Your honest thoughts on Greta Thunberg?

[Stadler]

I was going to type up a response to GMD, but I'd just be piling on at this point. What I will say is that I'd never heard of Boyan Slat before. Whether or not that's good or bad I don't know, but I can certainly say he's not inspiring anybody. Here's the bigger deal, though. Plastic Island is a phenomenon we can see. We know it's real. It's tangible. Global warming is something that's still, for some reason, debated. It's not readily apparent, and if you're a dipshit, then it's hard to distinguish between global warming and simple weather. See Trump. "Wow, it sure is cold this winter. So much for global warming."

Here's something that bugs me, though. Wildranger, quite bizarrely, blames the fact that some youth were politically minded for their slaughter at the hand of some politically minded asshole. I think we can all agree that this is fucking stupid. Is that really any different to what's happening to Greta, though? Aren't we blaming her for the person others have made her out to be? If there's a hijacking, shouldn't we blame the hijackers instead of the people who just wanted to fly to Paris? Once we get to that point, though, it becomes much easier to dismiss the message, though, and I'm pretty sure that's the point.

Girl says something. Media elevates her to Jesus status. People blame her. Girl says something else. People "roll their eyes" because of how annoying she's become. Makes sense.

At in typing this, I answered my own question. It's best that we haven't heard of Boyan Slat, because then his message would be just as easily dismissed.

Gary is right about one thing though:  this conversation is a microcosm of the way that issues are debated, at least here in the States, and it's a fuckin' disaster.  Hyperbole on this side, hyperbole on that side, and the main issue gets lost in the shuffle.

Even in the most extreme scenarios, mankind is not going extinct in the next generation or two, and in fact, not likely at all.   The likely response - still bad, don't get me wrong - is that hundreds of millions of people die, and our lifestyle and culture is irreparably changed.   Shoreline communities will disappear, but MAN will not, except at the most fringe of the continuum of likely outcomes.

That means, of course, that while it's not up for discussion about whether climate change exists, it is VERY MUCH up for discussion how bad it will get, and what is the solution - if there even is one at this point - for stemming that decline (I say that because we've likely crossed the rubicon on keeping temperature changes below the previously established threshold of 2⁰C).   The fact is, in America - and perhaps the world - "hey, this MIGHT happen" is not a recipe for quick and decisive action.   We - humans - aren't wired that way, and ask any one that still smokes about that, or that drinks the devil's semen diet soda.   The "mankind will be extinct" is the climate change version of "women will die if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed" and "your healthcare will be decided by Death Panels^TM".

I think we have to be careful not to confuse the issue with the analysis; I have zero doubt that climate change exists.  I am in no way, shape or form a "denier"; having said that, I DO NOT believe the worst case is inevitable, and do not believe we are extinct in two generations, or 30 years, or whatever the fear tactic of the moment is.   I also don't accept many of the proposed solutions to this (I'm speaking primarily here in the United States), particularly the ones that dovetail nicely with other, unrelated political party concerns.  The answer to climate change is not "wealth reallocation", it's not "punishing corporate America", and it's not America unilaterally bearing the burden of a "Green New Deal" while China and Russian bludgeon us economically.   The answer lies in a uniform, unified GLOBAL approach that cooperatively responds to the crisis in a way that doesn't advantage one geo-political axis over another.

I may very well have missed it, but when did Greta Thunberg say "mankind will be extinct in the next generation or two?"  You're ripping on hyperbole with...hyperbole?

Well, it was said earlier in this very thread.  Even if it is an inappropriate reference to her specifically (and I'm not going to hang a fellow poster out to dry to make my point), it's not my hyperbole; it's a fairly common trope based on the predicted time for a certain level of temperature rise, as my cited article indicates.  The point wasn't to hyperbolize HER position, but rather to state generally that the impacts of climate change are frequently over-stated. 

[Stadler]

And for every "conservative" critique, there's a "liberal" one.  If given the choice, I'll take hemming and hawing over hyperbole and moral bullying that leads only to thinly veiled 'change' that doesn't do what it's intended to do, and instead leads us to things like Trump (you're not in P/R, but see Dave Manchester's post from yesterday or the day before about the "problem" with American liberals).  Regardless of who is at "fault" (hint, it's both), all of it is just partisan bickering, and all of it just sets the stage for that Beijing kowtow that you talked about above (which, by the way, I wholeheartedly agree with, even if I don't get there by the same path).

Just responding to this part, because it's the only part of your post I'd like to qualify. There's a limit to how much you can blame "both sides" for this issue, because it's the conservatives that harbor the bulk of those who quite plainly do want to deny and do nothing. Of course, the liberals do this on a litany of issues too, but this isn't one of them. Coming up with half-baked solutions? Sure. Outright denial? Nah.

A fantastic (if perhaps slightly dated now) article that counters your point nicely:  The Republican position — either avowed ignorance or conspiracy theorizing — is ultimately unsustainable, but some still cling to it because they believe that accepting the premise that some climate change is occurring as a result of human action means accepting the conclusions of the most rabid left-wing climate activists. They fear, at least implicitly, that the politics of climate change is just a twisted road with a known destination: supporting new carbon taxes, a cap-and-trade system, or other statist means of energy rationing, and in the process ceding yet another key economic sector to government control. Conservatives seem to be on the horns of a dilemma: They will have to either continue to ignore real scientific findings or accept higher taxes, energy rationing, and increased regulation.

For someone like me - not a Republican, not a politician, actually a scientist (of sorts; I have a B.S. in Civil Engineering) and VEHEMENTLY  against the "tax and punish" solutions largely put forth by those with solutions - that's a shitty position, but it makes sense.   

But even if you don't buy into that - and I can understand if you don't - the numbers DO NOT support your position. Sure, Jim Inhoff and Donald Trump get the headlines with their snowballs and crappy weather forecasts, but the reality on the ground is NOT what you say it is.

39% of REPUBLICANS say we're not doing enough to combat climate change.  Think about that; forget about "denying"; almost 40% not only accept it, but think we're NOT DOING ENOUGH.  When you add in Independents that lean right, we're over 65%.   A majority of Republicans under the age of 38 think we're not doing enough.  Again, this is past denying, this is accepting and addressing and not doing enough.   75% of CONSERVATIVE Republicans think we're not doing enough or doing just the right amount.  Again, NOT denying, but past that, addressing action. 

90% of Democrats think we should prioritize alternative energy development over expanded oil, coal and natural gas exploration and production.   The party of "Big Oil"?  The Republicans?   Over 60% think we should prioritize alternative energy development over expanded oil, coal and natural gas exploration and production.

Skeever, again, not telling you what to think, but I think it's pretty clear that the data doesn't fully reflect your perceptions.  I know they are your experience, and I don't discount that, but I'm kindly telling you that experience doesn't account for changing times, changing demographics and changing priorities.

