Friday, September 27, 2019

Old man yells at cloud



I had been wondering why the right features so many old White men ranting about a teenage girl. Most of it is about how Asperger's syndrome means she's mentally ill and can be ignored, or how she must be being used by the shadowy forces of... well, don't expect them to make sense is all I can say.

Mike Hosking is one of the (strictly unintentionally) funniest examples. The man who rants for a living and whose every argument-free opinion piece makes me think "When your gut was telling you that, what did it use for a mouth?", says that Greta Thunberg's style is overly-emotional hyperbole and hot air. Even funnier, he accuses her of having a "fantastic sense of self-entitlement." However, most of the grumpy old White men gracing us with their personality assessments of a 16-year-old girl are anything but funny. All I can say is, avoid Fox News or Kiwiblog on the subject. What the fuck is wrong with them?

Fortunately, Liam Dann has explained it for me in the excellent piece "Why old men are triggered by Greta Thunberg." He writes:

The angry old man lives inside me. He's reactionary and defensive. 
He doesn't like change and I hear him getting louder as the years roll by. 
He's technically right about a lot of things, but he's almost always on the wrong side of history. 
I don't like him much.

Damn, he's talking about me too.

43 comments:

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

Not the age Milt...it's the subject. Had Greta been banging on about the great climate hoax then she would be a splendid example of young womanhood and a role model for our youth.

Snowflake said...

Yeah, but she’s not a reality denying asshole like Hosking (Gravetodger, Adolt, Tommy etc) so she wouldn’t do that, Egbut.

Andrei said...

Hey Milt T'was Greta Thunberg's own parents who put her mental health issues into the public domain

We all watched her performance at the UN and saw for ourselves a vunerable child in a state of total meltdown.

This is not going to be a story with a happy ending Milt and don't you dare blame me or anyone who disagrees with you politically for this - it is not us who put her in the spotlight.

Greta Thunberg's parents told the world of her so called Aspergers diagnosis.

Greta Thunberg's parents told the world she was so socially anxious she stoped attending school.

Greta Thunberg's parents told the world she stopped eating, Anorexia?

So why the hell are they allowing this media frenzy to surround her? It is virresponsible parenting.

You leftoids have filled her head with scary stories about a climatic armageddon which has reduced this impressionable child to a state of terror due to her weak mind

Instead of being in school and taking an interest in boys which is age appropriate behaviour she is placed center stage ranting like some old schizophrenic street preacher.'

You people have no shame

Wayne Mapp said...

It has been an interesting phenomena to observe the reaction to Greta Thurberg's impassioned speech. Hoskings fell right into the trap.

But the opposite does not require "old pale men" to automatically accept everything she says. So long as they don't make it about her. That is the trap.

So in New Zealand we will still have a legitimate debate about how fast farming needs to change the emissions profile. Just because the Greens say to radically reduce dairying doesn't mean that farmers (and National) have to automatically accept that. And that if they don't, they shouldn't be accused of obviously hating young people and are without question killing the planet.There is surely room for sensible debate about this. For instance how NZ farming is more efficient than farming in Ireland, and that a kilo of cheese landed in the UK has less CO2 emissions than the same kilo produced in Ireland.

Andrei said...

"So in New Zealand we will still have a legitimate debate about how fast farming needs to change the emissions profile."

Only if you think we should indulge in the inanities the parasite class come up with to exxtract tribute from the productive elements of society Dr Mapp

Psycho Milt said...

You leftoids have filled her head with scary stories about a climatic armageddon which has reduced this impressionable child to a state of terror due to her weak mind

Oh, right, of course... sorry. Patronising. I forgot patronising.

Psycho Milt said...

So long as they don't make it about her. That is the trap.

I think she sees the trap - hence the stuff about "Don't listen to me, listen to the scientists." You're right though, a lot of people on the left seem to be falling into that trap. Some of them need telling she's not the messiah, she's just a girl who's had enough.

Andrei said...

"...she's just a girl who's had enough."

Oh yea - she is a girl who grew up in a comfortable middle class household, in a wealthy country, with access to the best health care available, free education...

Its not like she lives in a land where girl's don't get to go to school, have to trudge 2 kilometers to the nearest well to get the households daily needs for water (with 3ppm arsenic) and carry it home on their backs, are married off at 14 and live on less than $us per month.

Psycho Milt said...

Sigh. And if you paid any attention to what she says, she's well aware of that and covers it in her speeches.

In any case, what's your point? It looks like "People from liberal democracies shouldn't say things I disagree with," but presumably that can't be it?

Noel said...

Gotta admit if I were at and climate conference and the leader of a major polluting country entered beside me I wouldn't be smiling. Especially after paying the electricity bill, filling the car, paying the rates and visiting the rubbish dump to name a few with emission costs included.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/13/trump-buildings-climate-fines-new-york-city

The Veteran said...

