Greta Thunburg and the "climate crisis"

[Vlad the lad]

You seem to think that because someone has done research on a topic...the value of their conclusions is based in their resume rather than the actual conclusion.




ALL of these people studied climate science.

ALL of these people were wrong.

There are countless others. I could go on.


Tell me...

WHO's been right? One example of a prediction model that correctly predicted a calamity related to "climate change?" Anything?

It's LOGICAL to be skeptical of the entire thing. It's LOGICAL to believe this entire issue is more about political control/money/power than ANYTHING else.

Don't forget, all of those people were making money to say man is causing the temp to rise. Even though, they can not point to any evidence to this. They haven't been right on any predictions, and they have been caught fudging numbers

But not surprised, the same people that fall for this fake stories over and over, and the same people that still think Trump colluded with Russia, because the democratic party accused him of it, after they lost the election. oh, and after Obama reprimanded Trump for suggesting an American election could be rigged. Wait, didnt the DNC rig an election? The left is all over the board on this topic, just like many others.

[bossofataka]

You seem to think that because someone has done research on a topic...the value of their conclusions is based in their resume rather than the actual conclusion.






ALL of these people studied climate science.

ALL of these people were wrong.

There are countless others. I could go on.


Tell me...

WHO's been right? One example of a prediction model that correctly predicted a calamity related to "climate change?" Anything?

It's LOGICAL to be skeptical of the entire thing. It's LOGICAL to believe this entire issue is more about political control/money/power than ANYTHING else.

Let´s stop here for a bit now... This is a popular list on several global warming denial sites, and has been addressed before. Not here presumably, so I´ll do it quickly:

Wald was no climate scientist, and that quote is taken from his speach regarding pollution, risk of nuclear war among other things, just so we´re clear on that.

Ehrlichs is solely about overpopulation, his (in?)famous book is soleley on this subject, not climate. He´s a biologist btw.

Funny that Commoner comes next, most famous for his long debate with above mentioned Ehrlich about overpopulation. Another biologist btw, and I can´t see he as that foremost talked about climate change, more likely about pollution and how we overuse the planets resources. Which we by all accounts do.

Al Gore is certainly not a scientist and was never seen as one within the climate scientific community.

And so on... Btw, it´s easy to mock when one takes this out of context. Many of the predictions made in the 70´s may well have come true, or closer to the truth had no actions then been taken. Thankfully some were, but we´re still in trouble. Not only because of global warming, actually I´m personally more concerned about the extinction rate of spieces and the state of our oceans. But thats another subject entirely. And perhaps because I live in a country that won´t suffer too much from global warming, I might be that selfish maybe.

Point is, if this is the best climate deniers can come up with, it´s a weak case... How many thousands of quotes do you think we can find that correct or more or less correct?

You claim again no model has ever been correct. That is a lie at worst or splitting hairs at best. Many have followed pretty much the exact trajectory predicted. Some are off, for the better, some are off, for the worse.
And if you listen to any serious scientists they will tell you they can´t predict exactly what will happen and exactly when, but any scenario is bad for the kind of society we have today. No one, atleast no one serious, i s claiming the world is ending in 12 years and yada yada, as you constantly state. Some say we have 12 years to turn around on the way we are now heading to stop calamity in the future. That is very different from what you´re saying. But you do it all the time. It´s all you do infact. Misquote, pick things out of context to make the science look faulty, to make individuals look silly etc. As you do here. Taking some extreme things out of context. Most of these were never mainstream consensus in science ever.
I give you some cred for not taking the obvious possible cheap shots at Greta Thunberg though.

[bossofataka]

“We in the west”?

Given the subject and context, how can this be unclear? You trying to set up one of your "devastating" personal attacks?

[NCRAVEN]

Given the subject and context, how can this be unclear? You trying to set up one of your "devastating" personal attacks?

Well your pretty far from us so trying to figure out whatcha talking about.

[bossofataka]

Well your pretty far from us so trying to figure out whatcha talking about.

West as ”the western world”. What else could I possibly have ment given the context?

[NCRAVEN]

West as ”the western world”. What else could I possibly have ment given the context?

What did you mean by we?

[bossofataka]

What did you mean by we?

?? ”We in the west” as in ”we, the population of the western world”. How is it not obvious?

[ravenmaniac4life]

Let´s stop here for a bit now... This is a popular list on several global warming denial sites, and has been addressed before. Not here presumably, so I´ll do it quickly:

Wald was no climate scientist, and that quote is taken from his speach regarding pollution, risk of nuclear war among other things, just so we´re clear on that.

