16yo Thunberg: She’s the MVP Aspie of the world! IMO

Post Reply New Topic

If people want more info on what is going on in this thread, read up on the global warming conspiracy theory:

A global warming conspiracy theory invokes claims that the scientific consensus on global warming is based on conspiracies to produce manipulated data or suppress dissent.
It is one of a number of tactics used in climate change denial to attempt to legitimize political and public controversy disputing this consensus.
Conspiracy theorists typically allege that, through worldwide acts of professional and criminal misconduct, the science behind global warming has been invented or distorted for ideological or financial reasons.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
-Michael Crichton

Your assertions aren't new.

I hope this article teaches you a lesson in critical thinking,

you claim to be impartial on these issues

but obviously just jumped into the "dark side" for the sake of winning brownie points with the resident WP "Trump cheer squad".

Nobody cares if the actual number of scientists is really 10,000 or 9,000 (not 11,000) or if the % of climate change scientists is 80-90% and not 97% as either revised number indicates there is still a problem for planet earth.

If one tells a big enough lie, and repeatedly states it with absolute conviction, the likelihood exists that eventually the masses will believe it to be truth.
-Goebbels' maxim

Your assertions aren't new.
The only assertion that I've made is that your claim of 11,000 scientists was derived from a totally bogus source.

="cyberdad"]but obviously just jumped into the "dark side" for the sake of winning brownie points with the resident WP "Trump cheer squad".
This is what the head shrinkers call 'projection'.

If one tells a big enough lie, and repeatedly states it with absolute conviction, the likelihood exists that eventually the masses will believe it to be truth.
-Goebbels' maxim

Ok I'll aim my response to your post as you are alone seem to be capable of critical thinking.

Your assertions aren't new. The oil lobby have long disputed the other (more widely used) statistic that 97% of climate change scientists support anthropogenic (combustion of fossil fuels) climate change.

Forbes Business Journal asked a retired ex-oil executive and academic Earl Ritchie to put forward an alternative case and he does infact do a good job fact-checking and debunking the over published statistic of 97% of climate scientists using (ironically) similar reasoning to your own sources that the 97% number was also based on an error that had been picked up and published by the media .
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2 ... 0fedc31157

So it's not surprising or earth shattering that the exact figure of 11,000 scientists or 97% of scientists is not accurate

However, Ritchie is very careful to point out (something you conveniently ignore when you pulled the names of Professor Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck) is that just because the number is not accurate it doesn't change the magnitude of the problem.

Ritchie concludes
Even though belief is clearly below 97%, support over 80% is strong consensus. Would a lower level of consensus convince anyone concerned about anthropogenic global warming to abandon their views and advocate unrestricted burning of fossil fuels? I think not. Even the 2016 Cook paper says “From a broader perspective, it doesn’t matter if the consensus number is 90% or 100%.”

So coming from a strong advocate for the oil industry, Earl Ritchie at least has the integrity to admit that criticism of the climate change lobby doesn't devalue their argument that anthropogenic climate change is infact real and evidence based.

I hope this article teaches you a lesson in critical thinking, you claim to be impartial on these issues but obviously just jumped into the "dark side" for the sake of winning brownie points with the resident WP "Trump cheer squad".

Nobody cares if the actual number of scientists is really 10,000 or 9,000 (not 11,000) or if the % of climate change scientists is 80-90% and not 97% as either revised number indicates there is still a problem for planet earth.

poorly formatted rant snipped

How utterly predictable.
Conveniently ignore the point, when caught in a lie ignore and change the subject, initiate non-sequitur, attempted guilt by association, appeal to authority, obfuscation, throw up a straw man....
Just exactly what I've come to expect from someone promoting a political agenda.

Oh, and nice edit while I was typing this reply

I have mixed feelings about Greta becoming the most famous autistic person in the world.

I do have a lot of disagreements with her cause for some of the reasons others have stated.

That an autistic is Time’s person of the year and the influence that is awarded for is beyond something I could have imagined, it is electrifying.

I am also very impressed how she is handling the bullying from “adults” who should know better.

Of course she being used but from what I see quite willingly. The notion she is being manipulated like a puppet because she autistic is offensive.

When Donald Trump called Greta Thunberg “so ridiculous” and said she needed to “work on her anger management problem” and “chill,” it felt all too familiar. Like Thunberg, I am also an autistic activist used to people with more power dismissing me as angry, unmanageable and unlikable. These attacks come alongside insinuations that I never belong in the room and do not deserve the accolades I have earned.

Even when autistic people are honored, like Thunberg was when she was named Time’s Person of the Year, we are immediately discredited as children, reinforcing the ideas that children and autistic people alike have no agency and our work is illegitimate. For me, this has happened at every stage of my work as an advocate, since I drafted legislation on police training in Massachusetts when I was still in high school up to when I designed lesson plans on disability justice used in thousands of middle and high school classrooms through Amplifier’s We The Future art education project.

