The “anti-Greta”

[chrispmartha]

Jinx said:

Gadgetmac said:

He's brilliant at picking out the one in ten thousand paper and holding it up as an example of the current science. It's called mis-representation.

It only takes one paper. All the papers showing stomach ulcers were linked to stress - where are they now?

That example kind of disproves your point, consensus was changed because of that

And anyway saying because it happened in that one case so it must be the same for Climate Change is utterly daft

[Gadgetmac]

rodericb said:

Getragdogleg said:

Gadgetmac said:

Getragdogleg said:

Well, not really. Which sector uses the most oil ? Manufacturing or transportation ?

The image associated with "big oil" is the smoky tailpipe and traffic jam, its the posterchild for the enviro movement. hence the imminent ban on i.c.e cars....

Well it turns out that almost 70% of oil is used for transportation.

Cool, if that is true then that marks the first time I have ever had a question answered by anyone in a climate thread in an informative way.

Edit; I see its "US Petroleum use" so not oil, the product Petroleum.

Again, it seems that the question was not answered. I asked about oil, barrels of oil. not petroleum. The main use for that is transportation, how unexpected.

So, you got close to being the first to answer honestly but fell at a detail yet again.

Edited by Getragdogleg on Friday 28th February 09:39

Here's where that info came from: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petrol... It doesn't give a straightforward set of numbers...

Try this http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/fuels.as...

It's still 70% though as the second bullet point states:

70% of all OIL consumed in the US is used for transportation.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Gadgetmac said:

rodericb said:

Getragdogleg said:

Gadgetmac said:

Getragdogleg said:

Well, not really. Which sector uses the most oil ? Manufacturing or transportation ?

The image associated with "big oil" is the smoky tailpipe and traffic jam, its the posterchild for the enviro movement. hence the imminent ban on i.c.e cars....

Well it turns out that almost 70% of oil is used for transportation.

Cool, if that is true then that marks the first time I have ever had a question answered by anyone in a climate thread in an informative way.

Edit; I see its "US Petroleum use" so not oil, the product Petroleum.

Again, it seems that the question was not answered. I asked about oil, barrels of oil. not petroleum. The main use for that is transportation, how unexpected.

So, you got close to being the first to answer honestly but fell at a detail yet again.

Edited by Getragdogleg on Friday 28th February 09:39

Here's where that info came from: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petrol... It doesn't give a straightforward set of numbers...

Try this http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/fuels.as...

It's still 70% though as the second bullet point states:

70% of all OIL consumed in the US is used for transportation.

Oil is also used in vast quantities to move goods around the Earth in ships, the goods we all like to buy and use.

[Gadgetmac]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Gadgetmac said:

rodericb said:

Getragdogleg said:

Gadgetmac said:

Getragdogleg said:

Well, not really. Which sector uses the most oil ? Manufacturing or transportation ?

The image associated with "big oil" is the smoky tailpipe and traffic jam, its the posterchild for the enviro movement. hence the imminent ban on i.c.e cars....

Well it turns out that almost 70% of oil is used for transportation.

Cool, if that is true then that marks the first time I have ever had a question answered by anyone in a climate thread in an informative way.

Edit; I see its "US Petroleum use" so not oil, the product Petroleum.

Again, it seems that the question was not answered. I asked about oil, barrels of oil. not petroleum. The main use for that is transportation, how unexpected.

So, you got close to being the first to answer honestly but fell at a detail yet again.

Edited by Getragdogleg on Friday 28th February 09:39

Here's where that info came from: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petrol... It doesn't give a straightforward set of numbers...

Try this http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/fuels.as...

It's still 70% though as the second bullet point states:

70% of all OIL consumed in the US is used for transportation.

Oil is also used in vast quantities to move goods around the Earth in ships, the goods we all like to buy and use.

No argument from me on that.

[Silkyskills]

https://www.france24.com/en/20200227-german-teen-n...

Suspected of being manipulated despite her intentions, Seibt has responded by adopting Thunberg’s cri de coeur at the UN Climate Action Summit in New York City last September. “How dare you?” Seibt asks in a video entitled “Message to the Media”. Time Magazine named Thunberg its 2019 Person of the Year, and her speech at the UN has millions of views on various YouTube channels; Seibt’s video, thus far, has less than 50,000. The comparison between the two activists ends there.

