The “anti-Greta”

[dudleybloke]

Why do people still bring up the SPLC as a source of good facts?

They may have once been a force for good but now are so hitched to the "woke" train that they call black Israelites white supremacists.

[Gadgetmac]

I think if you look at what Stefan Molyneux has actually said you'll find the SPLC are correct.

[Dont Panic]

Gadgetmac said:

Well she did it again over the weekend...praised a white nationalist.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/ent...

She's exactly the sort of woman you'd want hanging around with your daughters.

Whats it got to do with her views on climate change and why do you think theyre less valid as a result?
Shes only there as a counterpoint to Gretas antifa buddies who as we all know are by far the most cowardly set of bullies and similar to the real fascists they claim to hate.

Oh and we dont hear you rattling on about white Scottish Nationalism or Welsh Nationalism do we?
Weak argument is weak as.

[Gadgetmac]

Dont Panic said:

Gadgetmac said:

Well she did it again over the weekend...praised a white nationalist.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/ent...

She's exactly the sort of woman you'd want hanging around with your daughters.

Whats it got to do with her views on climate change and why do you think theyre less valid as a result?
Shes only there as a counterpoint to Gretas antifa buddies who as we all know are by far the most cowardly set of bullies and similar to the real fascists they claim to hate.

Oh and we dont hear you rattling on about white Scottish Nationalism or Welsh Nationalism do we?
Weak argument is weak as.

You really are rabid on this subject aren't you?

And WTF has Scottish/Welsh nationalism got to do with White Nationalism?

One is a legitimate wish for nationhood the other is a vile doctrine of the far right.

[smn159]

Dont Panic said:

I found the level of debate... to be at a level I felt i could contribute to

[rscott]

Dont Panic said:

Gadgetmac said:

Well she did it again over the weekend...praised a white nationalist.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/ent...

She's exactly the sort of woman you'd want hanging around with your daughters.

Whats it got to do with her views on climate change and why do you think theyre less valid as a result?
Shes only there as a counterpoint to Gretas antifa buddies who as we all know are by far the most cowardly set of bullies and similar to the real fascists they claim to hate.

Oh and we dont hear you rattling on about white Scottish Nationalism or Welsh Nationalism do we?
Weak argument is weak as.

Are you unable to tell the difference between antifa and anti-fascists ?

[Dont Panic]

Gadgetmac said:

You really are rabid on this subject aren't you?

And WTF has Scottish/Welsh nationalism got to do with White Nationalism?

One is a legitimate wish for nationhood the other is a vile doctrine of the far right.

Lordy lordy! Now youre getting it!

Dont wish to labour the point , but lets do it one more time for you, What have her views on any other subject got to do with her views on climate change religion?
Hint- nowt

So why do you want to talk about her personality/unconnected views rather than her position on the subject matter?
Another hint- To lower her in the estimation of others as a roundabout method to invalidate her message.
Just the same as you on the warmside accuse others of doing to Greta.

Arguing with you makes me feel like ive grown my IQ by a negative number.

[Dont Panic]

rscott said:

Are you unable to tell the difference between antifa and anti-fascists ?

Of course but im interested in the climate angle more than the rest of this diversion.

[Gadgetmac]

smn159 said:

Dont Panic said:

I found the level of debate... to be at a level I felt i could contribute to

Indeed.

[Gadgetmac]

Dont Panic said:

Gadgetmac said:

You really are rabid on this subject aren't you?

And WTF has Scottish/Welsh nationalism got to do with White Nationalism?

One is a legitimate wish for nationhood the other is a vile doctrine of the far right.

Lordy lordy! Now youre getting it!

Dont wish to labour the point , but lets do it one more time for you, What have her views on any other subject got to do with her views on climate change religion?
Hint- nowt

So why do you want to talk about her personality/unconnected views rather than her position on the subject matter?
Another hint- To lower her in the estimation of others as a roundabout method to invalidate her message.
Just the same as you on the warmside accuse others of doing to Greta.

Arguing with you makes me feel like ive grown my IQ by a negative number.

Your IQ was already in seriously negative territory long before you "argued" with me. You can't tell the difference between Scots Nats and White Nats so how on earth you think you're arguing with me over anything is bewildering.

This thread is about anti greta in the round, not just about her climate views. The clue is in the thread title. Just like the Greta Thunberg thread was turned into a thread full of unsavoury memes and innuendo well this thread actually has some meat on the bones when it comes distasteful views.

Are you getting it yet?

[smn159]

I'd suggest that someone joining a car forum and then spending his time exclusively in NP&E making right wing posts is not the most rounded of individuals, making debate pretty pointless.

