Greta Thurnburg is Times Magazine Person of the Year 2019

[PC2]

Why would anyone be criticizing her if not for her politics? Does that logically make any sense?

Most criticisms of her don't even mention the contents of her speeches... At least from what I've observed.

[Xarkan]

Yes I have to agree that the majority of criticism toward her is fallacious and we have an obligation to call those people out for ad hominem. It seems the majority of people don't even know that the source of an argument and/or raw data doesn't matter whatsoever. I posted this in the last Thunberg thread;

1. Her language use is far too emotionally charged.
2. Her speeches typically don't mention any specific policy proposals. (It's important to be solutions-driven)
3. Too many prophecies of disaster/doom/catastrophe/etc.

If her only purpose is to inform people about the facts then yes #2 doesn't matter, however she still needs to avoid #1 and #3 if her only goal is to inform people about the data. What lies in the future is far from fact and there's no reason to get emotional and indignant(How dare you) if she is merely there to state the cold hard facts.

Most of her argument (about climate change) boils down to listen to the scientists, their data, their conclusions, their solutions.

One would think that should not be needed but still.. we make targets that will not be enough within what we know is needed, we bitch about countries that get our pollution and how they do not fix the issues (China for example, we have reduced our production in CO2 in the EU by getting more things manufactured in China which means they produce more CO2 but we take no responsibility because we are unable to see this as a consumer side issue, the more we demand and the less we care how it is produced as long as it is cheap the less gets done because doing nothing is cheapest) This paragraph does start to step outside what she actually has said to my knowledge so i guess .. nvm.. i hate capitalism :P

This is not to say that it is all about reducing CO2 output.. there are some CO2 sinks on the horizon, science may still mitigate things in other ways

I am no particular fan of hers.. But ultimately, dont listen to her, listen to the scientists. I guess that is what she told you to anyhow. That should not have been needed to be said.

Also dont listen to me either, i dont know half of the science half as well as i should and i dont understand half the science i know half as well as i think.

What i do claim is that someone else knows and you should listen to them. That would be better

He didn't make an argument, it was directed toward people.

Yes, i guess i was facetious. "His non argument was as valid as those he commented on" would be more accurate

[breadisfunny]

Person of the Year goes to people who have done a lot of things to influence the year.
Under Stalin's leadership the USSR stopped the Nazi's, are you saying that is insignificant? Or are you salty because Hitler lost the Weltkrieg?

Kicking Michael Jackson of his throne isn't impressive?
That's true. They should have made the climate protesters themselves the People of the Year. Greta would have preferred that.
https://time.com/5746976/hong-kong-bombs/
Seriously, fuck those people.

yes stalin also killed millions of his own people. he's as awful as hitler was. he also sent many jews to the gulags. so congratulations he's just as bad as hitler on that too.

- - - Updated - - -

Another year, another bunch of people who think Person of the Year is some kind of award.

technically it is an award.

- - - Updated - - -

https://fair.org/home/with-people-in...-on-hong-kong/
They are indeed getting a lot of attention.. Perhaps a bit too much.

yeah can't have freedom in hong kong that would be horrible.

- - - Updated - - -

Not invade but peacefully travel to higher ground. In Europe it's not that hard. The Danish are highly civilized and I doubt they would cause any violence.

- - - Updated - - -



The future is unpredictable in principle so it can never be scientifically determined to any meaningful degree.

yes because a european country hell any country is going to totally be able to handle a sudden influx of tens of millions of refugees i mean look at the syrian civil war refugee crisis and how great thats going.....

[PC2]

Most of her argument (about climate change) boils down to listen to the scientists, their data, their conclusions, their solutions.

One would think that should not be needed but still.. we make targets that will not be enough within what we know is needed, we bitch about countries that get our pollution and how they do not fix the issues (China for example, we have reduced our production in CO2 in the EU by getting more things manufactured in China which means they produce more CO2 but we take no responsibility because we are unable to see this as a consumer side issue, the more we demand and the less we care how it is produced as long as it is cheap the less gets done because doing nothing is cheapest) This paragraph does start to step outside what she actually has said to my knowledge so i guess .. nvm.. i hate capitalism :P

This is not to say that it is all about reducing CO2 output.. there are some CO2 sinks on the horizon, science may still mitigate things in other ways

I am no particular fan of hers.. But ultimately, dont listen to her, listen to the scientists. I guess that is what she told you to anyhow. That should not have been needed to be said.

Also dont listen to me either, i dont know half of the science half as well as i should and i dont understand half the science i know half as well as i think.

What i do claim is that someone else knows and you should listen to them. That would be better

Yes, i guess i was facetious. "His non argument was as valid as those he commented on" would be more accurate

That's all fine as long as people know that science and scientists can't determine what economic policies society ought to implement. They can tell us about metrics like the global average temperature, but to go beyond that into what economic and governmental solutions we ought to implement is outside the purview of science. If science could answer those types of questions we would simply replace democracy with a technocracy. We don't switch to technocracy because it doesn't make any sense that science can determine these issues.

- - - Updated - - -

yes because a european country hell any country is going to totally be able to handle a sudden influx of tens of millions of refugees i mean look at the syrian civil war refugee crisis and how great thats going.....

That's just prophecy though. If you want to speculate about the future that is fine, but it's nothing more than speculation.

[Mayhem]

Of course not Mayhem. We should care about global warming. Technological problem solving should be our primary focus, adaptation is important but it's not the solution itself.

Ok, you just keep up your trollparade.

