Has Greta studied this?

[Notanumber]

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..

Al Gore probably based his documentary on this -

 

[Valjean]

Well, as I assume you'll be following #8, I'll hold my tongue for now.

 

[Notanumber]

Al is having to raise his game to compete with Greta.

I am not sure which one has influenced Charles the most.

I wonder if Bill’s new mansion floats.

 

[Tambourine]

Al is having to raise his game to compete with Greta.

I am not sure which one has influenced Charles the most.

I wonder if Bill’s new mansion floats.

So, have you already read the scientific reports I linked to, and are ready to have an actual debate utilizing arguments based on facts?
Or are you just going to spam Youtube videos, without engaging with any particular idea or argument, for the foreseeable future?

 

[Notanumber]

Nuclear is the only viable low-carbon option.

 

[Friend of Mara]

Debunking the "Simple Physics" Slogan About Climate Change : climateskeptics

or is time she went back to school?

I am perplexed by the fixation on Greta. She is a child. Her symbolism within the movement and stance as a "leader" is not that she is an expert on the field but that she brings the viewpoint of someone in the younger generation. To some she is exploitable and makes for great taglines. At best she is a voice of curiosity and real concern for the next 50 to 100 years if our propensity for global emissions is not curtailed.

The video in question didn't post an anti-climate change argument. It just highlights what everyone who went to college (and I hope a great deal many who didn't!) already knows. That the complexity of the subject is great and the specific understandings of the mechanisms and short term predictions are dubious.

However the contention within the majority of those informed is in line with the models used. The advocacy of scientists that work in this field is primarily to explain what we do know in simple layman's terms. For example immunology is incredibly complex. To have an expert explain their doctoral thesis on immunology would go over everyone's head. But to say "get shot and get sick less" is true but grossly simplified to the point one might even say falsehood. But the core function of what needs to be expressed is true.

 

[Tambourine]

It's not all that perplexing if you keep in mind that a substantial amount of people on the internet are in parasocial relationships with celebrities and political figures, and tend to align their viewpoint on a wide variety of topics not on the basis of self reflection or argumentative reasoning, but the attraction to specific personalities that espouse specific viewpoints.

I imagine that many of these people then assume that everyone else centers their values and identity in a similar fashion, which is how you get these incredibly personality focused arguments, as if showing that Thunberg or Gore or whoever being a Bad Person somehow invalidated the values they old.

I think I can say with some certainty that I only care about Greta Thunberg insofar as I feel bad for her due to the vast amount of incredibly vicious, and sometimes outright gross and borderline criminal online attacks she has been peppered with for over a year. I couldn't really care less about her actual real life personality or moral fibre, as she is not, and has never been the reason why I believe what I believe.