I don't think we're really as far apart on this as I may have led you to believe based on my remarks about conservatives. For example, even though it's by no means a permanent solution or a one size fits all answer, I absolutely think we need to explore nuclear. For reasons that I cannot understand, that idea has almost no currency on the left.

We are 1000% in line on nuclear; it is one of the most baffling things about this whole issue to  me too.  Smaller, skid-mounted reactors can be deployed in a number of situations (military is the obvious one, but there are countless civilian applications as well) that would not only stabilize our national grid(s) but actually provide meaningful levels of "clean" (from a climate change perspective) energy to the nation.

[Stadler]

I know many people find her facial expressions during speeches visually unpleasant.

That's a highly odd thing to focus on.

Is it though?   There's a veritable cottage industry mocking Trump's facial expressions during speeches.   He was only the President of the United States, and yet...

(Though I'm sure there will be a rationalization for that...)

[eric42434224]

It’s an odd thing because Greta doesn’t comment on the appearance of others.  Trump on the other hand......

[lonestar]

 

[orcus116]

And for every "conservative" critique, there's a "liberal" one.  If given the choice, I'll take hemming and hawing over hyperbole and moral bullying that leads only to thinly veiled 'change' that doesn't do what it's intended to do, and instead leads us to things like Trump (you're not in P/R, but see Dave Manchester's post from yesterday or the day before about the "problem" with American liberals).  Regardless of who is at "fault" (hint, it's both), all of it is just partisan bickering, and all of it just sets the stage for that Beijing kowtow that you talked about above (which, by the way, I wholeheartedly agree with, even if I don't get there by the same path).

Just responding to this part, because it's the only part of your post I'd like to qualify. There's a limit to how much you can blame "both sides" for this issue, because it's the conservatives that harbor the bulk of those who quite plainly do want to deny and do nothing. Of course, the liberals do this on a litany of issues too, but this isn't one of them. Coming up with half-baked solutions? Sure. Outright denial? Nah.

A fantastic (if perhaps slightly dated now) article that counters your point nicely:  The Republican position — either avowed ignorance or conspiracy theorizing — is ultimately unsustainable, but some still cling to it because they believe that accepting the premise that some climate change is occurring as a result of human action means accepting the conclusions of the most rabid left-wing climate activists. They fear, at least implicitly, that the politics of climate change is just a twisted road with a known destination: supporting new carbon taxes, a cap-and-trade system, or other statist means of energy rationing, and in the process ceding yet another key economic sector to government control. Conservatives seem to be on the horns of a dilemma: They will have to either continue to ignore real scientific findings or accept higher taxes, energy rationing, and increased regulation.

For someone like me - not a Republican, not a politician, actually a scientist (of sorts; I have a B.S. in Civil Engineering) and VEHEMENTLY  against the "tax and punish" solutions largely put forth by those with solutions - that's a shitty position, but it makes sense.   

But even if you don't buy into that - and I can understand if you don't - the numbers DO NOT support your position. Sure, Jim Inhoff and Donald Trump get the headlines with their snowballs and crappy weather forecasts, but the reality on the ground is NOT what you say it is.

39% of REPUBLICANS say we're not doing enough to combat climate change.  Think about that; forget about "denying"; almost 40% not only accept it, but think we're NOT DOING ENOUGH.  When you add in Independents that lean right, we're over 65%.   A majority of Republicans under the age of 38 think we're not doing enough.  Again, this is past denying, this is accepting and addressing and not doing enough.   75% of CONSERVATIVE Republicans think we're not doing enough or doing just the right amount.  Again, NOT denying, but past that, addressing action. 

90% of Democrats think we should prioritize alternative energy development over expanded oil, coal and natural gas exploration and production.   The party of "Big Oil"?  The Republicans?   Over 60% think we should prioritize alternative energy development over expanded oil, coal and natural gas exploration and production.

Skeever, again, not telling you what to think, but I think it's pretty clear that the data doesn't fully reflect your perceptions.  I know they are your experience, and I don't discount that, but I'm kindly telling you that experience doesn't account for changing times, changing demographics and changing priorities.

I don't think we're really as far apart on this as I may have led you to believe based on my remarks about conservatives. For example, even though it's by no means a permanent solution or a one size fits all answer, I absolutely think we need to explore nuclear. For reasons that I cannot understand, that idea has almost no currency on the left.

We are 1000% in line on nuclear; it is one of the most baffling things about this whole issue to  me too.  Smaller, skid-mounted reactors can be deployed in a number of situations (military is the obvious one, but there are countless civilian applications as well) that would not only stabilize our national grid(s) but actually provide meaningful levels of "clean" (from a climate change perspective) energy to the nation.

We have a nuclear power plant near me that's closing for a variety of reasons and one of the directors of the plant had a good point in an article about it that he doesn't understand people cheering for closing the plant and then turn around and say they want clean energy (obviously read: green energy) since the only biproduct outside of the small amount of nuclear waste is steam. Unfortunately you have folks looking at a very small number of freak accidents in the past and damn all nuclear power plants to hell. Funny enough in the same paper there was another article about how a huge swath of forest was to be cleared in a proposal for a new solar farm. I guess that's OK with some folks, though.

[XJDenton]

I know many people find her facial expressions during speeches visually unpleasant.

That's a highly odd thing to focus on.

Is it though?

Yes.

[Stadler]

It’s an odd thing because Greta doesn’t comment on the appearance of others.  Trump on the other hand......

We're not talking about Greta or Trump, we're talking about people here.   We can't control other people, but we can control ourselves.  If commenting on others' looks is bad, we ought not do it, whether someone else did or not.  (I'm not trying to be smart to you, I'm just explaining why I don't see it as odd.  Or, rather, what I see as odd is selectively calling it out.)

[Stadler]

And for every "conservative" critique, there's a "liberal" one.  If given the choice, I'll take hemming and hawing over hyperbole and moral bullying that leads only to thinly veiled 'change' that doesn't do what it's intended to do, and instead leads us to things like Trump (you're not in P/R, but see Dave Manchester's post from yesterday or the day before about the "problem" with American liberals).  Regardless of who is at "fault" (hint, it's both), all of it is just partisan bickering, and all of it just sets the stage for that Beijing kowtow that you talked about above (which, by the way, I wholeheartedly agree with, even if I don't get there by the same path).

Just responding to this part, because it's the only part of your post I'd like to qualify. There's a limit to how much you can blame "both sides" for this issue, because it's the conservatives that harbor the bulk of those who quite plainly do want to deny and do nothing. Of course, the liberals do this on a litany of issues too, but this isn't one of them. Coming up with half-baked solutions? Sure. Outright denial? Nah.

