The “anti-Greta”
Discussion
El stovey said:
All paid for by the heartland institute
Is this a problem?The left wing have their finance streams and obviously so do the right wing.
As has been well established, the topic of man made global warming is nothing but politics and agenda.
As one side pushes the narrative that the earth only has 11.5 years left, the other side will rise by a similar amount to put forward the case as to why its all bullshine.
Politics.
stew-STR160 said:
To point out again for the hard of thinking faith members, this girl was posting her videos and such BEFORE Heartland or anyone else chose to step in.
Which I believe is much like Greta, which you lot want to defend as if she's an actual holy person.
Isn't that 'whataboutism'?Which I believe is much like Greta, which you lot want to defend as if she's an actual holy person.
stew-STR160 said:
To point out again for the hard of thinking faith members, this girl was posting her videos and such BEFORE Heartland or anyone else chose to step in.
Which I believe is much like Greta, which you lot want to defend as if she's an actual holy person.
When did she start posting videos and when did the heartland Institute get involved? Which I believe is much like Greta, which you lot want to defend as if she's an actual holy person.
GroundZero said:
El stovey said:
All paid for by the heartland institute
Is this a problem?The left wing have their finance streams and obviously so do the right wing.
As has been well established, the topic of man made global warming is nothing but politics and agenda.
As one side pushes the narrative that the earth only has 11.5 years left, the other side will rise by a similar amount to put forward the case as to why its all bullshine.
Politics.
Which one seems to be the more likely to be right?
Getragdogleg said:
The climate change message is utterly negative the whole way through, not a single benefit is allowed to be discussed.
Any person or organisation who offers a different view to that being pushed is criticised and called a denier or far right.
This is a thread started by a true believer to try and establish that this girl is "far right" so therefore bad, and spread yet more negativity.
What the hell are you doing here? On this forum? Really.
It's no wonder accusations of paid shill and shift work gets thrown at you guys, it's weird and most free thinkers can see right through you.
It's interesting that you extol the virtues of free thinking, yet in the very preceding sentence question why someone of different opinion should be on this forum.Any person or organisation who offers a different view to that being pushed is criticised and called a denier or far right.
This is a thread started by a true believer to try and establish that this girl is "far right" so therefore bad, and spread yet more negativity.
What the hell are you doing here? On this forum? Really.
It's no wonder accusations of paid shill and shift work gets thrown at you guys, it's weird and most free thinkers can see right through you.
So is free thinking only allowed if it's the same type of thinking you have?
El stovey said:
But on one side there’s the scientific consensus and every notable scientific organisation on the planet and the vast majority of scientists and on the other there’s advocacy blogs and youtubers paid for by the heartland institute.
Which one seems to be the more likely to be right?
There's scientific consensus that the world is about to end?Which one seems to be the more likely to be right?
JagLover said:
El stovey said:
But on one side there’s the scientific consensus and every notable scientific organisation on the planet and the vast majority of scientists and on the other there’s advocacy blogs and youtubers paid for by the heartland institute.
Which one seems to be the more likely to be right?
There's scientific consensus that the world is about to end?Which one seems to be the more likely to be right?
Just as on the sceptic side positions vary from it’s all a made up lefty plot to people believing in man made climate change and just arguing about the extent of it and likely outcome.
Jasandjules said:
I saw something about this, however surely this is simply the same issue with Greta - a child who has no actual knowledge on the subject and thus is neither expert nor educated on the matter. Which then begs the question as to why anyone should pay any attention to what they say..
Climate change deniers don't pay any attention to what educated adult experts with actual knowledge on the subject have to say. El stovey said:
GroundZero said:
El stovey said:
All paid for by the heartland institute
Is this a problem?The left wing have their finance streams and obviously so do the right wing.
As has been well established, the topic of man made global warming is nothing but politics and agenda.
As one side pushes the narrative that the earth only has 11.5 years left, the other side will rise by a similar amount to put forward the case as to why its all bullshine.
Politics.
Which one seems to be the more likely to be right?
Given that the paper that came up with the 97% consensus figure was barely useful to wipe one's ass with, if this consensus idea is the "silver bullet" which makes it all scientific fact, I'd suggest your silver bullet is neither silver, nor a bullet.
More of a nothing burger tbh.
/me awaits being called something to do with tights.
156651 said:
Jasandjules said:
I saw something about this, however surely this is simply the same issue with Greta - a child who has no actual knowledge on the subject and thus is neither expert nor educated on the matter. Which then begs the question as to why anyone should pay any attention to what they say..
Climate change deniers don't pay any attention to what educated adult experts with actual knowledge on the subject have to say. El stovey said:
But on one side there’s the scientific consensus and every notable scientific organisation on the planet and the vast majority of scientists and on the other there’s advocacy blogs and youtubers paid for by the heartland institute.
Which one seems to be the more likely to be right?
Only 11.5 years before we find out / freeze to death... Which one seems to be the more likely to be right?
GoodCompany said:
Nice. Do you know who this is? Maybe not, this is John Cook who runs/owns Skeptical Science website of true climadoom belief... This is his rendition of himself as a Nazi - thouh the've changed the cap badge. Note the name bottom left though...
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-abo...
jshell said:
Nice. Do you know who this is? Maybe not, this is John Cook who runs/owns Skeptical Science website of true climadoom belief... This is his rendition of himself as a Nazi - thouh the've changed the cap badge. Note the name bottom left though...
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-abo...
That's David Mitchell..http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-abo...
Vanden Saab said:
El stovey said:
But on one side there’s the scientific consensus and every notable scientific organisation on the planet and the vast majority of scientists and on the other there’s advocacy blogs and youtubers paid for by the heartland institute.
Which one seems to be the more likely to be right?
Only 11.5 years before we find out / freeze to death... Which one seems to be the more likely to be right?
Sophisticated Sarah said:
Vanden Saab said:
El stovey said:
But on one side there’s the scientific consensus and every notable scientific organisation on the planet and the vast majority of scientists and on the other there’s advocacy blogs and youtubers paid for by the heartland institute.
Which one seems to be the more likely to be right?
Only 11.5 years before we find out / freeze to death... Which one seems to be the more likely to be right?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff