Little Greta comes clean

[Mountain Man]

That isnt true MM. It's a slow process. Right now the melt is much greater than predicted, sea level rise is greater than predicted, warming in the arctic clear and pronounced. These are the simple facts. By the time the effects are noticable enough to convince a person like you, we will be way beyond where we can do anything significant to stop it.

Right, and I've been hearing dire warnings of impending environmental catastrophe since the 1970s, and not single prediction has come to pass. The worst of it is always conveniently years away.

[oxmixmudd]

You're ignoring the gratuitous attack on the motives of Mossy, and a snide reference to her religious beliefs, which are not the basis of her objections to Greta's statements. So, that was not what he was saying. But you're willing to overlook the kind of behaviour you complain about in posters who push back on your incessant anti-Trumpism and your attacks on their morality. You should be better than this. At least you claim to be.

Im thinking you missed the fact I was responding to rogues comment on what Tassman said, and the only person rogue was referencing relative to Tassman's post was greta thunberg.

[MaxVel]

Im thinking you missed the fact I was responding to rogues comment on what Tassman said, and the only person rogue was referencing relative to Tassman's post was greta thunberg.

It's all good, bro. You don't have to complain about the tone of people who attack posters you disagree with. I understand it matters most when you feel you're the target.

[oxmixmudd]

It's all good, bro. You don't have to complain about the tone of people who attack posters you disagree with. I understand it matters most when you feel you're the target.

Max - I hope you have a better day than the one you are trying to impose upon me.

[Sparko]

See I'm all about focusing action on where it makes sense. You know what the single most environmentally friendly thing you can do as a private citizen?

Ensure that your tire pressure is correct.

I wish people would do that rather than focus on sending gifts made out of recycled products, or small gestures of that nature. If people, across the world, ensured that their tire pressures was correct that would have a measurably significant impact on the CO2 output. And it also makes the car drive longer on the same amount of gas so you save money, and its better for your tires.

Well I have decided to be part of the solution instead of the problem.


This year instead of giving out coal to those on the naughty list, I have decided to have Santa give out carbon credits instead.

This is a coupon I made up for that purpose.


click to enlarge.
Santa-carbon.jpg

[MaxVel]

Max - I hope you have a better day than the one you are trying to impose upon me.

How's Mossy's day going? All the better for being set straight so helpfully, no doubt.

You care about some things, obviously. But not enough to really listen to people who disagree with you, not enough to treat them with the kind of respect that might get them to listen to what you have to say.

You've tuned what I'm saying out, because you feel like I'm attacking you. And I am.



Now turn that around - when you're trying to convince someone that Trump is wrong about something, and you're so convinced of it, and how bad he is that your emotions and passion lead you to express your moral indignation that someone could think differently about the issue. That's when people tune out what you're saying (the argument, the data) and hear your attack on their moral character.


If we really wanted to change people's beliefs, we'd stop with the personal attacks, because they only push people to hold on tighter to their position. Think about Teallaura's recent posting over on Nat Sci, and here, about climate change. She is at least one poster who can change her beliefs when presented with convincing enough data, and treated with respect. But people don't do that, because they get a better buzz from showing themselves to be 'superior' to her. We here pretty much all do it.

No, he's saying her concern has a solid scientific foundation even if you find her approach to the problem difficult to swallow

That's a good post. What it's lacking is an expression of distaste for Tassman's rudeness that might help Mossy to hear what you're saying. Tassman's post is the context for rouge's post, and your reply. Ignoring the tone he uses gives the impression that you kind of agree with him that Mossy is a biased, ignorant fundy Christian. Especially when you make a big deal of the tome other people use to you.


If we really wanted to change people's beliefs, we'd ignore posters who are almost always only interested in showing their personal superiority to others. They don't contribute to a discussion where people can change their minds without feeling like a fool for being wrong about something.

We don't really want to change what people believe - or we don't really think it's possible - so we settle for showing how much smarter and more virtuous than them we are.

[oxmixmudd]

How's Mossy's day going? All the better for being set straight so helpfully, no doubt.

You care about some things, obviously. But not enough to really listen to people who disagree with you, not enough to treat them with the kind of respect that might get them to listen to what you have to say.

You've tuned what I'm saying out, because you feel like I'm attacking you. And I am.



Now turn that around - when you're trying to convince someone that Trump is wrong about something, and you're so convinced of it, and how bad he is that your emotions and passion lead you to express your moral indignation that someone could think differently about the issue. That's when people tune out what you're saying (the argument, the data) and hear your attack on their moral character.


If we really wanted to change people's beliefs, we'd stop with the personal attacks, because they only push people to hold on tighter to their position. Think about Teallaura's recent posting over on Nat Sci, and here, about climate change. She is at least one poster who can change her beliefs when presented with convincing enough data, and treated with respect. But people don't do that, because they get a better buzz from showing themselves to be 'superior' to her. We here pretty much all do it.




That's a good post. What it's lacking is an expression of distaste for Tassman's rudeness that might help Mossy to hear what you're saying. Tassman's post is the context for rouge's post, and your reply. Ignoring the tone he uses gives the impression that you kind of agree with him that Mossy is a biased, ignorant fundy Christian. Especially when you make a big deal of the tome other people use to you.


