When I was growing up there was a common thought in the culture I was raised in:
Children shall be seen but not heard.
The general idea being that there were arenas for children and arenas for adults. Children, in the presence of adults deferred to them. A great deal. When in the presence of adults children were not to be heard from unless spoken to. Why? Because children, being irresponsible and not knowing a damn thing, generally had nothing of value to tell an adult unless they were *asked*. Children hence were socialized into knowing that they gained the ability to "hold court" as it were as they aged
and gained wisdom.
To go along with this was that during social occasions there were children's tables and adult tables. Similar to the above it was generally the case that children didn't engage in "grown folk talk".
This is not to say that children were ignored by adults, but that the hierarchy of authority (and attendant responsibility) was enforced socially.
Recently I saw a commercial in which a child was mad at her father because apparently, he had to move for his job. The child was mad an *slammed the door in her father's face*. Every time I see this commercial, I say to myself that only in my wildest dreams would I even THINK about slamming my room door in my mother's face.
If I didn't lose a few teeth soon thereafter, I could find all my shit, excuse me, the shit purchased for my by my mother, out at the front door with a declaration that since I was so grown I could find somewhere to live where I can slam doors all day on whomever I wanted.
Needless to say, such blatant displays of disrespect towards a parent, much less any other adult was simply not tolerated. How times have changed.
Today we have a 16-year-old child, who up and decided she was no longer going to attend school, allowed to throw a temper tantrum at a UN meeting on climate change. I don't know of any situation where a 16-year-old, school dropout would be allowed to speak as an authority on *anything* other than "don't drop out of school". Yet here is this child being given extra-ordinary attention (and financing) by various media and "climate" organizations.
It's clear that this child has never been put in a situation where an adult said "who TF do you think you're speaking to" prior to that adult administering "correction". Children as rude as Greta are generally speaking the result of non-parenting. While personality is hereditary, it's expression is subject to environmental pressure and an assertive adult is extreme pressure.
But Greta is but one example of the newish push to use children as the pawns in the global power play by the Socialist-Communist-Climate mafioso that has it'stooges in all nations, at all levels of government.
Why are they using children? Children are like animals that have been born and raised in captivity. They know no other reality than that which has been allowed by their captors. Animals that have been raised in the wild and who know the freedom (and responsibilities) that entails are far more dangerous because they *remember* what it was like.
Children, particularly those in The West are like born captive children. They have never experienced the past as known by the adults and so everything they experience is "new" to them. Those in power understand that if they can capture the minds of children, all they have to do is wait out the dying off of adults. Of course, if the adults are not dying off (transferring power) fast enough, then what you do is restrict the ability of adults to be in control of their children. You restrict their ability to speak truth and to resist lies by imposing social and economic punishment for resisting the new paradigm.
So in regards to climate, adults who remember that the last "scientific consensus" was that by now NYC would be under water. Or that the globe was going into an ice age and that scientists were in consensus that something had to be done about global cooling, are considered "climate deniers" (which is a not so subtle way of associating them with Holocaust Deniers) and anti-science.
Other actual scientists who show how the data has been and is continuing to be manipulated are de-platformed, fired, censored and non-personed because this entire enterprise is NOT about science. Science isn't about consensus, it is about proof. Most people fall for this because generally, most people are scientifically illiterate. This isn't to knock them. Most of us are wildly illiterate on many subjects. This is why we must have science free from bias and politics. We may now know about a thing, but we can see when the person advocating a thing has a bias for or against it. We will judge them based on that bias.
Today CBS news was talking about glaciers going away as if this is new. Now if you had no idea that glaciers have disappeared in arctic regions before, it's OK. You are a layperson. You're not expected to go the library and research newspapers from the 1950s, 1940s and further back. You are not expected to know that there have, in fact been times in artic where glaciers were melting so fast that the newspapers thought they were all going to go away, forever. You aren't expected to know that. But the people pushing Greta are. And they DO.
Having said all this we have to deal with real climate change: First, the climate has always been changing on earth. Not only has the climate always been changing but even the geography has been changing. In fact GPS has to be
adjusted to take into account plate movement
So since we do not live on a static earth, anyone who speaks of climate change as if we are entitled to some static climate is not talking science. We are no more entitled to a static climate anymore than we are entitled to a sunny day. Climate change people talk about the areas that will be under water. Even if they are correct, Who entitled humanity to Forever Miami Beach? No one. When humans decided to build right on the Atlantic ocean it was a risk
humans took. Same goes for all coastal cities. Only the shortsighted and scientifically illiterate thought that Forever Miami Beach was a thing.
Same for the people living in areas that may become deserts. Who said they were entitled to Forever Savanah? No one. Humans, unlike many species have an extra-ordinary ability to adapt to and transform an environment for their living. This is something that will have to happen. You do know the Sahara was
once lush and green right?
It’s important to note that the green Sahara always would’ve turned back into a desert even without humans doing anything—that’s just how Earth’s orbit works, says geologist Jessica Tierney, an associate professor of geoscience at the University of Arizona. Moreover, according to Tierney, we don’t necessarily need humans to explain the abruptness of the transition from green to desert.
Read more:
Now are there things that humans are doing that are a danger? Certainly. We can discuss them without scaring the shit out of children in order to implement ant-democratic policies worldwide.
I personally believe deforestation and other de-greening of the planet is a [growing] problem. Plants convert CO2 into O2. We need O2 to live and our respiration released CO2 (and water vapour) it's a cycle, Animal respiration (along with combustion) consumes O2 and plant life releases O2. There has to be a point at which there are not enough plants to convert enough CO2 to O2 to allow O2 dependent life from continuing. I don't know where this point is, perhaps a reader out there knows. But it seems pretty clear to me that places like NYC are dependent on greener parts of the world in order for it's inhabitants to be alive. Perhaps scoffing at "fly over country" is not such a good idea.
I'd be all for a plan to address the removal of plant life. For example, perhaps abandoned towns should be leveled and trees (or whatever native plant life) put back in it's place.
I'm for mitigating the NOx polution from combustion since that is known to adversly affect respiration in animal life. So I'm for electric (or other feasable non-oil resplacements) energy for transport.
But we should be looking at other disposables such as tires. Your tires wear out? Where do you think that rubber goes? into the air that you breath. I think we should invest in science that produces rubber (or whatever) that reduces the amount of rubber shedding from the normal use of tires. Electrification is not going to address that.
So yes, you CAN be concerned about the environment (as you should) without resulting to brainwashing children and handing dicatorial power to those who want it for their own ends. And please someone put Greta back on her boat and back into a [real] classroom. And perhaps charge her parents with child abuse for giving her such a phobia.
