Has Greta studied this?

[Tambourine]

I will ignore her when world leaders do the same.

Greta Thunberg depression: Activist’s devastating confession on health exposed

The comments make interesting reading.

Do you think it is appropriate to attack people because they suffer from depression when you deem them on the "wrong" side of the political discourse?

Do you actually believe that your argument will be helped by attacking a teenager for her depression, or is your grossly callous and frankly ghoulish approach to mental health the entire point here, and you just enjoy verbal cruelty for the sake of it?

 

[Notanumber]

Do you think it is appropriate to attack people because they suffer from depression when you deem them on the "wrong" side of the political discourse?

Do you actually believe that your argument will be helped by attacking a teenager for her depression, or is your grossly callous and frankly ghoulish approach to mental health the entire point here, and you just enjoy verbal cruelty for the sake of it?

I doubt very much that Greta will have read anything that I have written here but if she has, it may help her to realise that those that promote her are using her.

Not only are they using a child, they are using an ill child for their benefit which is disgraceful by anyone’s reckoning.

 

[Tambourine]

@Notanumber
You attack people for their depression and have the gall to call others "disgraceful".
You really have no moral principles beyond "hurt (the person I think is) my enemy" do you?

 

[Notanumber]

@Notanumber
You attack people for their depression and have the gall to call others "disgraceful".
You really have no moral principles beyond "hurt (the person I think is) my enemy" do you?

If I attack anyone, it is only those that attack my way of life.

I do not want to live in Greta’s dystopian world and I have a right to say so.

Until that right has been removed, I will continue to do so.

The people that are using Greta and her disabilities have no moral principles.

BTW, I accept your right to call me whatever you like.

 

[Valjean]

So you feel Greta's threatening your safe, orderly world? I've got news: It's not she generating the climate change.
You're criticizing a symbol. The facts remain, and their consequences will unfold whether you like them or not.

I suggest you gently rebury your head in the sand and enjoy the peace and quiet whilst you can.

 

[Notanumber]

So you feel Greta's threatening your safe, orderly world? I've got news: It's not she generating the climate change.
You're criticizing a symbol. The facts remain, and their consequences will unfold whether you like them or not.

I suggest you gently rebury your head in the sand and enjoy the peace and quiet whilst you can.

Such a threatening world that you are promoting.

 

[Valjean]

Such a threatening world that you are promoting.

Not promoting, just reporting. Don't condemn the messengers because you're uncomfortable with the message. Sometimes dire predictions prove accurate.

 

[Prim969]

Not promoting, just reporting. Don't condemn the messengers because you're uncomfortable with the message. Sometimes dire predictions prove accurate.

I guess prophets of doom eventually do get it right from time to time . And in our world of ever fluctuating climate you can pretty well make up what ever you like. But the reality of the matter is this, and that is the earth has a use by date just as we. But in the ancient of days they had a rather simple method of evaluating a messenger of truth and that is if it came to pass at the appointed time.

 

[Valjean]

I guess prophets of doom eventually do get it right from time to time . And in our world of ever fluctuating climate you can pretty well make up what ever you like. But the reality of the matter is this, and that is the earth has a use by date just as we. But in the ancient of days they had a rather simple method of evaluating a messenger of truth and that is if it came to pass at the appointed time.

But, unlike weather, the climate is not fluctuating. It's doing exactly what the climate scientists predicted.
The most accurate assessment of the situation is to be obtained by actually reviewing the hard data from which the predictions are derived. There is no controversy there.

I think it's the ramifications of this change that are putting people off. The effects are so extreme that people simply refuse to accept them, despite the clear, well documented, consilient evidence.

 

[Tambourine]

If I attack anyone, it is only those that attack my way of life.

So a teenage girl with an opinion constitutes an "attack" on your "way of life".

Because she is doing.... what exactly? Have an opinion that is broadcast on the internet? You do the same thing. Does that mean your opinions are an attack on our way of life?

I do not want to live in Greta’s dystopian world and I have a right to say so.

And I have the right to call you a terrible person for ghoulishly attacking people's mental health. But it is telling that the only moral defense you can muster for your behavior is "what I'm doing isn't illegal technically".

Until that right has been removed, I will continue to do so.

And I will continue to tell you how morally bankrupt you are for verbally attacking people for their health problems while contributing nothing of substance.

The people that are using Greta and her disabilities have no moral principles.

