The “anti-Greta”
Discussion
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 total emissions of co2 from everything, volcanic activity and other natural emissions?
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?
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. http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-abo...
"His own rendition of himself"? Got a link?
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's that as a percentage of the total emissions of co2 from everything, volcanic activity and other natural emissions?
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.
Gadgetmac said:
Worst Photoshop ever.
"His own rendition of himself"? Got a link?
Yup! It is very old though: http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2015/0..."His own rendition of himself"? Got a link?
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. 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.Silkyskills said:
JagLover said:
There's scientific consensus that the world is about to end?
Is there?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.
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.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?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 know you can't trust the "MSM".
And anyway what's wrong with big Tobacco?
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?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.
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.The global scientific consensus clearly represents the vested interests, while the plucky Exxon funded Heartland Institute represents the voice of stupidity - sorry, common sense.
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. 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 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. The global scientific consensus clearly represents the vested interests, while the plucky Exxon funded Heartland Institute represents the voice of stupidity - sorry, common sense.
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.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff