Greta Thunberg

His post claimed there was no consensus climate change was caused by greenhouse gases, that sounds like the skeptics argument to me.

And in that regard he's right.

That's not a claim that one group is correct and the other is wrong, it's providing information a lot of people are unaware of. A lot of scientists out there do not agree that climate change is majorly impacted by human actions, the actual data used to create the models is from an absolutely tiny window of earths history. I do not know who is right, but I do know that a lot of the predictions made by the hardcore climate change brigade have been flat out wrong over the past decade or more. Not only that but the absolute hysterics and fanatical nature of a lot of people in this group does nothing to help, the only thing I can guarantee it'll do is to pump money into certain pockets.

I'm willing to be open to other points of view, as is literally anyone capable of critical thought. Even if climate change should be entirely unrelated to human conduct, I still want to live in a clean and healthy environment. I'm more than happy to aim for cleaner/more renewable energy and a reduction of plastic bags, or whatever else, regardless. Maybe if there wasn't so much fear-mongering regarding Nuclear energy we'd be in a better position in that regard, unlike the push for things such as expensive to maintain wind turbines that play havoc with wildlife, but I'm going off-topic here.

You can't denigrate people for looking at and considering all available information, it's a dangerous and silly thing to do.
 
His post claimed there was no consensus climate change was caused by greenhouse gases, that sounds like the skeptics argument to me.

I have never said there is no consensus view. Another lie. I said there was a counter argument and there was more academics arguing against this than the lobby wants everyone to believe.
 
Actually you did.

I said consensus in the scientific world, as in everyone agrees like they do with the theory of gravity. If you are talking about consensus view that that can be the majority.

Again I don't understand your rabid need to have everyone bend down to your opinion. Can you explain that one to me?
 
Even if European countries do care, there isn't much else they can do at the moment.

We can't go 100% green over-night unless we want to go back to the middle ages. It's going to take a century if we're lucky and we aren't even one of the bigger polluters.

While I agree (will explain on 2nd paragraph why) need to contemplate that China has 20 times the UK population so naturally everything should be 20 times higher compared to UK or France.

The biggest culprits are USA having 3 times higher emissions than it should comparably to other countries (European or even China) trailing Saudi Arabia and Canada having 4 times higher emissions than they should and Korea having 2 times higher levels than it should. (Austrialia has 6 times but...)
If those 4 countries alone reduce their emissions to UK/France/China levels we are looking for a hefty 15% drop.

As for middle ages, true that can be seen on countries like Indonesia, Brazil, India (same pop with China) to name a few.
 
I said consensus in the scientific world,

And you are wrong. There is a consensus of 97-98% of experts, if you wish to believe the 2% thats your choice. Consensus means general agreement, and that certainly does exist in the scientific community.

Its not my opinion, its the overwhelming opinion of the scientific community.

'Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.'
 
And you are wrong. There is a consensus of 97-98% of experts, if you wish to believe the 2% thats your choice. Consensus means general agreement, and that certainly does exist in the scientific community.

Its not my opinion, its the overwhelming opinion of the scientific community.

'Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.'

If you want to self flagilate over my use of wording then go ahead. However don't label people climate change denier based on me quoting what the sceptics claim. It's intellectually corrupt.

And I'm still interested why you are so desperate for everyone to agree with you on this.
 
If you want to self flagilate over my use of wording then go ahead.

I have just shown you how what you said was wrong, if you see that as me forcing an opinion on you then so be it. I'm not desperate for you to believe anything, I was calling you out for what you said... pointless going round in circles though.
 
Don't bother, it is like trying to convince flat earth people the earth is round. It's a waste of time, even if presented with well-founded evidence.

Their problem isn't intellect, it is that they pick and choose what they want to believe in, instead of looking at 100% of the evidence, they only look at the 1% and that is all they look at. The mind is already made up.
 
I have just shown you how what you said was wrong, if you see that as me forcing an opinion on you then so be it. I'm not desperate for you to believe anything, I was calling you out for what you said... pointless going round in circles though.

It isn't pointless as this is the whole crux of the Greta argument. Any criticism of her is being labelled as a climate change denial, despite what the actual person believes. I have come on here and stated I am neutral as I don't know about the actual science to say what's right or wrong and that's automatically labeled CC denial.
 
I said consensus in the scientific world, as in everyone agrees like they do with the theory of gravity. If you are talking about consensus view that that can be the majority.
Again I don't understand your rabid need to have everyone bend down to your opinion. Can you explain that one to me?

And you are wrong. There is a consensus of 97-98% of experts, if you wish to believe the 2% thats your choice. Consensus means general agreement, and that certainly does exist in the scientific community.

Its not my opinion, its the overwhelming opinion of the scientific community.

'Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.'

The problem is who are these 97-98% and how they make their money.

Don't start me here with the "scientific community". If someone comes out against the "general consensus" is burned on stick like heretic and summarily executed.
Is the most tribal groups that exist because they make their livelihood through grand funding that needs to be renewed.

a) Look at the Theory of Gravity. Anyone who argues against the Dark Matter/Energy is burned alive, figuratively, because it invalidates 90% of the PhD thesis in Physics.
And Dark Matter/Energy are created to balance the maths of the Relativity Theory when comes to Astrophysics as it doesn't work. Though ignoring the fact that Relativity doesn't apply outright, in small things (quantum world) but cannot argue there because clearly they cannot make it work without fabricating gazillion different things. Though is acceptable to create out of thin air dozen different Dark Matter/Energy types to balance the maths.

b) Environmental scientists. Who forgot Climategate? Why nobody in the year 2019 takes the Hockey Stick model and shove it up to the...... of it's promoters in the 00s when taken as the most sure thing to happen like the sun will come up in the morning? Why when everyone questions the recording stations placements is been criticized as conspiracy theorist, even if the most obvious ones are set in the city centers of cities like Rio?
Or why they cut down 50 stations from the Atlantic down to just 1 station and that just outside New York?

The first thing taught in Mathematical Modelling & Statistics is that if you have sht data you will get sht results creating sht models.
 
Made up my mind to make no judgement...ok

You might as well say you make no judgment on

1 - smoking causes cancer
2 - exercise is good for your health
3 - the earth is round

There comes to a point you just have to face the overwhelming evidence and accept the truth.
 
Whether human activity has a significant impact on climate change or not is somewhat moot to me, fossil fuels are bad for air and water quality, so that ought to be reason enough to make a change. The question really is how rapidly we need to make a change. Many of those pushing the most dramatic climate change stories are those with a political agenda which stretches far beyond climate change and they use science with the more extreme theories for how things will pan out. Personally I think progress is being made on these issues and in a sustainable way, we don't need to cause our economic collapse just to avoid some melting ice caps which may melt either way due to natural changes in our climate. As long as we keep seeking innovative solutions and invest in new technologies I am quite optimistic.

The likes of this Greta though just need to shut up. I refuse to be lectured to by a sixteen year old autist with no life experience.
 
Back
Top Bottom