I know that you have no moral principles. You've amply demonstrated that fact.

 

[Notanumber]

So a teenage girl with an opinion constitutes an "attack" on your "way of life".

Because she is doing.... what exactly? Have an opinion that is broadcast on the internet? You do the same thing. Does that mean your opinions are an attack on our way of life?


And I have the right to call you a terrible person for ghoulishly attacking people's mental health. But it is telling that the only moral defense you can muster for your behavior is "what I'm doing isn't illegal technically".


And I will continue to tell you how morally bankrupt you are for verbally attacking people for their health problems while contributing nothing of substance.


I know that you have no moral principles. You've amply demonstrated that fact.

You seem to have put me on a pedestal alongside Greta but you fail to realise that I am not the one that world leaders are listening to.

As Dirty Harry once said, everyone has opinions. You seem to find my opinions mortally wounding so I must be doing something right.

 

[Tambourine]

You seem to have put me on a pedestal alongside Greta but you fail to realise that I am not the one that world leaders are listening to.

It says a lot about your understanding of basic human decency when you believe that pointing out the vile and dehumanizing things you say is putting you "on a pedestal".

As Dirty Harry once said, everyone has opinions. You seem to find my opinions mortally wounding so I must be doing something right.

Don't worry, you are doing a fantastic job being an obnoxious and predicable contrarian without any opinions of substance.

 

[Notanumber]

It says a lot about your understanding of basic human decency when you believe that pointing out the vile and dehumanizing things you say is putting you "on a pedestal".


Don't worry, you are doing a fantastic job being an obnoxious and predicable contrarian without any opinions of substance.

If I have no opinions of substance, why are you so obsessed by my presence?

 

[Tambourine]

If I have no opinions of substance, why are you so obsessed by my presence?

My objection is not to your opinions, which are indeed just vapid contrarianism, but to your consistent reliance on personal insults and abusive language in lieu of arguments.

why are you so obsessed by my presence?

Are you actually capable of argueing with people without making everything personal?

 

[Prim969]

But, unlike weather, the climate is not fluctuating. It's doing exactly what the climate scientists predicted.
The most accurate assessment of the situation is to be obtained by actually reviewing the hard data from which the predictions are derived. There is no controversy there.

I think it's the ramifications of this change that are putting people off. The effects are so extreme that people simply refuse to accept them, despite the clear, well documented, consilient evidence.

Valjean it was well documented enough back in 2007 when first viewing Al Gores ( an inconvenient truth) I think I was a sweet 16 at the time when your beloved scientists were saying that it would be all over for planet earth by 2016 if we did not rectify our ways with fossil fuels which are still in high demand until this very day. Now we have been hearing about this well documented evidence by scientists you have mentioned for a very long time. Actually the environmental gurus and scientists alike have been claiming dates for environmental apocalyptic catastrophe for many decades now. So just how good is their information when it comes to the truth of the matter especially when it does not come to pass. As I simply stated the test of any prediction is whether it comes to pass.and that has not happened. But what I do know is that the western world has been footing the bill at very great expense to their own peoples and their own economies to suit someone’s agenda along with making a awful lot of money out of us while they do.

 

[Valjean]

Valjean it was well documented enough back in 2007 when first viewing Al Gores ( an inconvenient truth) I think I was a sweet 16 at the time when your beloved scientists were saying that it would be all over for planet earth by 2016 if we did not rectify our ways with fossil fuels which are still in high demand until this very day. Now we have been hearing about this well documented evidence by scientists you have mentioned for a very long time. Actually the environmental gurus and scientists alike have been claiming dates for environmental apocalyptic catastrophe for many decades now. So just how good is their information when it comes to the truth of the matter especially when it does not come to pass. As I simply stated the test of any prediction is whether it comes to pass.and that has not happened. But what I do know is that the western world has been footing the bill at very great expense to their own peoples and their own economies to suit someone’s agenda along with making a awful lot of money out of us while they do.

The reality of global warming has been observable for a long time. The mechanisms have been known for a long time. The actual effects and time scale have been less clear.

Twenty years ago we didn't have the hard data we do today, and we didn't foresee such innovations as fracking.
Plugging the current data into the models doesn't change the fact of global warming, it just clarifies the details. Where we have gone wrong was the speed of warming -- we've consistently underrated it.

 

[Notanumber]

My objection is not to your opinions, which are indeed just vapid contrarianism, but to your consistent reliance on personal insults and abusive language in lieu of arguments.


