Pesky facts. Some people have a great deal of difficulty with them.
Greta Thunberg - brave campaigner or deeply disturbed?
- Thread starter Matthew Best
- Start date
- Status
Pesky facts. Some people have a great deal of difficulty with them.
I see Greta's disciples/fans/adorers have found something else to focus their climate change efforts on.
They think she is actually a time traveller sent forward in time to save mankind.
Must get a bit boring a fidgety for them while she is on the boats.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12286651
They think she is actually a time traveller sent forward in time to save mankind.
Must get a bit boring a fidgety for them while she is on the boats.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12286651
Rubbish.
Do you think people here are unable to understand simple English? “Simple” being the key word here. You stated that bushfire frequency was not a valid issue in Australia as there have always been bushfires here. This position of yours was demolished.
Please take responsibility for what you post. Saying “I was wrong about bushfire frequency” isn’t that hard. Just do it and don’t accuse people of misreading your simple, and wrong, posts.
Can you please stop polluting this thread with off topic and ridiculous posts?
The post was an example of Greta being a campaigner and inspiring her followers.
Feel free to argue how it isn't
If you actually read my posts you would see I was warning arguments climate deniers will use against the arguments.
More fires - There have always been fires (I don't disagree they are getting worse, but you will next get a lot started by people)
More frequent Venice floods - Good
Severe Venice floods - Not good.
I am just trying to point out these examples aren't great Climate change examples.
Are if you had sane people you are talking to, but you aren't normally talking to sane people on this topic
Last edited:
I have a personal theory that the best argument "More frequent issue #### as we hit 2019" is one of the hardest ones to actually drum into peoples heads, as they always fall back on the "Yeah but what about that one in '66" (In the Venice case) the idiots seem to be fixated on.
You are completely and utterly wrong. You have been show why you are wrong. Unwillingness to accept that you are lying is Denialism101. Accept it.
I meant to say arguments
And as much as you humour me in your weird posts
Maybe find one post from me denying climate change is real as you are beginning to look hysterical
I’ve already shown you. Nobody is being fooled. You have said, against scientific consensus, that warming will not be as much as predicted (you said something like that 1.5 degrees, not specifying Celsius or Fahrenheit, won’t be so bad) and it won’t occur soon anyway. The posts are there.
That’s denial. And, while you have tried to slink back from that position, you have repeated virtually each and every denialist meme in this very thread. Own it.
Awesome
Brilliant
How is saying the temperature going up 1.5 degrees but not as much higher as some predict, saying the climate is not warming?
Denialism. You simply don’t get it. You have been told countless times that saying “yes, it’s warming, but it’s not so bad” is denialism. Own it.
How the **** would I know? This is a US based forum. Which is it?
The point is that, as a denialist, you neither know or care.
Maybe the point you know I am a kiwi would work.
I get you are trying to get these posts cut and pasted to off the thread to the "beyond all hope" or wwhatever it is called, which is funny in itself, but you still have time to try to find a climate denial post from me in the interim
Last edited:
I think the massive thing missing here is that it is possible to be critical of Greta (Or her teams) methods while still agreeing with the concept of climate change screwing the world.
I think a couple of posters seem to fail to grasp this.
I think a couple of posters seem to fail to grasp this.
- Status