If we really wanted to change people's beliefs, we'd ignore posters who are almost always only interested in showing their personal superiority to others. They don't contribute to a discussion where people can change their minds without feeling like a fool for being wrong about something.

We don't really want to change what people believe - or we don't really think it's possible - so we settle for showing how much smarter and more virtuous than them we are.

I wasn't addressing mossy in my post. I wasn't addressing tassman in my post.

In case you hadn't noticed, if I do what you are asking me to do, it will be used as an example of my 'hypocrisy' later if someone manages to provoke me into saying a harsh word. So at this time I am limiting such responses.

In this case, the response was to rogue and included nothing that necessitated a defense of mossy. Plus, she carries a big rolling pin and has lots and lots of members here who will step up to defend her at a moment's notice if she has any trouble dispensing with her foe.

As for tacitly agreeing with Tassman's disdain for Christian's? No. And it did cross my mind to make the point that being a christian has no real bearing on mental capacity to understand the issue of global warming.

But consider the logical progression of such an argument on a site where most of the evangelical Christian's refuse to discuss the science, regularly side with pseudo scientific and debunked conspiracy theories on the issue, and regularly attack even fellow Christian's that do not agree with their position on the matter.

[mossrose]

regularly attack even fellow Christian's that do not agree with their position on the matter.

Oh, Jim. You point your own finger at yourself here.

Now, moving on, does anybody who thinks that the science is settled have issues with Greta's hypocrisy? Is it totally excusable because she is just a young girl? Does it do anything, in your opinions, to negate her validity as a spokesperson?

And what about the video I posted yesterday with young girl Naomi? Do the climate alarmists have anything to say about her?

Aside from barring her from entering the Madrid thing, and people calling her an anti-Semite, I mean.

[lilpixieofterror]

I wasn't addressing mossy in my post. I wasn't addressing tassman in my post.

In case you hadn't noticed, if I do what you are asking me to do, it will be used as an example of my 'hypocrisy' later if someone manages to provoke me into saying a harsh word. So at this time I am limiting such responses.

In this case, the response was to rogue and included nothing that necessitated a defense of mossy. Plus, she carries a big rolling pin and has lots and lots of members here who will step up to defend her at a moment's notice if she has any trouble dispensing with her foe.

As for tacitly agreeing with Tassman's disdain for Christian's? No. And it did cross my mind to make the point that being a christian has no real bearing on mental capacity to understand the issue of global warming.

But consider the logical progression of such an argument on a site where most of the evangelical Christian's refuse to discuss the science, regularly side with pseudo scientific and debunked conspiracy theories on the issue, and regularly attack even fellow Christian's that do not agree with their position on the matter.

[oxmixmudd]

the climate debate is an issue with both sides because both sides engage in junk science and faulty conclusions.

That would be one of those untrue pseudo scientific claims, not at all unlike how the yec websites try to pretend both sides of the old earth/young earth have equivalent but different interpretations of the data. It just simply isnt true in either case and the case is normally not hard to make... if a person is willing to look at the science and the data and has sufficient science background to understand it.

[oxmixmudd]

Oh, Jim. You point your own finger at yourself here.

I dont think so mossy, at least not in frequency, and certainly not recently.

Now, moving on, does anybody who thinks that the science is settled have issues with Greta's hypocrisy? Is it totally excusable because she is just a young girl? Does it do anything, in your opinions, to negate her validity as a spokesperson?

And what about the video I posted yesterday with young girl Naomi? Do the climate alarmists have anything to say about her?

Aside from barring her from entering the Madrid thing, and people calling her an anti-Semite, I mean.

I regard greta as a child who is in many ways being used by those wanting to promote awareness of climate change, as such I have no real expectations of her and a good deal of disdain for those using her (and OTOS abusing her)

My entry in this thread is mostly the elements of the conversation that address the actual issue of global warming as they naturally arise in the conversation.

[rogue06]

Other reports out yesterday indicate melting and sea level rise happening much faster than predicted.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/c...eleration.html

Source: above

Seas are warming and rising faster, putting more cities at risk of tidal flooding or worse. Glaciers are melting at a pace many researchers did not expect for decades. The amount of Arctic sea ice has declined so rapidly that the region may see ice-free summers by the 2030s.

Even the ground itself is warming faster. Permanently frozen ground, or permafrost, is thawing more rapidly, threatening the release of large amounts of long-stored carbon that could in turn make warming even worse, in what scientists call a climate feedback loop.

© Copyright Original Source

How could it be happening much faster than predicted when some of those predictions had places like Miami and NYC underwater by now?

[rogue06]

No, he's saying her concern has a solid scientific foundation even if you find her approach to the problem difficult to swallow

He said that "what she is saying is well substantiated and supported by the vast majority of scientists." That does not mean that her "concerns" are well-grounded in science but what she "is saying" is well-grounded in science."

So the question remains, is she or isn't she "a font of solid information?

[Sparko]

How could it be happening much faster than predicted when some of those predictions had places like Miami and NYC underwater by now?

The arctic should be boiling by now.

[seanD]

How could it be happening much faster than predicted when some of those predictions had places like Miami and NYC underwater by now?

I'd like to know too. That doesn't help the science alarmism much when "sky is falling" predictions turn out to be wrong.