Little Greta comes clean

[Leonhard]

The science is not being ignored.

I'm just wondering why anyone cares about Greta at all. At either side of this debate. Its just an opinionated girl. For better or worse. I understand her first exposure, which was this... I can't even remember what, but it made sense that it'd get a mention in a newspaper. But for it to still be talked about, and referred to in media, that's honestly really weird.

People fine combing her statements for various errors, or ideosyncracies in what she's doing... its a fricking girl, with a microphone and a podium. Why are we still talking about this?

[seanD]

I'm just wondering why anyone cares about Greta at all. At either side of this debate. Its just an opinionated girl. For better or worse. I understand her first exposure, which was this... I can't even remember what, but it made sense that it'd get a mention in a newspaper. But for it to still be talked about, and referred to in media, that's honestly really weird.

People fine combing her statements for various errors, or ideosyncracies in what she's doing... its a fricking girl, with a microphone and a podium. Why are we still talking about this?

Because it works for climate change alarmism. Being preached to by a bunch of politcals and government officials (AOC, Macron, UN delegates, etc.) and oligarchs (Gore, celebrities, etc.) is a problem because of the blatant hypocrisy factor. A child inspires other youth and folks with child-like minds. You also can't find fault or criticize her because then you'll be chastised as a child abuser.

[mossrose]

I'm just wondering why anyone cares about Greta at all. At either side of this debate. Its just an opinionated girl. For better or worse. I understand her first exposure, which was this... I can't even remember what, but it made sense that it'd get a mention in a newspaper. But for it to still be talked about, and referred to in media, that's honestly really weird.

People fine combing her statements for various errors, or ideosyncracies in what she's doing... its a fricking girl, with a microphone and a podium. Why are we still talking about this?

She was brought into Canada, into Alberta, just before a federal election, by the leftist NDP and Liberal parties, to try to sway people into voting for one or the other of those parties.

THAT is why I care about what she is doing. She is a 16 year old pawn of leftists, and I pity her for her being in that position. But I also think she is doing untold damage to people's livelihoods and that is unacceptable. Her parents and everyone who is exploiting her should be held accountable.

And she should SINCERELY apologize for the damage she has done to the economy of those who's lifework and support of their families derives from the oilpatch.

[Leonhard]

Because it works for climate change alarmism. Being preached to by a bunch of politcals and government officials (AOC, Macron, UN delegates, etc.) and oligarchs (Gore, celebrities, etc.) is a problem because of the blatant hypocrisy factor. A child inspires other youth and folks with child-like minds. You also can't find fault or criticize her because then you'll be chastised as a child abuser.

There's plenty of reason to be "alarmed", if by that you mean you see a problem with climate change, and you believe there needs to be political action taken.

However it is rather sad to see crowds of celebrities being the ones who are the faces of this. I believe this says something about the scientific community, who have done a phenomenally poor job at communicating what they're doing to the public. There's still too much ivory tower mentalism present in the institutes and if it were up to me they'd be doing an order of magnitude more outreach.

I guess she's spured people to action. Hopefully in the right direction. But I despise singular faces representing entire groups. Like creationists finding flaws in Darwin and feeling that they've descredited the Theory of Evolution by doing that. Or people nitpicking weird antisemitisms in G. K. Chesterton and using that to attack Catholicism.

Greta is easy to criticize. She's a fricking child. Her statements, while poignant, also suffer from not always being connected directly to the facts. Gore was the same who was rather out of touch with the scientific community, and used way outdated ideas.

[Leonhard]

But I also think she is doing untold damage to people's livelihoods and that is unacceptable. Her parents and everyone who is exploiting her should be held accountable.

And she should SINCERELY apologize for the damage she has done to the economy of those who's lifework and support of their families derives from the oilpatch.

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.

[mossrose]

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.

I believe the climate is changing. I do not believe mankind has much to do with it.

You bet scientists are being ignored. At least the ones who do NOT believe in AGW.

But nobody listens to them anyway, and they lose their jobs and any credibility they have because they not among the faithful fanatics of AGW.

[Leonhard]

I believe the climate is changing. I do not believe mankind has much to do with it.

You bet scientists are being ignored. At least the ones who do NOT believe in AGW.

But nobody listens to them anyway, and they lose their jobs and any credibility they have because they not among the faithful fanatics of AGW.

Alright Mossrose, you believe that, I will not argue the point in this thread.

But I will point out, that I know of no scientist that have been fired "because they not among the faithful fanatics of AGW". There are a couple out there, though they are in the minority.

[mossrose]

Alright Mossrose, you believe that, I will not argue the point in this thread.

But I will point out, that I know of no scientist that have been fired "because they not among the faithful fanatics of AGW". There are a couple out there, though they are in the minority.

Well, here's a list of "a couple" of scientists who disagree with the consensus.

https://electroverse.net/the-list-sc...limate-change/

For those still blindly banging the 97% drum, here’s an in-no-way-comprehensive list of the SCIENTISTS who publicly disagree with the current consensus on climate change.

There are currently 85 names on the list, though it is embryonic and dynamic.

Suggestions for omissions and/or additions can be added to the comment section below and, if validated, will –eventually– serve to update the list.

Scientists Arguing that Global Warming is Primarily caused by Natural Processes

— scientists that have called the observed warming attributable to natural causes, i.e. the high solar activity witnessed over the last few decades.

Oh, and here's an article about the other thing.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/...limate-diktat/

Professionals and academics who disagree with the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) have been ostracized for their contrary views, resulting in termination of their employment, or in forced retirement.

