Greta Thunberg - brave campaigner or deeply disturbed?

[cullennz]

And where is your list of scientists?

Do you not listen to any?

 

[3point14]

You claimed my post, or for some reason a "statement" as you call it.

"shows anyone that knows what they're on about that you really are woefully uniformed, don't you?"

Claims require evidence or at least justification.

I told you. That you don't like it is not my issue. You can keep banging on about it if you like though?

I have already said don't worry about it if you have none.

I'm not in the slightest worried.

I won't think too much less of you.

That's bug of you, but your opinion of me is a matter of supreme indifference to me.



Now that's dealt with, can you tell me what evidence you would need to see to make you change your mind?

 

[lionking]

No the links you mentioned say it is a crisis

Oh Christ. What does crisis mean? Not something that might happen in 100 years. Crisis does not need to be preceded by “looming” to convey the same message.

That’s all you have? It’s a crisis, but not a looming crisis?

Bloody hell.

Educate yourself.

 

[cullennz]

Oh Christ. What does crisis mean? Not something that might happen in 100 years. Crisis does not need to be preceded by “looming” to convey the same message.

That’s all you have? It’s a crisis, but not a looming crisis?

Bloody hell.

Educate yourself.

I am not the one claiming we have a looming CRISIS!!!!

You and Greta are

Teach me

 

[lionking]

I am not the one claiming we have a looming CRISIS!!!!

You and Greta are

Teach me

People have tried in this thread. Sometimes people are unteachable.

 

[3point14]

I am not the one claiming we have a looming CRISIS!!!!

You and Greta are

Teach me

First tell us what you need to see that you have not yet seen in order to be convinced and we'll go find it.

If you can't do this, why should we, it's pointless. You've already decided you know better than the combined knowledge of climate and other scientists all over the world, so we know you have an astronomically high burden of proof.

In light of this, I don't think we should be running around getting evidence that you'll just ignore. To cut through the whole thing, you say what you want to see to be convinced and then we'll see if we can come up with it.

How's that?

 

[cullennz]

I told you. That you don't like it is not my issue. You can keep banging on about it if you like though?




I'm not in the slightest worried.



That's bug of you, but your opinion of me is a matter of supreme indifference to me.



Now that's dealt with, can you tell me what evidence you would need to see to make you change your mind?

That we have a crisis?

Or that man is the sole contributor to current climate change as lionking claims?

 

[3point14]

That we have a crisis?

Or that man is the sole contributor to current climate change as lionking claims?

Hey, why limit yourself? Do both.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I am not the one claiming we have a looming CRISIS!!!!

You and Greta are

Teach me

the Supertanker on a collision course analogy is apt: if you can see the iceberg with your own eyes, it is probably too late to avoid it.
The early we change course, the less radical the correction needs to be, the cheaper the effort and lesser the upset.

If we had started a global cap&trade 30 years ago, as had been suggested, normal economic forces would probably have kept greehouse gas emissions to a tolerable level.

But we've missed the window, and now we need dramatic change: not just carbon emission reduction, but active carbon capture. Not just cap and trade, but hefty carbon taxes.

 

[Darat]

How does me not agreeing with his doom scenario say I don't listen to him?

I see you have forgotten what you actually said.

 

[cullennz]

Hey, why limit yourself? Do both.

My personal opinion

Second one first as it is the easiest

"Man is the sole contributor to current climate change as lionking claims?"

Well nothing.

Because it is a stupid statement.

No one can actually measure how much, no matter how little is natural. You can measure how fast changes are, by industrial age, or population, but to pretend you can measure nature is silly, even if the man bit is 99%, nature is still 1%

"That we have a crisis?"

Or some say. An emergency.

Obviously tougher.

Based on computer modeling.

Pretty open minded on it actually

I am purely skeptical and suspicious about it, but if someone came up with real evidence we only have 11 years, then I am willing to go with it.

 

[cullennz]

I see you have forgotten what you actually said.

Okay

Then why have I not listened to him from what I said

 

[lionking]

My personal opinion

Second one first as it is the easiest

"Man is the sole contributor to current climate change as lionking claims?"

Well nothing.

Because it is a stupid statement.