A fantastic (if perhaps slightly dated now) article that counters your point nicely:  The Republican position — either avowed ignorance or conspiracy theorizing — is ultimately unsustainable, but some still cling to it because they believe that accepting the premise that some climate change is occurring as a result of human action means accepting the conclusions of the most rabid left-wing climate activists. They fear, at least implicitly, that the politics of climate change is just a twisted road with a known destination: supporting new carbon taxes, a cap-and-trade system, or other statist means of energy rationing, and in the process ceding yet another key economic sector to government control. Conservatives seem to be on the horns of a dilemma: They will have to either continue to ignore real scientific findings or accept higher taxes, energy rationing, and increased regulation.

For someone like me - not a Republican, not a politician, actually a scientist (of sorts; I have a B.S. in Civil Engineering) and VEHEMENTLY  against the "tax and punish" solutions largely put forth by those with solutions - that's a shitty position, but it makes sense.   

But even if you don't buy into that - and I can understand if you don't - the numbers DO NOT support your position. Sure, Jim Inhoff and Donald Trump get the headlines with their snowballs and crappy weather forecasts, but the reality on the ground is NOT what you say it is.

39% of REPUBLICANS say we're not doing enough to combat climate change.  Think about that; forget about "denying"; almost 40% not only accept it, but think we're NOT DOING ENOUGH.  When you add in Independents that lean right, we're over 65%.   A majority of Republicans under the age of 38 think we're not doing enough.  Again, this is past denying, this is accepting and addressing and not doing enough.   75% of CONSERVATIVE Republicans think we're not doing enough or doing just the right amount.  Again, NOT denying, but past that, addressing action. 

90% of Democrats think we should prioritize alternative energy development over expanded oil, coal and natural gas exploration and production.   The party of "Big Oil"?  The Republicans?   Over 60% think we should prioritize alternative energy development over expanded oil, coal and natural gas exploration and production.

Skeever, again, not telling you what to think, but I think it's pretty clear that the data doesn't fully reflect your perceptions.  I know they are your experience, and I don't discount that, but I'm kindly telling you that experience doesn't account for changing times, changing demographics and changing priorities.

I don't think we're really as far apart on this as I may have led you to believe based on my remarks about conservatives. For example, even though it's by no means a permanent solution or a one size fits all answer, I absolutely think we need to explore nuclear. For reasons that I cannot understand, that idea has almost no currency on the left.

We are 1000% in line on nuclear; it is one of the most baffling things about this whole issue to  me too.  Smaller, skid-mounted reactors can be deployed in a number of situations (military is the obvious one, but there are countless civilian applications as well) that would not only stabilize our national grid(s) but actually provide meaningful levels of "clean" (from a climate change perspective) energy to the nation.

We have a nuclear power plant near me that's closing for a variety of reasons and one of the directors of the plant had a good point in an article about it that he doesn't understand people cheering for closing the plant and then turn around and say they want clean energy (obviously read: green energy) since the only biproduct outside of the small amount of nuclear waste is steam. Unfortunately you have folks looking at a very small number of freak accidents in the past and damn all nuclear power plants to hell. Funny enough in the same paper there was another article about how a huge swath of forest was to be cleared in a proposal for a new solar farm. I guess that's OK with some folks, though.

It's certainly in keeping, though. "Facts" and "science", as long as the facts and science back up the world view. 

[eric42434224]

It’s an odd thing because Greta doesn’t comment on the appearance of others.  Trump on the other hand......

We're not talking about Greta or Trump, we're talking about people here.   We can't control other people, but we can control ourselves.  If commenting on others' looks is bad, we ought not do it, whether someone else did or not.  (I'm not trying to be smart to you, I'm just explaining why I don't see it as odd.  Or, rather, what I see as odd is selectively calling it out.)

But we are talking about Greta and Trump.  We are also talking about people making comments about them.  I merely pointed out there is a difference between Greta and Trumps behavior , and that to some, that difference opens up Trump to get some of what he dishes out.  If you want to say no one should make those comments regardless, that is ok, but that is not the reality of the situation.  I just pointed that reality out is all.
I agree that, in a vacuum, the behavior is “wrong” so to speak, but we don’t live in a Dyson.
Like it or not, there is a difference.  I look differently on one person than I do another due to their own actions/words.  TBH I’m not really sure we disagree here, do we?

[kirksnosehair]

I was going to type up a response to GMD, but I'd just be piling on at this point. What I will say is that I'd never heard of Boyan Slat before. Whether or not that's good or bad I don't know, but I can certainly say he's not inspiring anybody. Here's the bigger deal, though. Plastic Island is a phenomenon we can see. We know it's real. It's tangible. Global warming is something that's still, for some reason, debated. It's not readily apparent, and if you're a dipshit, then it's hard to distinguish between global warming and simple weather. See Trump. "Wow, it sure is cold this winter. So much for global warming."

Here's something that bugs me, though. Wildranger, quite bizarrely, blames the fact that some youth were politically minded for their slaughter at the hand of some politically minded asshole. I think we can all agree that this is fucking stupid. Is that really any different to what's happening to Greta, though? Aren't we blaming her for the person others have made her out to be? If there's a hijacking, shouldn't we blame the hijackers instead of the people who just wanted to fly to Paris? Once we get to that point, though, it becomes much easier to dismiss the message, though, and I'm pretty sure that's the point.

Girl says something. Media elevates her to Jesus status. People blame her. Girl says something else. People "roll their eyes" because of how annoying she's become. Makes sense.

At in typing this, I answered my own question. It's best that we haven't heard of Boyan Slat, because then his message would be just as easily dismissed.

Gary is right about one thing though:  this conversation is a microcosm of the way that issues are debated, at least here in the States, and it's a fuckin' disaster.  Hyperbole on this side, hyperbole on that side, and the main issue gets lost in the shuffle.

Even in the most extreme scenarios, mankind is not going extinct in the next generation or two, and in fact, not likely at all.   The likely response - still bad, don't get me wrong - is that hundreds of millions of people die, and our lifestyle and culture is irreparably changed.   Shoreline communities will disappear, but MAN will not, except at the most fringe of the continuum of likely outcomes.

That means, of course, that while it's not up for discussion about whether climate change exists, it is VERY MUCH up for discussion how bad it will get, and what is the solution - if there even is one at this point - for stemming that decline (I say that because we've likely crossed the rubicon on keeping temperature changes below the previously established threshold of 2⁰C).   The fact is, in America - and perhaps the world - "hey, this MIGHT happen" is not a recipe for quick and decisive action.   We - humans - aren't wired that way, and ask any one that still smokes about that, or that drinks the devil's semen diet soda.   The "mankind will be extinct" is the climate change version of "women will die if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed" and "your healthcare will be decided by Death Panels^TM".

