Greta Thunberg - brave campaigner or deeply disturbed?

[Skeptical Greg]

Why has the government of the U.S. not done so to an extent to be able to offer some methods of mitigation?

Good question..

We have about $4.5 trillion this year to spend on whatever..

I guess someone needs to convince them that rising sea levels needs a big chunk of that..

That said, it's really hard to get people to move until it's too late.

 

[ceptimus]

Would you suggest that if you fall off a 30-story building does it only become a crisis when you hit the ground?

The fact that you have yet to experience the full effects doesn’t mean it’s not a crisis. If it’s happening now and it ends badly it’s accurate to call it crisis.

By that argument, being alive is a crisis - it always ends in death.

 

[Cheetah]

By that argument, being alive is a crisis - it always ends in death.

Great counter argument!
You convinced me, there is no crisis.

 

[cullennz]

You are a climate change denier then, by definition. We finally got there.

Then you can't speak english

Putting aside the obvious reason you use the word "denier".

"Climate change denier"
Definition - Some one who denies climate change is happening. The clue is in the three words. It isn't that difficult to work out.

I can draw a diagram if necessary

Not someone who agrees with climate change, but just questions the ratio of man to natural.

Buy a dictionary

 

[cullennz]

Yeah, there's a whole new breed of them with a new denial.

"Yes, it's AGW, but it's not that bad. The place I am is fine and nothing bad's happened to me. Can you show me the crisis?"

As opposed to the new breed of hysterics

 

[3point14]

As opposed to the new breed of hysterics

You're not using that word right.

(Isn't it funny how your considered, critical view of the situation produces a conclusion that allows you to continue doing exactly as you have your whole life and not have to change anything. Dead convenient.)

 

[lionking]

Then you can't speak english

Putting aside the obvious reason you use the word "denier".

"Climate change denier"
Definition - Some one who denies climate change is happening. The clue is in the three words. It isn't that difficult to work out.

I can draw a diagram if necessary

Not someone who agrees with climate change, but just questions the ratio of man to natural.

Buy a dictionary

Nope. Just as a Holocaust denier says it happened but relative few Jews died and mainly from typhus, so too with climate deniers who say “it’s not really man made” against all science. This is the box you ticked. Live with it.

And read upthread about the dozen or so different types of denial, beloved by right wingers and fools.

 

[cullennz]

Nope. Just as a Holocaust denier says it happened but relative few Jews died and mainly from typhus, so too with climate deniers who say “it’s not really man made” against all science. This is the box you ticked. Live with it.

And read upthread about the dozen or so different types of denial, beloved by right wingers and fools.

I never said it wasn't man made

You are creeping closer to being the first ever person I have reported on any forum in my life for continual blatant slander against me.

So you disagree with the definition of the words climate change denier?

 

[uke2se]

Gonna ignore all the climate denial from the usual suspects.

A co-worker just informed me of a meme-image he recieved in a Messenger-group. It depicted a pornographic image of a woman being penetrated from behind. Greta Thunberg's face had been pasted on top of the woman's face. The caption read (translated) "Be careful where you put it, I don't want to release any gas".

This is the level the right wing is at right now. Faking child porn because they don't like what a 16 year old girl has to say about the climate she will be forced to grow up in.

 

[GlennB]

There's no parachute in lomiller's analogy.

There is now. I just added it to improve the analogy somewhat. You start by doing whatever makes sense to reduce the amount of the causative agent - CO2 - in the atmosphere.

It seems to me that someone wanting to seriously discuss the looming crisis of flooded and uninhabitable cities would be ready with a concrete proposal for averting this crisis when asked.

Your position still appears to be that we do nothing until the full plan is devised. You wouldn't apply that kind of thinking to a medical or domestic problem, would you? If we had mice in this house I might want to call in a pest control expert and maybe think of getting in a builder to seal up entry points. But while that was being sorted out I'd put down some mouse traps and take more care about leaving food around and accessible to the mice.

 

[Darat]

Who are you to tell him to stop asking questions?

He didn't tell him to stop asking questions.

 

[3point14]

I never said it wasn't man made

You are creeping closer to being the first ever person I have reported on any forum in my life for continual blatant slander against me.

So you disagree with the definition of the words climate change denier?

You deny it's a problem. Which is a problem. And makes you a climate change denier. And you're wrong, it is a problem.

Let me show you how much of a problem is if you apply maths to it:


‘If we go into a runaway climate effect, the damage may be between €100 trillion and the loss of civilisation,’ he said. ‘The probability, I would say, is about 10% that this is going to happen. And when it comes to the urgency of decarbonising society and keeping the forests alive, we need at least 20 years. We have only 30 years left to do this.


https://horizon-magazine.eu/article...equation-showing-world-climate-emergency.html

 

[Darat]

What are you going on about now?

Your claims.

 

[Darat]

Nope. Just as a Holocaust denier says it happened but relative few Jews died and mainly from typhus, so too with climate deniers who say “it’s not really man made” against all science. This is the box you ticked. Live with it.



And read upthread about the dozen or so different types of denial, beloved by right wingers and fools.

And of course one of his named scientists does not say what cullennz believes. You'd almost think he wasn't telling the truth when he said he listened to what Cox says about climate change.

 

[lionking]

So you disagree with the definition of the words climate change denier?

I disagree with your definition of climate change denier. As I said, read upthread. You are in one of the categories. Those who use weasel words like “I question the extent of man made global warming”. Wake up, educate yourself and accept scientific facts. I will continue to label opinions like yours accordingly.

 

[cullennz]

I disagree with your definition of climate change denier. As I said, read upthread. You are in one of the categories. Those who use weasel words like “I question the extent of man made global warming”. Wake up, educate yourself and accept scientific facts. I will continue to label opinions like yours accordingly.

No

You said this

"so too with climate deniers who say “it’s not really man made” against all science. This is the box you ticked."

 

[cullennz]

And of course one of his named scientists does not say what cullennz believes. You'd almost think he wasn't telling the truth when he said he listened to what Cox says about climate change.

FFS

You asked what scientists I listen to and to name one

I did

You never said name a scientist that you agree with everything they say

You do get this.....

I mean it ain't that hard

I tell you what as it seems to be a point with you Darat.

Name scientists you listen to on climate change who you agree with every single point on

I meet your demand. Meet mine ..... courtesy thing.

 

[cullennz]

And Greta doesn't count

 

[lionking]

No

You said this

"so too with climate deniers who say “it’s not really man made” against all science. This is the box you ticked."

Nope again. You don’t accept that climate change is predominantly man made. This debate is over. Accept it or wear the label.

 

[lionking]

Cullennz, there are plenty of sources out there:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans

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

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.

I can post a heap of sources like this.

Don’t you see why your questioning of the extent of AGW is treated by scorn by me and others?