But honestly, this dumb ditz is more suited to be an actress than an activist.
I'd say it's quite likely. Hollywood has always had a soft spot for actors interpreting people with disabilities.
shareShe has science deniers in full panic mode.
shareNo; actually she doesn't.
shareThey sure spend a lot of time, money, and effort making memes, YouTube videos, and blog posts, to discredit her.
share[deleted]
Don't be naive, it's a propaganda campaign.
share[deleted]
So you don't believe there is a strong financial incentive to forestall carbon taxes and other regulation that would hurt the fossil fuel industry? (the most profitable industry in the world)
share[deleted]
No, I'm not gaslighting and it's the same road, different scenery. I answered the comment about memes, then I replied to the comment about naivety. I'm being serious, have you ever noticed the pattern where right wing memes, blogs, and videos flood the net the same time as whatever outrage Rush/Fox/Hannity are selling that day? During the last election, $millions were spent on social media to manipulate right wing voters, whipping up fear and hysteria, making them believe a bad choice was better than voting Democrat. Tobacco, Oil, Lead, & Dupont, among others, have all used similar tactics and the same researchers to spread misinformation and create doubt in the minds of the public and politicians. (And it goes back to the beginning of industrialization with other toxic chemicals) I'm really condensing this but my point is that all those Greta memes and videos that appeared the day after her speech, that wasn't an accident, it was a concerted effort to discredit her to the right wing voters and anyone else tuning in. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that right wingers are the only group to use social media or propaganda but the important thing is to know when you are being manipulated. I say all this because many people I know IRL don't believe that propaganda is real, not really, and I get the feeling that many people who are posting negative posts about Greta may not realize they are doing it because they have been manipulated by propaganda. (Or they are bots. Bots are dirt cheap and ubiquitous, they almost run themselves.)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2509614/
No the sciene deniers (global warming loons) are following this idiot, which is the problem. They have never bothered to look at the real raw unadulterated data, if they did it would clearly show that there is no such thing as global warming (now called climate change since the earth didn't burn up in the last 5 years).
shareWhere is this data? Who paid for the science?
shareHere you have the evolution of Earth temperature since 80s, measured from satellites. It's not speeding up, as the Global Warming theories predicted.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_August_2019_v6.jpg
That is one graph, which shows that temperature is rising, and is on the website of one of the most famous climate change deniers.
Here is a paper that questions and looks deeper into the chart you've provided https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.1?mobileUi=0&;
That is one graph, which shows that temperature is rising
[deleted]
Let me guess, you double checked the math after doing your taxes and things didn't add up.
shareNo I was hired to price weather calls for a trading company, which means I determined the probabilities of the temperature at a particular city reaching a particular point in the summer or falling below a particular point in the winter. It involved decades of temperature data from the cities the traders wanted to sell products to. And the data used wasn't the faked crap the global warming loons use it was the raw temp data that the US has been collecting since the early part of the 20th century. You can get the raw data from NOAA only for the earlier stuff you have to key in the data from copies of hand written forms. The data didn't lie and it didn't show any of the global warming the loons are always yapping about. If global warming had existed then the weather calls I priced would have resulted in huge losses for the trading company which was not the case. Global warming is a hoax, anyone that doesn't understand that has never look at the data and is simply a sheep following the pied piper of the left.
shareGlobal warming has been documented and studied since the 19th century but it was the US Navy that really got the ball rolling after WWII. I'm not regurgitating a line, this is my own research. Global warming has been an observed natural phenomena longer than you or I have been alive.
edit; toned down, basically you were acting as a meteorologist -- weather /= climate.
Greg Fishel is a meteorologist that went through basically the same process as me, from believing there is a controversy to researching it personally and coming to the realization that global warming is real.
What you did was cherry pick a start time, not different than when people pick and choose a single line from the Bible and claim it support their otherwise unsupportable belief. You picked the 19th century as your starting point which would have included the ending of the little ice age. Why not go back 50 million years to the Thermal Maximum? Do that and you well see the earth has been on a downward trend getting much colder.
