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

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by theprestige

No.

Yes. Again, you are the only one suggesting that she needs to personally change the all the laws on CO2 emissions in order to succeed.

Originally Posted by theprestige

No.
But it does mean that her activism has to do something.

Which it is…

Originally Posted by theprestige

No.
This is exactly the cargo-cult celebration of her activism that I'm talking about. Real policy change is a success. Real emissions reductions is a success.

You are not good with how Democracy works are you. No matter how backwards ignorant or misinformed climate deniers are they still entitled to their vote. Ignorance and stupidity may still win the day, but the possibility doesn’t mean people should just stand back and let it happen nor should they “win” by tearing down democracy itself.

[Skeptical Greg]

You keep suggesting we start collecting all these pollution taxes, which isn't going to happen, because the people who vote on these issues are not going to give up on the things they want that cause all this pollution...

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Yes. Again, you are the only one suggesting that she needs to personally change the all the laws on CO2 emissions in order to succeed.

I'm very sorry. I certainly didn't mean to suggest anything like that. It's not what I believe. It makes no part of any of my arguments. If you thought that was my suggestion, then it must be a miscommunication on my part, or a misread on your part, or both. Whatever the cause, I sincerely apologize for my part in causing this misunderstanding.

I hope it's all cleared up now, and you will be able to adjust your claims accordingly.

Quote:

Which it is…

I have already argued that nothing she's done so far has made a substantial difference to the issue of global climate change.

Quote:

You are not good with how Democracy works are you. No matter how backwards ignorant or misinformed climate deniers are they still entitled to their vote. Ignorance and stupidity may still win the day, but the possibility doesn’t mean people should just stand back and let it happen nor should they “win” by tearing down democracy itself.

I'm well aware of how Democracy works.

I'm not following your logic, though. If voters cockblock Thunberg's proposals at the polls, then that hardly counts as a success for Thunberg, right?

Again, I'm not arguing that Thunberg should stand back and let it happen. I think she should stand up and fight for what she believes in. I also think that if she stands up and fights, then success has to be measured in wins, not in effort spent fighting.

The argument for Greta's success seems to be something like "activism has worked in the past; this is activism; this must be working." That's what I call the cargo cult approach. Sometimes activism works. Sometimes it doesn't.

[arthwollipot]

Okay, I can already see how this article is going to be received:

I'm a critical thinking expert. This is how you win any climate change debate like Greta Thunberg

Quote:

As bushfires rage and our cities lie shrouded in smoke, climate change is shaping as a likely topic of conversation at the family dinner table this Christmas.

Such discussions can be fraught if family members hold differing views. You may not all agree on the urgency of dealing with climate change — or indeed whether it is happening at all.

When I teach the art of argumentation — a core skill of critical thinking — I tell my students about the concept of "point at issue". This is what the argument is about and should be the focus of rational discussion.

But when debating emotive and controversial topics such as climate change, the point at issue can become lost.

So what to do? We can learn much from Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg — a master of staying on topic.

[a_unique_person]

Just a BTW. Andrew Bolt wrote yet another article about Greta. What is it about a 16 year old girl that gets an old git like Bolt so fired up.

[Matthew Best]

Greta Thunberg has called upon world leaders to stop using "clever accounting and creative PR" to avoid real action on climate change.

Speaking at a UN climate change summit, Ms Thunberg said the next decade would define the planet's future.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50740324

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by lomiller

What organizations/bodies collects your other taxes?

The government, my local authority, shops/retailers (on behalf of the government) whenever I buy anything, the BBC (or whoever they farm out the collection of the BBC tax to), a few small taxes such as the one recently imposed on radio control model fliers.

But I don't see how that works for carbon taxes. If all governments world wide don't impose the same taxes then it will cause jobs to be exported to the lowest tax countries.

Consider, as an example, some aluminium which uses enormous amounts of energy to refine. The ore is mined in Peru using mostly oil fuelled mining equipment, but after transport by road and rail of the ore, the refining is done in Brazil. The energy used (mostly from the electric power grid) comes from a mix of sources - wind, solar, coal, natural gas. The aluminium ingots are then transferred by road/rail/ship/rail/road to a plant in the UK which again uses mostly electrical energy from the grid to produce alloys from the aluminium. There are two main customers for the aluminium alloy - one makes parts for wind turbines from it, and the other makes private jets sold mostly to foreign billionaires.