[Gadgetmac]

smn159 said:

I'd suggest that someone joining a car forum and then spending his time exclusively in NP&E making right wing posts is not the most rounded of individuals, making debate pretty pointless.

Yeah I agree. I've seen his style of posting before but just can't put my finger on where.

What's really grating for him is that having had the run of the piss taking on the Greta thread it turns out their hero is a white supremacist loving Heartland Institute lackey. Their darling probably goose steps around her house when nobody is watching.

[Esceptico]

Dont Panic said:

You do realise that correlation dosnt equal causation?

Glad to see youre a sceptic, welcome to the rightside.

Of course correlation doesn’t prove causation but it many cases correlation is because of causation. That is how much science works: we see a potential relationship between two variables, vary one and see if the other changes in line with our hypothesis. The strength of the correlation can help decide the confidence we can have in our hypothesis. In the case of AGW we are more than 95% confident that human activity is mainly responsible for the measured increase in global temperatures over the past century or so.

[rscott]

Dont Panic said:

rscott said:

Are you unable to tell the difference between antifa and anti-fascists ?

Of course but im interested in the climate angle more than the rest of this diversion.

Then why mention antifa?

[Jinx]

Esceptico said:

In the case of AGW we are more than 95% confident that human activity is mainly responsible for the measured increase in global temperatures over the past century or so.

The famous 95% - you do know how they got to this figure don't you? AR5 back peddled on a few things compared with AR4, the ECS range was expanded (and strangely not narrowed given the 30 years or so of study) and yet in the political summary for policy makers the "confidence" was increased to 95% (a "consensus" number that was chosen because it sounds statistically relevent) .
There are numerous published papers that put the "mainly" at around the 50% level (so half man half a-n-other) and yet very little assessment of the effects (if any) of the various mitigation strategies (especially if the 50% is the correct figure) .
I've made this point before and as yet have never received a proper answer - even if you accept the AGW premise the mitigation strategies (Paris) will do nothing measurable to address the percieved problem and instead will cause huge problems themselves. So let's move the conversation on and show me that the problem is really understood by providing proper solutions.

[Gadgetmac]

Can you list a few of these papers that put the confidence level at 50% please. I'd like a quick read.

Your statement that they used 95% as it sounds "statistically relevant" also needs some back up or is this just your opinion? Frankly 75% sounds relevant as does 98%.

That aside, even if it is at 50% (it's not btw) do you not think that 50% is enough to be absolutely going all out to do whatever can be done to reduce GHG's?

[Halb]

AmosMoses said:

This can only end in a pay per view MMA fight

Royal Rumble?

[jshell]

Jinx said:

So let's move the conversation on and show me that the problem is really understood by providing proper solutions.

Political aspirations prefer not to have easy solutions...

[Jinx]

Gadgetmac said:

Can you list a few of these papers that put the confidence level at 50% please. I'd like a quick read.

Your statement that they used 95% as it sounds "statistically relevant" also needs some back up or is this just your opinion? Frankly 75% sounds relevant as does 98%.

That aside, even if it is at 50% (it's not btw) do you not think that 50% is enough to be absolutely going all out to do whatever can be done to reduce GHG's?

1-

https://www.pnas.org/content/110/6/2058.full

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.110...

2-

Confidence interval

3-
No. My reduction in GHG will make no difference (based on accepting the IPCC science). The UK's reduction will make no difference. Even the USA's reduction will make no measureable difference. Mitigation (given the growth in China and India) has and will fail.
The "solutions" offered are not a "solution" for CAGW but the solution to the problem of Capitalism (the system that has seen great advances in science, health, well-being and freedom) . Only when you see the problem as capitalism do the proposed solutions make any sense because they do not for CAGW.

[GroundZero]

Jinx said:

1-

https://www.pnas.org/content/110/6/2058.full

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.110...

2-

Confidence interval

3-
No. My reduction in GHG will make no difference (based on accepting the IPCC science). The UK's reduction will make no difference. Even the USA's reduction will make no measureable difference. Mitigation (given the growth in China and India) has and will fail.
The "solutions" offered are not a "solution" for CAGW but the solution to the problem of Capitalism (the system that has seen great advances in science, health, well-being and freedom) . Only when you see the problem as capitalism do the proposed solutions make any sense because they do not for CAGW.

Well said.

I think many more people in the west are coming to realise that the "climate crisis" is nothing more than a political agenda and very little to do with any emergency identified or predicted by science.
The thing that still seals it for me is the continuance of the "debate is settled" argument. This alone takes the whole thing out of the domain of science and lands it firmly in to the domain of politics.