The “anti-Greta”

[smn159]

I'd be interested to know which other scientific consensuses that the PH right are keen to disprove

Surely not just the ones which don't conform to their preconceived ideas of how the world should be?

[George Smiley]

lets take "left" and "right" out of this and replace with "common sense", "science presented", "science proven"

levelling it down to right wing or left wing is ridiculous and will never result in anything getting done.

Imagine if a right wing 19 year old got children that supported her views to go on strike

Imagine if the schooling system wasnt infiltrated with left wing socialist teachers with only a single message to instill in their students.

Next week Owen Jones will be campaigning against Yorkshire Tea for being right wing and homophobic (due to tea bagging)

[Chester35]

I think Greta and the macro scale of the planet is suddenly on the back burner when it comes to the microscale, a virus, and I.

Just sayin.....

[smn159]

George Smiley said:

lets take "left" and "right" out of this and replace with "common sense", "science presented", "science proven"

levelling it down to right wing or left wing is ridiculous and will never result in anything getting done.

Imagine if a right wing 19 year old got children that supported her views to go on strike

Imagine if the schooling system wasnt infiltrated with left wing socialist teachers with only a single message to instill in their students.

Next week Owen Jones will be campaigning against Yorkshire Tea for being right wing and homophobic (due to tea bagging)

Except pretty much every single poster denying the science has right wing views - or 'common sense' views as you put it with a typical lack of self awareness, despite you not being able to resist asserting 'left wing socialist teachers' and name checking Owen Jones

Maybe you lot can be persuaded that quantum mechanics and relativity are both lefty plots - with the cut and paste skills on display on the various climate threads we'd have a unified theory in no time

Provided of course that you can find it on Breitbart

[Gadgetmac]

smn159 said:

George Smiley said:

lets take "left" and "right" out of this and replace with "common sense", "science presented", "science proven"

levelling it down to right wing or left wing is ridiculous and will never result in anything getting done.

Imagine if a right wing 19 year old got children that supported her views to go on strike

Imagine if the schooling system wasnt infiltrated with left wing socialist teachers with only a single message to instill in their students.

Next week Owen Jones will be campaigning against Yorkshire Tea for being right wing and homophobic (due to tea bagging)

Except pretty much every single poster denying the science has right wing views - or 'common sense' views as you put it with a typical lack of self awareness, despite you not being able to resist asserting 'left wing socialist teachers' and name checking Owen Jones

Maybe you lot can be persuaded that quantum mechanics and relativity are both lefty plots - with the cut and paste skills on display on the various climate threads we'd have a unified theory in no time

Provided of course that you can find it on Breitbart

It always comes back to ideology for the deniers. It's got naff all to do with the science for them because that argument was effectively lost 20 years ago.

[voyds9]

Gadgetmac said:

I haven't heard anything remotely approaching the banning of oil based products in manufacturing for essentials. You're setting up a straw man.

This last couple of years we have announced the banning of coal at home, stopped ICE cars from 2035 (soon to be 2033), social pressure to ban single use straws.

I predict a further push this year to ban single use plastic coated cups.

It isn't a strawman its a gradual creep of the green agenda. A coming together of the green brigade and big business. From different stand points but to the same end.
Greens to reduce their perceived impact on the planet
Business to make us buy a more expensive alternative that need to be replaced more often.

[bitchstewie]

Honestly she really does sound delightful.

Naomi Seibt: 'anti-Greta' activist called white nationalist an inspiration

Quite the poster girl

[Gadgetmac]

voyds9 said:

Gadgetmac said:

I haven't heard anything remotely approaching the banning of oil based products in manufacturing for essentials. You're setting up a straw man.

This last couple of years we have announced the banning of coal at home, stopped ICE cars from 2035 (soon to be 2033), social pressure to ban single use straws.

I predict a further push this year to ban single use plastic coated cups.

It isn't a strawman its a gradual creep of the green agenda. A coming together of the green brigade and big business. From different stand points but to the same end.
Greens to reduce their perceived impact on the planet
Business to make us buy a more expensive alternative that need to be replaced more often.