I think we have to be careful not to confuse the issue with the analysis; I have zero doubt that climate change exists.  I am in no way, shape or form a "denier"; having said that, I DO NOT believe the worst case is inevitable, and do not believe we are extinct in two generations, or 30 years, or whatever the fear tactic of the moment is.   I also don't accept many of the proposed solutions to this (I'm speaking primarily here in the United States), particularly the ones that dovetail nicely with other, unrelated political party concerns.  The answer to climate change is not "wealth reallocation", it's not "punishing corporate America", and it's not America unilaterally bearing the burden of a "Green New Deal" while China and Russian bludgeon us economically.   The answer lies in a uniform, unified GLOBAL approach that cooperatively responds to the crisis in a way that doesn't advantage one geo-political axis over another.

I may very well have missed it, but when did Greta Thunberg say "mankind will be extinct in the next generation or two?"  You're ripping on hyperbole with...hyperbole?

Well, it was said earlier in this very thread.  Even if it is an inappropriate reference to her specifically (and I'm not going to hang a fellow poster out to dry to make my point), it's not my hyperbole; it's a fairly common trope based on the predicted time for a certain level of temperature rise, as my cited article indicates.  The point wasn't to hyperbolize HER position, but rather to state generally that the impacts of climate change are frequently over-stated.

The word "extinct" appears in 3 posts (now 4) in this thread and two of them are mine, the other two are people saying the opposite: That anyone claiming "mankind will be extinct in a couple of generations" is full of it.  I just did both a google search and I used the forum search tool trying to find a post in this thread where Greta Thunberg said "mankind will be extinct in two generations" and I can't find it.  Can you refer me to the post please?  It's entirely possible the search didn't work right, but I do know how to use a search feature, so? 

[hunnus2000]

Just throwing this out there - scientists have never said we will destroy the world because of climate change, they say that life will be more uncomfortable and we will be spending lot's of money on disasters. Unlike conservatives who quote the Bible for reasons not to take action.

BTW, I am paraphrasing what Neil Degrasse T. said one time.

[Stadler]

It’s an odd thing because Greta doesn’t comment on the appearance of others.  Trump on the other hand......

We're not talking about Greta or Trump, we're talking about people here.   We can't control other people, but we can control ourselves.  If commenting on others' looks is bad, we ought not do it, whether someone else did or not.  (I'm not trying to be smart to you, I'm just explaining why I don't see it as odd.  Or, rather, what I see as odd is selectively calling it out.)

But we are talking about Greta and Trump.  We are also talking about people making comments about them.  I merely pointed out there is a difference between Greta and Trumps behavior , and that to some, that difference opens up Trump to get some of what he dishes out.  If you want to say no one should make those comments regardless, that is ok, but that is not the reality of the situation.  I just pointed that reality out is all.
I agree that, in a vacuum, the behavior is “wrong” so to speak, but we don’t live in a Dyson.
Like it or not, there is a difference.  I look differently on one person than I do another due to their own actions/words.  TBH I’m not really sure we disagree here, do we?

Not fundamentally, no.   It's just a do-loop that has no end.  I'm always leery when the rules are so heavily predicated on one person's personal perception (I'm not talking about you, I'm speaking generally, and just explaining why I said what I said.)  Remember too, I'm the guy that is convinced that our biggest problem is our divisiveness, not any one side or their platform.

[Dublagent66]

In response to the original thread question

She’s a squawky, noisy, opportunistic little gnat. Who ignores the realities of the world and just makes noise.

That's what I thought when I first saw the video.  You were a lot nicer about it than I would've been, so I won't even go there.  However, I think someone should educate her by tapping her on the shoulder and saying, "hey Greta, climate change has been going on for hundreds of millions of years.  It changes in cycles regardless of what we do.  It's a part of the natural order.  All of a sudden humans show up and we're arrogant enough to think that we caused it and somehow have to fix it?    It's a self correcting system over long periods of time.  We've only been here for a blink.  The dinosaurs survived through climate change for 150 million years.  Until of course the comet hit which started a chain reaction of catastrophic events that they couldn't survive.  Humans will most likely face disasters in the future that are out of our control.  All the whining and crying in the world isn't going to change a thing, but hey, knock yourself out." 

[darkshade]

I know many people find her facial expressions during speeches visually unpleasant.

Luckily for her, she's not a model, otherwise that would actually be relevant :V

Models have weird facial expressions as well.

[ariich]

It’s an odd thing because Greta doesn’t comment on the appearance of others.  Trump on the other hand......

We're not talking about Greta or Trump, we're talking about people here.   We can't control other people, but we can control ourselves.  If commenting on others' looks is bad, we ought not do it, whether someone else did or not.  (I'm not trying to be smart to you, I'm just explaining why I don't see it as odd.  Or, rather, what I see as odd is selectively calling it out.)

Are you talking about two different things perhaps? You mentioned people "mocking" Trump's expressions, which is one thing (a bit childish, but teasing and impersonating the mannerisms of politicians is pretty standard). But if you mean people talking about his appearance and expressions as a serious criticism of him, then yes that is also odd. It's odd whoever it's about.

[Stadler]

I know many people find her facial expressions during speeches visually unpleasant.

Luckily for her, she's not a model, otherwise that would actually be relevant :V

Models have weird facial expressions as well.

The duck face.  Whoever invented that ought to be fired.  I can't name one person/celebrity/model that looks better with the duck face.  Then again, I'm a "smile" guy; I'm sure someone somewhere must've said "hey that looks good on you!". 

[Adami]

I know many people find her facial expressions during speeches visually unpleasant.

Luckily for her, she's not a model, otherwise that would actually be relevant :V

Models have weird facial expressions as well.

The duck face.  Whoever invented that ought to be fired.  I can't name one person/celebrity/model that looks better with the duck face.  Then again, I'm a "smile" guy; I'm sure someone somewhere must've said "hey that looks good on you!".

I do believe Donald and Daffy would disagree with you good sir.

[Stadler]

It’s an odd thing because Greta doesn’t comment on the appearance of others.  Trump on the other hand......

We're not talking about Greta or Trump, we're talking about people here.   We can't control other people, but we can control ourselves.  If commenting on others' looks is bad, we ought not do it, whether someone else did or not.  (I'm not trying to be smart to you, I'm just explaining why I don't see it as odd.  Or, rather, what I see as odd is selectively calling it out.)

Are you talking about two different things perhaps? You mentioned people "mocking" Trump's expressions, which is one thing (a bit childish, but teasing and impersonating the mannerisms of politicians is pretty standard). But if you mean people talking about his appearance and expressions as a serious criticism of him, then yes that is also odd. It's odd whoever it's about.