Are you actually capable of argueing with people without making everything personal?

The ignore facility would help to lower your blood pressure to a reasonable level.

 

[Tambourine]

The ignore facility would help to lower your blood pressure to a reasonable level.

And once again, bereft of an argument, he stoops to personal insults.

 

[Prim969]

The reality of global warming has been observable for a long time. The mechanisms have been known for a long time. The actual effects and time scale have been less clear.

Twenty years ago we didn't have the hard data we do today, and we didn't foresee such innovations as fracking.
Plugging the current data into the models doesn't change the fact of global warming, it just clarifies the details. Where we have gone wrong was the speed of warming -- we've consistently underrated it.

Ok you say that climate change is observable but the affects and time scale are less clear. You also say 20 yrs ago we never had the data that we have today. I’m not so sure simply because science has aggressively pursued the subjects of science in almost every field since the 1930’s .Valjean you than go on to say that we didn’t foresee such innovations such as ( fracking ) valjean I’m trying to grasp what you mean by that. Simply because fracking is a well known method first used in America discovered by Edward Roberts in 1862 as a way to fracture ground in oil wells to allow oil and gas to flow more freely for quicker production it is used throughout world. The first method used was by lowering a torpedo into the oil well full of powder and than exploding it. Of course there are now non explosive substitutes that do the process much more effectively now. I’m trying to understand what one didn’t foresee with the fracking considering that the mining procedure has been around for over 150 yrs. you than go on to say that the new data doesn’t change the effect of global warming. Well than why we need if the outcome is already a forgone conclusion just to clarify the details some more. Ok. And finally you go on to say that where we did go wrong was the SPEED of the warming. And that we consistently UNDERATED it. Valjean if that be the case than what of Al gores documentary ( a inconvenient truth ) from 2007 and along with many others that said global warming was In full motion back than. And that it would be all over for us In 10 yr if we did not cancel out fossil fuels. Your saying that we UNDERATED even that. And that global warming is moving much FASTER.now than back than. Than we should not be here If what you say is correct. I not follow i not understand..

 

[Valjean]

Ok you say that climate change is observable but the affects and time scale are less clear. You also say 20 yrs ago we never had the data that we have today. I’m not so sure simply because science has aggressively pursued the subjects of science in almost every field since the 1930’s .Valjean you than go on to say that we didn’t foresee such innovations such as ( fracking ) valjean I’m trying to grasp what you mean by that.

The greenhouse effect has been known for a long time and has been seriously studied since the '70s.
History of climate change science - Wikipedia

The rate of warming is affected by human technology, politics, agriculture, economics, &c.
I mentioned fracking. Fracking releases methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Fracking has given us cheap gasoline and natural gas, delaying the switch to smaller and more more fuel efficient vehicles and to alternative energy sources like tides, wind, geothermal, solar, &c.

New research on climate change is appearing in the papers almost weekly. Have you noticed the trend? The warming is accelerating faster than expected. Effects are accumulating faster than expected.

Simply because fracking is a well known method first used in America discovered by Edward Roberts in 1862 as a way to fracture ground in oil wells to allow oil and gas to flow more freely for quicker production it is used throughout world. The first method used was by lowering a torpedo into the oil well full of powder and than exploding it. Of course there are now non explosive substitutes that do the process much more effectively now. I’m trying to understand what one didn’t foresee with the fracking considering that the mining procedure has been around for over 150 yrs.

The first commercial application of hydraulic fracking was in 1950. Widespread application of the technique and it's economic effects were not foreseen till recently.

you than go on to say that the new data doesn’t change the effect of global warming. Well than why we need if the outcome is already a forgone conclusion just to clarify the details some more. Ok. And finally you go on to say that where we did go wrong was the SPEED of the warming. And that we consistently UNDERATED it. Valjean if that be the case than what of Al gores documentary ( a inconvenient truth ) from 2007 and along with many others that said global warming was In full motion back than. And that it would be all over for us In 10 yr if we did not cancel out fossil fuels. Your saying that we UNDERATED even that. And that global warming is moving much FASTER.now than back than. Than we should not be here If what you say is correct. I not follow i not understand..

The science is solid. Sensationalist media coverage: not so much.
Some innovations slow the warming. Some accelerate it. But the fact remains that the planet's heating and the effects are being seen sooner than previously predicted.