaving as though there's no great hurry when it comes down to walking the walk. It may be true that absolute carbon neutrality "by the end of the year" is not possible; but I think there's little room for doubt that a considerable lot more can be done that is currently being done, and that the reason very much is financial (and not as in "it's too expensive, etc").

Even if you were made Overlord of the Earth tomorrow and pushed this along at the pace you think appropriate, I get the feeling you'd have Greta on your case telling you it wasn't fast enough.

Without any kind of cost benefit analysis, all she is doing is hysterically emoting. Almost nobody actually takes her demands seriously, even the people on her side. If one takes her literally, she's demanding the immediate collapse of the global economy and death and destruction on a grand scale.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Even if you were made Overlord of the Earth tomorrow and pushed this along at the pace you think appropriate, I get the feeling you'd have Greta on your case telling you it wasn't fast enough.

Perhaps; and maybe, if that were the case, I might be annoyed.

But at present it is not the case, and I am not annoyed with Thunberg. I think the lackadaisical attitude toward addressing the climate change problem that is displayed by most governments, to say nothing of the purely profit-minded and ideologically-driven outright hostility toward action (patronizingly dressed up as "skepticism of the science") coming from the countries that should be capable of doing the most - are far more outrageous and obnoxious than Greta Thunberg's "impatience".

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I thought it wasn't supposed to be about Greta.


Unfortunately this is not the case. I'm more aware of Greta now, thanks to Matthew starting this thread here. But the other issues raised are not new to me. They've occupied a significant part of my waking thoughts for years.

Maybe Greta's message resonates with a 14 year old who's never really thought about these things before. But you should not presume that's she's saying anything new to the rest of us.

Of course she's not saying anything new. That's the point. She's saying things that people have been saying for years. She's just saying them louder.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Of course she's not saying anything new. That's the point. She's saying things that people have been saying for years. She's just saying them louder.

I don't think very many people have been saying this:

"We demand that at this year’s forum, participants from all companies, banks, institutions and governments immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction, immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies and immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels.

We don’t want these things done by 2050, 2030 or even 2021, we want this done now – as in right now."

Does that seem like a nuanced scientific bit of rhetoric to you? Does it seem like the kind of thing lomiller claimed we'd find, every time we examine one of her pronouncements?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I don't think very many people have been saying this:

"We demand that at this year’s forum, participants from all companies, banks, institutions and governments immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction, immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies and immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels.

We don’t want these things done by 2050, 2030 or even 2021, we want this done now – as in right now."

Does that seem like a nuanced scientific bit of rhetoric to you? Does it seem like the kind of thing lomiller claimed we'd find, every time we examine one of her pronouncements?

Who's claiming that it's a nuanced scientific bit of rhetoric?

[Steve]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Who's claiming that it's a nuanced scientific bit of rhetoric?

The straw people have been rather prominent in this thread from the very beginning.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Who's claiming that it's a nuanced scientific bit of rhetoric?

Lomiller:

Originally Posted by lomiller

Every example if “Greta's hyperbole and rhetoric” has been looked at and it’s turned out that she is presenting an accurate and nuanced take on the published science.

Try to keep up.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Steve

The straw people have been rather prominent in this thread from the very beginning.

I think it's not fair to lomiller, to call him a straw person.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Lomiller:



Try to keep up.

Thanks for the condescension, but I can do without it. I think it's perfectly clear that "an accurate and nuanced take on the published science" is not the same thing as "a nuanced scientific bit of rhetoric".

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Thanks for the condescension, but I can do without it. I think it's perfectly clear that "an accurate and nuanced take on the published science" is not the same thing as "a nuanced scientific bit of rhetoric".

I meant them to be interchangeable paraphrases of each other. Do you think the quoted bit of rhetoric is an accurate and nuanced take on the published science?

Do you at least agree that it's an example of Greta's hyperbole and rhetoric?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I meant them to be interchangeable paraphrases of each other.

They're not.

Originally Posted by theprestige

Do you think the quoted bit of rhetoric is an accurate and nuanced take on the published science?

Do you at least agree that it's an example of Greta's hyperbole and rhetoric?

I do agree that it's an example of Greta's rhetoric, and I do agree that she has a tendency to use hyperbole. What she said was unachievable, but it was fairly characteristically Greta. It was not a take on the published science, nuanced or otherwise.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by theprestige

They have to do with the politics, not the science. You're conflating the question of what is going on and what could be done about it, and the question of what should be done

Yes, her statements are aimed at driving political action that fitting to the published science. This is what people have been telling you for months now.