[George Smiley]

[quote=Esceptico]It seems there is now a right wing alternative to Greta:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/25/an...

Unlike the real Greta this one is financially supported by a right wing lobbying group (the Heartland Institute) and has links to far right organisations (Young AfD) and it seems her mother has links to the far right too.

Will we see a thread with hundreds of pages on here that accuse her of being a puppet, with memes about her odd appearance and age?
[/quote
Reminds me of a younger Annette Schwarz

:cloudnine:

[Vanden Saab]

George Smiley]sceptico said:

It seems there is now a right wing alternative to Greta:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/25/an...

Unlike the real Greta this one is financially supported by a right wing lobbying group (the Heartland Institute) and has links to far right organisations (Young AfD) and it seems her mother has links to the far right too.

Will we see a thread with hundreds of pages on here that accuse her of being a puppet, with memes about her odd appearance and age?
[/quote
Reminds me of a younger Annette Schwarz

:cloudnine:

Her mother is a lawyer. So her 'links to the afd' are that she has done work for them is like suggesting that a criminal lawyer has links to paedophiles if they ever defended one in court...

[Gadgetmac]

Vanden Saab said:

George Smiley]sceptico said:

It seems there is now a right wing alternative to Greta:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/25/an...

Unlike the real Greta this one is financially supported by a right wing lobbying group (the Heartland Institute) and has links to far right organisations (Young AfD) and it seems her mother has links to the far right too.

Will we see a thread with hundreds of pages on here that accuse her of being a puppet, with memes about her odd appearance and age?
[/quote
Reminds me of a younger Annette Schwarz

:cloudnine:

Her mother is a lawyer. So her 'links to the afd' are that she has done work for them is like suggesting that a criminal lawyer has links to paedophiles if they ever defended one in court...

No it isn't.

Many lawyers defend people whose cause they support. Look at most famous human rights lawyers for a start.

There's no comparison between defending a paedophile and a political activist or political party.

[George Smiley]

Gadgetmac said:

Vanden Saab said:

George Smiley]sceptico said:

It seems there is now a right wing alternative to Greta:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/25/an...

Unlike the real Greta this one is financially supported by a right wing lobbying group (the Heartland Institute) and has links to far right organisations (Young AfD) and it seems her mother has links to the far right too.

Will we see a thread with hundreds of pages on here that accuse her of being a puppet, with memes about her odd appearance and age?
[/quote
Reminds me of a younger Annette Schwarz

:cloudnine:

Her mother is a lawyer. So her 'links to the afd' are that she has done work for them is like suggesting that a criminal lawyer has links to paedophiles if they ever defended one in court...

No it isn't.

Many lawyers defend people whose cause they support. Look at most famous human rights lawyers for a start.

There's no comparison between defending a paedophile and a political activist or political party.

Woke level raised to triggered

[Gadgetmac]

George Smiley said:

Gadgetmac said:

Vanden Saab said:

George Smiley]sceptico said:

It seems there is now a right wing alternative to Greta:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/25/an...

Unlike the real Greta this one is financially supported by a right wing lobbying group (the Heartland Institute) and has links to far right organisations (Young AfD) and it seems her mother has links to the far right too.

Will we see a thread with hundreds of pages on here that accuse her of being a puppet, with memes about her odd appearance and age?
[/quote
Reminds me of a younger Annette Schwarz

:cloudnine:

Her mother is a lawyer. So her 'links to the afd' are that she has done work for them is like suggesting that a criminal lawyer has links to paedophiles if they ever defended one in court...

No it isn't.

Many lawyers defend people whose cause they support. Look at most famous human rights lawyers for a start.

There's no comparison between defending a paedophile and a political activist or political party.

Woke level raised to triggered

More like error level raised to corrected.

[R Mutt]

Gadgetmac said:

No it isn't.

Many lawyers defend people whose cause they support. Look at most famous human rights lawyers for a start.

There's no comparison between defending a paedophile and a political activist or political party.

If a south Asian lawyer defending a terror accused (which be a pretty run of the mill scenario) was in turn called a terrorist, would this be a bit racist or fair game?

[Jinx]

chrispmartha said:

That example kind of disproves your point, consensus was changed because of that

And anyway saying because it happened in that one case so it must be the same for Climate Change is utterly daft

What is daft is following and advocating consensus uncritically, as consensus is only one paper away from being changed.

