Fox News and radical right wingers attack 16 year old Greta Thunberg calling her "mentally ill

[DrunkenSano]

Haha

Looking at her eyes and her fake smile, her body language is basically screaming "Save me from this madness. Please, someone save me."

 

[whm1974]

Fox News has apologized

A Fox News guest called Greta Thunberg ‘mentally ill.’ The network apologized for the ‘disgraceful’ comment.

She has an irritating accent (to me), I hate kids getting involved with politics, she does have Aspergers.
She’s the wrong messenger imo

So what what if she has Asperger's, many on that spectrum can be and are highly functional members of the societies they live in. Despite what some poorly informed folks may believe being autistic doesn't mean that that is retarded or stupid.

Autism spectrum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Intellectual disability - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Fanatical Meat]

So what what if she has Asperger's, many on that spectrum can be and are highly functional members of the societies they live in. Despite what some poorly informed folks may believe being autistic doesn't mean that that is retarded or stupid.

Autism spectrum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Intellectual disability - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Agreed, just pointing out the shit stain on Fox wasn’t making crap up

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Looking at her eyes and her fake smile, her body language is basically screaming "Save me from this madness. Please, someone save me."

no, she knew what she was getting into from the start, she backed birthism, she gets zero sympathy.

 

[Vic]

Let's say Greta got her way and imagine what life would be like.

1. The U.S. would immediately lose about 85% of its current energy generation. Widespread brownouts and blackouts would be constant since fossil fuel power is no longer reliably supporting the baseline power needs of the electrical grid. Businesses routinely run diesel power backups to avoid service outages and customer disruptions with fuel obtained on black market.
2. The lack of consistent power completely derails the fledgling and halting efforts to create infrastructure. Stuff like "smart power grids" will be a no-go since the big utilities will no longer be willing to make the needed capital investments. Why spend millions fixing bridges when cars will be limited to the rich who can afford electric models?
3. Many companies including most mid-tier utilities go bankrupt and require federal bailouts. The costs to decommission fossil-fueled plants and infrastructure to keep operations afloat proves impossible for most companies below $100MM in annual revenue and probably much higher than that.
4. Rare earth mineral prices go parabolic. Increased demand for photovoltaic merely to meet core energy use needs like running hospitals completely constrains the availability for consumer goods, with products such as cell phones becoming unavailable for the middle class and poor.
5. Decrease in living standards for the middle class and poor. Curtailing (if not outlawing) fossil fuel for consumer uses makes private automobiles using affordable ICE technology basically impossible. Overloaded public transportation services strain the resources of urban areas.
6. The global supply chain gets broken. Cargo ships aren't running on solar energy anytime soon, so say goodbye to all but the most critical goods being sourced from overseas.
7. Climate change puritans bankrupt entire industries. Just like Greta shamed her own mom into abandoning her career (professional opera singer) because of her concerns about using airplane travel, so will countless others be similarly browbeaten into not travelling unless completely necessary.

I could probably think of dozens more but it gets the basic point across.

Heh, and I bet you say the global warming crowd are the alarmists.

Besides none of that ever possibly happening, I'm sure many of your fellow deniers will be changing their tunes when they get their electric truck with 10,000 lb-ft per wheel and 100 mpg equivalent.

 

[snoopy7548]

"Why improve our lives when we're content with how shitty they are and will continue to be?"

 

[glenn1]

Heh, and I bet you say the global warming crowd are the alarmists.

Besides none of that ever possibly happening, I'm sure many of your fellow deniers will be changing their tunes when they get their electric truck with 10,000 lb-ft per wheel and 100 mpg equivalent.

