Climate Activist Greta

So, do you think weather models can predict the weather out to 2100?

Do you know how weather forecasts are done? I bet you don't. They run a hundred of variations of two models. Each variation comes up with a different outcome. If the two models have a majority of a similar variation that will become the weather forecast, usually fairly accurate for 3 days. They are misinterpreted and the weather forecast is way off.

Now climate models are a different animal altogether and garbage in/garbage out. For instance, there is much they cannot model. Clouds, the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans. Another problem is they cannot run a hundred versions of the same model but they run one version of many models instead. This is due to the time it takes to run a climate model. Another thing they take for granted is the output of the sun as unchanging yet in the few decades we have actually been able to measure this it has varied from 1 to 2 W/m2 which is significant.

Yes, models are useful but always wrong. To base policy on an unfalsifiable hypothesis and computer models is just plain insane.

 

They've been proven wrong since the 60's.

Not a single claim made by the "global warming is an existential threat" in the past 50 years has actually come true.

All they do is move the goal post 10 years into the future and start wailing like stuck pigs again.

They make claims like "all the crops are going to die due to high CO2 and heat". Anyone with even the slightest bit of knowledge regarding greenhouses knows how stupid that is.

 

Obsessed? Is that what you call discussing someone who, according to you, willingly thrust themselves into the international limelight and has been projected on every news cast, news site, news paper, blog, etc absolutely berating anyone who doesn't agree with her? If she didn't want to be discussed, she should not have thrust herself into the limelight.
If I cannot discuss a public figure, her policy demands, and her own volunteered information about her private medical information which she and her parents claim make her special and to be paid special attention to, without being accused of being creepy you have simply proven my point: They're using the nice little autistic girl as a human shield and I find it ****ing disgusting.

 

And to do nothing whatsoever when all these models indicate really dire consequences is equally insane. When there are other very good reasons for doing the asked things, (like ameliorating air pollution), and the things being asked are not really all that onerous anyway ( like will it KILL us to have more efficient cars that cost less to run?) then all this opposition begins to look like the crazy part.

 

Not everything is a conspiracy....heh heh heh

 

The fact you feel the need to use qualifiers like "autistic" and "disabled" and "ill" everytime you mention her is telling indeed.

And I don't care how true it may or not be. Ad homs are ad homs.

 

They have a cover for that. They take credit for it saying what they have done has worked. It they say we didn't know everything back then but we do now.

Maybe it's just me being older now and more aware of the world around me but it seems more panicked today.

Funny though how certain people have blamed the flooding in my area recently on global warming. It seems to happen every year here, and has for at least half a century.

People with basic understanding of biology know this. Plants absorb CO2 Further increased heat causes more evaporation and this more rain resulting in cooling on land. Evaporation results in cooler ocean water.

It's like a child with no understanding of these things makes up these claims.

 

Funny, since you are so smart, know so much about it, and since the info is so abundant, you should be able to easily present the data that demonstrates your claim of causation.

Will you fail again ?

 

You haven't made one scientific presentation in support of your claim yet.

Did you present any relevant data at your thesis defense or just links and smart ass remarks like you do on this forum?

 

Prove you do and present the data that establishes causation.
But, we both know you can't

 

If she, and her parents, and the PR firm that's making a mint off of handling her (you're aware of that?) would shut up about them giving her some form of sacred or special insight, I would likewise not mention them.
The fact that they tout them as a qualification and credential make them fair game. The fact that she wants to get up there and talk **** about any person who doesn't slavishly follow her philosophy etc, means she has made herself fair game. If she didn't WANT to be fair game, she should not have asked her parents to allow her to be placed on stage. As she says :She "shouldn't even be here".

 

I'll take your amateurish attempt at deflection for the admission that you were wrong that it is.

You're welcome for the education

 

Yeah, causation never needs to be established when one claims cause and effect.
Every Jr armchair scientist that runs his trap on public forums knows this.

 

Ad homs are not fair game, regardless.

 

Were you going to say anything that was not just another idiotic right-wing talking point that you heard on the radio? Or can we go see if we find any worthwhile posts with real arguments?

 

Greta and the climate cult.

She's only preaching to a choir that already agree with her. Anyone who agree and want to approach the topic of climate change with the idea of compromise and finding good solutions/ideas are pretty much just going to tell this screechy moron to shut the hell up so people can talk for two seconds without a brainwashed, ignorant moron of a 16 year old who can't even name the top 5 contributors to CO2 emission, let alone name the top 5 countries in terms of pollution.

The memes are brilliant though.


"But you can't criticize/attack children!!"

Bruh. Covington much? Feel free to sod off with your bull.

 

That little girl was obnoxious! I wish someone would give her a spanking for lecturing adults in that tone. I imagine her parents were well paid to let her do her thing in front of a national audience. They ought to be embarrassed though.

 

They're not ad homs when she touts them as a credential and something that gives her special insight. Pointing out that just because she, a person with more than one disorder that can give you a complex of irrational fears and to her own admission HAS AND DOES EVERY HOUR OF EVERY DAY, is freaking out doesn't necessarily mean there is any rational cause to be freaking out is simply answering her claim of qualification by disorder.
That you do not LIKE the answer is not my problem. Stop encouraging the abuse of that nice mentally disabled girl.

 

It's just louder now.

The lunatics have a direct line to the "reply all" button.

 

This is the One Meme to rule them all: (if you don't get it: It's "Stan" by Eminem.)

 

Does the abject notion of being an Alarmist ever sink-in.
This little Swede would never have been taken even a tiny bit
serious by my Grandmother.Of course that was a totally different
Generation and era.My Grandmother like most all her age lived buy
a old-fashioned logic.As far as Children and teens.Listen to your
elders because you haven't been thru the mill.
That attitude means a whole lot.Near every baby Boomer knows
all about it.And eventually felt the same way when they came of age.
A Mark of immaturity is to speak when you No not what yer talkin'
about.Seen and not hear.Don't speak until spoken to.
That fuddy Duddy notion served The Greatest Generation { WWII }
very well.Probably played a big part in defeating Hitler and the
Nazis.
Answer me this.What am I or others supposed to learn from a 16 year
old who has been obviously coached.She should take questions.
See what kind of Philosophers or Theologians she is familiar with.
Or her aptitude as far as Economics.Maybe her math aptitude.
Not reciting a lot of scripted words in order to make a point.
She has to sell her notions,then.Prove them.
She has virtually Proved Nothing except possibly that Hot air
rises.

 

What answer? You are the one auto assuming abuse without anything to back it up which is another fallacy. I don't really think it's right her parents allowed this either, but if you want to yell at someone, yell at the parents instead of ad homing a child, since they are actually liable.

 

I thought she made the decision.

 

Vman, quit with your semantics argument. It just derails the conversation. And by the way she did make the decision. That decision could have been denied by her parents and it wasn't.

 

See the little arrows on my posts? Click through until you get back to where I joined the thread and specify that she's being used as a human shield by people who gave her a script THEY are not there to defend.
Greta has stood up and talked ****, offered her disorders and the personal panic they cause her every hour of every day as credentials for why we're all a bunch of pieces of **** who have stolen her childhood and her dreams etc.
How dare we etc. Big enough to talk ****, big enough to hear people talk ****.
If Greta can't stand being in the limelight and being dogged for offering the panic her disorders cause her as reasoning, then she needs to remove herself from the limelight.

Emphasis mine: So you're saying I auto assume abuse, but you ALSO think its not right and you want me to 'yell at the parents' since they are 'ACTUALLY LIABLE' ie you think its child abuse too but want to dog me for calling a spade a spade.