Little Greta comes clean

[Charles]

Despite your very high opinion of yourself, I don't hang on your every word.

If you read him a bit closer you would know that he is ready to admit errors and does not give the impression of a person who has a very high opinion of himself.

[oxmixmudd]

Despite your very high opinion of yourself, I don't hang on your every word.

AFAICR - You were in the thread and commenting on the Obama's buying the house. And you do hang on my every word ... whether you can admit it or not

[Mountain Man]

AFAICR - You were in the thread and commenting on the Obama's buying the house.

Do you have a link? I'd like to refresh my memory.

[lilpixieofterror]

I don't - but you are having a difficult time understanding the difference between the hard science supporting AGW and real simulations of its effects and the soft science and majority speculative work that is typically part of something like 'the population bomb'.

Mostly - yes.

Do people remember these speculative, false predictions? What do these speculative, false claims, do to public perception? People need to swallow their pride and admit mistakes were made, if you want to do a thing about AGW denial. Until you can do this, the science will suffer.

Nope. And I'm very surprised you'd think for two seconds I am afraid to adopt an unpopular position.

Your statements that I disagreed with were too general to exclude the actual science of global warming from the set of things you were calling Junk Science. I have made the clarification, and for some reason instead of acknowledging that difference you continue to fight to include that science into the generalizations you are making about speculative work ancillary to the actual climate science that concludes AGW. And as long as you refuse to recognize the difference in your statements, I will continue to disagree with them because they are incorrect.

People remember false prophets and an inability to admit their work was speculative and used faulty science, to reach wrong conclusions is an indisputable fact. You do science no favor in not admitting that truth and as long as that inability, for scientist, the media, and politicians to own up to those mistakes continues. AGW denial will be alive and well. Science is best served when pride is swallowed and admitting a mistake was made.

Because you are using these arguments to support a false conclusion - that there is something wrong with the scientific conclusion the world is warming at an unprecedented rate and that mankind is behind the significant increase in GHG that is driving it. Once you can separate out the legitimate scientific conclusion from the specious ancillary speculations, we can probably find places we agree. But until you do, to agree with you on the elements of your statements that I do agree with, I would also be agreeing with a false conclusion about the veracity of the underlying climate science that gives us the AGW conclusion.

[Sparko]

[One Bad Pig]

Hey now. She's been forced to spend her childhood lecturing people about the coming climate nightmare! Wouldn't that steal anyone's childhood?

[Sparko]

Hey now. She's been forced to spend her childhood lecturing people about the coming climate nightmare! Wouldn't that steal anyone's childhood?

Reminds me of rich Hollywood actors talking about how they are not part of the 1%

[mossrose]

Hey now. She's been forced to spend her childhood lecturing people about the coming climate nightmare! Wouldn't that steal anyone's childhood?

She's blaming the wrong people.

[rogue06]

Reminds me of rich Hollywood actors talking about how they are not part of the 1%

Yeah, Michael Moore really stepped in it when he tried to play that game.

[seanD]

Hey now. She's been forced to spend her childhood lecturing people about the coming climate nightmare! Wouldn't that steal anyone's childhood?

Not going to school. Traveling all around the world. Meeting world leaders. Becoming a worldwide celebrity. The sheer travesty of it all.

[Tassman]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]41483[/ATTACH]

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...n-2019-address

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

[Watermelon]

Oh no Greta has been nominated for the Nobel peace prize. Trump is having a bad day.

[seer]

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...n-2019-address

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

Except no one is listening:

Teen activist Greta Thunberg on Friday again criticized world leaders gathered for the COP25 conference in Madrid for not doing enough to stop the ecological crisis that's damaging the planet.

"We have been striking for over a year, and basically nothing has happened," she told activists at the talks. "The climate crisis is still being ignored by those in power, and we cannot go on like this."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/06/europ...ntl/index.html

Greta Thunberg 'ignored' by world leaders at climate summit, admits protests have achieved 'nothing'

https://www.theblaze.com/news/greta-...hieved-nothing

[MaxVel]

"The 'imminent mini ice age' myth is back, and it's still wrong. We can’t accurately predict solar activity, and a quiet solar cycle would have a small impact on Earth’s climate anyway".

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ts-still-wrong

Anything, it seems, to avoid the conclusions of the vast majority of scientists on climate change. Scientists attribute the global warming trend observed since the mid-20th century to the human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

Still trying to pass off direct quotes from others as your own work, huh, you fraud?

Still appealing to 'authority' instead of actually addressing the arguments being made, too. You're apparently incapable of actual discussion. Sad.

"The 'imminent mini ice age' myth is back, and it's still wrong. We can’t accurately predict solar activity, and a quiet solar cycle would have a small impact on Earth’s climate anyway".

The underlined quote from the Guardian contradicts the first sentence - if we can't accurately predict the Sun's activity (AFAIK, true), then how can we say that there is no possibility of an ice age (caused by changes in the Sun's activity). We don't know (either way).

The part in bold is precisely what's being discussed in the article I cited, which gives a full argument with lots of evidence to suggest that it's not the case.

I note that the Guardian newspaper article you cite dates at least a year prior to the scientific paper I cited, and doesn't compare in terms of depth of data, or variety and number of sources cited.


Discuss what's actually in the paper I cited (which may or may not be correct, I just found it interesting, and a topic we don't hear much about), or buzz off.

[Mountain Man]

Not going to school. Traveling all around the world. Meeting world leaders. Becoming a worldwide celebrity. The sheer travesty of it all.

She is the very definition of "privilege" that liberals ordinarily condemn.