Milt ... the girl is an obsessive stoked along by adults who should know better and that is to be pitied not applauded. As always there are two sides to every story and she is only hearing/repeating one extreme side of the climate change debate ... repent or the planet dies and probably tomorrow.

Psycho Milt said...

... she is only hearing/repeating one extreme side of the climate change debate ... repent or the planet dies and probably tomorrow.

People misrepresenting her like that is why I wrote the post in the first place.

Andrei said...

" And if you paid any attention to what she says, she's well aware of that and covers it in her speeches"

If she cares about that then she should be spending her time at school learning and developing the skills that could be deployed into doing something about rectifying it

It is the old parable about "belling the cat" - putting the bell on the cat will mitigte the problem the mice have with being eaten by the cat and they can talk about it from here to eternity but until the mice come up with a practical way of putting the bell on the cat nothing can happen and the mice will continue to be eaten

Climate change is a fact of life - the world is continually changing, the climate was changing long before we were here and will be long after we are gone - we can talk about it until the cows come home but we cannot change it anymore than we can change the fact the Sun rises in the East

Providing clean safe water for all the citizens of Bangladesh is something we can potentially acheive with a lot of commitment, money and energy and skilled people dedicated to the task but it is not going to happen anytime soon.

My point about Greta is that she is a fragile child thrust into the spotlight talking about a subject she knows little about and without the life skills she needs to acquire to flourish in the world she has to live her life

The Veteran said...

Andrew ... uptick

Anne Tiffa said...

Providing clean safe water for all the citizens of Bangladesh is something we can potentially acheive with a lot of commitment, money and energy and skilled people dedicated to the task but it is not going to happen anytime soon.

Andrei, you keep on about this as though it is Greta Thunberg's job to fix all the world's woes. You are, what, 3, 4 times her age? So what the fuck have you been doing all your life?

Psycho Milt said...

...we cannot change it anymore than we can change the fact the Sun rises in the East

The fact that you personally disbelieve the world's scientists and their research results isn't Greta Thunberg's problem.

Providing clean safe water for all the citizens of Bangladesh is something we can potentially acheive...

Suggesting that people who aren't focused on this problem you're interested in have no right to focus on a different problem is just idle rhetoric. There's a picture of it in the OP.

I Ron Baron said...

Help for those affected by Greta Thunberg.

Andrei said...

"Suggesting that people who aren't focused on this problem you're interested in have no right to focus on a different problem is just idle rhetoric."

No Milt - what I am saying is that particular issue is one that we have the technolgical means to address. Though the resources and will to accomplish it are lacking it is technically feasible

Controlling the weather, even locally let alone globally, is something far beyond our technological abilities. All this "jaw jaw" and political theatre about climate change is nothing but the mice sitting round discussing "belling the cat"

Politicians are attracted to this issue like moths to a flame because it gives them an excuse to interfere with peoples energy use which gives them power over people's economic activities and personal lives. And all the time there is no metric that would show success or failure of any endevour or program introduced to mitigate the effects of "climate™" change

BTW the reason why I bring up water reticulation projects in the third world from time to time is that I worked on them in my youth and know the problems involved. You can only solve such problems piecemeal by tackling managable sized projects of limited scope as resources permit

One day, God willing, the entire world's population will enjoy the benefits we enjoy today in the West but that is a long way off and it will take copious ampunts of money and energy to get there.

Anonymous said...

I Ron Baron - I tittered when I saw that.

Milt - some of the commenters here prove your point beautifully.

Conny

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

Andrei....."Oh yea - she is a girl who grew up in a comfortable middle class household, in a wealthy country, with access to the best health care available, free education..."

Is this the socialist hell thet you have been warning us about? ....sounds like New Zealand.

Usual smear tactics from the hard right...destroy the message by focusing on the messenger....I'm afraid your glorious leader Vladdy disagrees wiith you Andrie.

Luv the Vid Ron.....

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

Wayne....you made several staements about Co2 re Ireland v NZ.....do you have any links on that please. From what I can make out you are talking about farm gate emissions.

Getting NZ cheese to it's export markets in Europe (12,000 miles) seems to blow a hole in that theary. Irish cheese travels about 200 miles.

Johno said...

Egbut - are you looking at just the 'food miles' and not taking into account the emissions of the entire supply chain from pasture to table?

Shipping a large amount of food long distances in a ship produces a relatively small emission per serve per mile but shipping smaller amounts by lorry to a market produces higher emissions per serve per mile. Then add the emissions of the production of the food - most of the supply chain emissions occur on the farm before the food is sent and NZ farms are very efficient. Then add the emissions in local supply to the customer and cooking.

The end result is that NZ lamb consumed in the UK for example has lower emissions than local product:

https://www.ecoandbeyond.co/articles/british-new-zealand-lamb/

I would expect this to be even more so for cheese given the intensive nature of dairy production.

