Grumpy Greta: blah blah blah

[User.45]

Fighting global warming costs money which most of these kids have no clue about. Every dollar needs to be evaluated if it's worth spending on something in nature. Nobody has proven that without man's involvement that the world wouldn't still continue to warm. We warmed after the last ice age and might be doing the same thing nowadays. I'm not convinced it's worth the effort unless I know the cost. The next climate scientist who shakes their research as proof I say: follow the money. These folk need to live on research grants into their topic so need this to be seen as a human crisis.

FWIW, where I live in snowy country we will get less snow and more rain during the summer. I am OK with that and I also don't live in a flood plane, live in a place with plenty of water, and live well above sea level. Life is about choices and if you want to live in Phoenix then don't complain about global warming. You live in a desert for goodness sakes.

Congrats! This is the biggest horseshit I've read on this forum to date. If it were up to guys like you, we'd still be smoking and lead would still be added to gasoline. And you're telling Greta why she's skipping school. Just wow.

 

[hulugu]

To add to this, on the cost analysis:

Swiss Re, one of the world's largest insurance companies, estimated that the effects of climate change could "shave 11 percent to 14 percent off global economic output by 2050 compared with growth levels without climate change, according to a report from Swiss Re, one of the world’s largest providers of insurance to other insurance companies. That amounts to as much as $23 trillion in reduced annual global economic output worldwide as a result of climate change," the New York Times reported in April.

....“For hazards where confidence of a direct link with global warming is medium/high, such as heat waves, wildfires, droughts and torrential rainfall, we are adjusting our pricing model,” Jerome Jean Haegeli, Swiss Re’s chief economist, said in a statement.

The projections could also influence investments by Swiss Re and other insurance companies, which collectively manage about $30 trillion in assets, according to Mr. Haegeli.

However, Swiss Re estimated that if countries "succeed at holding average global temperature increases to less than two degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels — the goal set by the 2015 Paris accord, an agreement among nations to fight climate change — economic losses by midcentury would be marginal."

"The company found that most countries’ economies would be no more than 5 percent smaller than would otherwise be the case," the newspaper wrote.

Stanford estimated that crop losses alone in the U.S. caused by global warming was around $27 billion over 27 years from 1991 to 2017.

As the journal Nature noted in August, researchers found that if human beings fail to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to levels designated in the Paris Agreement, the economic cost would range from $150 trillion to as much as $792 trillion by 2100. However, if we deal with climate change, the net benefit would be $127 trillion to $616 trillion by 2100.

 

[MEJHarrison]

She's young and hasn't any experience of life.

That's all true. But judging the merits of someone's opinion based solely on their age isn't a personality trait I'd be wanting to brag about. In my opinion, attacking someone for the year they were born rather than the words they're saying, is just weak. If that's all you got on her, I'm not impressed.

In your defense, if your outlook on life is "Well shit. It's a tough life and nobody owes you jack shit. You make the best of it the best you can and be thankful you were born.", it's not a surprise that you don't have a "make the world a better place" attitude. That's the "accept your lot in life" speech, not the "you can be anything" speech.

 

[Pumbaa]

You might be OK listening to a kid but I have zero interest in listening to her. I simply don't care to listen to her.

That much was obvious from your posting, but thanks for admitting it I guess.

She’s certainly not asking you to listen to her, nor is she asking you to rely on her expertise. She’s basically all “I don’t want you to listen to me, I want you to listen to the scientists and then take action”.

 

[dogslobber]

Are you going to share your solution?

Sometimes doing nothing is the right answer.

 

[Pumbaa]

Sometimes doing nothing is the right answer.

Sometimes absolutely, starting this thread is a good case in point.

 

[dogslobber]

She’s certainly not asking you to listen to her, nor is she asking you to rely on her expertise. She’s basically all “I don’t want you to listen to me, I want you to listen to the scientists and then take action”.

"I don't want you to listen to me...", says Greta.

OK.

 

[dogslobber]

That's all true. But judging the merits of someone's opinion based solely on their age isn't a personality trait I'd be wanting to brag about. In my opinion, attacking someone for the year they were born rather than the words they're saying, is just weak. If that's all you got on her, I'm not impressed.