Well, I think I'm talking about one thing, but there are several different points circulating around.  I think we agree that as serious criticism, it's off the mark.   Me, I've made quite the effort over the past 15 years or so to try to curb the tendency to go for low-hanging fruit.  I'm also not a big one for "deserve".  What actually do any of us "deserve" (at least that other people are entitled to determine)?  Whether I think Trump "funny looking" or not is not germaine to anything of substance.  We talk all the time about "tolerance" and "kindness" and none of those are predicated on receiving them first.  None are, or should be, predicated on personal judgment (else most of the racists we talk about would have to have the chance to justify their "stories").    I don't test out someone who is homosexual (or any other identity politics characteristic) to see if they are "tolerant" of me before I extend tolerance to them.  It's a part of simple humanity, and whether Trump's a douche or not (he is, IMO) I'd prefer not to be on his level.   The point with all these things that supposedly make us better people is that we should be doing it when it's HARD, not just when it's easy.

[Skeever]

And for every "conservative" critique, there's a "liberal" one.  If given the choice, I'll take hemming and hawing over hyperbole and moral bullying that leads only to thinly veiled 'change' that doesn't do what it's intended to do, and instead leads us to things like Trump (you're not in P/R, but see Dave Manchester's post from yesterday or the day before about the "problem" with American liberals).  Regardless of who is at "fault" (hint, it's both), all of it is just partisan bickering, and all of it just sets the stage for that Beijing kowtow that you talked about above (which, by the way, I wholeheartedly agree with, even if I don't get there by the same path).

Just responding to this part, because it's the only part of your post I'd like to qualify. There's a limit to how much you can blame "both sides" for this issue, because it's the conservatives that harbor the bulk of those who quite plainly do want to deny and do nothing. Of course, the liberals do this on a litany of issues too, but this isn't one of them. Coming up with half-baked solutions? Sure. Outright denial? Nah.

A fantastic (if perhaps slightly dated now) article that counters your point nicely:  The Republican position — either avowed ignorance or conspiracy theorizing — is ultimately unsustainable, but some still cling to it because they believe that accepting the premise that some climate change is occurring as a result of human action means accepting the conclusions of the most rabid left-wing climate activists. They fear, at least implicitly, that the politics of climate change is just a twisted road with a known destination: supporting new carbon taxes, a cap-and-trade system, or other statist means of energy rationing, and in the process ceding yet another key economic sector to government control. Conservatives seem to be on the horns of a dilemma: They will have to either continue to ignore real scientific findings or accept higher taxes, energy rationing, and increased regulation.

For someone like me - not a Republican, not a politician, actually a scientist (of sorts; I have a B.S. in Civil Engineering) and VEHEMENTLY  against the "tax and punish" solutions largely put forth by those with solutions - that's a shitty position, but it makes sense.   

But even if you don't buy into that - and I can understand if you don't - the numbers DO NOT support your position. Sure, Jim Inhoff and Donald Trump get the headlines with their snowballs and crappy weather forecasts, but the reality on the ground is NOT what you say it is.

39% of REPUBLICANS say we're not doing enough to combat climate change.  Think about that; forget about "denying"; almost 40% not only accept it, but think we're NOT DOING ENOUGH.  When you add in Independents that lean right, we're over 65%.   A majority of Republicans under the age of 38 think we're not doing enough.  Again, this is past denying, this is accepting and addressing and not doing enough.   75% of CONSERVATIVE Republicans think we're not doing enough or doing just the right amount.  Again, NOT denying, but past that, addressing action. 

90% of Democrats think we should prioritize alternative energy development over expanded oil, coal and natural gas exploration and production.   The party of "Big Oil"?  The Republicans?   Over 60% think we should prioritize alternative energy development over expanded oil, coal and natural gas exploration and production.

Skeever, again, not telling you what to think, but I think it's pretty clear that the data doesn't fully reflect your perceptions.  I know they are your experience, and I don't discount that, but I'm kindly telling you that experience doesn't account for changing times, changing demographics and changing priorities.

I don't think we're really as far apart on this as I may have led you to believe based on my remarks about conservatives. For example, even though it's by no means a permanent solution or a one size fits all answer, I absolutely think we need to explore nuclear. For reasons that I cannot understand, that idea has almost no currency on the left.

We are 1000% in line on nuclear; it is one of the most baffling things about this whole issue to  me too.  Smaller, skid-mounted reactors can be deployed in a number of situations (military is the obvious one, but there are countless civilian applications as well) that would not only stabilize our national grid(s) but actually provide meaningful levels of "clean" (from a climate change perspective) energy to the nation.

We have a nuclear power plant near me that's closing for a variety of reasons and one of the directors of the plant had a good point in an article about it that he doesn't understand people cheering for closing the plant and then turn around and say they want clean energy (obviously read: green energy) since the only biproduct outside of the small amount of nuclear waste is steam. Unfortunately you have folks looking at a very small number of freak accidents in the past and damn all nuclear power plants to hell. Funny enough in the same paper there was another article about how a huge swath of forest was to be cleared in a proposal for a new solar farm. I guess that's OK with some folks, though.

Nuclear is an obvious part of the solution, imo, but the main problem is that it is not renewable. It just kicks the can down a generation or so, right?

[kirksnosehair]

And for every "conservative" critique, there's a "liberal" one.  If given the choice, I'll take hemming and hawing over hyperbole and moral bullying that leads only to thinly veiled 'change' that doesn't do what it's intended to do, and instead leads us to things like Trump (you're not in P/R, but see Dave Manchester's post from yesterday or the day before about the "problem" with American liberals).  Regardless of who is at "fault" (hint, it's both), all of it is just partisan bickering, and all of it just sets the stage for that Beijing kowtow that you talked about above (which, by the way, I wholeheartedly agree with, even if I don't get there by the same path).

Just responding to this part, because it's the only part of your post I'd like to qualify. There's a limit to how much you can blame "both sides" for this issue, because it's the conservatives that harbor the bulk of those who quite plainly do want to deny and do nothing. Of course, the liberals do this on a litany of issues too, but this isn't one of them. Coming up with half-baked solutions? Sure. Outright denial? Nah.

A fantastic (if perhaps slightly dated now) article that counters your point nicely:  The Republican position — either avowed ignorance or conspiracy theorizing — is ultimately unsustainable, but some still cling to it because they believe that accepting the premise that some climate change is occurring as a result of human action means accepting the conclusions of the most rabid left-wing climate activists. They fear, at least implicitly, that the politics of climate change is just a twisted road with a known destination: supporting new carbon taxes, a cap-and-trade system, or other statist means of energy rationing, and in the process ceding yet another key economic sector to government control. Conservatives seem to be on the horns of a dilemma: They will have to either continue to ignore real scientific findings or accept higher taxes, energy rationing, and increased regulation.

For someone like me - not a Republican, not a politician, actually a scientist (of sorts; I have a B.S. in Civil Engineering) and VEHEMENTLY  against the "tax and punish" solutions largely put forth by those with solutions - that's a shitty position, but it makes sense.   

But even if you don't buy into that - and I can understand if you don't - the numbers DO NOT support your position. Sure, Jim Inhoff and Donald Trump get the headlines with their snowballs and crappy weather forecasts, but the reality on the ground is NOT what you say it is.