[smn159]

Jinx said:

chrispmartha said:

That example kind of disproves your point, consensus was changed because of that

And anyway saying because it happened in that one case so it must be the same for Climate Change is utterly daft

What is daft is following and advocating consensus uncritically, as consensus is only one paper away from being changed.

What is really daft is asserting that the consensus is wrong just because it doesn't fit your preconceived worldview

[Gadgetmac]

R Mutt said:

Gadgetmac said:

No it isn't.

Many lawyers defend people whose cause they support. Look at most famous human rights lawyers for a start.

There's no comparison between defending a paedophile and a political activist or political party.

If a south Asian lawyer defending a terror accused (which be a pretty run of the mill scenario) was in turn called a terrorist, would this be a bit racist or fair game?

How about we forget the ifs and stick to the facts. Lawyers defend activists and political parties they have common cause with all the time.

Martin Mansfield and Shami Chakrabarti to name but two.

[Sophisticated Sarah]

Jinx said:

chrispmartha said:

That example kind of disproves your point, consensus was changed because of that

And anyway saying because it happened in that one case so it must be the same for Climate Change is utterly daft

What is daft is following and advocating consensus uncritically, as consensus is only one paper away from being changed.

Try getting funding for a paper going against the consensus

[zygalski]

Sophisticated Sarah said:

Jinx said:

chrispmartha said:

That example kind of disproves your point, consensus was changed because of that

And anyway saying because it happened in that one case so it must be the same for Climate Change is utterly daft

What is daft is following and advocating consensus uncritically, as consensus is only one paper away from being changed.

Try getting funding for a paper going against the consensus

No right wing Conservative Americans have any money?
Poor sods. No wonder they're so angsty.

[chrispmartha]

Sophisticated Sarah said:

Jinx said:

chrispmartha said:

That example kind of disproves your point, consensus was changed because of that

And anyway saying because it happened in that one case so it must be the same for Climate Change is utterly daft

What is daft is following and advocating consensus uncritically, as consensus is only one paper away from being changed.

Try getting funding for a paper going against the consensus

Why would he, as far as I'm aware he's not a scientist.

Have you tried? are you a scientist looking for funding?

[Gadgetmac]

Sophisticated Sarah said:

Jinx said:

chrispmartha said:

That example kind of disproves your point, consensus was changed because of that

And anyway saying because it happened in that one case so it must be the same for Climate Change is utterly daft

What is daft is following and advocating consensus uncritically, as consensus is only one paper away from being changed.

Try getting funding for a paper going against the consensus

Have you yourself tried? Is that how it works, you ask for funding to research say glacier melt in West Antarctica and "they" (whoever "they" are) ask you to submit your findings in advance so that they can determine whether to fund you or not?

I'm genuinely interested in your line of reasoning on how you think the application for funding process must work.

[anonymous-user]

Gadgetmac said:

Sophisticated Sarah said:

Jinx said:

chrispmartha said:

That example kind of disproves your point, consensus was changed because of that

And anyway saying because it happened in that one case so it must be the same for Climate Change is utterly daft

What is daft is following and advocating consensus uncritically, as consensus is only one paper away from being changed.

Try getting funding for a paper going against the consensus

Have you yourself tried? Is that how it works, you ask for funding to research say glacier melt in West Antarctica and "they" (whoever "they" are) ask you to submit your findings in advance so that they can determine whether to fund you or not?

I'm genuinely interested in your line of reasoning on how you think the application for funding process must work.

What do they need funding for anyway? The PistonHeads climate threads always have some resident expert posters thinking they can disprove any consensus. Not sure why they won’t publish their findings though. Some of them are even scientists. Isn’t that their job or duty or something?

If I thought I had evididence of the biggest scientific fraud in history, I’d be right up for uncovering it.

[anonymous-user]

Sophisticated Sarah said:

Jinx said:

chrispmartha said:

That example kind of disproves your point, consensus was changed because of that

And anyway saying because it happened in that one case so it must be the same for Climate Change is utterly daft

What is daft is following and advocating consensus uncritically, as consensus is only one paper away from being changed.

Try getting funding for a paper going against the consensus

That youtuber the thread is about is getting funding from the heartland institute. Surely they’d be up for sponsoring it?