Greta Thunberg sails back to Europe on La Vagabonde

[Scott T-Bird]

I've just read the following from Nikki Henderson's Facebook page - thought some here may like to read it:

So it has been acknowledged that this trip was a mission, not just a ride, to deliver the messiah to the climate congregation in Madrid! It does make for a very dramatic entrance and introduction! It will be very interesting to see if Greta uses the opportunity to discuss the trip across the Atlantic and what it has meant to her, or what she has learned during this long passage with a lot of time to think. I'm wondering if the discussions on the boat were held within an echo chamber or if there actually was anything worthwhile to discuss.

I'm opposed to her encouragement for Activism Fridays - screw school. If we are to believe that science is the answer to climate change problems, education in the sciences is necessary. Activism doesn't count for education in the sciences. Activism is for political change. So what kind of issue is this? Is it science or political? I think I know the answer. Unfortunately, millions of people are actively being brainwashed … an easy thing to do to uneducated people.

But if we believe that science and engineering will eventually advance our production of energy so that we can live compatibly with prosperity and sustainability (if it is indeed the case that fossil fuels are not sustainable, at least until other sources of energy are), then education will have to supplant activism. We're headed down the wrong road if we think that activism is the answer. Activism is too easily mislead as, I'm afraid, has been Miss Thunberg.

 

[Will Gilmore]

Scott,
That is very well said.
Im not in complete agreement, but there is nothing that isn't well supported in your statement. It isn't a one or the other situation. But, I like the way you think.

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

[SFS]

...Unfortunately, millions of people are actively being brainwashed … an easy thing to do to uneducated people...

I agree that it is easier to influence uneducated people, especially with fear-inciting rhetoric, but I am also concerned that our society is losing the ability (or willingness?) to think critically. A good education should teach you how to think critically, so education is definitely a part of it, but any person should be willing to take a concept or assertion and examine it closely, evaluate it for its merits and flaws, and come to a conclusion themselves.

A lot of folks nowadays just adopt whatever their favorite [TV channel, newspaper, blog, vlog, Youtube content creator, Twitter feed, clergy etc.] has proferred. I strongly believe everyone is entitled to their opinion. I hope for the country's sake, and the world's, that they arrive at it because they have examined and measured and believe in it, not because it was handed to them by someone else.

 

[Charlie Jones s/v Tehani]

A lot of folks nowadays just adopt whatever their favorite [TV channel, newspaper, blog, vlog, Youtube content creator, Twitter feed, clergy etc.] has proferred. I strongly believe everyone is entitled to their opinion. I hope for the country's sake, and the world's, that they arrive at it because they have examined and measured and believe in it, not because it was handed to them by someone else.

Sadly I must say- don't hold your breath

 

[Scott T-Bird]

I agree that it is easier to influence uneducated people, especially with fear-inciting rhetoric, but I am also concerned that our society is losing the ability (or willingness?) to think critically. A good education should teach you how to think critically, so education is definitely a part of it, but any person should be willing to take a concept or assertion and examine it closely, evaluate it for its merits and flaws, and come to a conclusion themselves.

Well ok then, we can agree. So why does Miss Thunberg advocate for activism Fridays? Is anybody actually getting a "critical thinking" education by engaging in protest marches? The shame of it is that our schools actually think this is "education". Our schools have degenerated so much that they encourage students to close their minds, march into the streets, chanting and shouting down anybody they think is an enemy for disagreeing, causing disruption, shutting down dialogue, stamping their feet and working themselves into a frenzy to the brink of violence. I think this kind of "education" is a real problem and not helpful in the least bit.

In fact it's the antithesis of critical thinking. But the conflicts are great for the media business, so we have a huge segment of our economy, in a cooperative effort with "academia", that actually thinks that dumbing down our populace is a good economic model!

But how is this kind of education going to produce the scientists and engineers that are needed to actually formulate solutions to the real problems that we face?

 

[Brian D]

Can I assume that Greta has arrived safely? And there is no more need for this thread to continue? I fear that shortly their will be eruptions, like teenage pimples, between normally festive boaters.

 

[Scott T-Bird]

Why shut it down if the discussion is interesting? Nobody seems to be bent out of shape. This is a sailing and climate related discussion. It doesn't have to end just because they have reached landfall. It was only a discussion topic of interest because of the climate conference, which hasn't concluded yet.

