Oh Jeez, there is no question about the massive human influence on climate change. Read the science and learn or shut up.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Greta Thunberg - brave campaigner or deeply disturbed?
- Thread starter Matthew Best
- Start date
- Status
Oh Jeez, there is no question about the massive human influence on climate change. Read the science and learn or shut up.
With caveats.
Yes I read what you say. Do you think before you post?
Look, you come into this thread admitting you know nothing about the topic. You then repeat denialist arguments and expect not to be criticised for denialism. Grow up.
I read the story of her boat trip, seen the thread and commented on her trip.
You replied to my thoughts on her boat trip.
Then accused me of climate change denial after about 8 posts from me saying climate change is true and man plays a part.
Because you would have to be an idiot to deny it.
All I did was criticise her one method of travel.
At least try to come up with a criticism of my points that isn't plain obvious twisting to justify your adoration to the girl
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
Why are young climate activists facing so much hate?
"Those who have resorted to personal attacks on the activist appear to be "retreating into various forms of denial", Nigel Thomas, professor of childhood and youth at the University of Lancashire, says.
Given the seriousness of scientists' climate warnings, some "may feel threatened by a teenager who has clearly understood and faced up to the trouble we are all in".
So far, she has shown restraint, staying mostly above the fray."
"Those who have resorted to personal attacks on the activist appear to be "retreating into various forms of denial", Nigel Thomas, professor of childhood and youth at the University of Lancashire, says.
Given the seriousness of scientists' climate warnings, some "may feel threatened by a teenager who has clearly understood and faced up to the trouble we are all in".
So far, she has shown restraint, staying mostly above the fray."
So you don't trust the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community that man is directly responsible for global warming? Your personal ignorance on the subject is irrelevant when you have countless expert scientists stating the same thing. That's why we rely on experts in the first place.
But apparently you can be bothered to tell everyone about just how you "can't be bothered making an effort over a teenager just saying what loads of other people say".
For someone so indifferent you seem awfully keen on making sure everyone knows just how indifferent you are. Now that's what you would call virtue signaling.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Yes. That is how a couple of friends of mine used to regularly travel to the US. In their case, saving money.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
I think calling someone a 'hater' because they disagree with something is merely setting up a straw man. The claim that anyone who disagrees with Greta Thunberg's form of PR 'must be jealous' or they 'bully little children' is just a form of logical fallacy: the ad hominem.
Why not tackle the argument instead of the person. The idea that if you are sixteen you are ring-fenced from debate or criticism strikes me as avoiding the issues and instead engaging in personal attack.
Headlines like 'Why do people hate children who campaign for climate change' strike me as manipulative and presumptuous.
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
I agree; but as I've already explained, the attacks on Thunberg aren't confined to disagreement over her view that the climate is changing. They are bizarrely personal and even juvenile at times, and I believe that qualifies those attackers for the title of "hater".
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
Funny how the more political the subject, the less skeptical this <cough> skeptics board becomes. Could somebody please present a rational argument (valid reason?) as to why anyone should listen to what a 16 year old Swedish high school dropout with Asperger's (and who knows what else, FAS perhaps) has to say on both a highly controversial political subject and the thoroughly imprecise "science" related to it that she (like the rest of humanity) knows essentially nothing about?
Don't forget, she's the only human being who's ever (claimed to have) seen those invisible, teeny-tiny CO2 molecules with the naked eye. Which according to her is a pollutant. She "sees how it flows out of chimneys and turns the atmosphere into a rubbish tip." Yet CO2 has never been designated a pollutant by anyone or anything intelligent anywhere. Ever! In fact the opposite is true, (from 6th grade science) carbon is the basic building block of life and so essential to it (where do you think all that carbon in the carbon cycle comes from?) that CO2's present day minor concentration in the atmosphere (400 PPM) going below 150 PPM would inevitably end all life on earth.
No I'm not trying to convince a skeptics board to be skeptical, that would be stupidity on my part. I'm after just one valid reason why I should be listening in earnest to a young unattractive political shill who would otherwise have a hard time convincing anyone she's even female. I mean, if the general attitude in society is we're to "listen to the scientists" (a prevailing if not misguided sentiment), you can't arbitrarily add to that "and drop-out resource classes teenagers who really like attention and sailing on ships" and still claim any seriousness.
Would Kim Kardashian be a better or worse Carbon Is Bad™ spokesmodel than Greta Thunberg? Why?
Don't forget, she's the only human being who's ever (claimed to have) seen those invisible, teeny-tiny CO2 molecules with the naked eye. Which according to her is a pollutant. She "sees how it flows out of chimneys and turns the atmosphere into a rubbish tip." Yet CO2 has never been designated a pollutant by anyone or anything intelligent anywhere. Ever! In fact the opposite is true, (from 6th grade science) carbon is the basic building block of life and so essential to it (where do you think all that carbon in the carbon cycle comes from?) that CO2's present day minor concentration in the atmosphere (400 PPM) going below 150 PPM would inevitably end all life on earth.
No I'm not trying to convince a skeptics board to be skeptical, that would be stupidity on my part. I'm after just one valid reason why I should be listening in earnest to a young unattractive political shill who would otherwise have a hard time convincing anyone she's even female. I mean, if the general attitude in society is we're to "listen to the scientists" (a prevailing if not misguided sentiment), you can't arbitrarily add to that "and drop-out resource classes teenagers who really like attention and sailing on ships" and still claim any seriousness.
Would Kim Kardashian be a better or worse Carbon Is Bad™ spokesmodel than Greta Thunberg? Why?
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
The above is a fairly exemplary QED of my prior point. The poster isn't simply saying they think Thunberg is wrong about climate change; they also are compelled to describe her as "unattractive", a "high school dropout", having "Aspergers and who knows what else", a "political shill", even invoking her nationality as part of a list of qualities the poster implies are discrediting or make her unworthy of attention. This person clearly has as much a problem with Thunberg personally as they do with Thunberg's message; that's why "haters" is a valid moniker.
Exactly.
One thing this thread is doing is uncovering irrational, unscientific climate change deniers.
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
(from my previous link):
Global warming, according to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is being caused by human activity. This conclusion is shared by 97% of actively publishing climate scientists, a 2016 study of peer-reviewed journals found. If carbon emissions are not curbed, and global temperatures continue to rise, researchers expect the risks of climate change to increase.
As purveyors of this scientific consensus, young climate activists are in the crosshairs of those who oppose radical action on it.
Rather than me having to read through every chapter and section
How about you quote the sentence that says climate change is being caused solely by man
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
A.1. Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C.
Oh, nobody expects you to educate yourself. But it’s good for everyone if you refrain on commenting about things you have no idea about.
You are coming across as a denier, do you realise this?
- Status