Anne Tiffa said...

Hey, Andrei!

And the rest of you know nothing anti-science freaks.

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

Johno...you would last five minutes in a business environment. Eco and Beyond is a PR agency that will write up your green credentials for a fee. That story is just bullshit.

Here is the story on cheese lamb and chilled dairy products from NZ...

They are loaded into refrigerated containers taken to a port where they are off loaded using straddle cranes belching diesel smoke. They are then loaded onto the ship by port crane. On loading they are plugged into the ships electrical supply which are run by diesel generators 24/7...you see that haze over the ships funnel, that's not the main engines. When the ship hits the tropics they need to get another generator into action and there are always two spare for emergencies.

When it gets to port after about six weeks of 24/7 generation power it is offloaded using another two cranes to get it on a truck. Sometimes it will go to a depot where the load is split and put on yet another truck.

NZ cheese has not been sold in supermarkets for twenty years, it goes to places like Meadowvale Cheese in Herefordshire and is diced and sliced with cheeses from Canada Italy etc and sold in commercial packages to the food industry....in other words in loses it's nationality....your pizza could have cheese from three different countries on it.

Your Irish cheese is loaded onto a lorry, has a short sea crossing and off loaded at supermarket distribution centres from the SAME lorry.....tell that to the public relations twats.










Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Legbut

In much the same way the then NZ Dairy Board managed to get NZ butter into France by buying up a major manufacturer of croissants. They are 50% butter and guess where that ingredient came from?

Andrei said...

Now here is a funny thing Methodic Doubt - there is a recognized phenomina where people who call othe people ignorant "you know nothing anti-science freaks" are people who over estimate their own intelligence and knowledge while under estimating the intelligeence and knowledge of others - The Dunning-Kruger effect.

Now of course this whole climate change debate is predicated on defining CO2 aas a "pollutant" thus equating it with real pollutants such as solid pariculates (soot) SO2 and so forth which are hazardous to human health and well being

And of course those of us who have been places and done things know that the cities of the Wealthy West are far less polluted with these real pollutnts than those of the Third World - like Nairobi, Jakarta and so forth.

As educated people we also know that historially, pre industrial revolution and later that the cities were highly polluted with human and animal excrement leading to epidemics of "third world" diseases like cholera and typhoid.

Cholera and Typhoid are not on the radar of any of the "strikers" today I'd be prepared to posit - they have grown up in a world where when you want a glass of water you turn on a tap and its safe. Remember the major scandal a year or so ago when the water in Havlock North gave people the runs?

And they have grown up in a world where when you take a dump you flush it away without giving it second thought.

And the only reason why this is possible is we have access to plentiful energy to build these systems. The only other alternative would be to construct them would be using human labour which would mean slavery basically.

I know I'm preaching to closed ears and closed minds but its worth stating never the less

Psycho Milt said...

Now of course this whole climate change debate is predicated on defining CO2 aas a "pollutant" thus equating it with real pollutants such as solid pariculates (soot) SO2 and so forth which are hazardous to human health and well being

That is simply untrue, and if you've read anything about the subject other than nutbar sites you'll know it.

Andrei said...

"Air pollution is a mix of particles and gases that can reach harmful concentrations both outside and indoors. Its effects can range from higher disease risks to rising temperatures. Soot, smoke, mold, pollen, methane, and carbon dioxide are a just few examples of common pollutants." - Source: National Georgraphic

I guess National Geographic is a "nutbar site" Huh?

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

Adolf......do catch up. The NZ dairy board went out of existance 20 years ago .......Fontera owns the trade mark of Anchor and uses 100% UK milk in it's UK factory...Wiltshire I believe.

Whether the imported butter (EU) is used in croissents or as axle grease it still a part of the import quota.

Psycho Milt said...

"This whole climate change debate" isn't determined by something silly you read in National Geographic.

Andrei said...

Milt shown to be wrong yet again responds with another straw man.

From where I sit "This whole climate change debate" seems to be dominated by hollow theatrics, sixteen year old girls addressing the UN whose address may not be critiqued, for to do so makes you a "grumpy old man"

Hoards of schools kids forgoing their algebra lessons and struggles with the periodic table to march on parliament on a fine spring day to let their feelings (more accurately the feelings of their maniputors) be known.

Then off to McDonalds and home to while away a few hours on the Xbox.

How many of those marchers yesterday do you suppose actually give a shit about "climate change debate™" Milt? How many were there because parading down the street in the warm spring sunshine is a lot more fun than trigonometry?

Are scientific questions resolved by how many people you can put on the street? Or by people who can solve differential equations?

