The “anti-Greta”

Author
Discussion

Getragdogleg

8,736 posts

182 months

Thursday 27th February 2020
quotequote all
budgie smuggler said:
Getragdogleg said:
Its not down to us and our tiny co2 emissions.
What's 33 gigatonnes a year between friends?
What's that as a percentage of the atmosphere?

What's that as a percentage of the total emissions of co2 from everything, volcanic activity and other natural emissions?

dudleybloke

19,717 posts

185 months

Thursday 27th February 2020
quotequote all
AmosMoses said:
This can only end in a pay per view MMA fight laugh
Let's make this happen!

Gadgetmac

14,984 posts

107 months

Thursday 27th February 2020
quotequote all
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...
Is that what scientists have said? I must have missed it. . smile

Gadgetmac

14,984 posts

107 months

Thursday 27th February 2020
quotequote all
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...

Worst Photoshop ever. hehe

"His own rendition of himself"? Got a link?

budgie smuggler

5,359 posts

158 months

Thursday 27th February 2020
quotequote all
Getragdogleg said:
What's that as a percentage of the atmosphere?

What's that as a percentage of the total emissions of co2 from everything, volcanic activity and other natural emissions?
No, I don't think I'll waste my time looking those up because then you will come back with some other whataboutery and we'll end up with the "scientific discussion" thread all over again. The figures are easily found if you're really interested.

What I will do is give a link to the CO2 level measured at a station in Hawaii which has increased by ~30% since 1960.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Honestly some of the alarmism has been ridiculous, the famous "children aren't going to know what snow is" for example. But that doesn't mean that we can burn 93 million barrels of oil a day with no effect.

jshell

11,006 posts

204 months

Thursday 27th February 2020
quotequote all
Gadgetmac said:
Worst Photoshop ever. hehe

"His own rendition of himself"? Got a link?
Yup! It is very old though: http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2015/0...

R Mutt

5,882 posts

71 months

Thursday 27th February 2020
quotequote all
Why wouldn't we just have a normal person standing up against her, on behalf of normal people who want to be able to live their lives mindfully of their environmental but emitting a bit of CO2 in the process of going about their daily business?

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 27th February 2020
quotequote all
R Mutt said:
Why wouldn't we just have a normal person standing up against her, on behalf of normal people who want to be able to live their lives mindfully of their environmental but emitting a bit of CO2 in the process of going about their daily business?
Because normal people would just be getting on with their lives.

jshell

11,006 posts

204 months

Thursday 27th February 2020
quotequote all
R Mutt said:
Why wouldn't we just have a normal person standing up against her, on behalf of normal people who want to be able to live their lives mindfully of their environmental but emitting a bit of CO2 in the process of going about their daily business?
Because 'normal' people would be personally and profesionally slaughtered by the clima-machine. Looks like they've had to also weaponise a young girl to try and avoid the normal vitriolic attacks by the vested interests.

gazza285

9,779 posts

207 months

Thursday 27th February 2020
quotequote all
Silkyskills said:
JagLover said:
There's scientific consensus that the world is about to end?
Is there?
Absolutely there is consensus that the world is going to end, it is the timescale that is proving to be more difficult to pin down.



A bit like the dinosaurs, the sum total of all mankind's endeavours will be some fossils, at least until the planet is consumed by the Sun, and maybe an insignificant bit of space junk.

Gadgetmac

14,984 posts

107 months

Thursday 27th February 2020
quotequote all
jshell said:
R Mutt said:
Why wouldn't we just have a normal person standing up against her, on behalf of normal people who want to be able to live their lives mindfully of their environmental but emitting a bit of CO2 in the process of going about their daily business?
Because 'normal' people would be personally and profesionally slaughtered by the clima-machine. Looks like they've had to also weaponise a young girl to try and avoid the normal vitriolic attacks by the vested interests.
"Vested interests"...Are we still talking about the Exxon funded Heartland Institute?

bitchstewie

50,767 posts

209 months

Thursday 27th February 2020
quotequote all
El stovey said:
All paid for by the heartland institute

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/1...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Instit...