When people say they can’t believe I am autistic, they mean it as a compliment. But the comment is really a backhanded insult, rooted in the fact that society defines disabled people as incompetent, inferior, and permanently infantile.

This attitude is rooted in the notion that children (whether disabled or not) and disabled people of all ages are both incapable of speaking for ourselves, making our own decisions, or having ideas that should be taken seriously. It is what Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, meant when he tweeted that Thunberg is “used as a marketing gimmick.” His words echo professionals in my field who dismiss me as necessarily illegitimate either because they assume that a “truly” disabled person cannot be a lawyer or capable activist, or that they can discard my work as irrelevant and meaningless specifically because I am disabled.

But when disabled people face such ableist attitudes on systemic and structural scales, it has serious consequences. When Thunberg first learned about the devastating effects of climate change in 2011, she fell ill, and it was only then that she was diagnosed as autistic. For others, the presumption of incompetence has other dire consequences. It is why, for instance, 83 percent of all women with developmental disabilities have survived sexual assault, and at least half of them have survived sexual assault more than 10 times.

As an attorney and longtime advocate, I have heard countless disabled adults of all ages and in all fields of work tell me that they left or were forced out of their schools or jobs because of extreme hostility on the basis of disability, but that no one has ever believed them before.

Conversely, for all the scrutiny I face and the questions of whether I am “truly” disabled, detractors of the idea that all disabled people are fully human routinely question whether people they consider “actually” disabled who need more intensive support have their own voices or can truly support neurodiversity or disability rights. They say that because advocates like Mel Baggs, Amy Sequenzia, David James Savarese or Benjamin McGann type or use support to communicate, they must be necessarily victims of exploitation by nondisabled people.

Russian President Vladimir Putin repeated the same refrain when he said that adults are using Thunberg, deploying ableism to denigrate her because of her disability and to delegitimize what she has to say. Denial of autistic people’s agency aims aim not only to silence us, but to punish us and force us into compliance with coercive and invasive treatments, place us under onerous guardianships when courts assume we lack even the most basic decision-making capacity, and prevent us from seeking and receiving support and care that is not made contingent on maintaining palatability.

In my own work, I’ve witnessed denial of young autistic transgender people’s legitimacy from smarmy detractors who insist that they cannot possibly be both transgender and autistic because we have fallen victim to transgender adults with nefarious agendas who exploit our presumed susceptibility to manipulation.

Attacks on Thunberg that rely on claims that she is to be pitied and saved from adults may seem motivated by benevolent concern. But they only reinforce the ableist and ageist idea that children and autistic people lack agency and cannot exercise their own autonomy, which is wrong.

The attacks on Thunberg are also clearly gendered, as powerful women throughout history have been accused of existing only as pawns for men controlling them, and constantly face dismissal and delegitimization because of their righteous anger.

If people want more info on what is going on in this thread, read up on the global warming conspiracy theory:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_wa ... acy_theory

How utterly predictable.
Conveniently ignore the point, when caught in a lie ignore and change the subject, initiate non-sequitur, attempted guilt by association, appeal to authority, obfuscation, throw up a straw man....
Just exactly what I've come to expect from someone promoting a political agenda.

Oh, and nice edit while I was typing this reply

I totally get where you're coming from on this.

I'm surprised there is so much dominance of "emotional mind" on the autism forums...
Any large support of Greta is purely from an emotional position. So sad to me how people don't realize the world elite have been using emotion to control and manipulate the population at such a rate. There's nothing logical about placing the opinion of a 17 year old on science as the highest and best source of truth.

It's completely insane. She's not brave for making a video. Millions of people have made videos. People with an agenda are using her to further their own quest. There's nothing more to it. And this doesn't mean that she's not an amazing person. She probably is. The planet is just full of gullible people who fall for an emotional argument every single time. It's exhausting.

Tbh she's probably only a normal kid with AS who got promoted.

Then what about placing scientists having worked on climate science all their life as a good source on the question? Greta Thunberg is only saying what scientists have been saying for a long time; there is nothing irrational to listen to what she has to say. It certainly is more rational that not admit scientific theories backed by very large amount of evidences simply because you don't like the politics associated with it.

Climate change scientists are so obscure they're practically mythical. I can name quite a few scientists off the top of my head, and none of them are climate change scientists. Bill Nye is the closest I can get to naming one without doing some digging.

What's it mean when the climate change scientists remain obscure and a kid ends up taking their place as the spokesperson for climate change? Maybe Brian Cox should have an out of school 16 year old talk about physics for him.