If the market delivers those types of products (that actually meet customer needs in terms of range, etc. at prices they can afford) and the needed battery technologies and such, that's great because your global top-down authoritarian solutions won't be needed. That's exactly the outcome I want. What's not going to help that happen is some progressive fiat "make a 10k torque 100 MPG truck happen in the next X years so we can go off ICE technology." Just as "paperless offices" couldn't be dictated into existence 20, 30 years ago before the needed technologies were available (for mass/cloud storage at reasonable cost, content management system, natural language processing and search, data ontologies, etc.) so likewise could have dictating the end of fossil fuels when Al Gore and everyone wanted them to. Even now the existing technology isn't really satisfactory for the enormity of the task, just as we don't really have the existing technology to enable a workable manned mission to Mars today. No matter how much you could stomp your feet and say "the future of humanity depends on us creating a Mars colony in the next 5 years" you couldn't do it no matter how much money you threw at it, making a concerted switch to "renewables" that's like 85% of consumption instead of the current 15% just ins't feasible. It will be as technologies evolve, but it's not now. Not unless you like electrical grids to go down because you can't ensure 99.99% maintenance of baseload power and other very large lifestyle impacts that even the Greens aren't going to be willing to accept. Any realistic person knows that fossil fuels will be a big part of the energy mix for the next 20-30 years minimum since the same idiots who spew fantasies about "OMG we're all gonna die" are also those most opposed to nuclear power. They're also the ones who don't understand the differences between non-dispatchable power and such and think the only reason they don't get their way is because some billionaire is jumping into swimming pools of gold instead of the issue actually being a huge technology problem to solve.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

If the market delivers those types of products (that actually meet customer needs in terms of range, etc. at prices they can afford) and the needed battery technologies and such, that's great because your global top-down authoritarian solutions won't be needed. That's exactly the outcome I want. What's not going to help that happen is some progressive fiat "make a 10k torque 100 MPG truck happen in the next X years so we can go off ICE technology." Just as "paperless offices" couldn't be dictated into existence 20, 30 years ago before the needed technologies were available (for mass/cloud storage at reasonable cost, content management system, natural language processing and search, data ontologies, etc.) so likewise could have dictating the end of fossil fuels when Al Gore and everyone wanted them to. Even now the existing technology isn't really satisfactory for the enormity of the task, just as we don't really have the existing technology to enable a workable manned mission to Mars today. No matter how much you could stomp your feet and say "the future of humanity depends on us creating a Mars colony in the next 5 years" you couldn't do it no matter how much money you threw at it, making a concerted switch to "renewables" that's like 85% of consumption instead of the current 15% just ins't feasible. It will be as technologies evolve, but it's not now. Not unless you like electrical grids to go down because you can't ensure 99.99% maintenance of baseload power and other very large lifestyle impacts that even the Greens aren't going to be willing to accept. Any realistic person knows that fossil fuels will be a big part of the energy mix for the next 20-30 years minimum since the same idiots who spew fantasies about "OMG we're all gonna die" are also those most opposed to nuclear power.

While I don't entirely disagree with your base assessment, we also know that up until a point of diminishing returns, there's a direct correlation to work input and speed at which something is completed. Most people clamoring for climate action/work done on saving the planet want resources to be reallocated in such a way that we have faster advancements in things that will help us in that regard, such as energy storage/generation. There's a few entities out there dragging feet on that, primarily because they make money on the way things currently are. Note that when I say 'reallocate', I mean 'moonshot program'.

Now, I know you know all of the above, so as a few questions to you:
1) Do you take issue with people requesting that reallocation from fossil fuels to renewables/storage?
2) Do you take issue with how they're going about it? to include leveraging the government to do so?
2a) If so do you think there's a better way to go about it, and if so, what? Bear in mind that most people who care about this no-kidding see us as on a <20y precipice of failure, so no super-long-term/wait it out solutions.
3) What's your plan B if you're wrong about climate change?

 

[HomerJS]

Funny how I never suggested we enact all of Greta's agenda. Point of this thread is how right wingers will deamonize anyone who is against their agenda including children.

Makes them feel good about themselves beating up on a 16 year old girl. Righties can characterize Greta an an evil enemy of the people in lieu of a real climate change discussion

 

[UglyCasanova]

Point of this thread is how right wingers will deamonize anyone who is against their agenda

Have you ever seen P&N before?

 

[thilanliyan]

3) What's your plan B if you're wrong about climate change?

He'll be in Elysium with all the rich people, while the poors (who became poor because they forgot to read their medical insurance fine print ) will be stuck on Earth.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

He'll be in Elysium with all the rich people, while the poors will be stuck on Earth.

He's arguing with people on the internet, he's not Elysium material.