Now who pays the taxes and to whom? Whoever collects the taxes, what do they spend the money on, which countries benefit?

Until there's a clear system that's seen to be fair, and which all countries participate in, I can't see it working.

[Mike!]

She's just been named Time Magazine's, Person of the Year.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Mike!

She's just been named Time Magazine's, Person of the Year.

Kind of a letdown, after being named Vogue Magazine's Woman of the Year. And being named "Woman from the Heavens" by some Native American tribe.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Mike!

She's just been named Time Magazine's, Person of the Year.

For doing what exactly? The colloquialism "the feels" was invented to describe things like what Thunberg has accomplished.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

The government, my local authority, shops/retailers (on behalf of the government) whenever I buy anything, the BBC (or whoever they farm out the collection of the BBC tax to), a few small taxes such as the one recently imposed on radio control model fliers.

A carbon tax would be collected the same way.

Originally Posted by ceptimus

But I don't see how that works for carbon taxes. If all governments world wide don't impose the same taxes then it will cause jobs to be exported to the lowest tax countries.

This is, in effect, a subsidy. Treat it as such and apply a tarriff as part of the customs process when the product is entering the country. This is a fairly routine practice part of international trade and provisions for it are part of every trade deal. You do still need to enforce your borders so that it’s not just smuggled in.

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Consider, as an example, some aluminium which uses enormous amounts of energy to refine. The ore is mined in Peru using mostly oil fuelled mining equipment, but after transport by road and rail of the ore, the refining is done in Brazil. The energy used (mostly from the electric power grid) comes from a mix of sources - wind, solar, coal, natural gas. The aluminium ingots are then transferred by road/rail/ship/rail/road to a plant in the UK which again uses mostly electrical energy from the grid to produce alloys from the aluminium. There are two main customers for the aluminium alloy - one makes parts for wind turbines from it, and the other makes private jets sold mostly to foreign billionaires.

No one said trade deals are easy. In cases like this have your economists estimate the total value of the subsidy and set the countervailing duties accordingly. If the exporting country disputes it go though the process you negotiated in your trade deal to resolve disputes.

[Stout]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Okay, I can already see how this article is going to be received:

I'm a critical thinking expert. This is how you win any climate change debate like Greta Thunberg

It's a standard article on critical thinking that the author has slapped Thunberg's name on to increase it's visibility. He is correct though she is good at staying on topic. Now that she appears to have given up this petulant spoiled child routine let's hope she can move on from this defender-of-the-indiginous kick she's been working. This is global issue and affects everyone.

[Jungle Jim]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

For doing what exactly? The colloquialism "the feels" was invented to describe things like what Thunberg has accomplished.

"Thunberg has become the biggest voice on the biggest issue facing the planet—and the avatar of a broader generational shift in our culture that is playing out everywhere from the campuses of Hong Kong to the halls of Congress in Washington," Time editor-in-chief Edward Felsenthal wrote.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/11/m...019/index.html

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Kind of a letdown, after being named Vogue Magazine's Woman of the Year. And being named "Woman from the Heavens" by some Native American tribe.

Global warming denial has undergone an evolution.

First it was There is no warming. The hockey stick is a lie. When that became untenable, it morphed to There may be warming but it's not AGW. When that became untenable, it morphed to AGW is a small contributor. And when that became untenable, it morphed to The cure is worse than the problem.

(Then came a backslide with the arrival of Trump. But even now, we're not seeing clowns like McKitrick and the tool whose name eludes me paraded in front of senate committees.)

And now the safe retreat is mocking people who are trying to do something about this existential threat.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Jungle Jim

"Thunberg has become the biggest voice on the biggest issue facing the planet—and the avatar of a broader generational shift in our culture that is playing out everywhere from the campuses of Hong Kong to the halls of Congress in Washington," Time editor-in-chief Edward Felsenthal wrote.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/11/m...019/index.html

So she has done a whole lot of nothing according to that.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Jungle Jim

"Thunberg has become the biggest voice on the biggest issue facing the planet—and the avatar of a broader generational shift in our culture that is playing out everywhere from the campuses of Hong Kong to the halls of Congress in Washington," Time editor-in-chief Edward Felsenthal wrote.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/11/m...019/index.html

That's sad. She has become the biggest voice for, by her own acknowledgement, doing nothing of consequence. A feel-good personality to rally around while absolute squat gets done.