 

[LakeOntario270]

 

[Will Gilmore]

Let's not forget that the title of this thread is "Greta sail's back to Europe on La Vagabonde". While I had never even heard of her before this thread, she is the star, by construction, of this thread. I find her story fascinating and encouraging as well as a testament to the power of self-motivation and positive initiative. Whether she knows what she's talking about, any better than any other 16 y.o. is of little interest to me. I love that she has been able to do what she has done without the enormous promotional engine that someone like Justin Bieber had to propel her along.
Education is also an interesting topic and, to use a phrase I normally eschew, "in my opinion", isn't the sole proprietorship of, nor limited to, formal institutions of education.
I truly don't think Greta's message is about the realities of climate change. It's about stopping the waste of time and money on pretty political issues when there are those who are really concerned about serious issues at hand. Her message is actually about something she and anybody else should be well enough educated to understand.

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

[Scott T-Bird]

I love the fact that she sailed to America to deliver her message. She has gained world-wide attention in a most unique way, she is actually quite well spoken when you get past her facial expressions and her animosity toward her elders. I don't agree with her at all. But she has been a motivator for sure. She has gained the affiliation of some well-known sailors and actually motivated one of sailing's bright stars to drop everything she was doing to participate in this latest passage back across the Atlantic. She seems to have a large segment of the world's population at her feet and she is just 16 years old! It's really remarkable. She has unique talent. I think her talent is misdirected right now, but one never knows what congeals in the future. BTW, we're not disappearing in the next 12 years, I bet (or do we now have 11? did the clock start yet?). Let's see where we are then!

 

[Captain Larry-DH]

This issue is too complex to truly get a handle on. While I agree that activism in itself is not the solution, I also disagree with your implied position that it's useless. We NEED to pay attention to this, and "Business As Usual" is DEFINITELY not the way.
Climate and science deniers are ignorant and comfortably unaware. When 90 plus percent of scientists agree that there is global warming and that we are heading for a crisis and we should rethink BAU.
Interestingly, I have read other statistics that food production has a much bigger climate and environmental impact than all forms of transportation combined. Livestock production uses far more energy/resources, and creates far more environmental impact than plant-based foods. I think one of the best courses of action to save our planet is to campaign for a cultural shift from the "Standard" American and European diets to more plant-based unprocessed (or minimally processed) foods that are grown locally (food transport is another impact). Those decisions would require a grass-roots effort combined with government backed ad campaigns (e.g. anti-smoking for example).
See the following:
Environmental impact of animal products
According to Cornell University scientists: the US could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat.
Pimentel, David; Pimentel, Marcia (September 2003). "Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment". American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 78 (3): 660S–663S. Retrieved 17 July 2015.
To produce 1 pound of feedlot beef requires about 2,400 gallons of water and 7 pounds of grain (42). Considering that the average American consumes 97 pounds of beef (and 273 pounds of meat in all) each year, even modest reductions in meat consumption in such a culture would substantially reduce the burden on our natural resources.
Horrigan, Leo; Lawrence, Robert S; Walker, Polly (May 2002). "How Sustainable Agriculture Can Address the Environmental and Human Health Harms of Industrial Agriculture". Environmental Health Perspectives. 110 (5): 445–456. doi:10.1289/ehp.02110445. PMC 1240832. PMID 12003747.
Another agricultural effect is on land degradation. Cattle are a known cause for soil erosion through trampling of the ground and overgrazing.[21] Much of the world's crops are used to feed animals.[13] With 30 percent of the earth's land devoted to raising livestock,[22] a major cutback is needed to keep up with growing population. Demand for meat is expected to double by 2050.
Sustainability Pathways: Sustainability and livestock". www.fao.org. Retrieved 2017-04-
Animal production has a large impact on water pollution and usage. According to the Water Education Foundation, it takes 2,464 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef in California, whereas it takes only 25 gallons of water to produce one pound of wheat.
admin (2007-04-04). "The Environmental Impact of a Meat-Based Diet". Vegetarian Times. Retrieved 2017-04-03.
Livestock in the United States produces 2.7 trillion pounds of manure each year, which is ten times more than what is produced by the entire U.S. population. There are issues with how animal waste is disposed, as some is used as fertilizer while some farmers create manure lagoons which store millions of gallons of animal waste which is extremely unsafe and detrimental to the environment.
admin (2007-04-04). "The Environmental Impact of a Meat-Based Diet". Vegetarian Times. Retrieved 2017-04-03.
A 2018 report in Nature found that a significant reduction in meat consumption is necessary to mitigate climate change, especially as the population rises to a projected 10 billion in the coming decades.[34]
Achenbach, Joel (October 10, 2018). "Earth's population is skyrocketing. How do you feed 10 billion people sustainably?". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 16, 2017.
According to a 2019 report in The Lancet, global meat consumption needs be reduced by 50 percent to mitigate for climate change.
Gibbens, Sarah (January 16, 2019). "Eating meat has 'dire' consequences for the planet, says report". National Geographic. Retrieved January 21, 2019.

 

[Rick486]

When 90 plus percent of scientists agree that there is global warming....