The reality is going back beyond the 20th century requires lots of data manipulation to get temps that you can reliably compare from then to now. Taking a temperature reading in a "city" that is filled with dirt road and little concrete will give you a cooler reading than one that has become a heat sink from the asphalt roads and massive concrete jungle of a modern city. As for the Navy noticing anything. Again you've got selective time period used to try and prove a fact to push a political agenda, much like what you've done.
The reality is if global warming was real you wouldn't have had the loons behind it try to rename it climate change. The only reason they renamed it was that all the predictions of New York City being under water and Florida losing thousands of square miles due to the rising ocean never happened so they have tried the hail Mary pass of renaming their hoax in the hope that people are too stupid to remember the origins of it and the original predictions that failed to come about.
Your just saying random things. What level of proof would you accept to admit man made global warming is real?
shareNothing I said was random. It did identify the problem with your statement but I suppose that you would rather pretend that those statements were random than accept that your reasoning was flawed.
shareYou didn't answer my question.
shareIn the early 90's I watched a video at school they scared all of us kids about how our country would be under water and how all the turtles would be dead if we didn't 'do something' about global warming. As kids we were terrified ... But it didn't happen.
The beauty of it is people can claim that it wasn't wrong but the message worked since we aren't destroyed etc.
And we found a denier...
shareNo the sciene deniers (global warming loons)
This article from the NASA website is propaganda.
Now, why is propaganda?
Right now, the main two positions among scientists are (1) pro-climate change position, saying that warming trends are likely due to human activities, and (2) so-called 'deniers' or anti-climate change position, saying that the models have failed and we don't have models that allow to know whether they're due to human activities.
And here comes the trick: the paper in the NASA web doesn't reflect those two options. What it does is to oppose scientists who support global warming against (pay attention) scientists who reject it. The trick is that the big majority of scientists that are critic with global warming theories say that the models are useless to make such predictions, and that means that you don't need to included them in the statistics (no matter they're labeled as 'deniers' nonetheless).
One simple example: you could say there's a 100% consensus of scientists thinking that November 1 at 19:00H, it will be raining in Dublin. How you can get that statistics? The majority of people will say that you don't know shit and there's no way to predict whether it will be raining at 7PM one month from now. But (pay attention) they don't say it won't be raining. They say there's no way to know. Then, what you do is to compare people who support it will be raining then with people who reject it will raining... and voila, 100% consensus it will be raining!
In a nutshell, it's a statistical version of the Straw-Man fallacy.
This is how propaganda is done.
It's a bit sad to see the name of the NASA there, though.
Yeah right...propaganda. The stuff put out by the politicians who have been bought out by the Koch brothers though...no propaganda there though...nope not at all. I'll take the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community but thanks.
sharehttps://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions
shareIf the scientists saying man made global warming is real and we are facing a crisis are wrong, that's great! I will be thrilled with that. Do I think we should be gambling with the future that all of these scientists are wrong? Hell no I don't. If we clean up the environment when it wasn't entirely necessary....yeah don't really see the problem with that. And I also believe clean energy is the future regardless and the U.S. should be doing everything possible to be at the forefront of that.
sharesam gerard here is another loon who has gone against the tide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
was a Hungarian physician and scientist, now known as an early pioneer of antiseptic procedures. Described as the "saviour of mothers",[2] Semmelweis discovered that the incidence of puerperal fever (also known as "childbed fever") could be drastically cut by the use of hand disinfection in obstetrical clinics.
Despite various publications of results where hand washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Semmelweis could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it. In 1865, Semmelweis supposedly suffered a nervous breakdown and was treacherously committed to an asylum by his colleague, where he died at age 47 after being beaten by the guards, from a gangrenous wound, due to an infection on his right hand which might have been caused by the beating (officially of pyaemia), only 14 days after he was committed. Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory, and Joseph Lister, acting on the French microbiologist's research, practised and operated, using hygienic methods, with great success.