Let us all march down the street led by a cropped headed woman in dungarees with a megaphone leading the chant

CHW_in_D: "What do we want?"
followers: "a cure for cancer"
CHW_in_D: "When do we want it?
followers: "NOW!"
CHW_in_D: "What do we want?"
.
.
.
and so on all the way from Manners Mall to Parliament

And after it is all over how much have treatments for cancer advanced as a result?

Johno said...

Egbut, you were too lazy to read the cited rigorous academic paper from Lincoln then?

Too bad. You can wallow in your discredited food miles ignorance then.

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

Sure Johno luv to read it.....link me.

Psycho Milt said...

Milt shown to be wrong yet again responds with another straw man.

It's not a straw man. Everyone who's paid the slightest attention knows that climate change is about the effect that our altering the tonnage of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has on climate. You have claimed that it's instead about an attempt to label CO2 as "pollution," which is ridiculous. There's certainly an argument that could be made, and is by some, that industrial-scale emissions of greenhouse gases is "pollution" because of the effect it has, but that's a trivial argument over terminology, not the fundamental basis of scientists' thinking on climate change. The fact that you can find someone referring to greenhouse gases as pollution doesn't alter that fact.

From where I sit "This whole climate change debate" seems to be dominated by hollow theatrics, sixteen year old girls addressing the UN whose address may not be critiqued, for to do so makes you a "grumpy old man"

Your ignorance of the issue isn't an argument that the issue doesn't exist.

How many of those marchers yesterday do you suppose actually give a shit about "climate change debate™" Milt?

A churlish, misanthropic opinion about the motivations of others also isn't an argument.

Are scientific questions resolved by how many people you can put on the street? Or by people who can solve differential equations?

The most important scientific questions about this have been resolved sufficiently for us to know that urgent political action is necessary. And yes, political action very much is a matter of how many people you can put on the street, not a matter of who can solve differential equations.

Johno said...

Egbut, the link to the Lincoln paper is in the article I cited. Clearly you haven't bothered to read it. Stop wasting my time.

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

Wow...found it after having to plow through PR nonsence...ie Welsh farmers suggesting thay can lamb all year round.

https://researcharchive.lincoln.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10182/4317/food_miles.pdf

Absolutly nothing there but the cost of shipping and no idea about the emmisions in keeping frozen lamb frozen in the tropics.....they erronously suggest that airfreight puts out more emmissions than sea freight without taking into consideration 6/7 weeks of massive generator plants working 24/7.

One of the reasons NZ lamb can br produced cheaper is that animal welfare standards are much stricter in the EU....no mention of that either.

Johno said...

There you have it folks. Egbut knows more about agricultural economics than the PhDs at Lincoln.

Should have known...

Back in the real world... Egbut "Absolutly nothing there but the cost of shipping and no idea about the emmisions in keeping frozen lamb frozen in the tropics"... where do I start? You still haven't read the fucking thing. The study is not about costs it is about emissions and it includes the shipping, electricity, chemicals, agricultural activities, buildings and machinery. Shipping was the very last row on table 5.

I've given up on telling you to read it. It seems you simply don't have the wit and comprehension skills required.

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

I know nothing about farm emmisions or much about the finer points of farming but I know a lot about ships and 125kg of CO2 per Carcass tonne over 18,000 km sounds about the ships fuel used for propulsion. However you can argue your case by doing some research.

Most of the reference web sites defra etc are now unavailble as they are of 2003 to 2007 vintage......shall I email the authors??

See...no insults.

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

I actually spent a couple of hours on this and come to the conclusion that the shipping figures are meaningless...They were put together on turn of the century systems and things have changed dramatically since then....for the worse.

They went from masive freezing units (porthole system) to individual electric units in container pwered by road grade diesel and now the late ships have shaft powered generators powered off the main engine....'cos it's cheaper.

In the energy game there is no such thing as a free lunch...the main engines use bunker oil which is high in sulpher and pushes out CO2 by the bucket.....but it is cheaper than diesel.

Your average container ship uses about 200-300 TONNEs a day and now will use more to power the refrigeration.

Whether or not the authors of that paper included refrigeration in their calculations I don't know,,,,,but I doubt it very much as it is to hard to quantify using the porthole system and I believe that a generic miles per gallon per container type chart was used.




Johno said...

I'm sure they missed refrigeration because you are much cleverer than they are, Egbut.

After all you are the aviation expert that thinks planes flip upside down after they run out of fuel so no reason to think think your expertise doesn't beat the Lincoln PhDs on agricultural economics.

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

15 year old figures based on old technology that are meaningless today (and wrong).

Stop taking me out of context...I said that a twin engined plane THAT IS PILOTLESS will turn on its back because both engines do not run out fuel simultaneously.

One engine will keep working for a few seconds after and without a pilot to correct will slowly turnover.

Johno said...

I see - so the laws of economics and the technology involved in agricultural production and transport have all changed in the last 15 years, eh?

Pull the other one.

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

Yes......