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

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by cullennz

You have to admit that clip was pretty funny.

I didn't watch it.

[cullennz]

That saddens me.

MLK and Greta would have before commenting.



Forgive me my atrocious spelling from my wee phone keyboard.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by cullennz

That saddens me.

Why should me having different tastes in comedy from you be saddening?

Originally Posted by cullennz

MLK and Greta would have before commenting.

Notice that I commented about the show in general, and not about that particular clip, other than saying that I didn't watch it.

For the record, I didn't watch it because I find the show crass and tasteless and generally unfunny. In case that wasn't clear.

[cullennz]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Why should me having different tastes in comedy from you be saddening?



Notice that I commented about the show in general, and not about that particular clip, other than saying that I didn't watch it.



For the record, I didn't watch it because I find the show crass and tasteless and generally unfunny. In case that wasn't clear.

I was joking (hence chucking in MLK) but was obviously being a bit too subtle

Forgive me my atrocious spelling from my wee phone keyboard.

[Red Baron Farms]

Originally Posted by theprestige

What about the IPCC?


Yes, a lot of people are excited about Greta's words, but that doesn't seem to translate into any actual effect on policy. It's a cargo cult.

Oh really? You seem to have a strange idea about what Cop 21 and the IPCC actually accomplished.

In 2015 the United Nations held a Climate Change Conference, COP 21 in Paris. Parties at the conference reached a landmark agreement to combat human caused climate change and to accelerate and intensify the actions and investments needed for a sustainable low carbon future for all nations worldwide. Additionally, the agreement aims to increase the ability of countries to deal with the impacts of climate change, and at making finance flows consistent with a low GHG emissions and climate-resilient pathway.

In short, 189 of 191 parties to the conference have agreed to put forward their best efforts through “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs) and to strengthen these efforts in the years ahead.

That money is already beginning to flow. Here is one I was looking at: IMPACT CHALLENGE

Unfortunately since I am in USA and not Europe, and because I was unable to put a European team together before the grant deadline, I was not able to take advantage of this one, but many people have. Their projects are already underway. That's just one of hundreds.

Just because the USA and Australia are dragging their feet, doesn't mean there is not amazing advancement all over the World already.

True with our special brand of capitalism we in the US could do it much better and much faster if we really put our best effort into it. But to call Greta and her protestors a non-effective cargo cult, worshiping a mock up plane that will never fly, is absolutely ridiculous and an embarrassingly American-centric point of view.

[dann]

Originally Posted by Stout

Heck, I've only gotten one person on this thread to agree that heating the outdoors by burning fossil fuels is a stupid idea just wait until we get to the transportation and loss of heat from buildings issues.

That would be me, I guess. But it wasn't a poll, so I don't think that it means much that nobody else agreed. Did anybody explicitly disagree?

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by dann

That would be me, I guess. But it wasn't a poll, so I don't think that it means much that nobody else agreed. Did anybody explicitly disagree?

If this means gas fired patio heaters then I'm all for criminal charges for users - for the waste if nothing else.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

This argument assumes that the "gradualist approach" (your term but not mine) is constant and unchanging in its pace. That's not true. We have seen far more action on climate change in the past few years since we have seen since I was in kindergarten. Again, it's not enough, but the pace of change is accelerating, and again I believe that Greta has played a part in that.

The Butterfly Effect Theory of Activism.

Quote:

Okay well since I don't know who any of them are I'll take your word for it.

I have bad news and good news about the Internet: The bad news is, thanks to the Internet there's now such a thing as a stupid question. The good news is, thanks to the Internet you never have to ask a stupid question. I also have a hint: All three of them were activists involved in the same high-profile campaign in 2012.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by cullennz

You have to admit that clip was pretty funny.

The nice thing about a discussion board like this is that nobody ever has to admit anything.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Lplus

If this means gas fired patio heaters then I'm all for criminal charges for users - for the waste if nothing else.

Seems like criminalizing the wastefulness of things like movie theaters and amusement parks should also be considered.

[Stout]

Originally Posted by dann

That would be me, I guess. But it wasn't a poll, so I don't think that it means much that nobody else agreed. Did anybody explicitly disagree?

Nobody specifically disagreed but you know what they say in the transform the world based on social justice principals circles....."silence is violence" or something to that effect.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I have bad news and good news about the Internet: The bad news is, thanks to the Internet there's now such a thing as a stupid question. The good news is, thanks to the Internet you never have to ask a stupid question. I also have a hint: All three of them were activists involved in the same high-profile campaign in 2012.

The joke's on you because I didn't ask a question at all.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by Stout

Nobody specifically disagreed but you know what they say in the transform the world based on social justice principals circles....."silence is violence" or something to that effect.

Or "Evil prevails when good men do nothing.."

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Or "Evil prevails when good men do nothing.."

To say that nothing is being done to address the climate crisis is false. To say that certain of Greta's demands have not at this time been met is true.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I have bad news and good news about the Internet: The bad news is, thanks to the Internet there's now such a thing as a stupid question.

There always were stupid questions. We were just being polite when we told you there weren't.

[Red Baron Farms]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Seems like criminalizing the wastefulness of things like movie theaters and amusement parks should also be considered.

No they don't. Not even planes. That's just picking up pennies while 50's fly overhead in the wind!

You balance the system, and minor imperfections have little to no effect at all. There is plenty enough buffer built in when the system balanced to eliminate any chance that amusement parks could possibly ever cause global warming.

This is because living systems are self regulating. And yes, one of the major problems we have as human's is understanding that this actually is a living system when atmosphere and fossil fuels are not living themselves, but they are BOTH part of the living biosphere.