You see those 97% can't be wrong , can they?
You see those 97% can't be wrong , can they?
Yes and the scientific method hasn't been refined at all since his death in 1865...
Yeah I hear ya man....it would be awful if we tried to make the environment a better place. Fossil fuels for life!
shareHere it is, the standard fallback position.
"It doesn't matter if we are right or wrong, trying to make the environment better is what counts"
I'm afraid it does matter and people who disagree with climate alarmist max extinction activists aren't against making the environment better anyway - never understood this argument.
I didn't say it doesn't matter if we are right or wrong. I said if we are wrong and we made the environment better it would be awful (sarcastically of course meaning it would actually still be good). But the flip side of that is if we are right and we fail to act it could be catastrophic. I honestly don't get why people wouldn't want to err on the side of caution considering what's at stake for future generations, but if you are so certain that the overwhelming view of the scientific community is wrong, there is little I could say to sway you. You're free to your beliefs as I am to mine
shareDo you know any actual scientists? They aren't super humans ... They are more than capable of being wrong. In fact this is what they are most (this is how we learn).
shareCool! Let's all just assume they're wrong instead of erring on the side of caution and cleaning up the environment in the process. If by (ever so slim) chance we're wrong, who gives a fuck about the future generations we leave behind.
shareAhh yes the fallback position which is actually a deflection from.the debate. You don't see me pouring oil into the ocean every morning. People aren't 'pro pollution' if they question climate alarmist movements you know.
shareWhat debate? All you said is that scientists are capable of being wrong. If you want to assume they are, as much of the world seems to want to do, then cool. I'm middle aged and will likely live out my years regardless of the environment. Those we leave behind will be the ones who pay the price for our unwillingness to change our ways in the event that we are wrong.
You say the scientists are capable of being wrong....but do you think it's at all possible they're right?
No, many scientists are being conservative because propagandists have manipulated public thinking but there is no probably, humans are accelerating global warming and Exxon documents show they have known it for decades while publicly lying (while getting regular welfare checks (the irony)). Oil, Tobacco, Lead, & Dupont, among others, have all used the same research groups and tactics to obfuscate serious health and environmental issues in the public mind. None of this is a secret. So serious question, why are you still spreading misinformation?
shareThe denier position is not at all credible, hasn't been for a long time. Saying there are two schools of thought on the subject of climate change is inaccurate and more than a little dishonest. Very few scientific conclusions have ever been backed up by so much empirical evidence. I'm sorry my friend, but politics and spin are irrelevant here. The laws of physics don't negotiate with big corporations and lobbyists. There's a definite right answer and we know what it is.
By the time people like you are forced by daily events to acknowledge reality it will be far too late. We can't wait. So we're going to run ahead, and you can catch up later.
Very few scientific conclusions have ever been backed up by so much empirical evidence. I'm sorry my friend, but politics and spin are irrelevant here.
Her country is the biggest one as they are putting the navy into tunnels built in 1969. Wouldn't if ocean really rising trap the ships in the caves.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/30/swedish-navy-returns-to-vast-underground-hq-amid-russia-fears
Cavernous docks can shelter warships, with miles of tunnels, offices, and a hospital
You guys need to slow down and catch your breath, focus on writing coherent posts.
shareWhy would Sweden military move into caves if the ocean was really rising?
shareIt's not a flash flood.
shareThey aren't to alarmed at rising water to go and move there navy into caves though.
shareCome on people. Do you really think the caves the ships can navigate through would have an above clearance of just a foot or so? What about future warships? I’m willing to bet if you do the research you will find the caves are massive in height and a fluctuation of a few feet would not be an issue. It is also possible that they have methods of controlling the water level inside as well.
shareSo what level of proof will you accept? What will it take?
shareGod is the only noncapitalist. Won't say something because of a financial gain from it.
shareTo be clear, you're saying that only God can provide a level of proof that you'll accept? And why is that?
shareHim not looking for finnanical gain in talking.
shareGod didn't talk you into being a science denier, that was men, but okay.
sharehttps://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions
shareExactly, propaganda like that made that guy a denier.
share2014 - Al Gore says no ice in arctic by this date. Nope
2016 - Us Navy says no ice in arctic by this date. Nope
1989 - UN say seas will rise that will destroy nations. Nope
1988 - Maldives completely under water in 30 years. Not even close to true
I could go on but you get the point. This information comes from the same scientists everyone says we should believe without question and you wonder why people constantly question what they are told.