A similar fate has happened to many professionals and academics who have defied the diktat of the AGW “consensus”. The punishments meted out to Taylor and other skeptics by the professional and academic establishment have had a chilling effect on dissent, and the result is that today, few professionals and academics will question the AGW theory, for fear of losing their jobs and their careers. In academia, and in public forums, the AGW theorists continually and consistently refuse to debate the subject of AGW with qualified skeptics.Polar bear expert Mitchell Taylor, Ph.D., says that the polar bear population has been increasing for the past 40 years, and that polar bears are not currently threatened by warming.

Of course, none of this matters to the faithful. Who will continue to stick their fingers in their ears and shut their eyes to those who disagree with them.

[Leonhard]

Well, here's a list of "a couple" of scientists who disagree with the consensus.

https://electroverse.net/the-list-sc...limate-change/

Hmmm, that list has been seriously padded if they have to include botanists and deceased scientists. Even then 85 ain’t much, and it’s only 11 if we limit it to climatologists - who are currently alive.

I also object to them including Svensmark in the list. He’s danish and I did some work on replicating part of hypothesis, back in college. He believes some of past global warming to be explained by cloud seeding from cosmic background radiation. However he doesn’t claim it explains the sharp increase since the seventies.

He’s gone on record as saying this https://videnskab.dk/naturvidenskab/...lle-klimateori

[Teallaura]

We seem to have an answer to that:

Source: Greta Thunberg apologizes for "against the wall" comment

Greta Thunberg apologized on Saturday for a comment that some interpreted as a threat of violence against politicians who ignore climate change. Thunberg said she was merely translating a Swedish expression into English and apologized for the way her comments may have come off.

"Yesterday I said we must hold our leaders accountable and unfortunately said 'put them against the wall,'" the 16-year-old climate activist tweeted on Saturday. "That's Swenglish: 'att ställa någon mot väggen' (to put someone against the wall) means to hold someone accountable."

"That's what happens when you improvise speeches in a second language," the Swede continued. "But of course I apologize if anyone misunderstood this. I can not enough express the fact that I — as well as the entire school strike movement — are against any possible form of violence. It goes without saying but I say it anyway."

The expression in English is often a euphemism for executions. It refers to putting someone in front of wall before they are killed by a firing squad.

Thunberg, who was recently named Time's Person of the Year for 2019, made the comments during a speech in Italy on Friday while talking about world leaders who aren't helping to fight climate change.

"We have to make sure that they cannot do that," she said. "We will make sure they, that we put them against the wall, and that they will have to do their job and to protect our futures."

Thunberg has gotten under the skin of several world leaders, including United States President Trump and Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. Mr. Trump tweeted earlier this week that Thunberg "must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Greta, Chill!"

Former first lady Michelle Obama, meanwhile, tweeted a message of support to Thunberg, writing "don't let anyone dim your light."



Source

© Copyright Original Source

I kind of thought that something like this might have been what happened.

Fair enough.

[oxmixmudd]

Well, here's a list of "a couple" of scientists who disagree with the consensus.

https://electroverse.net/the-list-sc...limate-change/



Oh, and here's an article about the other thing.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/...limate-diktat/



Of course, none of this matters to the faithful. Who will continue to stick their fingers in their ears and shut their eyes to those who disagree with them.

The problem is there is no scientific justification for rejecting the conclusion the Earth is warming and mankind is the primary cause for what is happening post the mid 20th century. So if a scientist opposes the idea, they'd better have some solid reasons that have not already been considered. It's the same reason so many scientists are skeptical of the reactionless drive, or that so many were so skeptical of cold fusion.

Most non-scientists are not capable of understanding why such ideas are not met with a warm embrace, except perhaps to compare it to geo-centrism or flat earth, which isn't fair scientifically because the evidence is not as clear and easy for the layman to understand. But within the scientific community it is not a whole lot different.

In astronomy there are some holdouts on the expansion of the universe, one of them, Halton Arp is(was) well respected because of past work. But on that issue he's pretty much shunned, because there just is not any real support for it. Same with climate change. There just isn't a good scientific reason to reject the idea, and people who do call into question their capacity to reason correctly, scientifically UNLESS they can make a solid case for their alternative explanation.

Anytime you go up against theory that is well established and well supported experimentally you will have a very long road to hoe - because not only must you justify your new idea, you must also explain equally well EVERYTHING else that is well explained by the old theory. This is what Einstein was up against. But that is what he did.

[Teallaura]

Ah, yes. The old, "it's not my fault if you misunderstood what I said, but it's your fault" non-apology.

Yeah that irked me as well but I think we can cut her a little slack. She's surrounded by other left wingers and not the reasonable ones. She probably hasn't heard a sincere apology before.

[Leonhard]

Yeah that irked me as well but I think we can cut her a little slack. She's surrounded by other left wingers and not the reasonable ones. She probably hasn't heard a sincere apology before.

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?

[seanD]

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

You keep saying the science is ignored. Mainstream climate science says we have 12 years to radically alter global industrial infrastructure to cut emissions by half or face catastrophic consequences in the long run. Greta's platform is based on this mainstream message. I'm curious as to what is being ignored? What are scientists saying about the subject that celebrity mouthpieces like Greta aren't saying?

[Leonhard]

You keep saying the science is ignored. Mainstream climate science says we have 12 years to radically alter global industrial infrastructure to cut emissions by half or face catastrophic consequences in the long run. Greta's platform is based on this mainstream message. I'm curious as to what is being ignored? What are scientists saying about the subject that celebrity mouthpieces like Greta aren't saying?

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.