I suggest you should be a bit careful about using that statement for 2 reasons:
1. That number is extracted from a count of published papers supporting human caused climate change. Published papers normally result from grants. There are few or no requests for proposals requesting research to disprove human caused climate change, resulting in few or no research efforts to publish. So that number may not in fact be accurate.
2. I don't think any thinking person denies climate change. It has been established conclusively. The disagreement revolves around the cause.
Rick

 

[Scott T-Bird]

That's reasonable - I think people are already starting to adopt local sources for food. I'm not sure what a "campaign" means. If it means that the government forces me to adopt a new regulation/law and I see that there are others around me whom somehow don't have to, well, that's a non-starter for me. I don't trust government to apply laws equally. I don't like the government trampling on my freedom in general.

If "campaign" means advocating for voluntary adoption of planet-friendly alternatives …. I'm all for it! But that takes a lot of time with uncertain results for sure! I remember in the 50's and 60's when all the highways everywhere used to be choked with litter. Now, I drive around in pristine environments and never see a scrap of litter anywhere! (at least in the countryside - the cities not so much). People do change their behavior when they see a benefit!

Do we have the time? Strident voices say that we have less than 12 years, afterwhich the planet will be in a death-spiral. On the face of it, that's ridiculous. Human existence may be in a death-spiral, but planet Earth will endure, and change, and who knows what Earth will be like in a million years. But what happens in 12 years and we're still fine, just as we are today? Is anybody going to change their tune? I doubt it.

 

[walt]

Strident voices say that we have less than 12 years, afterwhich the planet will be in a death-spiral. On the face of it, that's ridiculous. Human existence may be in a death-spiral, but planet Earth will endure, and change, and who knows what Earth will be like in a million years. But what happens in 12 years and we're still fine, just as we are today? Is anybody going to change their tune? I doubt it.

I wouldnt be using AOC as any sort of reference unless its to discredit some of the wonderful people who get elected. This in no way discredits any actual science. Here is the context of that dumb ass remark from this link Fact-checking Trump, AOC climate claims

Ocasio-Cortez's claim

With her 12-year timeline, it's possible that Ocasio-Cortez is referencing a major global report from last October by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nation's scientific authority on climate change.
The year 2030 came up prominently in that report, marking the first year that the planet is likely to warm by 1.5 degrees Celsius (the report provided a range of between 2030 and 2052). This temperature was set as an idealistic goal during the 2015 Paris Climate Accord. It is widely seen among climate scientists as a marker, beyond which long-term, irreversible change begins to occur, but does not signify the end of the world.
"Every extra bit of warming matters, especially since warming of 1.5°C or higher increases the risk associated with long-lasting or irreversible changes, such as the loss of some ecosystems," according to Hans-Otto Pörtner, a Co-Chair of the IPCC.
In order to keep warming within the 1.5 degree range and limit the effects—which get considerably worse as warming approaches and passes 2 degrees—the report states that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) must decline by 45% by 2030 and be essentially zero by 2050. A popular narrative that resulted from the report was that we only have 12 years to avoid the dire consequences of climate change.
The report certainly does not say that the world will end in 12 years,

 

[walt]

There are few or no requests for proposals requesting research to disprove human caused climate change, resulting in few or no research efforts to publish.

Actually the fossil fuel industry has been funding research to disprove human caused climate change. I would love to show you one example..

 

[Rick486]

I wouldnt be using AOC as any sort of reference unless its to discredit some of the wonderful people who get elected. This in no way discredits any actual science. Here is the context of that dumb ass remark from this link Fact-checking Trump, AOC climate claims

Quoting CNN does not establish a credible position. Especially CNN fact checking. In that fact checking link, they say this "..So while the debate over the science is settled - the planet is warming, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels - the political debate continues to rage...." That is clearly a matter of opinion. The science is not settled, and the debate is far from settled.

 

[Rick486]

Actually the fossil fuel industry has been funding research to disprove human caused climate change. I would love to show you one example..

Please do. And it would be best if you could point to a paper in a peer reviewed journal.

 

[Captain Larry-DH]

Actually the fossil fuel industry has been funding research to disprove human caused climate change. I would love to show you one example..

I just googled your quoted phrase -- and came up with thousands of hits.

 

[Captain Larry-DH]

it would be best if you could point to a paper in a peer reviewed journal

Would such a paper make the cut in a peer-reviewed journal? Most scientific papers are scuttled if they don't serve the interests of the funding party.

 

[Rick486]

Would such a paper make the cut in a peer-reviewed journal? Most scientific papers are scuttled if they don't serve the interests of the funding party.

Exactly. Hence, such contrary investigations are rarely funded, and an assistant professor working toward tenure will never propose such a project.
QED.