I still to this day see even climate scientists emphasize chemical weathering when ~80%+/- of all weathering planet wide is biological! And at least 40% (up to maybe 74%) of that 80% has been degraded substantially by human impact.

[Stout]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

To say that nothing is being done to address the climate crisis is false. To say that certain of Greta's demands have not at this time been met is true.

Nobody is saying nothing is being done, what is being said is that which is being done is just a drop in the bucket compared to Thunberg's demands.

Her whole shtick is not enough is being done and the clock is ticking.

We must achieve zero emissions in.....

[Stout]

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

No they don't. Not even planes. That's just picking up pennies while 50's fly overhead in the wind!

You balance the system, and minor imperfections have little to no effect at all. There is plenty enough buffer built in when the system balanced to eliminate any chance that amusement parks could possibly ever cause global warming.

This is because living systems are self regulating. And yes, one of the major problems we have as human's is understanding that this actually is a living system when atmosphere and fossil fuels are not living themselves, but they are BOTH part of the living biosphere.

I still to this day see even climate scientists emphasize chemical weathering when ~80%+/- of all weathering planet wide is biological! And at least 40% (up to maybe 74%) of that 80% has been degraded substantially by human impact.

Problem is that geological systems don't really "care" if life happens on them as evidenced by numerous mass extinctions and the existence of planets and moons that are totally incapable of supporting life as we know it. There might be a religious argument to be made though.

Chemical weathering is found to have a beneficial effect over thousands of years ( as opposed to the millions previously thought ) so to try to fit that into our current timeline is somewhat difficult. Better than nothing, I suppose

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

NYou balance the system, and minor imperfections have little to no effect at all. There is plenty enough buffer built in when the system balanced to eliminate any chance that amusement parks could possibly ever cause global warming.

It's not even about the global warming, it's about the wastefulness. Gas patio heaters are wasteful. So are movie theaters and amusement parks.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

To say that nothing is being done to address the climate crisis is false. To say that certain of Greta's demands have not at this time been met is true.

It's true to say that none of Greta's key demands have been met. That fact is the basis of the argument that Greta has not succeeded in what she set out to do, and that the enthusiasm and support for her campaign, in the media and around the world, is way out of proportion to what that campaign has actually accomplished. I'm not blaming Greta for this. I'm blaming everyone who has joined the cargo cult. I'm blaming everyone who likes the idea of the sermons and the school strikes and the flygskam, but aren't really all that interested in doing what it would take to meet Greta's demands. I blame everyone who says it isn't about taking Greta's demands seriously and acting on them; it's about perpetuating exactly the kind of gradualist approach that she condemns, and giving her some of the credit for this.

Greta's calling for the biggest cattle drive the world has ever seen, and you're celebrating the size of her hat.

[Chanakya]

theprestige, your arguments are, as ever, persuasively presented, but I think the basic idea you're trying to convey here -- that because her activism hasn't (yet) achieved as much as it might have, or as much as is necessary, or even as much as she's herself asking for, therefore that activism is essentially cargo-cult activism -- is what's known as the nirvana fallacy. (Yeah, okay, I had look that up, the name of the fallacy I mean.)

It's entirely possible for something to be less than perfectly successful without necessarily descending to an empty cargo-cult version of that endeavor.

[Red Baron Farms]

Originally Posted by Stout

Chemical weathering is found to have a beneficial effect over thousands of years ( as opposed to the millions previously thought ) so to try to fit that into our current timeline is somewhat difficult. Better than nothing, I suppose

I would like to see that new information and how they pulled out biological weathering away from chemical from the data.

Here it is discussed how the evolution of a new biome actually made the primary difference, not increased chemical weathering from the rise of the Himalayas, as was previously hypothesized.

Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling

My guess is that the original estimates are likely closer to correct, and this new figure you mention and order of magnitude greater is "weathering" and not "chemical weathering".

Keep in mind it did take millions of years for this new biome to evolve expand and dominate the landscape, but once it did, the buffering effect is actually an order of magnitude greater than even the thousands of years your new information states, and the primary reason for the glacial/interglacial fluxes we see for the last 1/2 million years.

Its biological, not abiotic chemical weathering.

[Stout]

I had no idea how chemical weathering factored into this discussion so I went out agooglin' for the relationship between chemical weathering and climate change and came up with information like this.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0801140535.htm

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

theprestige, your arguments are, as ever, persuasively presented, but I think the basic idea you're trying to convey here -- that because her activism hasn't (yet) achieved as much as it might have, or as much as is necessary, or even as much as she's herself asking for, therefore that activism is essentially cargo-cult activism -- is what's known as the nirvana fallacy. (Yeah, okay, I had look that up, the name of the fallacy I mean.)

It's entirely possible for something to be less than perfectly successful without necessarily descending to an empty cargo-cult version of that endeavor.

Yes, it is possible to for something to be less than perfectly successful without being a cargo-cult. Most successful things fall into this category. My thesis is that Greta's activism is not one of those things. My thesis not that Greta has enjoyed less than perfect success. My thesis is that she hasn't enjoyed any success at all, in terms of her stated goals. As we have seen, the only way to claim success is to move the goalposts off of Greta's stated goal.

My position would be different if Greta's campaign didn't explicitly reject the gradualist approach as insufficient and unacceptable.

[Red Baron Farms]

Originally Posted by Stout

I had no idea how chemical weathering factored into this discussion so I went out agooglin' for the relationship between chemical weathering and climate change and came up with information like this.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0801140535.htm

Interesting to be sure, but be cautious about drawing conclusions from it. That study is from the Early Jurassic Epoch. Very different solar radiance (lower), much higher CO2 concentrations, the grasslands I talked about above did not even exist yet. The whole dynamic is completely different. Except of course the anoxic conditions in the oceans which we have already started and are growing.

What is a dead zone?