I wonder if it occurs to her that saying 'shame on you for stealing my childhood' is a waste of time? It could be argued that her sideshow is taking attention away from the discussion of what to actually do, right now? I think she allows people to tick off their mental box of 'I cared about climate change today' then buying some LED light bulbs and being self-satisfied.

As a sidebar, I can sympathize with climate deniers to a degree. That within the space of our lifetimes, we could rock the entire planet out of kilter seems so impossible. But the evidence says we have. Maybe if Greta were a few years older, the message would be focused on what to do now. Organizing sit-ins at the White House, for instance, as opposed to inconsequential school strikes. If her supporters truly believe we are in a crisis state, school and work attendance should be a pretty distant third or fourth priority.

But no. A little rah-rah and book your next vacation flight.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by Thermal

That's sad. She has become the biggest voice for, by her own acknowledgement, doing nothing of consequence. A feel-good personality to rally around while absolute squat gets done.

The logical extension of this nonsense is that ordinary people should not speak out, and that spreading awareness has no value.

By this standard, pretty much everyone should shut their yap about pretty much everything.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by varwoche

The logical extension of this nonsense is that ordinary people should not speak out, and that spreading awareness has no value.

By this standard, pretty much everyone should shut their yap about pretty much everything.

Agreed

[Stout]

Originally Posted by varwoche

The logical extension of this nonsense is that ordinary people should not speak out, and that spreading awareness has no value.

By this standard, pretty much everyone should shut their yap about pretty much everything.

No, the logical extension is that people should start doing something about their carbon footprint. Wag you lips all you want but if you think this is an issue that can be solved by simply talking about it then you have.....the situation we find ourselves in today.

Nobody is unaware of climate change, they teach this in elementary schools.

[theprestige]

Wait, we're taking Time Magazine seriously now?

My only logic is that Greta should continue to speak up as much as she wants, but that we should probably stop giving her a false impression about how effective and important she's being.

Being named POTY isn't the big win it's hyped up to be.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by varwoche

The logical extension of this nonsense is that ordinary people should not speak out, and that spreading awareness has no value.

By this standard, pretty much everyone should shut their yap about pretty much everything.

If you think that was nonsense, you should have read the part you took the time to snip out.

We are long past sounding the alarm. 'Spreading awareness' is not the issue anymore. Taking action is where we are at.

Greta is essentially pointing out that smoke detectors indicate fire, and we should pay attention, while standing in a house that is burning down. It's just stupid. We are way, way, past all that. President Trump will not change his positions from her generic preaching and condemnations. I can pretty much guarantee that. Johnny-come-lately teens just discovering climate change are yesterday's news.

So as I said: what do we do now? Keep cheering Greta to feel like we are hip while doing not a goddamed thing of substance? Seems to be the fashion. And that fashion is more than a little grating to some of us.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by varwoche

The logical extension of this nonsense is that ordinary people should not speak out, and that spreading awareness has no value.

By this standard, pretty much everyone should shut their yap about pretty much everything.

There is at least one person in this thread not just arguing that spreading awareness is pointless, but going as far as to suggest that since right wing politicians won’t respond to the will of the people she should just be quiet.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Stout

No, the logical extension is that people should start doing something about their carbon footprint.

Game theory says otherwise. Cf the Prisoner dilemma. Seeking the optimal result only makes logical sense if you have some assurance other parties will as well.

Individual actions may be a show of good faith, but that’s it. Truly meaningful change can only come from centralized actions via government and international agreements.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by lomiller

There is at least one person in this thread not just arguing that spreading awareness is pointless, but going as far as to suggest that since right wing politicians won’t respond to the will of the people she should just be quiet.

Still with the lies. The actual suggestion is that since the policy makers aren't responding, we should stop pretending Greta's activism is more important and effective than it actually is. She shouldn't stop. Far from it! She should get better at it.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Greta is essentially pointing out that smoke detectors indicate fire, and we should pay attention, while standing in a house that is burning down. It's just stupid. We are way, way, past all that. President Trump will not change his positions from her generic preaching and condemnations. I can pretty much guarantee that. Johnny-come-lately teens just discovering climate change are yesterday's news.