 

[Vic]

If the market delivers those types of products (that actually meet customer needs in terms of range, etc. at prices they can afford) and the needed battery technologies and such, that's great because your global top-down authoritarian solutions won't be needed. That's exactly the outcome I want. What's not going to help that happen is some progressive fiat "make a 10k torque 100 MPG truck happen in the next X years so we can go off ICE technology." Just as "paperless offices" couldn't be dictated into existence 20, 30 years ago before the needed technologies were available (for mass/cloud storage at reasonable cost, content management system, natural language processing and search, data ontologies, etc.) so likewise could have dictating the end of fossil fuels when Al Gore and everyone wanted them to. Even now the existing technology isn't really satisfactory for the enormity of the task, just as we don't really have the existing technology to enable a workable manned mission to Mars today. No matter how much you could stomp your feet and say "the future of humanity depends on us creating a Mars colony in the next 5 years" you couldn't do it no matter how much money you threw at it, making a concerted switch to "renewables" that's like 85% of consumption instead of the current 15% just ins't feasible. It will be as technologies evolve, but it's not now. Not unless you like electrical grids to go down because you can't ensure 99.99% maintenance of baseload power and other very large lifestyle impacts that even the Greens aren't going to be willing to accept. Any realistic person knows that fossil fuels will be a big part of the energy mix for the next 20-30 years minimum since the same idiots who spew fantasies about "OMG we're all gonna die" are also those most opposed to nuclear power. They're also the ones who don't understand the differences between non-dispatchable power and such and think the only reason they don't get their way is because some billionaire is jumping into swimming pools of gold instead of the issue actually being a huge technology problem to solve.

I'm sure it makes you feel smart to argue against your straw men, but to everyone else, it just reinforces their already negative opinion of you.

I don't know anyone who wants or expects the elimination of fossil fuel usage within the next few decades. That is alarmism on your part. Sure, maybe some extremists are saying that, but flat earthers, chemtrailers, and antivaxxers say stupid shit too.

That truck I described already exists and will be in production from a major manufacturer within 2 years. We're not talking about some far-off future here (except in your straw men). This is today. Tesla just ran a low 7 round the Ring.

We've discussed this subject in the past, so I already know that your malfunction here exists in 2 parts: 1) you have no vision for future technology and are generally reactionary against technological advancement, and 2) you are unable to see how authoritarianism favors the technological status quo, ie how govt favors existing technologies and their assetholders against competition from new technologies.

 

[glenn1]

We've discussed this subject in the past, so I already know that your malfunction here exists in 2 parts: 1) you have no vision for future technology and are generally reactionary against technological advancement, and 2) you are unable to see how authoritarianism favors the technological status quo, ie how govt favors existing technologies and their assetholders against competition from new technologies.

So over the last 2 decades or so we've watched new technologies completely destroy entire market sectors and companies like Facebook, Amazon, and Google rise from nothing to nearly $1T in market capitalization. Yet you're going to sit here and opine (wrongly) that "government favors existing technologies"? In what universe do you live and what color is the sky in the world in which you live?

 

[glenn1]

Now, I know you know all of the above, so as a few questions to you:
1) Do you take issue with people requesting that reallocation from fossil fuels to renewables/storage?
2) Do you take issue with how they're going about it? to include leveraging the government to do so?
2a) If so do you think there's a better way to go about it, and if so, what? Bear in mind that most people who care about this no-kidding see us as on a <20y precipice of failure, so no super-long-term/wait it out solutions.
3) What's your plan B if you're wrong about climate change?

1. People can "request" whatever they want. I request the federal government lower its budget deficits all the time and you see how well that works. Doesn't mean if I launch into a "you stole my childhood" screed that means my demand for lower deficits somehow takes on greater moral authority.

2. The government already does subsidize the R&D you're looking for, hell the Defense Department would probably hand you a check for tens of millions of dollars if you came up with a workable battery technology that could power a warship or fighter plane. Just throwing money into something or attempting to legislate it by fiat (CAFE being a prime example, especially when like the Obama ones they're completely unrealistic and even the proponents of them know this is the case) doesn't automatically create technologies. Go back to my example of the paperless office not being ready until the requisite technology existed; we're kinda at the same place with "green energy" where it's getting some of the way there but with a LOT more pieces needing to fall into place.

