Why so critical to what this girl is trying to do, which is making especially young people interested in protecting the planet from global warming caused by man made greenhouse gasses?
If she made a stunt by crossing the Atlantic by sailboat rather than fly to get attention for her cause, is that such a bad thing? She certainly obtained publicity and the attention of the youth all over the world, incl. in USA.
It is obviously hard to believe that this young autistic girl could be doing this just because she believe that it is something that threaten the future of her generation and the next, not for personal monetary gain, fame and glory.
She is not joining the Speaking Event circus or in other forums as a paid speaker, like so many former Presidents and washed up academics,
Is she being used by others for their gain, whether monetary or for their cause?
Yes certainly. Both sides in the debate about climate change is using her to the fullest by either glorify her, or making her into a villain that is being manipulated by the other side.
It is hard to believe, but there are still some people in the world that is not steered by greed, but from what I have seen and read about this girl and her family, they are such “exceptional” species.
Once the racists, homophobic, misogynistic or toxic masculinity label has been stuck on someone there’s no coming back from that. Those are the trump cards that liberals use when they can’t defend themselves any longer but still want to walk away with a sense of winning. You can’t argue with a racist, homophobe, misogynist or someone with toxic masculinity & a person can’t really prove they are innocent of those accusations. Liberals win again. The girl is a Saint!
It’s not just a empty claim, there are several links in the article to research papers which the article was based on. Not looking to accuse anyone of anything. Just trying to make sense of the response to this teenage girl activist. She hits the trifecta.
Of course anyone is free to dispute the findings of the linked studies.
I already found that they want $43 for me to read the thing. And the second one doesn’t look very promising but I have a request in for a copy which may or may not be fulfilled depending on the author’s mood of the moment. Papers cited in the SciAm article are $12 and $36 respectively.
The Great Barrier Reef is well off the coast (think up about 100) and totally unaffected by runoff which is limited to the area much closer to the coast. There are coastal reefs but they are also in good condition. Here’s a real climate scientist’s report of a visit.
Many uninformed commentators, such as you, mistake the Great Barrier Reef itself with the much larger Great Barrier Reef Marine Park which covers a huge area. Runoff obviously affects river mouths and the reefs closer to the coast (ie part of the park area) but much of the hysteria about the disaster that will befall the GBR is just lefty hyperbole. They need disasters and forecast calamities to keep the money rolling in so the “reef scientists” can keep swanning about snorkelling and diving on the reef.
They sacked a real scientist (Peter Ridd - look him up) who suggested their research wasn’t verified and validated ie nobody dared check the alarmist supposedly “peer reviewed” papers the alarmist scientists regularly regurgitate. Yet these very same alarmist papers produced by government funding are the justification for the extreme measures taken to “save” the reef - which doesn’t need saving - it’s been around a while and can handle climate changes, sea level changes as well as commercial fishing, tourism. coastal farming and industry and heavy shipping. Oh and don’t forget crown of thorns starfish eating all the coral.
But the planet doesn’t need protecting from global warming caused by man made greenhouse gasses because there’s no such threat. It’s never been proved that they cause any measurable global warming.
The Planet needs protecting from climate zealots set on ruining civilisation as we know it. Those zealots are responsible for Greta. They are behind her. They are happy she’s a sweet, troubled teenager and therefore difficult to attack.
I’ll believe teenagers like her when all of the great captains here move out of their shipboard accommodation and hand it over to the most junior teenager in their crew, take orders from the teenager and apologise for ever believing all the stupid experience they have built up over their lives at sea.
Admittedly the effect of runoffs from land decreases the further out from the coast you get, but the distance to the outer reefs are not that great all along the Queensland coast.
BTW; I sailed up and down the inshore route of the Great Barrier Reef for 18 months, both the full length to Thursday Island and entering and leaving though Cooks Passage en route to/from PNG. (No Pilot and without radar)
Admittedly that was 50 years ago, but I don’t thing the GBR has move or change much in form since then, except the bleaching caused by global warming and spiny starfish invasion eating up the live coral. Excessive tourism is also affect it’s health I hear.
What proof do you need? When the temperature has risen by +2 derg. C it is no good to say; Oh SHIIIIT, I was wrong!!
You and I will not see that day probably, but the next generations will have to live with the consequences.
I read the article & clicked on the link. The link directed me to something called, The International Journal of Masculinity Studies?? What the heck?
Nope, no way, not me. I’m not going to be tricked into defending a group of people that have been labeled as racist, homophobic or misogynistic. Defending a group of people accused of those things guarantees I will be accused of being on of those things. Everyone knows that.
I concur they are entirely ‘uninformed’. Just check how many of those organisations are fully funded by the government (which has the most money) … and as I told you, therefore dependent on creating ever more scary stories about the impending death of the reef. All of their predictions so far have been wrong. They now make them further into the future for their own safety.
Not so. The global temperature has increased about one degree C (that may be two degrees F if you fiddle the rounding errors) since the 1870s.
And who says we dun it? Uh? You?
BTW a warmer world is better for all. Fewer people die in heat than in cold (even in Norway!), plants grow better, food is more abundant. More people live in the tropics than in the arctic. Why?
I give up. How can I disagree with such superbly research and reasoned arguments
Working for, or being supported by the Government clearly make 95% of scientist unable to publish anything other than what they are told by that same government.
Not the world I know, but obviously your reality.
Do you believe that the middle of Australia need more heat and less rainfall?
PS> Maybe good for the Alice Springs Boat Race, so it doesn’t have to be cancelled because of water in the creek.
Or that York Peninsula, NW Australia, or Gulf of Carpentaria and Arnhem Land need more and stronger cyclones?
I was in Darwin in 2006 for the strongest cyclone that had ever hit Australia, called Monica, with gust of 320 km/h when it hit a abo settlement on the north coast of Arnhem land and flattened it. Here is the track:
Luckily it missed Darwin, otherwise it may have been a repeat of 1974 cyclone that flattened that city.