Actually no, either something happens or it does not.

You might want to take a class on probability calculation, but considering you don't understand the arguments presented maybe start with something more basic, like english language 1.

- - - Updated - - -

Their critiscism is [mostly] about her as a person and her age not about the politics, Easo's argument is valid

He didn't make an argument, it was directed toward people.

Most criticisms of her don't even mention the contents of her speeches... At least from what I've observed.

Can we report him for trolling now? Pretty please.

[PC2]

Ok, you just keep up your trollparade.

You might want to take a class on probability calculation, but considering you don't understand the arguments presented maybe start with something more basic, like english language 1.

Nothing is ever probabilistic, for example if you flip a coin it either ends up heads or tails(binary), it never ends up half heads and half tails on any flip. Probability is an idea we use purely for the sake of convenience, but it never exists except as a concept in our head.

- - - Updated - - -

Can we report him for trolling now? Pretty please.

Talking about moderation is a forbidden topic.

[Mayhem]

Nothing is ever probabilistic, for example if you flip a coin it either ends up heads or tails(binary), it never ends up half heads and half tails on any flip. Probability is an idea we use purely for the sake of convenience, but it never exists except as a concept in our head.

We aren't talking about a coin flip though, so your argument is mostly useless. What the future brings is not just this or that it's on a range based on the changes we bring forward. Right now, there is not one future outcome.

Considering you couldn't even get your coinflip argument right though, because it can land on its side making it 3 possible outcomes I doubt you understand anything you talk about.

[PC2]

We aren't talking about a coin flip though, so your argument is mostly useless. What the future brings is not just this or that it's on a range based on the changes we bring forward. Right now, there is not one future outcome.

Could you elaborate more specifically on what you are talking about here?

Considering you couldn't even get your coinflip argument right though, because it can land on its side making it 3 possible outcomes I doubt you understand anything you talk about.

That's still not probabilistic because it never lands in between those 3 states. It never lands 33.3% heads and 33.3% tails and 33.3% on any flip. For each of those 3 states the result will always end up with two 0%(counterfactual) results and one 100% result(true result). The concept of probability is purely about convenience and never exists in reality.

[PACOX]

I am still fascinated how a 16 year old teenage girl can trigger so many and make them into frothing keyboard smashers.
Truth hurts, or so I have heard.

I'm even most fascinated that so many people even care about the award.

Its an award by one publication that 90% of the triggered people don't read and everyone else will probably forget about by Feb...if not before. I bet the hissy fit grown adults have been throwing over this girl have brought more attention to her and the award then the award itself.

If you don't care about something, just ignore it.

[Mayhem]

Could you elaborate more specifically on what you are talking about here?

You've explained it yourself, that there are different possible outcomes for every coin flip, 1 out of 3 will happen, with higher chances for heads or tails. Up until that coin landed we can't know what will come out, but we can know it will be either one of those 3. Now comes the tricky part that you don't seem to understand either. If we have the data needed to calculate force, traction, height, speed, surface and so on, we can absolutely predict the outcome.

That's still not probabilistic because it never lands in between those 3 states. It never lands 33.3% heads and 33.3% tails and 33.3% on any flip. For each of those 3 states the result will always end up with two 0%(counterfactual) results and one 100% result(true result). The concept of probability is purely about convenience and never exists in reality.

Maybe not explain probability not existing with an example of probability.

[PC2]

You've explained it yourself, that there are different possible outcomes for every coin flip, 1 out of 3 will happen, with higher chances for heads or tails.

There's no such thing as probabilistic chance though. Except as a concept in our head.

Up until that coin landed we can't know what will come out, but we can know it will be either one of those 3. Now comes the tricky part that you don't seem to understand either. If we have the data needed to calculate force, traction, height, speed, surface and so on, we can absolutely predict the outcome.

We could deterministically predict outcomes if we had the resources or capacity of Laplace's demon. Unfortunately humans can't and never will have that capacity.

Maybe not explain probability not existing with an example of probability.

I'll make this easier for you to understand. Something is either true(100% did happen) or is counterfactual/0%(did not happen). So let's say you have a 12 sided die, there will always be 1 true result and 11 counterfactuals that are 100% false. The truth will never be probabilistic between a true and counterfactual result.

[HugsForFree]

He didn't. Which is why his people still love him to this day.

What about the estimated 2 million people who died building a road? The Road of Bones, 1 death per meter of road on a 2000 km road, that didnt happen?

[Easo]

This isn't a real argument though because it's about the critics of Greta Thunberg as people and not about the merit of the criticism itself.

Their critiscism is [mostly] about her as a person and her age not about the politics, Easo's argument is valid

What Xarkan said - so many of them love to say that she is "only a teenager", so her thoughts are not to be taken seriously.

I'm even most fascinated that so many people even care about the award.

Its an award by one publication that 90% of the triggered people don't read and everyone else will probably forget about by Feb...if not before. I bet the hissy fit grown adults have been throwing over this girl have brought more attention to her and the award then the award itself.

If you don't care about something, just ignore it.

So it seems.

[PC2]

What Xarkan said - so many of them love to say that she is "only a teenager", so her thoughts are not to be taken seriously.

Yeah well I don't know how to get it through peoples heads that the source never matters and the merit of an argument and information is entirely independant of the person. I have to tell people this everyday...

[Shadowferal]

*shrugs*
When debating a intellectually challenged individual, the merits of any argument isn't relevant. (and I'm not pointing at Greta)

I mean we have some people that claim "science will save us" all the while ignoring science altogether.