After moving on from defending the tobaco industry are now using the same tactics and behind much of the anti AGW science blogs and online propaganda




You don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia do you?

You know you can't trust the "MSM".

And anyway what's wrong with big Tobacco? hehe

JagLover

42,265 posts

234 months

Thursday 27th February 2020
quotequote all
El stovey said:
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?
No, not that I’ve seen. I think you’re describing the extreme end of the debate. The scientific consensus is about the IPCCs position. Which is quite different from some of the more extreme predictions from people like XR.

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.
Leaving aside the suggestion that all scientists support the IPCC position, Greta is on the extreme end of the debate so she does not have the scientific backing to differentiate her from anti-Greta.

Gadgetmac

14,984 posts

107 months

Thursday 27th February 2020
quotequote all
We've had this discussion a few times. I'd ask what GT had said that puts her on the extreme end of the debate but then you'll have managed to turn this thread into yet another Greta thread and steered it off from it's topic of Naomi Seibt.

smn159

12,445 posts

216 months

Thursday 27th February 2020
quotequote all
Gadgetmac said:
jshell said:
R Mutt said:
Why wouldn't we just have a normal person standing up against her, on behalf of normal people who want to be able to live their lives mindfully of their environmental but emitting a bit of CO2 in the process of going about their daily business?
Because 'normal' people would be personally and profesionally slaughtered by the clima-machine. Looks like they've had to also weaponise a young girl to try and avoid the normal vitriolic attacks by the vested interests.
"Vested interests"...Are we still talking about the Exxon funded Heartland Institute?
Some mistake surely?

The global scientific consensus clearly represents the vested interests, while the plucky Exxon funded Heartland Institute represents the voice of stupidity - sorry, common sense.

JagLover

42,265 posts

234 months

Thursday 27th February 2020
quotequote all
smn159 said:
Some mistake surely?

The global scientific consensus clearly represents the vested interests, while the plucky Exxon funded Heartland Institute represents the voice of stupidity - sorry, common sense.
I'm sorry but there are vast financial interests invested in things like renewable energy and electric cars and big money to make. Where there is money to be made there are vested interests by definition.

Gadgetmac

14,984 posts

107 months

Thursday 27th February 2020
quotequote all
JagLover said:
smn159 said:
Some mistake surely?

The global scientific consensus clearly represents the vested interests, while the plucky Exxon funded Heartland Institute represents the voice of stupidity - sorry, common sense.
I'm sorry but there are vast financial interests invested in things like renewable energy and electric cars and big money to make. Where there is money to be made there are vested interests by definition.
No bigger vested interest than Oil.

steveatesh

4,893 posts

163 months

Thursday 27th February 2020
quotequote all
Gadgetmac said:
No bigger vested interest than Oil.
And yet logically any successful business has to diversify as their market changes and I would bet BigOil as you call it is likewise looking to diversify.

For example:

“ The numbers are impossible to ignore. Consider that ExxonMobil (NYSE:XOM), Royal Dutch Shell (NYSE:RDS.A) (NYSE:RDS.B), Chevron (NYSE:CVX), BP (NYSE:BP), and Total SA (NYSE:TOT) have generated a combined $44.6 billion in free cash flow in the last 12 months. That's a whole lot of solar panels. Or research and development. Or equity investments in promising start-ups.

Turns out, big oil is doing all of the above. Here's where and how these companies are investing billions of dollars in renewable energy technologies.”


https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/06/04/big-oil-...

Other sources such as the Independent are also available.

Jasandjules

69,825 posts

228 months

Thursday 27th February 2020
quotequote all
Randy Winkman said:
Greta's role is just to point to the evidence that's already out there. There's no need for her to come up with new stuff.
The evidence is provided by Dr Judith Curry, who disagrees with Greta....

Gadgetmac

14,984 posts

107 months

Thursday 27th February 2020
quotequote all
They may be investing in New tech but the money/returns are still in oil. Not to mention the vast majority of the assets.

Of course they are diversifying, they know they are staring down the barrel.