Single use plastic cups are not what I'd call "essentials".

If business has ready made replacements ready to go then great, it's a step forward. The rules of supply and demand will still apply.

And I don't believe that big business will all of a sudden be producing goods that need replacing more often, that would be unacceptable on an age where the trend is in the opposite direction.

[tangerine_sedge]

bhstewie said:

Honestly she really does sound delightful.

Naomi Seibt: 'anti-Greta' activist called white nationalist an inspiration

Quite the poster girl

[Guybrush]

Gadgetmac said:

smn159 said:

George Smiley said:

lets take "left" and "right" out of this and replace with "common sense", "science presented", "science proven"

levelling it down to right wing or left wing is ridiculous and will never result in anything getting done.

Imagine if a right wing 19 year old got children that supported her views to go on strike

Imagine if the schooling system wasnt infiltrated with left wing socialist teachers with only a single message to instill in their students.

Next week Owen Jones will be campaigning against Yorkshire Tea for being right wing and homophobic (due to tea bagging)

Except pretty much every single poster denying the science has right wing views - or 'common sense' views as you put it with a typical lack of self awareness, despite you not being able to resist asserting 'left wing socialist teachers' and name checking Owen Jones

Maybe you lot can be persuaded that quantum mechanics and relativity are both lefty plots - with the cut and paste skills on display on the various climate threads we'd have a unified theory in no time

Provided of course that you can find it on Breitbart

It always comes back to ideology for the deniers. It's got naff all to do with the science for them because that argument was effectively lost 20 years ago.

Disagreeing with the (so called) "science", not denying it.

[Gadgetmac]

tangerine_sedge said:

bhstewie said:

Honestly she really does sound delightful.

Naomi Seibt: 'anti-Greta' activist called white nationalist an inspiration

Quite the poster girl

In another YouTube interview describing her embrace of “views that were outside the mainstream”, Seibt referred to the Canadian alt-right internet activist Stefan Molyneux as an “inspiration”.

Molyneux has been described as an “alleged cult leader who amplifies scientific racism, eugenics and white supremacism” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors extremism and white supremacy.

What a gal.

[smn159]

Guybrush said:

Disagreeing with the (so called) "science", not denying it.

Unless you happen to be a climate scientist I call bullst.

What you've done in practice is agree with those who share your (presumably right wing) worldview, regardless of what the science shows.

[Sophisticated Sarah]

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.

Studying an MSc in meteorology and climate. Lecturers have advised against research questioning the current ‘consensus’ as although they believe it’s flawed, you won’t get funding and will find yourself marginalised (so not tried and probably won’t). Like most they agree that the climate’s changing, they agree that we could be having an impact (most definitely with waste products such as plastics) so best to be cautious. However they’re not confident in the current models and are concerned about the implications for the respect of science if/when the predictions don’t come true.

From my position, I see no issue with moving towards renewables and think it’s good to diversify where energy comes from which is a pleasant side effect of the environmental movement. Not sure from what I’ve studied how much of an impact we have on the environment although I’m confident we have some.

Unfortunately politics, environmentalism, and science seem to have blended with only the extremes output by the media. This results in hysteria and rush to ‘solutions’, causes others to counter by believing the whole thing is bullst, and really gets us nowhere. I’d prefer a sensible approach with carrots rather than sticks e.g encourage users into renewables by providing a decent infrastructure, get public transport to a decent standard so it’s an option, invest in a charging network throughout the country so electric vehicles are a feasible option. Simply punishing people by raising taxes gets their backs up.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

Gadgetmac said:

It always comes back to ideology for the deniers. It's got naff all to do with the science for them because that argument was effectively lost 20 years ago.

Except science is not an argument and it isn't settled at all.

Anyone with the slightest idea of what science actually is could see that establishing a causal link between certain human activities and global temperature is not merely complex but impossible.

Yes I know many well funded lobby groups, universities, NGOs, actors and royals are thoroughly convinced by what is at best a tenuous correlation but I defy anyone to formulate a testable hypothesis for climate change that doesn't make flat earth theories look like valid point of view.