Ehrlichs is solely about overpopulation, his (in?)famous book is soleley on this subject, not climate. He´s a biologist btw.

Funny that Commoner comes next, most famous for his long debate with above mentioned Ehrlich about overpopulation. Another biologist btw, and I can´t see he as that foremost talked about climate change, more likely about pollution and how we overuse the planets resources. Which we by all accounts do.

Al Gore is certainly not a scientist and was never seen as one within the climate scientific community.

And so on... Btw, it´s easy to mock when one takes this out of context. Many of the predictions made in the 70´s may well have come true, or closer to the truth had no actions then been taken. Thankfully some were, but we´re still in trouble. Not only because of global warming, actually I´m personally more concerned about the extinction rate of spieces and the state of our oceans. But thats another subject entirely. And perhaps because I live in a country that won´t suffer too much from global warming, I might be that selfish maybe.

Point is, if this is the best climate deniers can come up with, it´s a weak case... How many thousands of quotes do you think we can find that correct or more or less correct?

You claim again no model has ever been correct. That is a lie at worst or splitting hairs at best. Many have followed pretty much the exact trajectory predicted. Some are off, for the better, some are off, for the worse.
And if you listen to any serious scientists they will tell you they can´t predict exactly what will happen and exactly when, but any scenario is bad for the kind of society we have today. No one, atleast no one serious, i s claiming the world is ending in 12 years and yada yada, as you constantly state. Some say we have 12 years to turn around on the way we are now heading to stop calamity in the future. That is very different from what you´re saying. But you do it all the time. It´s all you do infact. Misquote, pick things out of context to make the science look faulty, to make individuals look silly etc. As you do here. Taking some extreme things out of context. Most of these were never mainstream consensus in science ever.
I give you some cred for not taking the obvious possible cheap shots at Greta Thunberg though.

So...for over 60 years...climate change "experts" in the scientific and environmental community haven't gotten even one prediction correct, but they are undefeated in the game of getting EVERY SINGLE prediction wrong. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.

In other words...they are batting .000. These so-called "experts" have consistently predicted that some terrible climate or environmental catastrophe was going to happen...and…it never did. They are the "2019 Chris Davis" version of experts.

Don't you think maybe ONE of them would've been right by now? ANY of them? By accident? By mistake? Just one?

If your stock broker was NEVER right about ANY stocks they told you to invest in...would you keep giving them the benefit of the doubt? Would you keep listening to them? Of course not! Why would any sane person listen to someone who has NEVER been right about something that they are supposed to be "experts" in? Those of us who are skeptical of these "experts" are branded as DENIARS...even though US voters are being told that if the US doesn't immediately convert to socialism and listen to the DNC...the world will end. Why would any sane human vote for a complete restructure our economy and agree to give up our personal freedom to government control over an issue where the “experts" have NEVER been right?

Now...they're throwing this 16-year old kid into the political arena and using her to push their globalist agenda.

How can anyone take these assholes seriously.

I need to move to the beach so I can get away from this nonsensical garbage. Wait! That would be a bad investment, right? Because of "climate change"...sea levels are rising and that beachfront property will probably be swept away at some point. Right?

Ya know...we can and should probably reduce carbon emissions w/better technology by creating clean and exportable energy for the world, but not at the expense of GDP. However...this issue isn't really about that. This issue is about relinquishing control from the "people" to the government. The douchebag that wrote the GND admitted that was the point of the bill in the first place.

[NCRAVEN]

?? ”We in the west” as in ”we, the population of the western world”. How is it not obvious?

You’re pretty far from us though. So I don’t know why you lump yourself with us.

[bossofataka]

You’re pretty far from us though. So I don’t know why you lump yourself with us.

Not your best day, is it..? But ok, I’ll stop playing your game, and just reply OnT, from here on.

I don’t ”lump myself” with you, I’m using the widely acknowledged term ”the western world”, which I’ve never ever heard being in dispute whatsoever.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world

[CarrollCoRaven]

Here are 2 of the biggest climate change hypocrites ever known to man, Gore and Obama. If they believe what they tell you, and the oceans will be rising, why do you buy oceanfront property? Not only that, the massive amounts of energy used by their huge homes is obscene. Maybe Greta Thunberg should call them out. I guess even she knows that the MSM would disappear if she did.

https://nationalcenter.org/ncppr/201...hfront-estate/

[NCRAVEN]

Not your best day, is it..? But ok, I’ll stop playing your game, and just reply OnT, from here on.

I don’t ”lump myself” with you, I’m using the widely acknowledged term ”the western world”, which I’ve never ever heard being in dispute whatsoever.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world

Where did i dispute it?