39% of REPUBLICANS say we're not doing enough to combat climate change.  Think about that; forget about "denying"; almost 40% not only accept it, but think we're NOT DOING ENOUGH.  When you add in Independents that lean right, we're over 65%.   A majority of Republicans under the age of 38 think we're not doing enough.  Again, this is past denying, this is accepting and addressing and not doing enough.   75% of CONSERVATIVE Republicans think we're not doing enough or doing just the right amount.  Again, NOT denying, but past that, addressing action. 

90% of Democrats think we should prioritize alternative energy development over expanded oil, coal and natural gas exploration and production.   The party of "Big Oil"?  The Republicans?   Over 60% think we should prioritize alternative energy development over expanded oil, coal and natural gas exploration and production.

Skeever, again, not telling you what to think, but I think it's pretty clear that the data doesn't fully reflect your perceptions.  I know they are your experience, and I don't discount that, but I'm kindly telling you that experience doesn't account for changing times, changing demographics and changing priorities.

I don't think we're really as far apart on this as I may have led you to believe based on my remarks about conservatives. For example, even though it's by no means a permanent solution or a one size fits all answer, I absolutely think we need to explore nuclear. For reasons that I cannot understand, that idea has almost no currency on the left.

We are 1000% in line on nuclear; it is one of the most baffling things about this whole issue to  me too.  Smaller, skid-mounted reactors can be deployed in a number of situations (military is the obvious one, but there are countless civilian applications as well) that would not only stabilize our national grid(s) but actually provide meaningful levels of "clean" (from a climate change perspective) energy to the nation.

We have a nuclear power plant near me that's closing for a variety of reasons and one of the directors of the plant had a good point in an article about it that he doesn't understand people cheering for closing the plant and then turn around and say they want clean energy (obviously read: green energy) since the only biproduct outside of the small amount of nuclear waste is steam. Unfortunately you have folks looking at a very small number of freak accidents in the past and damn all nuclear power plants to hell. Funny enough in the same paper there was another article about how a huge swath of forest was to be cleared in a proposal for a new solar farm. I guess that's OK with some folks, though.

Nuclear is an obvious part of the solution, imo, but the main problem is that it is not renewable. It just kicks the can down a generation or so, right?

I could see us disposing of that kind of waste in space at some point in the future.  That and other trash.   Once we figure out a way to use water to produce hydrogen-based rocket fuel all bets are off on what we can do to leverage space for the benefit of earth.   Sending pollution (including spent nuclear power-plant fuel) on barges out on a one-way trip into the sun.  Problem solved.  You're welcome. 

[ariich]

It’s an odd thing because Greta doesn’t comment on the appearance of others.  Trump on the other hand......

We're not talking about Greta or Trump, we're talking about people here.   We can't control other people, but we can control ourselves.  If commenting on others' looks is bad, we ought not do it, whether someone else did or not.  (I'm not trying to be smart to you, I'm just explaining why I don't see it as odd.  Or, rather, what I see as odd is selectively calling it out.)

Are you talking about two different things perhaps? You mentioned people "mocking" Trump's expressions, which is one thing (a bit childish, but teasing and impersonating the mannerisms of politicians is pretty standard). But if you mean people talking about his appearance and expressions as a serious criticism of him, then yes that is also odd. It's odd whoever it's about.

Well, I think I'm talking about one thing, but there are several different points circulating around.  I think we agree that as serious criticism, it's off the mark.   Me, I've made quite the effort over the past 15 years or so to try to curb the tendency to go for low-hanging fruit.  I'm also not a big one for "deserve".  What actually do any of us "deserve" (at least that other people are entitled to determine)?  Whether I think Trump "funny looking" or not is not germaine to anything of substance.  We talk all the time about "tolerance" and "kindness" and none of those are predicated on receiving them first.  None are, or should be, predicated on personal judgment (else most of the racists we talk about would have to have the chance to justify their "stories").    I don't test out someone who is homosexual (or any other identity politics characteristic) to see if they are "tolerant" of me before I extend tolerance to them.  It's a part of simple humanity, and whether Trump's a douche or not (he is, IMO) I'd prefer not to be on his level.   The point with all these things that supposedly make us better people is that we should be doing it when it's HARD, not just when it's easy.

Agree with all that. And to be clear, I think we agree on people being mocked for their appearance/mannerisms too. I don't think it's as problematic as serious criticism about it, which is why I felt it appropriate to note that they are different (as I understand why others would be comfortable with it), but I'm not a fan myself and at times it can actually undercut the real criticisms that should actually be discussed.

[Cruithne]

All of a sudden humans show up and we're arrogant enough to think that we caused it and somehow have to fix it?

A small proportion of humans are smart enough to have developed an understanding of fundamental physics, the chemistry that springs from it and how human activity is impacting the atmosphere. We already know we can have a large scale impact on the atmosphere from the impact of CFCs on the Ozone layer.

We now have ample evidence that heavily implicates human activity as the main cause of the rapid change in climate over the last 200 years that's moving far quicker than any cycles the planet has gone through over the prior million years. The body of scientific evidence that means we've been able to determine changes in climate the planet has experienced, both over extended periods of time and due to catastrophic events, is drawn from the same pool as that which tells us we have a large cause for concern about what humanity is doing to our atmosphere.

Science, done properly, always leaves room for doubt in the event of new evidence that challenges current knowledge but as things stand the science is telling us it's humanity driving the pace of climate change we're experiencing. The only real open question is what affect this will have on life, particularly humanity, on earth.

[El Barto]

All of a sudden humans show up and we're arrogant enough to think that we caused it and somehow have to fix it?

A small proportion of humans are smart enough to have developed an understanding of fundamental physics, the chemistry that springs from it and how human activity is impacting the atmosphere. We already know we can have a large scale impact on the atmosphere from the impact of CFCs on the Ozone layer.

We now have ample evidence that heavily implicates human activity as the main cause of the rapid change in climate over the last 200 years that's moving far quicker than any cycles the planet has gone through over the prior million years. The body of scientific evidence that means we've been able to determine changes in climate the planet has experienced, both over extended periods of time and due to catastrophic events, is drawn from the same pool as that which tells us we have a large cause for concern about what humanity is doing to our atmosphere.

Science, done properly, always leaves room for doubt in the event of new evidence that challenges current knowledge but as things stand the science is telling us it's humanity driving the pace of climate change we're experiencing. The only real open question is what affect this will have on life, particularly humanity, on earth.

So the entire exchange you cited is here: https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=56416.msg2771321#msg2771321

I think you're wasting your breath. Partly because of the [somewhat ironic] arrogance already in play in that post, and mostly because I think we've pretty much boiled it down to the LCD. Climate change is only an issue for us. The Earth will get over it. If you don't care if humanity eeks out a miserable existence for the next few hundred years, then it's not really a problem. Personally, I'd be just fine with the dinosaurs getting a second go at it. If humanity's reaction is to ridicule a young girl rather than face up to what's happening, then we're pretty much the least deserving species to run the show. Probably for the best that we eradicate ourselves and make room for some other species to take a crack at it.