Pointing out that the fire alarm is going off and the building is filling with smoke is pretty important when you have people insisting there is no fire and telling everyone to just ignore it and get back to work.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Still with the lies. The actual suggestion is that since the policy makers aren't responding, we should stop pretending Greta's activism is more important and effective than it actually is.

Activism is at its highest level of importance when policy makers are not responding...

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Game theory says otherwise. Cf the Prisoner dilemma. Seeking the optimal result only makes logical sense if you have some assurance other parties will as well.

Individual actions may be a show of good faith, but that’s it. Truly meaningful change can only come from centralized actions via government and international agreements.

Disagreed. Any and all individual actions contribute towards benefit, no matter how small, due to the collective influence. And we are not playing Us v Them. Them doing nothing does not invalidate our chances of making a difference.

But that is not the issue with Greta. Having people fly around the globe to give her sailboat rides to places she absolutely does not need to be is, paradoxally, putting her on the wrong side of the discussion. Talk is cheap. Time to get the message straight and get to work.

Originally Posted by lomiller

Pointing out that the fire alarm is going off and the building is filling with smoke is pretty important when you have people insisting there is no fire and telling everyone to just ignore it and get back to work.

If said people deny the smoke and flames in their faces, pointing out the science of smoke detectors is staggeringly stupid. They are committed to AGW being SEP while they advance their agendas. It is long past time to develop the workarounds for such people.

Say it with me kids: We will not convince President Trump or others to change their worldview/agenda with endless talk talk talk, saying the same thing. Time to roll out plan B.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Activism is at its highest level of importance when policy makers are not responding...

I'm sure the Tibetans living under Chinese rule are heartened by the supreme importance of all the "Free Tibet" bumper stickers on American cars.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Thermal

If said people deny the smoke and flames in their faces, pointing out the science of smoke detectors is staggeringly stupid. They are committed to AGW being SEP while they advance their agendas. It is long past time to develop the workarounds for such people.

"I'm not saying she should 'shut up', I'm just saying she should stop talking."

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

"I'm not saying she should 'shut up', I'm just saying she should stop talking."

No, but some content would be nice to warrant all this international attention and rah-rahing.

Guys guys guys! I have just found out about the Wheel! Follow me on twitter and fly people around the globe to give me sailboat rides while I lecture adults about listening to the simple machine science!

The alarm is long sounded. Deniers will continue to deny and be unswayed by rational thought. Time to bust a move. Repeating yesterday's news as feel-good virtue signalling is a weak substitute for action.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be spending an hour or so of my free time separating construction debris for recycling at my expense. I will not be asking anyone to fly around to demonstrate how impractical it is to do this sustainably.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

"I'm not saying she should 'shut up', I'm just saying she should stop talking."

I can't speak for Thermal, but for my part: I'm not saying she should shut up, I'm just saying people should maybe rethink all their chatter about how important her work is.

Me? The way I see it, as long as she does stuff like decline a climate activism awards, saying the world doesn't need awards, it needs action; and then a month later says that her getting the Vogue Magazine Woman of the Year Award is exactly what the world needs right now... She should definitely keep talking.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Thermal

No, but some content would be nice to warrant all this international attention and rah-rahing.

Guys guys guys! I have just found out about the Wheel! Follow me on twitter and fly people around the globe to give me sailboat rides while I lecture adults about listening to the simple machine science!

The alarm is long sounded. Deniers will continue to deny and be unswayed by rational thought. Time to bust a move. Repeating yesterday's news as feel-good virtue signalling is a weak substitute for action.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be spending an hour or so of my free time separating construction debris for recycling at my expense. I will not be asking anyone to fly around to demonstrate how impractical it is to do this sustainably.

I was waiting to find out what you meant by "taking action", and confess to say upon reading that last paragraph it's one of the very few times I've actually "laughed out loud" at something I've read on the internet.

Congratulations, you've been fooled by a decades-long propaganda campaign designed and spearheaded by the fossil-fuel and plastics-production industries to promote the lie that the actual way to "save the environment" - and now, lately, "do something about climate change" - is not increased government regulation by way of campaigning at the ballot box and industry-changing activism, but rather quiet and nondisruptive personal action on the individual citizen level. Just "do your part" by sorting your trash and using cloth grocery bags and if everybody just did that the environment would be fine.

