Greta Thunberg

That's not science. It's something a scientist-glasses-wearing Jodie Foster would say in a Hollywood disaster movie.

Exactly! It isn’t right that she’s saying this stuff and scaring kids shitless while adult stand around her applauding like trained seals.

Does anyone else find the way Time magazine have done a photoshoot of Greta Thunberg as it to say underneath that campaigning image is just another young girl yearning to be soft and sexy?

No, I don't see that. Thunberg is not a young girl, she's 16, a young woman but constantly presented as much younger than she is, which she looks maybe because she is a naturally late developer but I suspect, sadly, due to her eating disorder. The images remind me of a much younger child playing dress up in mummy's clothes.

This presentation of a 16 year old as a much younger child is one of the things I find most uncomfortable about the whole situation.

From the article in The Times:

The Climate Emergency Plan’s talking points are Greta’s talking points. “Around the year 2030, in 10 years, 252 days and 10 hours,” the Scandinavian Cassandra told British parliamentarians in April, “we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it.”

That's not science. It's something a scientist-glasses-wearing Jodie Foster would say in a Hollywood disaster movie.

Add to all of that the Nobel Prize nomination and I suspect we will see an about face in some of that fawning media...

I hope she has someone near to her who is ready and capable of supporting her when she reaches her limit!

Does anyone else find the way Time magazine have done a photoshoot of Greta Thunberg as it to say underneath that campaigning image is just another young girl yearning to be soft and sexy?

Maybe she does?

Why does the media always have to dumb down issues to their facile level?

Not sure if these links will work

scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/71170500_2428053640622301_895618341845073920_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_eui2=AeGTfX-hY53086BgLOT6VX7s6W2ma8VoVN3EuF7aJ7jgJ_8EYMCJxztc00W6yc4ImCeGNkkhNBQE70UV4SLb7Gojx-AxiiDn0gmiWPs_lgBIIA&_nc_oc=AQlbsliTrtjSZgNapZ_AVQ12OLKa0QdnCUWbsxTI6q3U9PO170MXYe06CpqhrYNnFv0&_nc_ht=scontent-lht6-1.xx&oh=71a60a42b85ea29c5e4dd9f8b0112247&oe=5E3548CF

scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/71222134_2428053687288963_8789838020816666624_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&_nc_eui2=AeGN8fMS4oDwzGBgAx61slMmbYFUGZoSj8xKa2EyQn9Ez-ksi0HAhhRUnaVHJUd64xUZ5bwIyOmY6ZtMiYthEag0TEcGlXywoiY3FBdmsf-EWg&_nc_oc=AQlpyan-CSVGyaObEOaqVASSLvFReR0BF_wqL9Lwio5J4x8XsJanpNMBGNN3OKDQPI0&_nc_ht=scontent-lht6-1.xx&oh=0b6c9b492cbd18160b01f29efd586614&oe=5DF7A9C9

But according to the scientists there is no balanced perspective?

Of course there is. Science isn’t about consensus. That’s not how it works.

Thanks to those who got through my earlier long post which has quite a few errors as I wrote in haster when I was tired.

Just to summarise my points:

Why are the main stream meda so invested in promoting the Greta myth?

What will the impact be on her when they turn their back on her as she herself has said it has given her more sense of be part of something that before

Why is her campaigning basically apolitical and focusing on her personal reaction to the issue (as she understands it - something wicked being done to young people by selfish older people)?

Why do so many people, even in the hard left, accept a message that in fact is only true of a small western white elite who have had a life style of high consumerism whilst many in their own countries, but even more so those in developing countries have never had.

Why does this message apeal to so many people so that across the globe young people waved off by doting parents are re-enacting photo op moments and sharing emotional stories of how worrying it is that they might be arrested. Golly, gosh, how awful! (Though noticeable that today when again there were friday actions across the world the main stream media was a bit yawn, didn't we do that last week?)

Why is it all about public statements and never about how they are going to change their over consumption. Am beginning to feel they do know they might have to give up their social media life style and are basically pleading for the grown ups to find an eco friendly way of producing the electricity that will allow they to share on line their hyper politcal selfie moments. (Compare these actions to the real life confrontation generated protests in Hong Kong. There young people really are on the front line - and in real danger from police).

I will admit that part of my sceptical response to Greta Thunberg is influenced by the truely moronic actions of Extinction Rebellion (one of whose founders admits they though it up during an acid trip!) and as far as I know she has never told them to behave in the way they do.

This is one of the articles (similar to ones published in other countries since the start of the year but have not dented the myth) pointing out how the original photo of the lone Greta protest was a construct. www.thetimes.co.uk/article/greta-thunberg-and-the-plot-to-forge-a-climate-warrior-9blhz9mjv

And this is Greta Thunberg's response (or is it really her/) from her (TM) facebook page www.facebook.com/gretathunbergsweden/posts/773676963000126 - which makes me realise if any of us are on facebook we could ask these questions.

As a footnote having raised the issue of the level of pollution through computing and particularly cloud based applications, how many of you use grey water (or in the US gray water)? One of those things that again poverty are more likely to make you implement as much as climate change issues. Just as being part of a communit dependent on welfare and foodbanks are not contributing to the emmissions from jet flights and throw away clothing.

Where are the grown-ups who should be comforting her anxiety, soothing her and presenting her with a more balanced perspective?

But according to the scientists there is no balanced perspective?

but nobody gets this amount of establishment attention and support unless it somehow suits powerful global corporate interests.

I guess the question is: are those global corporate interests (the organisation We Don’t Have Time acc that article) planning to put in place a green economy which is going to keep us under the tipping point?

It may still be capitalism but if it benefits the world why should we oppose it?

I think that what is happening to Greta is tantamount to child abuse and I can’t understand how any adult could stand by and let this happen to her or think that it’s a good thing in any way.