I don't deny anything, i question it, i don't just blindly follow what some random scientist tells me especially when you see there predictions not come true.
Source those please, credible sources, not some random blog or denier website.
sharehttps://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions
The actual articles are listed on it, the newspaper articles are shown clearly, they are taken from the newspaper and website and archived for future reference. It is not a blog it is the articles that were written at the time.
Can tell you never even bothered to look.
But just for you. Lets take the US navy one.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/could-arctic-summers-be-sea-ice-free-in-three-years-time
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/dec/09/us-navy-arctic-sea-ice-2016-melt
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/10/07/experts-said-arctic-sea-ice-would-melt-entirely-by-september-201/
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/arctic-ice-melt_us_57342dd3e4b077d4d6f22b14?ri18n=true&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9jb25zZW50LnlhaG9vLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK2JQsqNVs_zgjTp2EY-g4ogoTCicMcySiWaAhJpJVnrmSsHDEd58KtXd5wZMYWwyUKtPLeAtoLbW5bobgV-IpNzvuKgwQ3VGaMZWcuHESRXVXyhQc0WVcV61JdsQYjWlL-uJEf0JDN6jSI597qCQAHlcMnilpHZt5S3h9qwbplV&guccounter=2
Want anymore
another
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13002706
None of these prodictions have come true, not even close to true, in fact there is more ice in the arctic then ever before.
In 2008 Al gore predicted that the polar ice caps would be gone within 10 years, not suprisingly they are still there, he then changed his prediction to another year as not to look foolish. That is all the alarmists do, they just keep moving the goalposts. There was a girl in the 90's who addressed the UN and basically said exactly what Greta has stated and she was wrong also. So why should anyone believe what is said when not one scientist has actually been correct.
Now i'm not saying the human race hasn't had an impact, of course we have, just existing we impact whats around us. We have made creatures extinct, we have chopped and burnt down trees but that doesn't autmatically mean it is because of man made climate change.
Less fish in the ocean is more than likely due to over fishing than climate change. My opinion.
Australia gets bush fires every year because they are damn hot country but recently since Greta they are now mega-fires, yes mega-fires. That is the alarmist nonsense people are pushing back against, it is not denying, it is questioning. Keeping wth Australia, there department that monitors temperatures have now homogenised the temperatures so that they only show from about 1910 onwards even though they have data from before that which shows even warmer temperatures. Why would they do that unless there is an agenda, why hide that information. It is a reason the above article exists to archive these things for people who want to investigate the truth not what some left leaning website is spouting that day.
Why would I look, it's just a propaganda website and you are posting random things to waste my time. I've played this game before, after I debunk some BS you'll post more BS for me to debunk, and on and on. The goal post will never stop moving. Didn't I ask you what level of proof you would accept? If not I'm asking now.
shareSo USA today, the guardian, the telegraph, the huffington post, the new york times are now propaganda websites and newspapers. All the articles listed on that website and many other websites can be searched for individually which i also listed. They are not some random guys blog as you say, they list the scientists, they list there sources and have been prooven time and time again to be wrong.
So anything on the web is now BS. then there is no point to the debate. Typical left mentality, everything you say is propaganda and i will not accept anything as it is propoganda no matter where it comes from. That is basically your arguement.
When even one scientist gives one prediction that is even remotely true then people will start to believe. You cannot believe information that is consistently found to never come true.