You can’t really separate these topics, though I can see why someone advocating against using science as a basis for public policy would want to try to do so. The first question you must ask when advocating for science and fact based policy is whether it truly reflects the research, and in Greta’s case, it does. In the case of those of those who whine about her, their grasp of the current science is thin at best, or they just don’t think public policy should consider scientific understanding at all.

Originally Posted by theprestige

Pretty much all of Greta's stuff is about policy - what should be done. There's very little examination of the underlying science, and even less nuanced examination.

This isn’t even remotely close to being true. She has NEVER claimed to be a policy expert of any form. She advocated for policy that reflects the guidelines set out in the published science, that’s it. She’d be more that satisfied with any policy that holds warming within the safe limits established by the scientific community.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by theprestige

lomiller claimed that whenever we've examined her claims, we've discovered they are science-based, and also nuanced.

This is kind of essential when you are advocating that policy reflects the best current scientific understanding. It’s also the only criticism worth addressing.


The alterative, that policy makes should not consider science or reality understanding in their policies isn’t worth debating IMO. People who dismiss science as a basis for policy that feel this way can’t be reasonably convinced of anything, because they have no rational basis for things they believe

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by lomiller

This is kind of essential when you are advocating that policy reflects the best current scientific understanding. It’s also the only criticism worth addressing.


The alterative, that policy makes should not consider science or reality understanding in their policies isn’t worth debating IMO. People who dismiss science as a basis for policy that feel this way can’t be reasonably convinced of anything, because they have no rational basis for things they believe

Please address the counter example recently cited in this thread.

[bobdroege7]

I would call it nuanced as she is not asking that the whole world stop burning fossil fuels right now, but she is asking governments to stop subsidizing fossil fuels. Which would be a good thing, making those businesses absorb the actual costs of doing their business.

Taking all the fossil fuel subsidies and putting that money toward renewables would be a great step toward zero emissions.

The science says that we can only burn so much, and we have way more that that and are on track to burn so much in only a few years so we have to speed up the weaning.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Lomiller:



Try to keep up.

A lie.

I have never suggested that every single statement she has ever made in her entire life is a nuanced statement on climate science. What I have said is that her critics have been unable to come up with any examples where she deviated from the published science.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Please address the counter example recently cited in this thread.

If you think she has said something that contradicts the published science then it’s up to you come up with the example.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by lomiller

A lie.

I have never suggested that every single statement she has ever made in her entire life is a nuanced statement on climate science. What I have said is that her critics have been unable to come up with any examples where she deviated from the published science.

I never mentioned her entire life either. In fact, I restricted the discussion to just this thread. So that it would be easy for you to find real world examples and cite them and discuss them.

Please address the counter example recently cited in this thread.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by bobdroege7

I would call it nuanced as she is not asking that the whole world stop burning fossil fuels right now, but she is asking governments to stop subsidizing fossil fuels. Which would be a good thing, making those businesses absorb the actual costs of doing their business.

Taking all the fossil fuel subsidies and putting that money toward renewables would be a great step toward zero emissions.

The science says that we can only burn so much, and we have way more that that and are on track to burn so much in only a few years so we have to speed up the weaning.

If you read her quotes she clearly choses her words very carefully to stay within what the science supports without making claims about things it doesn’t, even when the distinction requires good understanding of the current science.

Eg There are many tipping points and inflexion points in climate science. This means that there are a lot of things that climate scientists agree will happen, but they cannot say exactly when or how quickly. When she is discussing things like this I have yet to see a case where she implies a timeline, when one isn’t available. OTOH when there is good agreement on the timeline she will almost always mention it.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by lomiller

If you think she has said something that contradicts the published science then it’s up to you come up with the example.

Typically, anything significant she says isn't specific enough to be falsifiable. At the end of the day, she is demanding action and saying that what we are doing is not enough.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Typically, anything significant she says isn't specific enough to be falsifiable. At the end of the day, she is demanding action and saying that what we are doing is not enough.

She says plenty of things specific enough to be falsifiable. In doing so she also avoids making claims about things that are not yet known. This requires a sound and nuanced understanding of the current science.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by lomiller

If you read her quotes she clearly choses her words very carefully to stay within what the science supports without making claims about things it doesn’t, even when the distinction requires good understanding of the current science.

