Social Greta Thunberg Megathread

[Seano]

So I think maybe your issue is with sensationalized headlines and not the actual scientific data, which is fair.

What does it matter? We don't have sensationalized headlines today? The point is that this scare tactic has been used before.

 

[chardog]

If you're over 40 then you know this is the exact same scare tactic they used on us back in the 80s. "Keep using hairspary and we'll all be underwater in __ years."
Do as they say or you will literally die. Its shocking to see the same trick work twice.

swine flu, bird flu, we were all suppose to die from those as well. Coincidentally, "Global Warming", the original term, morphed into "Climate Change"..... there's no arguing against climate change, because the climate is always changing..........................................................

anyhow, enjoy the 11 years you have left to live

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

https://electroverse.net/the-list-s...with-the-current-consensus-on-climate-change/

This is interesting from your link:

— scientists that have called the observed warming attributable to natural causes, i.e. the high solar activity witnessed over the last few decades.

What Higher solar activity are they talking about? The Satellite data says otherwise.

 

[Seano]

Why are you this way? Why are you purposely stupid.

The things I’m saying are facts and you’re here denying them.

We made a conscious effort to fix both the things I named with policy and money and it worked.

Because you're upset that I'm saying something I didn't say so I keep repeating it to watch you have a tantrum.

CFCs and HCFCs never went away. They are still used all over the world.

 

[Seano]

anyhow, enjoy the 11 years you have left to live

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Because you're upset that I'm saying something I didn't say so I keep repeating it to watch you have a tantrum.

CFCs and HCFCs never went away. They are still used all over the world.

You just keep sticking with the same talking points even when you’re wrong

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

What does it matter? We don't have sensationalized headlines today? The point is that this scare tactic has been used before.

We certainly do have sensationalized headlines, they don't represent or exaggerate what the actual scientific message is saying though. It sounds like you have an issue with them and not the science which is fair.

 

[Seano]

You just keep sticking with the same talking points even when you’re wrong

No, you just tend to misread posts and then argue about something no one is saying. Sort of like when you were acting magnanimous about paying your employees McDonalds money yesterday then went on a tear about the tips they get, which are not paid by you.

I think we're on to something there with that actually. You're one of those that barks awfully loud but there's no bite there.

 

[Seano]

We certainly do have sensationalized headlines, they don't represent or exaggerate what the actual scientific message is saying though. It sounds like you have an issue with them and not the science which is fair.

We know the average person reading headlines is not doing scientific research.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

We know the average person reading headlines is not doing scientific research.

Yes, so you have a problem with the headlines and rhetoric and not the science then correct?

 

[Seano]

Yes, so you have a problem with the headlines and rhetoric and not the science then correct?

eh, I can't give a yes or no to that. I think the profiteering in climate change clouds the issue.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Can't tell if being obtuse on purpose or just missing my point.

That's a corporation fighting for survival. There statement on climate change is



That's like a cigarette company telling smokers to cut down on smoking and government to tax the consumers. It's a dodge.

Pure PR.

But that's only one statement, look at their entire body of work that supports AGW. Why does all their data from the 70s-80s (when AGW wasn't an issue) match the consensus of today?

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

eh, I can't give a yes or no to that. I think the profiteering in climate change clouds the issue.

Well there's profiteering in everything and skepticism is a good thing. Cynicism however is just as bad as being completely trusting.

 

[Seano]

Well there's profiteering in everything and skepticism is a good thing. Cynicism however is just as bad as being completely trusting.

I won't be Chicken Little.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

No, you just tend to misread posts and then argue about something no one is saying. Sort of like when you were acting magnanimous about paying your employees McDonalds money yesterday then went on a tear about the tips they get, which are not paid by you.

I think we're on to something there with that actually. You're one of those that barks awfully loud but there's no bite there.

Nothing you say makes sense. The Montreal protocols reduced certain materials and it fixed the ozone layer. Money and policy

 

[Seano]

Nothing you say makes sense. The Montreal protocols reduced certain materials and it fixed the ozone layer. Money and policy

We still use CFCs. We have never stopped using them.
Every time someone mops their floor with bleach or fills their pool with chlorine, they release CFCs into the atmosphere. Paper production uses CFCs. China never faltered in their use of CFCs either.
Pretty much the only place CFCs disappeared is from your refrigerator in your kitchen.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

We still use CFCs. We have never stopped using them.
Every time someone mops their floor with bleach or fills their pool with chlorine, they release CFCs into the atmosphere. Paper production uses CFCs. China never faltered in their use of CFCs either.
Pretty much the only place CFCs disappeared is from your refrigerator in your kitchen.

So the ozone layer magically fixed itself?

Listening to you speak is like listening to a blind person describe colors. You legit have no clue what you’re talking about at all

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

But that's only one statement, look at their entire body of work that supports AGW. Why does all their data from the 70s-80s (when AGW wasn't an issue) match the consensus of today?

Their data supports the AGW theory, but doesn't support their conclusion that this is a shared responsibility of them, government and consumers.

If their product is causing damage, they are solely responsible.

Man made climate change existing doesn't really mean anything if the climate change we are causing fallswithin the normal variation we've seem since before the industrial age, which it does.

It doesn't really matter if man made climate change is warming the earth if the earth's natural climate change is cooling it at a greater rate. Which over the last 12000 years, it has.

We are not on the brink of a catastrophe. We are not as significant in the greater scheme of things as we want to believe.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Their data supports the AGW theory, but doesn't support their conclusion that this is a shared responsibility of them, government and consumers.

If their product is causing damage, they are solely responsible.

Man made climate change existing doesn't really mean anything if the climate change we are causing fallswithin the normal variation we've seem since before the industrial age, which it does.

It doesn't really matter if man made climate change is warming the earth if the earth's natural climate change is cooling it at a greater rate. Which over the last 12000 years, it has.

We are not on the brink of a catastrophe. We are not as significant in the greater scheme of things as we want to believe.

What a strange response and conclusions and I have to admit you've peaked my interest. First of all what is the normal variation for a 50 year period before the industrial age. Also why do you think we are cooling at a greater rate? I'll have a better idea of your position after I see these numbers.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

What a strange response and conclusions and I have to admit you've peaked my interest. First of all what is the normal variation for a 50 year period before the industrial age. Also why do you think we are cooling at a greater rate? I'll have a better idea of your position after I see these numbers.

Why would someone look at just a 50 year window? That's far too small a sample size and would only be useful if you wanted to exaggerate the results... Oh.

The world is in an overall cooling trend. The last few years is an uptick but is still below the temperatures the planet was seeing 12000 years ago.

The planet is pretty old.