It does not exist.

[otolith]

You cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

You're wasting your time trying.

(I realise that both sides will assume that this is advice to them)

[Gadgetmac]

Sophisticated Sarah said:

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.

Studying an MSc in meteorology and climate. Lecturers have advised against research questioning the current ‘consensus’ as although they believe it’s flawed, you won’t get funding and will find yourself marginalised (so not tried and probably won’t). Like most they agree that the climate’s changing, they agree that we could be having an impact (most definitely with waste products such as plastics) so best to be cautious. However they’re not confident in the current models and are concerned about the implications for the respect of science if/when the predictions don’t come true.

From my position, I see no issue with moving towards renewables and think it’s good to diversify where energy comes from which is a pleasant side effect of the environmental movement. Not sure from what I’ve studied how much of an impact we have on the environment although I’m confident we have some.

Unfortunately politics, environmentalism, and science seem to have blended with only the extremes output by the media. This results in hysteria and rush to ‘solutions’, causes others to counter by believing the whole thing is bullst, and really gets us nowhere. I’d prefer a sensible approach with carrots rather than sticks e.g encourage users into renewables by providing a decent infrastructure, get public transport to a decent standard so it’s an option, invest in a charging network throughout the country so electric vehicles are a feasible option. Simply punishing people by raising taxes gets their backs up.

So you are telling me that your lecturers do not believe that the earth is warming in-line with expectations for the additional amount of co2 we have released into the atmosphere? Rather they are concentrating on the use of plastics as a possible cause for any warming over co2?

Can you give me a name of one of these lecturers please because I’d like to ping a quick email off to hear that for myself. They normally reply to such requests as I and others have done this before. It’s never come back as advertised yet.

Cheers.

[otolith]

Is it a paid masters? Do they do refunds?

[bitchstewie]

tangerine_sedge said:

bhstewie said:

Honestly she really does sound delightful.

Naomi Seibt: 'anti-Greta' activist called white nationalist an inspiration

Quite the poster girl

Not quite what I meant by poster child.

She seems a strange person to go to bat for when you look at some of the stuff she's said.

By that I mean I don't think that her comments about Jews and Muslims and other things paint her in a good light.

She doesn't seem like much of a role model for your children but she'll probably get a bunch of bitter blokes on the Internet tuning in.

Good luck to her but no thanks.

[Getragdogleg]

This is nuts, the only people saying that she is "the darling of the climate sceptic movement" are the graun and Co.

It's like they are leading the narrative already.

It's fking clever stuff really, to get ahead of this so it's already discredited before it gets going.

Noted.

[jshell]

Sophisticated Sarah said:

Studying an MSc in meteorology and climate. Lecturers have advised against research questioning the current ‘consensus’ as although they believe it’s flawed, you won’t get funding and will find yourself marginalised (so not tried and probably won’t). Like most they agree that the climate’s changing, they agree that we could be having an impact (most definitely with waste products such as plastics) so best to be cautious. However they’re not confident in the current models and are concerned about the implications for the respect of science if/when the predictions don’t come true.

From my position, I see no issue with moving towards renewables and think it’s good to diversify where energy comes from which is a pleasant side effect of the environmental movement. Not sure from what I’ve studied how much of an impact we have on the environment although I’m confident we have some.

Unfortunately politics, environmentalism, and science seem to have blended with only the extremes output by the media. This results in hysteria and rush to ‘solutions’, causes others to counter by believing the whole thing is bullst, and really gets us nowhere. I’d prefer a sensible approach with carrots rather than sticks e.g encourage users into renewables by providing a decent infrastructure, get public transport to a decent standard so it’s an option, invest in a charging network throughout the country so electric vehicles are a feasible option. Simply punishing people by raising taxes gets their backs up.

This is a good post and demonstrates one of the problems in actually having a debate. I worked with a team of Meteorologists who privately ridiculed the models and many of the accepted notions. In public they were all true believers!

Mild scepticism costs careers.