The “anti-Greta”

[Esceptico]

It seems there is now a right wing alternative to Greta:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/25/an...

Unlike the real Greta this one is financially supported by a right wing lobbying group (the Heartland Institute) and has links to far right organisations (Young AfD) and it seems her mother has links to the far right too.

Will we see a thread with hundreds of pages on here that accuse her of being a puppet, with memes about her odd appearance and age?

[Esceptico]

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

I find it difficult to take Turbo and is ilk seriously because the current acceptance of AGW is not built on a single argument or a single line of evidence, rather there are lots of different phenomena that support the notion that increases in CO2 drive increased temperatures (and that humans are responsible). It is improbable that AGW is wrong and improbable claims demand extraordinary evidence. The stuff posted by Turbo from denier websites and whataboutery from others on here who are not climate scientists doesn’t come close to meeting that requirement. Hence I am very skeptics of their claims.

[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.

[Esceptico]

Gadgetmac said:

And I'll leave you with this one link also:

https://www.splcenter.org/20140331/agenda-21-un-su...

Could only read a bit of that as it was so depressing. I would ask how people can be so stupid but then there is plenty of evidence of it on these climate change related threads.

[Esceptico]

Jinx said:

This is an internet forum - not suitable for a treatise on the socialist paradigm inherent in the composition of the United Nations. Hence the links to further reading rather than a 10,000 word exposition with bibliography which will merely elicit a TL:DR response.

I'll leave you with this one link instead. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/docu...

It would be better if you could link to a document that shows the extent to which those lofty, non binding goals from 1992 have been met or if any of them have been implemented to any great extent. Given that annual CO2 emissions have increased massively, the population has grown by another half a billion or so, big chunks of the Amazon rainforest have disappeared, etc plus the fact that most of the world’s population are ruled over by right wing or totalitarian regimes the answer is likely to be no. But please do carry on scaremongering based on no facts.