In your defense, if your outlook on life is "Well shit. It's a tough life and nobody owes you jack shit. You make the best of it the best you can and be thankful you were born.", it's not a surprise that you don't have a "make the world a better place" attitude. That's the "accept your lot in life" speech, not the "you can be anything" speech.

Saying she's young and inexperienced isn't attacking anybody. It's merely pointing out the truth.

The mantra of what can the world do for me "blah, blah, blah" (to quote Greta) is self-centered and egotistical. Now that is a trait of the current young generation who moan about everything to everyone who listens. I don't listen because I'm not interested. Life is what you make of it and it's foolhardy to expect everything to be your way or the highway. See. That works two ways. Greta and her merry band of people without responsibility might think everything should be their way and they think everybody should listen to them. But no it don't work that way.

 

[dogslobber]

Sometimes absolutely, starting this thread is a good case in point.

I see. So you don't want to entertain multiple view points? Are you saying if somebody says something you don't agree to then they shouldn't say anything? Good job I don't listen to you then LOL.

 

[dogslobber]

Congrats! This is the biggest horseshit I've read on this forum to date. If it were up to guys like you, we'd still be smoking and lead would still be added to gasoline. And you're telling Greta why she's skipping school. Just wow.

What is your point you're struggling to make?

 

[dogslobber]

Greta seems to understand climatology a helluva lot better than you do. And, there are numerous studies indicating the cost of mitigating climate change, as well as the cost of not doing so, and there's a huge human cost to boot.

As for following the money, your entire argument here was baked in the halls of law firms for Exxon and BP by well-heeled monied lawyers and PR flacks. You want to talk about following the money, how about paying attention to a massive business rather than the relatively paltry research grants that go to a few hundred climatologists sounding an emergency.

And, just because you live in a place that won't be affected by climate change immediately doesn't mean you won't be hit by climate change. What's your water supply look like with less snow? Do you actually get more rain, or just less moisture? And, even if we accept you live in some well-protected region, entire industries, including chocolate and coffee, are likely to be affected by warming temperatures.

I want to see the price tag to decide if it's worth saving the planet or not. Screams of an emergency are all very well but everything has cost and that cost has to be justified. We can't save the planet "at any cost" as that doesn't add up and isn't rational. It's cheaper to not listen to climate scientists as they want to spend untold fortunes by sounds of it. I really don't know how big oil manipulates us but I'm sure they do as they have lobbyists to help out with buying off lawmakers. But the real cost has to be justified properly and random studies by dubiously funded think tanks or individuals don't hold water. The answer might be we're not meant to save the planet. Maybe we should all eventually die just like the dinosaurs did.

I think my area will be just fine with a change to weather patterns. Midler winters and wetter summers will do this area the world of good. I don't like chocolate or drink coffee so not sure the point you're making there.

 

[ericwn]

She's young and hasn't any experience of life. I don't need no teenager preaching and telling me what is or isn't up with the world.

So you’re just upset about her speaking up because of her age?

 

[ericwn]

Are you going to share your solution?

His uncle didn’t provide one. Maybe they both can recommend a well tasting sand?

 

[dogslobber]

To add to this, on the cost analysis:

Swiss Re, one of the world's largest insurance companies, estimated that the effects of climate change could "shave 11 percent to 14 percent off global economic output by 2050 compared with growth levels without climate change, according to a report from Swiss Re, one of the world’s largest providers of insurance to other insurance companies. That amounts to as much as $23 trillion in reduced annual global economic output worldwide as a result of climate change," the New York Times reported in April.



However, Swiss Re estimated that if countries "succeed at holding average global temperature increases to less than two degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels — the goal set by the 2015 Paris accord, an agreement among nations to fight climate change — economic losses by midcentury would be marginal."

"The company found that most countries’ economies would be no more than 5 percent smaller than would otherwise be the case," the newspaper wrote.

Stanford estimated that crop losses alone in the U.S. caused by global warming was around $27 billion over 27 years from 1991 to 2017.

As the journal Nature noted in August, researchers found that if human beings fail to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to levels designated in the Paris Agreement, the economic cost would range from $150 trillion to as much as $792 trillion by 2100. However, if we deal with climate change, the net benefit would be $127 trillion to $616 trillion by 2100.

But, again, how do we know we can control the temperature and it isn't a nature thing that the temperature will increase. How much will it cost to fix? $1b? $100b? $1T? $100T? $1kT? $1 zillion (or whatever)? You get the idea. How much does it cost to save these telephone numbers in savings if we don't do anything? Show me the money and I'll tell you if it's worth it to me.

 

[fooferdoggie]

She's young and hasn't any experience of life. I don't need no teenager preaching and telling me what is or isn't up with the world.

well that has not worked for some adults.

 

[dogslobber]

And, it's worth noting that even Exxon—the company that spent billions on "think tanks" and other moves to undermine the idea of climate change for almost 40 years—has said that it believes the "risk of climate change is real" and they support the Paris accord, and policy options such as a carbon tax.

From Exxon's blog Energy Factor:



Of course, the company still spends millions to undermine climate action, spending at least $690,000 in grants to climate science denier groups in 2019, and it has spent nearly $1 million in contributions to congressional campaigns helmed by science deniers. And, as this document notes, ExxonMobil spent nearly $37 million from 1998 to 2019 toward groups like the US Chamber of Commerce, the American Enterprise Institute and the Manhattan Institute, who routinely attack climate science, or arguing against policy prescriptions.

Notably, groups fueled by the Koch family—who are heavily invested in oil and gas—spent another $175 million during the same period.

But, sure, let's spend time haranguing a teenage girl about her sharp criticism of Boris Johnson, rather than acknowledge that oil and gas companies spent millions undermine climate science, and are only know pushing for some action because they've figured out the business model and know they can gish-gallop away any real action.

I agree that oil companies are crooked and evil doers who buy off the politicians and will do anything they can to suppress dissenters. It doesn't cost me money directly when they do this. It will cost me money when somebody stops selling petrol so I can't gas up my car. That would be a problem. But all these folk who scream that oil companies are evil I want them to give up all their oil based comforts in life as a sacrifice for the cost. No more toilet paper, plastics, etc, for you. Show me you're willing to give some for the cause then we can look at how much it will cause.

Will Greta give up jetting around the world First class to support her cause?

 

[dogslobber]

well that has not worked for some adults.

No and they don't have anybody to blame but themselves. But how many adults have you heard say they wished somebody had told them xyz when they were a kid so they wouldn't have done abc. Yet there's been proclamations that Greta is wise because of her youth or some other mirth-inducing stories.

 

[Pumbaa]

I see. So you don't want to entertain multiple view points? Are you saying if somebody says something you don't agree to then they shouldn't say anything? Good job I don't listen to you then LOL.

I would hardly call “Why isn't she at school?” a view point worthy of entertaining, no. Neither is dismissing what she is saying due to her age rather than due to what she is saying.

My problem with this thread isn’t that you’re saying things I don’t agree with, it is that you’re saying poorly researched stupid stuff.

I think my area will be just fine with a change to weather patterns. Midler winters and wetter summers will do this area the world of good.

Have fun with all the refugees and foreign powers negatively impacted by climate changes. They’ll love your little corner of the world.

Will Greta give up jetting around the world First class to support her cause?

Except that she isn’t doing that, now is she?

 

[Deleted member 215]

So in other words your view on climate change is "I got mine, so fuck everyone else". That's pretty much the American philosophy, so I can't say it's anything surprising. But maybe people who've lost their homes to floods and wildfires aren't feeling the same way. And maybe when a blizzard knocks out the power for a month in "snow country" you'll feel differently.

 

[dogslobber]

So in other words your view on climate change is "I got mine, so fuck everyone else". That's pretty much the American philosophy, so I can't say it's anything surprising. But maybe people who've lost their homes to floods and wildfires aren't feeling the same way. And maybe when a blizzard knocks out the power for a month in "snow country" you'll feel differently.

What I say is show me the value proposition for what you want to use my tax dollars to do. Climate defenders are always happy to spend other folks money and don't offer any of their own. It is tragic folk lose their homes to floods and wildfires. I don't think I've said otherwise. I have lost power in snow blizzards for extended periods of time so milder winters would help with those issues.

I'm a European.