You think that the proper measure of Thunberg's success, or lack thereof, is whether the adults at the government and international bodies to which she is invited to speak take some kind of relevant and meaningful action immediately afterwards. Because she gave a speech at the UN but nothing binding came out of it, or because she spoke before the US Congress and they didn't pass any laws, that proves her talk is ultimately pointless. It is because you misunderstand who her audience is, that your metric is useless and doesn't say what you think it does.

[Trebuchet]

TIME Person of the Year, 2019.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

I was waiting to find out what you meant by "taking action", and confess to say upon reading that last paragraph it's one of the very few times I've actually "laughed out loud" at something I've read on the internet.

Congratulations, you've been fooled by a decades-long propaganda campaign designed and spearheaded by the fossil-fuel and plastics-production industries to promote the lie that the actual way to "save the environment" - and now, lately, "do something about climate change" - is not increased government regulation by way of campaigning at the ballot box and industry-changing activism, but rather quiet and nondisruptive personal action on the individual citizen level. Just "do your part" by sorting your trash and using cloth grocery bags and if everybody just did that the environment would be fine.

You think that the proper measure of Thunberg's success, or lack thereof, is whether the adults at the government and international bodies to which she is invited to speak take some kind of relevant and meaningful action immediately afterwards. Because she gave a speech at the UN but nothing binding came out of it, or because she spoke before the US Congress and they didn't pass any laws, that proves her talk is ultimately pointless. It is because you misunderstand who her audience is, that your metric is useless and doesn't say what you think it does.

So what is the proper measure of Thunberg's success? If it's not policy changes, and it's not individual action, then what is it? Number of meaningless awards received?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

TIME Person of the Year, 2019.

Already addressed.

[lomiller]

This doesn’t mean people should just stop talking about it and just let China keep Tibet.

Originally Posted by Thermal

Disagreed. Any and all individual actions contribute towards benefit, no matter how small, due to the collective influence. And we are not playing Us v Them. Them doing nothing does not invalidate our chances of making a difference.

In climate terms, individual reduction in CO2 emission yields no benefit. Benefits are only achieved when everyone reduces their CO2 emissions. People who “betray” and continue to emit CO2 receive the benefits of any collective action AND enjoy the benefits of continuing to emit CO2. Game theory tells us that in cases like this is that the correct logical outcome is to assume everyone will betray because they loose nothing by doing so and are personally better off that way regardless of what anyone else chooses. If we are truly looking after our own best interest we should as well.

It doesn’t matter that everyone is worse off for behaving this way, it’s still the correct logical outcome. The “dilemma” in the prisoners dilemma is that the best choice is to do things that makes everyone including yourself worse off even when you know exactly what is happening.

They way around this problem is to make the decision collectively and enforce that decision so people can’t cheat. IOW government action is required, individual action can’t and won’t work.

Originally Posted by Thermal

If said people deny the smoke and flames in their faces, pointing out the science of smoke detectors is staggeringly stupid.

If they deny that the smoke detectors are going off, you tell them that they are.
If they deny that means there is a fire, you tell them that it does.
If they insist that smoke detectors are wrong all the time and we should just ignore them, you tell them we need to listen to the smoke detectors.
Now substitute “science” for “smoke detector”

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by theprestige

So what is the proper measure of Thunberg's success?

The number of people demanding their political leaders take action.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by theprestige

So what is the proper measure of Thunberg's success? If it's not policy changes, and it's not individual action, then what is it? Number of meaningless awards received?

The proper measure of Thunberg's success will be the voting trends vis-a-vis environmentalism and climate change over the next several years, most especially of youth who are either just now reaching voting age or soon will be. That is her actual audience; it always has been, since the very beginning.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by lomiller

This doesn’t mean people should just stop talking about it and just let China keep Tibet.

It also doesn't mean the person with the Free Tibet bumper sticker is actually doing real good on the issue.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm sure the Tibetans living under Chinese rule are heartened by the supreme importance of all the "Free Tibet" bumper stickers on American cars.

Getting more and more desperate.

I’ve listed protest movements which changed government actions for the better.