Ive been to the maldives in the last 10 years, lovely place but it definately isn't under water and i bet Ocasia cortez prediction that Miami will be under water in 10 years doesn't come true either, just like Al Gores didn't.
Now if you want to talk about the plastics in the ocean then that is a definate man made issue that needs to be resolved before it is to late, that is a real issue you can see with your own eyes.
Greta shouts and screams a good game but gives no help on what needs to be done, all she said was don't believe me then you are the problem. She states 30 years of science that is crystal clear but as i have shown from credible sources that the science isn't crystal clear and has been proven wrong way more times than any proven right.
But you don't read or search even newspapers and articles from when they were written so nothing you say can now be taken in defence of your argument.
I showed articles you did what Greta did and just screamed im right and your wrong.
How about stop whinging because I didn't fall for your gimmick and answer me. I'm guessing you can't because you didn't reason yourself into this opinion and can't be reasoned out of it. I have some background in science and spent months researching papers to make up my own mind. My opinion on the matter doesn't hinge on Al Gore, graphs, my weekend at the beach, or any of that stuff.
shareIt's the climate alarmists who are panicking. The sheep who fall for this crap that is, note the profiteers pulling the strings.
share"She has science deniers in full panic mode."
She's on the side of the science deniers. Ideologically motivated pseudo-science is not the same thing as science. Nobody is afraid of this pitiful, mentally disturbed little twit. Her handlers are child abusers who should lose custody. She needs to be someplace where she can be properly medicated and taken care of.
Invent 'the science' and then claim anyone who critiques it as 'a denier' in an attempt to shut down any meaningful debate about this matter. Standard tactics.
shareHer performance was too over the top and cringey to be deserving of an oscar.
shareShe's about 14 and a half minutes into her 15 minutes of fame. Hopefully the internet has moved on soon.
I'll tell you one thing, she had better not have ever been on an airplane for the amount of bitching she's doing. She's about a 12 out of 10 on the ridiculous scale.
Does she have any solutions or answers to anything? Or does she just like yelling at adults, saying the youth is going to "rise up" on them? Or "how dare you?" What a hypocrite. All the youth is worried about is how to get more free shit from socialist politicians. Can't wait until they grow up and reach the age of reason.
With her amount of bitching, if she ever rode in a gas fueled car or flew in an airplane she's a HUGE hypocrite.
So sick of these "David Hogg" types that the politicians push to get their agendas across.
I like to do my part to help the environment, just as everyone should, because the environment shouldn't be a political party problem, but just as with everything else...people are getting a little ridiculous and over the top "outraged" about this. And thankfully this is the one issue that shows the most hypocrisy, which is always a favorite of mine to point out.
Funny how she is starting to take jabs at Trump...what does that do for the environment? Yeah, shit like that answers a lot of my questions.
She'll go away soon, and hop on a private jet to fly across the country with Al Gore and Leo DiCaprio, releasing more toxins into the atmosphere with that one jet ride than any of us will pollute in our entire lifetime. Take care Greta. Work on your next global "strike". Love how these kids love walking out on things. Haha.
I'm very impressed by Greta Thunberg! She and a lot of other young people have made the world aware of the climate change crisis. If there are any deniers, look at the evidence.......awful floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, wild fires all over the place, ice bergs melting in the arctic and below. South Florida and some other islands will be under water in 50 years. She should win the Nobel Peace prize.
shareYes, there have never been any floods, hurricanes, fires or tornadoes before this year. Lol.
She absolutely should NOT win any award.
I support the environment, but this hysteria is laughable. Just the next thing to try and freak people out over.
Yes there have been a lot of fires in California, hurricanes (Hurricane Katrina in 2005 for instance), major floods all over the world. Check it out on Google!
shareIt does not matter what we do in europe...... 3rd world people multiply like rodents and does not give a F about the environment and nature..... there is your inconvenient truth !
shareIt was embarrassing to watch. Her alarming lack of knowledge saying people are dying daily from global warming, is just blatantly a lie.
share