[Stadler]

All of a sudden humans show up and we're arrogant enough to think that we caused it and somehow have to fix it?

A small proportion of humans are smart enough to have developed an understanding of fundamental physics, the chemistry that springs from it and how human activity is impacting the atmosphere. We already know we can have a large scale impact on the atmosphere from the impact of CFCs on the Ozone layer.

We now have ample evidence that heavily implicates human activity as the main cause of the rapid change in climate over the last 200 years that's moving far quicker than any cycles the planet has gone through over the prior million years. The body of scientific evidence that means we've been able to determine changes in climate the planet has experienced, both over extended periods of time and due to catastrophic events, is drawn from the same pool as that which tells us we have a large cause for concern about what humanity is doing to our atmosphere.

Science, done properly, always leaves room for doubt in the event of new evidence that challenges current knowledge but as things stand the science is telling us it's humanity driving the pace of climate change we're experiencing. The only real open question is what affect this will have on life, particularly humanity, on earth.

I'm repeating myself from something I wrote above, but for me the problem isn't in your three paragraphs.  The problem is when your three paragraphs get paraphrased (by others) as certainty, that certainty is narrowly assumed to lead to the worst possible effect, and that effect is narrowly answered with politically-motivated, partisan "solutions".   

I get science, the benefits and limitations (I'm a civil engineer) and have no problem with that.  In a past job I was privy to information that for me leaves no doubt that there are substantive changes to Earth's climate from human activity.  From there, though, things change.  I do not agree that losing even a significant fraction of U.S. coastline (and the properties that exist on that coastline) equates to "human annihilation".   I do not agree with the country-specific, partisan solutions that most often get put forth as "our moral imperative".   Carbon taxing is not a "moral imperative".   Substantially impairing the U.S. economy while other, large economies bear no burden is not a "moral imperative".

You've given us a smart, reasonable post; I would love if the impact analysis and proposed solutions by others had that same intelligence and reason.

[Dublagent66]

All of a sudden humans show up and we're arrogant enough to think that we caused it and somehow have to fix it?

A small proportion of humans are smart enough to have developed an understanding of fundamental physics, the chemistry that springs from it and how human activity is impacting the atmosphere. We already know we can have a large scale impact on the atmosphere from the impact of CFCs on the Ozone layer.

We now have ample evidence that heavily implicates human activity as the main cause of the rapid change in climate over the last 200 years that's moving far quicker than any cycles the planet has gone through over the prior million years. The body of scientific evidence that means we've been able to determine changes in climate the planet has experienced, both over extended periods of time and due to catastrophic events, is drawn from the same pool as that which tells us we have a large cause for concern about what humanity is doing to our atmosphere.

Science, done properly, always leaves room for doubt in the event of new evidence that challenges current knowledge but as things stand the science is telling us it's humanity driving the pace of climate change we're experiencing. The only real open question is what affect this will have on life, particularly humanity, on earth.

You pretty much proved my point in that last sentence.  Humans are only concerned about how it affects humanity and their own habitat.  Hence the reference to arrogance.  Of course humans can strive to reduce carbon emissions and that's all well and good, but is no guarantee that climate change won't still occur.  There are many other factors that don't involve us.  As far as I'm concerned, I think Greta is too young and not educated enough to fully understand the big picture of the planet.  Yes, she's creating awareness but the doom and gloom fashion in which she presents herself only comes across as negative hyperbole and malcontent.  People don't respond very well to that.  If she wants to be an activist and a leader, she needs to come across in a more positive and hopeful manner.  She's way to young to be that pissed off.

[El Barto]

All of a sudden humans show up and we're arrogant enough to think that we caused it and somehow have to fix it?

A small proportion of humans are smart enough to have developed an understanding of fundamental physics, the chemistry that springs from it and how human activity is impacting the atmosphere. We already know we can have a large scale impact on the atmosphere from the impact of CFCs on the Ozone layer.

We now have ample evidence that heavily implicates human activity as the main cause of the rapid change in climate over the last 200 years that's moving far quicker than any cycles the planet has gone through over the prior million years. The body of scientific evidence that means we've been able to determine changes in climate the planet has experienced, both over extended periods of time and due to catastrophic events, is drawn from the same pool as that which tells us we have a large cause for concern about what humanity is doing to our atmosphere.

Science, done properly, always leaves room for doubt in the event of new evidence that challenges current knowledge but as things stand the science is telling us it's humanity driving the pace of climate change we're experiencing. The only real open question is what affect this will have on life, particularly humanity, on earth.

You pretty much proved my point in that last sentence.  Humans are only concerned about how it affects humanity and their own habitat.  Hence the reference to arrogance.  Of course humans can strive to reduce carbon emissions and that's all well and good, but is no guarantee that climate change won't still occur.  There are many other factors that don't involve us.  As far as I'm concerned, I think Greta is too young and not educated enough to fully understand the big picture of the planet.  Yes, she's creating awareness but the doom and gloom fashion in which she presents herself only comes across as negative hyperbole and malcontent.  People don't respond very well to that.  If she wants to be an activist and a leader, she needs to come across in a more positive and hopeful manner.  She's way to young to be that pissed off.

You keep referring to arrogance, and yet your problem with Great is that she doesn't conform to your ideal of an activist.

[XJDenton]

All of a sudden humans show up and we're arrogant enough to think that we caused it and somehow have to fix it?

A small proportion of humans are smart enough to have developed an understanding of fundamental physics, the chemistry that springs from it and how human activity is impacting the atmosphere. We already know we can have a large scale impact on the atmosphere from the impact of CFCs on the Ozone layer.

We now have ample evidence that heavily implicates human activity as the main cause of the rapid change in climate over the last 200 years that's moving far quicker than any cycles the planet has gone through over the prior million years. The body of scientific evidence that means we've been able to determine changes in climate the planet has experienced, both over extended periods of time and due to catastrophic events, is drawn from the same pool as that which tells us we have a large cause for concern about what humanity is doing to our atmosphere.

Science, done properly, always leaves room for doubt in the event of new evidence that challenges current knowledge but as things stand the science is telling us it's humanity driving the pace of climate change we're experiencing. The only real open question is what affect this will have on life, particularly humanity, on earth.

You pretty much proved my point in that last sentence.  Humans are only concerned about how it affects humanity and their own habitat.  Hence the reference to arrogance.  Of course humans can strive to reduce carbon emissions and that's all well and good, but is no guarantee that climate change won't still occur.  There are many other factors that don't involve us.  As far as I'm concerned, I think Greta is too young and not educated enough to fully understand the big picture of the planet.  Yes, she's creating awareness but the doom and gloom fashion in which she presents herself only comes across as negative hyperbole and malcontent.  People don't respond very well to that.  If she wants to be an activist and a leader, she needs to come across in a more positive and hopeful manner.  She's way to young to be that pissed off.