3. I guess we'll all need to resort to the solutions that were originally deemed "not acceptable" like nuclear power generation. Because I know damn well (A) the world isn't going to accept any lifestyle changes beyond token efforts (and why should they?) and governments aren't going to put themselves at an economic disadvantage to set "emissions standards" that are enforceable when it means (A) starts happening and people start losing money. We've already seen this play out where countries set emissions targets only to renege on them later.

That being said, perhaps you can address my counterpoint questions:

1. Do you even care that most "climate change" efforts to date have mainly just benefited the well-off and will likely continue to do so? Giving federal tax subsidies so someone making $300k can buy a Tesla S isn't going to help those poors you're so concerned about who certainly aren't putting solar panels on the houses they don't own and such.

2. At what point are you going to stop ignoring the real life considerations of pushing renewables further, like how increasing renewables actually drives need for peak power generating capacity?

3. At what point are you going to admit that "clean power" is a luxury good the 3rd world isn't going to be willing to pay for when fossil fuels aren't at grid parity and probably won't be for some time? Are you just going to expect "the rich" to pony up, or expect the poor in developing nations to continue to live in poverty forever?

 

[JEDIYoda]

a lot of strawman stuff being posted with little to no absolute supportive facts!

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

1. Do you even care that most "climate change" efforts to date have mainly just benefited the well-off and will likely continue to do so? Giving federal tax subsidies so someone making $300k can buy a Tesla S isn't going to help those poors you're so concerned about who certainly aren't putting solar panels on the houses they don't own and such.

Yes, I do. You know as well as I do that the only 'trickle down' that actually exists is technology. For centuries the newest tech goes in the shiny new toys that rich people can afford, it eventually ends up in the hands of the normies, that's literally been the play-by-play of Tesla. You can now buy a shiny new Tesla for ~$36k delivered, which is less than I payed for (at the time) very fancy Camaro in 2010.

Yeah, the poorest of the poor cannot benefit from that. They can benefit from small solar panels for consumer electronics though, as well as high cap batteries that exist in common consumer electronics. I'd expect cheap shit 15k electric cars to be flooding the market in the next 10-15y, same with solar panels, home batteries, etc.

For other climate change related activities, I'd argue that every dollar spent at the federal/world level benefits everyone, not just the rich, given that everyone will die from climate change one way or another if we don't do anything. That's just my opinion though.

2. At what point are you going to stop ignoring the real life considerations of pushing renewables further, like how increasing renewables actually drives need for peak power generating capacity?

I'm actually totes fine with building a dozen nuke reactors in every state to build a baseline that isn't dependent on battery reserves and how the wind blows/sun shines. Hell, put one in my backyard, maybe I won't have as many issues with power outages then. I accept that renewables only goes so far, most of my concern over climate change is burning CO2 and the horrifying feedback loops associated with global warming.

3. At what point are you going to admit that "clean power" is a luxury good the 3rd world isn't going to be willing to pay for when fossil fuels aren't at grid parity and probably won't be for some time? Are you just going to expect "the rich" to pony up, or expect the poor in developing nations to continue to live in poverty forever?

Truthfully at some point we need to accept that we're a global economy, global citizenry, and take global actions with global consequences. That will probably result in a global power grid supported by many countries, with fines/subsidies/power & cost sharings across the planet. That's probably some NWO shit that some people don't want to hear, but times, they are a changin'.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Politicizong science is bringing a snowball into the well of the Senate to disprove climate change.

Or opening the windows of the Senate chambers the night before a hearing so it would be uncomfortably warm during a hearing on global warming. You know the way that Colorado Senator Wirth did in 1988. Over 30 years of global warming lies.....

Interviews - Timothy Wirth | Hot Politics | FRONTLINE | PBS

www.pbs.org

"And did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?

... What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn�t working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot. ...

So Hansen's giving this testimony, you've got these television cameras back there heating up the room, and the air conditioning in the room didn't appear to work. So it was sort of a perfect collection of events that happened that day, with the wonderful Jim Hansen, who was wiping his brow at the witness table and giving this remarkable testimony. ..."

 

[Paratus]

Yes, I do. You know as well as I do that the only 'trickle down' that actually exists is technology. For centuries the newest tech goes in the shiny new toys that rich people can afford, it eventually ends up in the hands of the normies, that's literally been the play-by-play of Tesla. You can now buy a shiny new Tesla for ~$36k delivered, which is less than I payed for (at the time) very fancy Camaro in 2010.