Eg There are many tipping points and inflexion points in climate science. This means that there are a lot of things that climate scientists agree will happen, but they cannot say exactly when or how quickly. When she is discussing things like this I have yet to see a case where she implies a timeline, when one isn’t available. OTOH when there is good agreement on the timeline she will almost always mention it.

Is the debate actually about any of those things though? She's famous for saying HOW DARE YOU! and demanding action. The action she is demanding isn't connected to any of the scientific jargon she parrots by anything concrete enough to know what she wants. I know it is somewhere between a bit more invested in climate change than now and crashing the global economy, mass starvation and war with China....

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by bobdroege7

I would call it nuanced as she is not asking that the whole world stop burning fossil fuels right now, but she is asking governments to stop subsidizing fossil fuels.

Have you actually read her demand? She's doing a lot more than asking governments to stop subsidizing fossil fuels:

"We demand that at this year’s forum, participants from all companies, banks, institutions and governments immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction, immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies and immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels."

That's not "governments stop subsidizing". That's literally "everyone stop all fossil fuel related activity." There is zero nuance in that demand.

Quote:

Which would be a good thing, making those businesses absorb the actual costs of doing their business.

It probably is, but she's demanding that those businesses stop doing business.

Quote:

Taking all the fossil fuel subsidies and putting that money toward renewables would be a great step toward zero emissions.

A nuance that is completely absent from her demand.

Quote:

The science says that we can only burn so much, and we have way more that that and are on track to burn so much in only a few years so we have to speed up the weaning.

Again, have you read her demand?

"We don’t want these things done by 2050, 2030 or even 2021, we want this done now – as in right now."

If the science calls for weaning, then she's entirely at odds with the science. She's demanding immediate cessation across the board, cold turkey, no weaning, right now, today.

I'm open to the argument that she's made nuanced, science-based demands at some time. I'd just like to see an example.

I'd also like to see some sort of rational defense of her "full stop" demand. Assuming one can be mounted.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by lomiller

She says plenty of things specific enough to be falsifiable. In doing so she also avoids making claims about things that are not yet known. This requires a sound and nuanced understanding of the current science.

OK, it could easily be there is a speech of hers that I haven't read. What CO2 level is she demanding we hit by when? Everything I have seen is her shaking a bag of assorted climate science statements, and then sprinkling them over a hysterical demand for action that is too nonspecific to assess.

Has nobody written a Greta speech generator yet?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by lomiller

She says plenty of things specific enough to be falsifiable. In doing so she also avoids making claims about things that are not yet known. This requires a sound and nuanced understanding of the current science.

Can you give an example of a specific, falsifiable thing that she has said, that demonstrates the required sound and nuanced understanding of the current science?

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by bobdroege7

Taking all the fossil fuel subsidies and putting that money toward renewables would be a great step toward zero emissions.

I'm not sure what is meant by subsidies here, but if the amounts of money are worth bothering about, would doing that suddenly not risk crashing the energy sector?

[Steve]

The title of these threads is "Greta Thunberg - brave campaigner or deeply disturbed?"

It was determined long ago that she is not "deeply disturbed" So the thread quickly became nit-picking by those who will not concede that she is in fact a brave campaigner. Seems she cannot be a brave campaigner because some of the things she has said and done may be a little inconsistent, and also because she has not personally come up with any new and profound ideas to halt climate change.

What she has done, in less than a year, is:

- help to keep climate change consistently at the forefront of the news.
- repeat and repeat that governments should quickly take actions based on the recommendations of actual climate scientists.
- draw sufficiently large crowds at rallies that some influential politicians have taken notice and promised action.
- engaged a large number of young people who would not normally turn out to listen to a 50 year old politician say the things they need to hear.
- not be put off by the powerful old men (ie Trump) who would treat her as a child and tell her to go back to doing childish things. Some of her responses to these critics have been quite wonderful, and much more mature that the critics own statements.

In summary, she is indeed a brave, and successful, campaigner who has achieved some, but nowhere near all, of her goals.

The world would be a much better place if there were many more Greta Thunbergs and many less of her petty critics.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by lomiller

If you think she has said something that contradicts the published science then it’s up to you come up with the example.

I think the vast majority of what she says, especially her primary theses, are orthogonal to the published science. She doesn't contradict the science. She just doesn't talk about it very much. Mostly, when it comes to the science, she falls back on "listen to the scientists!" Which is fine. But it does mean that she doesn't have much to say about the science herself.

Look at her demand that everyone stop fossil fuel related activity. There's a lot that science has to say about what will probably happen if her demand is met. But she doesn't say anything about the science. She just makes the policy demand.