She is however intelligent enough to listen to the people who are, and have spent their life's work studying it. Unlike some people.

In any case, the younger you are, the worse the effects of climate change you are likely to live through. She's entirely the right age to be pissed off.

[Stadler]

All of a sudden humans show up and we're arrogant enough to think that we caused it and somehow have to fix it?

A small proportion of humans are smart enough to have developed an understanding of fundamental physics, the chemistry that springs from it and how human activity is impacting the atmosphere. We already know we can have a large scale impact on the atmosphere from the impact of CFCs on the Ozone layer.

We now have ample evidence that heavily implicates human activity as the main cause of the rapid change in climate over the last 200 years that's moving far quicker than any cycles the planet has gone through over the prior million years. The body of scientific evidence that means we've been able to determine changes in climate the planet has experienced, both over extended periods of time and due to catastrophic events, is drawn from the same pool as that which tells us we have a large cause for concern about what humanity is doing to our atmosphere.

Science, done properly, always leaves room for doubt in the event of new evidence that challenges current knowledge but as things stand the science is telling us it's humanity driving the pace of climate change we're experiencing. The only real open question is what affect this will have on life, particularly humanity, on earth.

You pretty much proved my point in that last sentence.  Humans are only concerned about how it affects humanity and their own habitat.  Hence the reference to arrogance.  Of course humans can strive to reduce carbon emissions and that's all well and good, but is no guarantee that climate change won't still occur.  There are many other factors that don't involve us.  As far as I'm concerned, I think Greta is too young and not educated enough to fully understand the big picture of the planet.  Yes, she's creating awareness but the doom and gloom fashion in which she presents herself only comes across as negative hyperbole and malcontent.  People don't respond very well to that.  If she wants to be an activist and a leader, she needs to come across in a more positive and hopeful manner.  She's way to young to be that pissed off.

She is however intelligent enough to listen to the people who are, and have spent their life's work studying it. Unlike some people.

In any case, the younger you are, the worse the effects of climate change you are likely to live through. She's entirely the right age to be pissed off.

"Listen" or "agree with"?  Because for me the two are often confused.  Too often people are lauded for simply agreeing, and that minimizes the necessity for reasonable disagreement.   "Agreeing" doesn't mean "right" or "correct".   I'm not lauding her for "agreeing".   

I LISTEN to climate scientists and honor their life's work in studying it.   And I even agree that our temperatures are rising and there will be impacts to the planet and mankind.  I've LISTENED.   I don't (necessarily) agree that the U.S. should bear the burden alone (vis-a-vis China), nor, in the U.S., should corporations bear the burden alone (vis-a-vis the government generally).

[Dublagent66]

All of a sudden humans show up and we're arrogant enough to think that we caused it and somehow have to fix it?

A small proportion of humans are smart enough to have developed an understanding of fundamental physics, the chemistry that springs from it and how human activity is impacting the atmosphere. We already know we can have a large scale impact on the atmosphere from the impact of CFCs on the Ozone layer.

We now have ample evidence that heavily implicates human activity as the main cause of the rapid change in climate over the last 200 years that's moving far quicker than any cycles the planet has gone through over the prior million years. The body of scientific evidence that means we've been able to determine changes in climate the planet has experienced, both over extended periods of time and due to catastrophic events, is drawn from the same pool as that which tells us we have a large cause for concern about what humanity is doing to our atmosphere.

Science, done properly, always leaves room for doubt in the event of new evidence that challenges current knowledge but as things stand the science is telling us it's humanity driving the pace of climate change we're experiencing. The only real open question is what affect this will have on life, particularly humanity, on earth.

You pretty much proved my point in that last sentence.  Humans are only concerned about how it affects humanity and their own habitat.  Hence the reference to arrogance.  Of course humans can strive to reduce carbon emissions and that's all well and good, but is no guarantee that climate change won't still occur.  There are many other factors that don't involve us.  As far as I'm concerned, I think Greta is too young and not educated enough to fully understand the big picture of the planet.  Yes, she's creating awareness but the doom and gloom fashion in which she presents herself only comes across as negative hyperbole and malcontent.  People don't respond very well to that.  If she wants to be an activist and a leader, she needs to come across in a more positive and hopeful manner.  She's way to young to be that pissed off.

You keep referring to arrogance, and yet your problem with Great is that she doesn't conform to your ideal of an activist.

I never said anything about ideal activists or conformity.  Couldn't fucking care less about activism.  It was merely a suggestion and opinion if she wants to be successful at it.  I was expressing my honest thoughts as the thread title suggests.  If all she wants to do is make people think she's be a whiny little bitch, that won't work.  Especially at that age.  Any other false assumptions you'd like to make?

All of a sudden humans show up and we're arrogant enough to think that we caused it and somehow have to fix it?

A small proportion of humans are smart enough to have developed an understanding of fundamental physics, the chemistry that springs from it and how human activity is impacting the atmosphere. We already know we can have a large scale impact on the atmosphere from the impact of CFCs on the Ozone layer.

We now have ample evidence that heavily implicates human activity as the main cause of the rapid change in climate over the last 200 years that's moving far quicker than any cycles the planet has gone through over the prior million years. The body of scientific evidence that means we've been able to determine changes in climate the planet has experienced, both over extended periods of time and due to catastrophic events, is drawn from the same pool as that which tells us we have a large cause for concern about what humanity is doing to our atmosphere.

Science, done properly, always leaves room for doubt in the event of new evidence that challenges current knowledge but as things stand the science is telling us it's humanity driving the pace of climate change we're experiencing. The only real open question is what affect this will have on life, particularly humanity, on earth.

You pretty much proved my point in that last sentence.  Humans are only concerned about how it affects humanity and their own habitat.  Hence the reference to arrogance.  Of course humans can strive to reduce carbon emissions and that's all well and good, but is no guarantee that climate change won't still occur.  There are many other factors that don't involve us.  As far as I'm concerned, I think Greta is too young and not educated enough to fully understand the big picture of the planet.  Yes, she's creating awareness but the doom and gloom fashion in which she presents herself only comes across as negative hyperbole and malcontent.  People don't respond very well to that.  If she wants to be an activist and a leader, she needs to come across in a more positive and hopeful manner.  She's way to young to be that pissed off.

She is however intelligent enough to listen to the people who are, and have spent their life's work studying it. Unlike some people.

In any case, the younger you are, the worse the effects of climate change you are likely to live through. She's entirely the right age to be pissed off.

Hey Doc, if all you want to do it take things out of context and discredit one's opinion, I'd prefer that you just move on.  Whaddaya think?