Yeah, the poorest of the poor cannot benefit from that. They can benefit from small solar panels for consumer electronics though, as well as high cap batteries that exist in common consumer electronics. I'd expect cheap shit 15k electric cars to be flooding the market in the next 10-15y, same with solar panels, home batteries, etc.

For other climate change related activities, I'd argue that every dollar spent at the federal/world level benefits everyone, not just the rich, given that everyone will die from climate change one way or another if we don't do anything. That's just my opinion though.

I'm actually totes fine with building a dozen nuke reactors in every state to build a baseline that isn't dependent on battery reserves and how the wind blows/sun shines. Hell, put one in my backyard, maybe I won't have as many issues with power outages then. I accept that renewables only goes so far, most of my concern over climate change is burning CO2 and the horrifying feedback loops associated with global warming.

Truthfully at some point we need to accept that we're a global economy, global citizenry, and take global actions with global consequences. That will probably result in a global power grid supported by many countries, with fines/subsidies/power & cost sharings across the planet. That's probably some NWO shit that some people don't want to hear, but times, they are a changin'.

For $22500 you can also get a Hyundai Ioniq that gets a combined 58mpg. I believe that’s already in the ball park of the Obama CAFE requirements and the price is around that of a Toyota Corolla. Not exactly a rich persons car.

 

[Paratus]

Or opening the windows of the Senate chambers the night before a hearing so it would be uncomfortably warm during a hearing on global warming. You know the way that Colorado Senator Wirth did in 1988. Over 30 years of global warming lies.....

Interviews - Timothy Wirth | Hot Politics | FRONTLINE | PBS

www.pbs.org

"And did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?

... What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn�t working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot. ...

So Hansen's giving this testimony, you've got these television cameras back there heating up the room, and the air conditioning in the room didn't appear to work. So it was sort of a perfect collection of events that happened that day, with the wonderful Jim Hansen, who was wiping his brow at the witness table and giving this remarkable testimony. ..."

Yawn.

Call me when you guys can come up with a theory that explains all the global warming evidence and doesn’t involve global conspiracies and denying basic physics. Until then you keep bringing a wet noodle to a howitzer fight.

 

[HomerJS]

Or opening the windows of the Senate chambers the night before a hearing so it would be uncomfortably warm during a hearing on global warming. You know the way that Colorado Senator Wirth did in 1988. Over 30 years of global warming lies.....

Interviews - Timothy Wirth | Hot Politics | FRONTLINE | PBS

www.pbs.org

"And did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?

... What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn�t working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot. ...

So Hansen's giving this testimony, you've got these television cameras back there heating up the room, and the air conditioning in the room didn't appear to work. So it was sort of a perfect collection of events that happened that day, with the wonderful Jim Hansen, who was wiping his brow at the witness table and giving this remarkable testimony. ..."

Are you fucking serious 1988?? Lame ass. Did you also know Democrats were the real racists in 1940?

 

[Vic]

So over the last 2 decades or so we've watched new technologies completely destroy entire market sectors and companies like Facebook, Amazon, and Google rise from nothing to nearly $1T in market capitalization. Yet you're going to sit here and opine (wrongly) that "government favors existing technologies"? In what universe do you live and what color is the sky in the world in which you live?

New technologies that were able to flourish only after prior govt policies that favored the old telco model were eliminated through legislation.
Al Gore didn't invent the internet, but he did write and sponsor the High Performance Computing Act of 1991 which made the commercial use of the internet legally permissible.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

@glenn1
Hey I sort of get what you are saying.
I’m a firm believer we need to act now regarding climate change. I also do not believe we should ban air travel or stop all oil/gas mining.
I do believe we can encourage other means of producing energy and offset carbon use.

Being as specific as possible what do you want to see done regarding climate change, as in what policies?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Put your lips on a snow ballz there paratus

Yawn.

Call me when you guys can come up with a theory that explains all the global warming evidence and doesn’t involve global conspiracies and denying basic physics. Until then you keep bringing a wet noodle to a howitzer fight.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Put your lips on a snow ballz there paratus

Seems like you feelz got hurt again.