Little Greta comes clean

[Teallaura]

Why should she apologize for that. I believe climate change is real Mossrose, and we need to get off fossil fuels within this century. Preferable within the next two decades.

I'm just honestly stunned that this girl is getting so much media time, while the scientists are left largely ignored in comparison.

Look the political reality is that the science is only important as a bludgeon for political change. Scientists who aren't screeching that the sky is falling don't serve the political ends but a media darling playing the leftist song is exactly what they are looking for.

Scientists aren't innocent here. They have made more than a little noise denigrating the lowly masses that don't immediately accept their pronouncements. The vanguard did a world of political damage and now the media is only hungry for alarmist cries.

More importantly, the political winds are showing signs of change which is instilling a panic in the faithful. It's getting past the point where the science actually matters politically. The left can use the 'settled science ' they already have to build their brave new world. If the science isn't alarmist enough then the MSM will ignore it.

[Teallaura]

...
There are also just complexities in that we are talking about stochastic events such as droughts. That global warming isn’t happening evenly everywhere.
...

Purely out of curiosity do you know the justification for using a global average? I see the political value but I never could get an answer as to why it is used as a scientific metric.

[Leonhard]

The left can use the 'settled science ' they already have to build their brave new world. If the science isn't alarmist enough then the MSM will ignore it.

Why can’t the conservatives propose their own solutions to the challenge of climate change. I don’t get why denialism is so popular.

Why not just face the crisis, propose a better solution than the liberals?

What is there to win by denying it? Is that really the only choice conservatives have in the face of a global environmental challenge?

That seems like an rejection of responsibility, which is rather ironic to me.

[seanD]

Several things, such as the timescales involved. The melting of the arctic and the following 20-30 feet sea rise would still take a thousand years, even if we passed the point of no return.

Which we might already have done.

There are also just complexities in that we are talking about stochastic events such as droughts. That global warming isn’t happening evenly everywhere.

The whole “12 year or we are doomed” does not present the scientific view: The earlier we do the transition the better, but there will never be a cut off point after which it won’t matter.

"12 year or we are doomed" is a simplistic view of the problem, but it's not incorrect. There's never a time climate change can't be addressed, but there is a time limit it can be addressed with the minimum amount of cost and catastrophe as a consequence, so say the mainstream scientific alarmists, and those changes must be radical. So, essentially it's the same message.

[Teallaura]

Are we reading the same statement. She apologized, explained the aphorism as it came from her native language, apologized for the misunderstanding and affirmed a stance against violence?

What’s missing here?

'I'm sorry you...' is a passive aggressive way to reverse the blame. In other words it's not my fault I was mistaken but it is your fault for not understanding what I meant. In English it's not a good apology as it rings completely false.

I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt mostly because she came out immediately with a good explanation and the apology. I think it's probably a good faith effort but very badly worded.

The left is renowned for its backhanded apologies, though granted the right can play the game too, and I suspect she picked up the wording from those around her.

[Leonhard]

"12 year or we are doomed" is a simplistic view of the problem, but it's not incorrect. There's never a time climate change can't be addressed, but there is a time limit it can be addressed with the minimum amount of cost and catastrophe as a consequence, so say the mainstream scientific alarmists, and those changes must be radical. So, essentially it's the same message.

I guess I just wished the scientists would have been listened to. They’ve been saying this for more than 15 years now.

[Teallaura]

Why can’t the conservatives propose their own solutions to the challenge of climate change. I don’t get why denialism is so popular.

Why not just face the crisis, propose a better solution than the liberals?

What is there to win by denying it? Is that really the only choice conservatives have in the face of a global environmental challenge?

That seems like an rejection of responsibility, which is rather ironic to me.

Leo, it reeks of scam. Let me reverse the question: why can't climate believers propose pragmatic measures that don't attack the prosperity of developed nations or the progress of the developing world?

There are things that bother me because I am familiar enough with statistical analysis that I know better than accept weighted data without a good look under the hood. Weighting temperature data screams 'data collection error ' but if I ask all I get told is how stupid I am.

I haven't forgotten that I promised Lurch I'd take a good look at some of the data he recommended and I will. But it's now an uphill battle to convince me because I see way too much evidence of a political scam.

Yeah, yeah, blah blah denial. But from my perspective the real denial is with those who refuse to see how badly they hurt their own cause and that it has been hijacked for political purposes having nothing to do with the atmosphere.

[seanD]

I guess I just wished the scientists would have been listened to. They’ve been saying this for more than 15 years now.

Because it doesn't work politically. In the long run, folks don't want to give up their conveniences, and this includes those who screech about climate change the loudest. A perfect example of this is California, a liberal state, but because the liberals don't want to give up their SUVs, they need harsh government regulation to control emissions, and even this is failing. So if the most staunchest of climate change screeching liberals don't want to voluntarily be inconvenienced, then no one else does. They don't want to pay more taxes. They don't want to radically curb their diet. They don't want give up their cars. They don't want to pay higher fuel prices. And when government tightens the screws to reduce their quality of life in the name of fighting climate change, the populace reacts negatively -- a la France.

[Mountain Man]

I guess I just wished the scientists would have been listened to. They’ve been saying this for more than 15 years now.

Which scientists, the ones who insist that man is responsible for catastrophic climate change, or the ones who dispute that hypothesis?

[oxmixmudd]

Which scientists, the ones who insist that man is responsible for catastrophic climate change, or the ones who dispute that hypothesis?

The percentage disputing it is very, very small. They are outliers, and they dont have a leg to stand on scientifically.

[demi-conservative]

I'm just honestly stunned that this girl is getting so much media time, while the scientists are left largely ignored in comparison.

Have you considered that the skeptics might be correct? That it is all an artificial crisis for various purposes, which is why they push the Narrative with some kid instead of having sober-minded scientists hedge and make cautious statements.

[demi-conservative]

The cherry on top is that those pushing the Narrative don't actually care about the science with their alarmism, '12 years left' push by some dumb kid is only the latest example in a long series. That's for true believers like you and theLurch to reconcile.

For me, it's looks like a duck, swims like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck. So it most likely is a scam.

[Mountain Man]

The percentage disputing it is very, very small. They are outliers, and they dont have a leg to stand on scientifically.

Right.

[Teallaura]

Bandwagon is still a fallacy even when applied to experts.

This explains the love/hate affair with eggs.

[Tassman]

Have you considered that the skeptics might be correct? That it is all an artificial crisis for various purposes, which is why they push the Narrative with some kid instead of having sober-minded scientists hedge and make cautious statements.

Why would anyone consider "that the skeptics might be correct? The consensus couldn’t be clearer. Climate change is happening. It’s caused primarily by the burning of oil, gas, and coal. If we do nothing, the world will become significantly less habitable. Greta is right and it's regrettable that it takes a young girl to make to world takes climate change seriously.

https://www.ucsusa.org/climate/science