No one can actually measure how much, no matter how little is natural. You can measure how fast changes are, by industrial age, or population, but to pretend you can measure nature is silly, even if the man bit is 99%, nature is still 1%
"That we have a crisis?"

Or some say. An emergency.

Obviously tougher.

Based on computer modeling.

Pretty open minded on it actually

I am purely skeptical and suspicious about it, but if someone came up with real evidence we only have 11 years, then I am willing to go with it.

Pathetic.

 

[3point14]

My personal opinion

Second one first as it is the easiest

"Man is the sole contributor to current climate change as lionking claims?"

Well nothing.

Because it is a stupid statement.

No one can actually measure how much, no matter how little is natural. You can measure how fast changes are, by industrial age, or population, but to pretend you can measure nature is silly, even if the man bit is 99%, nature is still 1%

"That we have a crisis?"

Or some say. An emergency.

Obviously tougher.

Based on computer modeling.

Pretty open minded on it actually

I am purely skeptical and suspicious about it, but if someone came up with real evidence we only have 11 years, then I am willing to go with it.

You didn't answer the question. We all think we actually have the evidence you describe above. You think it doesn't exist. We, therefore, are working to different standards.

What would convince you you were wrong and we were right? What piece of evidence is it that you need to see to believe what you're being told?


Because if you don't know the answer to that, it's hardly reasonable to expect anyone else to.

 

[cullennz]

the Supertanker on a collision course analogy is apt: if you can see the iceberg with your own eyes, it is probably too late to avoid it.
The early we change course, the less radical the correction needs to be, the cheaper the effort and lesser the upset.

If we had started a global cap&trade 30 years ago, as had been suggested, normal economic forces would probably have kept greehouse gas emissions to a tolerable level.

But we've missed the window, and now we need dramatic change: not just carbon emission reduction, but active carbon capture. Not just cap and trade, but hefty carbon taxes.

Sorry to be annoying but this whole carbon credit trading thing is the other one that gets on my tits.

We had the launch of a carbon trading thing here.

Org's could trade credits off low carbon emitting orgs to off-set their emissions.

(obviously more complicated but can't be bothered with scenarios)

End result

Who knows who gets rich

Big emitters are still emitting the same amount. They just charge the customer more, while saying they emit less.



Loads of money tradin

 

[cullennz]

You didn't answer the question. We all think we actually have the evidence you describe above. You think it doesn't exist. We, therefore, are working to different standards.

What would convince you you were wrong and we were right? What piece of evidence is it that you need to see to believe what you're being told?


Because if you don't know the answer to that, it's hardly reasonable to expect anyone else to.

Fair call.

Do you mind posting this evidence of a climate emergency/CRISIS!!! not based on computer modeling?

Wouldn't mind reading it.

 

[3point14]

Fair call.

Do you mind posting this evidence of a climate emergency/CRISIS!!! not based on computer modeling?

Wouldn't mind reading it.

Are you saying that you'll accept the realities of global warming if I can prove without using computer modelling?

 

[Darat]

Okay



Then why have I not listened to him from what I said

I find I have no obligation to help you remember what you have posted in the last 24 hours.

What you have shown is that your views on climate change did not come from listening to scientists and you have simply pulled them from your nether regions and that you are not even willing to listen to scientists about the issue.

 

[cullennz]

I find I have no obligation to help you remember what you have posted in the last 24 hours.

What you have shown is that your views on climate change did not come from listening to scientists and you have simply pulled them from your nether regions and that you are not even willing to listen to scientists about the issue.

You questioned why I would listen to someone who I didn't wholly agree with.

No big deal

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Sorry to be annoying but this whole carbon credit trading thing is the other one that gets on my tits.

We had the launch of a carbon trading thing here.

Org's could trade credits off low carbon emitting orgs to off-set their emissions.

(obviously more complicated but can't be bothered with scenarios)

End result

Who knows who gets rich

Big emitters are still emitting the same amount. They just charge the customer more, while saying they emit less.



Loads of money tradin

you are highlighting exactly the point I was making: that was no political will to do it right, so it wasn't done right.
The companies that failed to innovate because there wasn't any real pressure to do so might go belly-up now that they'll have to adjust much quicker.