She has a long history of various manifestations of depression and anxiety, now she’s in a tremendously exposed and high profile position with the eyes of social media upon her. How happy would any of us be if it was our daughter in this position?

She is being pumped full of eco-anxiety by adults and is simply regurgitating what she’s heard - and is being applauded for it by people who should know much better. Where are the grown-ups who should be comforting her anxiety, soothing her and presenting her with a more balanced perspective?

This is so wrong.

but nobody gets this amount of establishment attention and support unless it somehow suits powerful global corporate interests.

That was a really interesting link. Thanks LangCleg.

Also thought the point made upthread about the differences between the UK and Swedish education systems was important in understanding Greta. Cory Morningstar, who wrote the blog Langcleg posted, reports she stood outside the Swedish Parliament for 3 weeks. Don’t think any school students have tried that here!!!

Greta herself seems lovely - passionate, articulated and committed. I believe in her cause.

However, I'm cynical enough to note that nobody but nobody gets this amount of establishment attention and support unless it somehow suits powerful global corporate interests. If we haven't learned that lesson via transactivism, I don't know when we will.

It's garnered a great deal of criticism. Even so, worth reading the perspective of a non-establishment environmentalist:

www.theartofannihilation.com/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-for-consent-the-political-economy-of-the-non-profit-industrial-complex/

She is mainly asking people to listen to the scientists and science, not to her as such.

@somebrightmorning but not everything she says is necessarily truth.

I am also torn between admiration and worrying about her.

But I think that when you have that awful burning feeling in you, then you find a way to take it outside you, and acting, it can be very calming.

I think also for a young autistic person being taught to stop thinking about something that's true (like the NT's seem to manage so easily) is intensely stressful.

RadicalStitch Thu 26-Sep-19 14:48:28

I'm not convinced it's a great idea having a young girl in the spotlight this much.
I worry for her mental health.
I worry that she is being used as a political pawn.
I'm not very keen on all our children being taught how to be activists instead of being at school and really learning about the science about the destruction of the planet.
I'm not that keen on kids leaving school to protest but not actually making any inconvenient changes to their own lives which would be environmentally beneficial.

I agree with this, am very uncomfortable with poster children

She is a pawn.

This ageist rhetoric is a preamble to letting an increasingly ageing population suffer and die as the resources will be lacking for their care. Not Greta herself per se, but that’s why the powers that be are amplifying her message.

Great post stumbledin

I like GT and think she speaks well but I also think fostering an intergenerational rift is misguided and unfair. Previous generations were incredibly 'make do and mend' compared to now. Consumerism has been driven by profiteering corporations and still is. GT is right though that politicians have to stop chasing GDP as the holy grail which is why they want us to consume, consume, consume. It is utterly incompatible with care of the environment and resources. Yet every news story about the economy shrinking is still received with horror.

The child of a friend of mine attended one of the strikes. Her mum gave her a lift in the car...Prior to that they had jetted off on a long haul flight somewhere. It's not exactly be the change you want to see. I told my kids they could go to a strike with my blessing if they managed to turn their bedroom lights off every morning between then and the next strike. Epic fail.

I'm not against nuclear power either. I think solar is the perfect limitless renewable resource but I guess the technology for storage and transfer isn't there yet.

dread thanks for pointing that out, I’m very glad she wasn’t travelling alone.
I also think renewables could be used a lot more and tidal needs more investment as it could provide reliable and predictable power. Offshore wind farms are also amazingly effective at producing energy to cover domestic requirements and I would like to see more of them.
My main concern re nuclear is the risk of it going wrong like after the Japanese tsunami. And with extreme weather becoming more commonplace the risks to nuclear power stations may increase eg hurricane/flooding/ storm damage etc.
Better solar renewables could potentially help in 3rd world countries lacking in infrastructure esp in areas where they have a lot of sun
There is definitely more that Governments could be doing now eg subsidies for home renewables have been reduced - we previously were going to get solar panels but then payments for producing energy were cut by 90% and it would have taken more than 20 years to recoup the cost so we ended up not doing it. Schemes like that do cost money in short term but on a bigger scale reducing our use of fossil fuels will perhaps help slow down global warming and all the problems it is causing so would seem like a good investment for governments to be making. Perhaps the movement currently being galvanised by Greta will encourage governments to make these schemes more of a focus

Wealth is a better indicator of contribution to greenhouse emissions than age. Rich people fly more, drive larger cars, have larger houses to heat, etc.

But I don't think Greta and her generation are the first teenagers to blame adults for their woes. When I was a young'un, the big threat was the Cold War and nuclear annihilation, and I remember being quite angry at the old people who had placed this threat over our heads.

Exactly. They look screwed either way but I wouldn't blame them if they decided rather be screwed with electricity than without.
I don't know enough about nuclear to decide yet - it's unpalatable for me even to be reading up on it but there you go!

Don't get me wrong, nuclear is not ideal. Apart from safety questions and the issue of weapons as opposed to power making people understandably wary, it is ultimately a finite resource.

However, neither wind nor solar is predictable enough to act as a full replacement for fossil fuels. The only thing I can think of the might, potentially be in the long run is tidal power and right now we are nowhere near having large scale tidal energy production. Even if we do figure that one out I'm not sure if it would be enough.

Has nuclear improved since back then? Waste iirc was the issue

Also the people with the least will be most affected as it gets hotter

I worry for her. The recent speech where she was angry and crying, made me concerned about how this will all end. I've been involved in campaigns around climate change for years. There have always been young activists. Where GT differs is the generational blame argument; the lack of nuance in the response and tbh a lack of understanding of global issues and international development.
I wonder if she's being set up as some kind of false prophet so she can be knocked down.