Greta Hates You All

[kallend 1,625]

10 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Yup, hardly any group of people whinier that the American right wing. All they do is complain, usually about anything that is changing in their narrow little world.

None whinier than DJT himself. 

[richravizza 25]

its blasphemy.Its too funny....

 There is no fear, hate or bullying in this video, just humor and reality.She's the only one peddling Fear Hate and Bullying.Perhaps some are too jaded to see it.

As for the American right, well,the bumpersticker plastered next to exhaust pipes, saying

"Fuck you Greta" didnt come Americans.

"We are in the beginings of a Mass extinction moment." thats what she said.Is that enough fear?

How have we, "stolen her dreams,and her childhood with empty words"? I think her parents did a fine job at that. Then the Acadamy award performance of: Economic growth is a fairy tale. bravo

"Get a haircut and get a real job!  

If these are the future leaders of America, then  . . . this guy is saying exactly the same thing about our future that your parents said about your generation's future."

 

 Wrong, my parents wanted the same as I,a balance.Green for the Planet ,Peace for humanity.The end to factory whaling, fishing quotas,the end of  atmospheric nuke testing,catalytic converters,conservation, recycling, and the end of pollution, and toxic waste.We agreeded on most enviromental issues.We didnt thrash the planet we cleaned it.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 7, 2019 by richravizza
typos

[piisfish 135]

You guys need to Make America Greta Again 

[richravizza 25]

On 10/4/2019 at 7:30 AM, kallend said:

None whinier than DJT himself. 

LMFAO as for whining you seem to be doing that quite well,First illegitimate President,then mentally unfit,a rigged election, an agent of a hostile enemy, but your still with Her..

[billvon 2,400]

22 hours ago, richravizza said:

iShe's the only one peddling Fear Hate and Bullying.

Nope.  She is merely demanding change.

Quote

"We are in the beginings of a Mass extinction moment." thats what she said.Is that enough fear?

It is a fact.  If it makes you afraid, fine.  There are several ways to deal with your fear.  Denying facts is a poor way to deal with fear, IMO.

Quote

How have we, "stolen her dreams,and her childhood with empty words"?

By promising one thing and doing another.

Quote

Wrong, my parents wanted the same as I,a balance.Green for the Planet ,Peace for humanity.The end to factory whaling, fishing quotas,the end of  atmospheric nuke testing,catalytic converters,conservation, recycling, and the end of pollution, and toxic waste.We agreeded on most enviromental issues.We didnt thrash the planet we cleaned it.

Yep.  And your generation was attacked back then by "commonsense conservatives" claiming that catalytic converters, efficiency rules, reducing pollution and recycling would destroy the economy and leave us economically crippled.  "If the EPA does not suspend the catalytic converter rule, it will cause Ford to shut down."  CAFE laws will "outlaw a number of engine lines and car models including most full-size sedans and station wagons. It would restrict the industry to producing subcompact size cars-or even smaller ones-within five years."  And they will result "in a Ford product line consisting either of all sub-Pinto sized vehicles."

This is nothing new.  The previous generation has told the current generation "you just don't have the experience/wisdom/intelligence to know that what you ask is impossible and destroy us!" pretty much  . . . forever.  Not everyone, of course - my parents (and your parents) did not say that to their kids.  But the warnings that we could never replace the horse, that we could never switch to catalytic converters, that we could never make cars more efficient, that we can never switch to a carbon-neutral energy infrastructure without destroying everyone's lives - those have been coming forever.  And then the new generation ignores them and does it anyway.

 

[richravizza 25]

On 10/7/2019 at 7:43 PM, billvon said:

It is a fact.  If it makes you afraid, fine.  There are several ways to deal with your fear.  Denying facts is a poor way to deal with fear, IMO.

I have no fear of a mass extintion.I hike thru nature nearly every day and reval in life.

Your the ones running around with hair on fire.Doomsday theorists.

You see how you've let your fear run wild, to the point you beleive in such outlandish pridictions.

But since I can't deny,I'm in denial. You leave me in quite the Pickle, so I guess We're all fucked. Where do I sign that GND.

Unless you know of the Huge meteor hurling thru space that about to hit us.You shouldn't put yourself thru such torturer.

This is what your Ideology has produced,a generation that suffers from "Visceral Anxiety" and depression.The resugence of the Mutual Assured Destruction Psychology, Bravo..

"By promising one thing and doing another."

What the hell did America promise her?

Dont know where you got all those Qotes from... but

The EPA was founded by Commonsense Conservative Dick Nixon and that Montreal agreement that banned CFC was signed by Ronnie.As for conservation well...

 

Main article: Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt § Conservation

 

Roosevelt driving through a sequoia tree tunnel

Of all Roosevelt's achievements, he was proudest of his work in conservation of natural resources and extending federal protection to land and wildlife.^[145]Roosevelt worked closely with Interior Secretary James Rudolph Garfield and Chief of the United States Forest Service Gifford Pinchot to enact a series of conservation programs that often met with resistance from Western members of Congress, such as Charles William Fulton.^[146] Nonetheless, Roosevelt established the United States Forest Service, signed into law the creation of five National Parks, and signed the 1906 Antiquities Act, under which he proclaimed 18 new U.S. National Monuments. He also established the first 51 bird reserves, four game preserves, and 150 National Forests. The area of the United States that he placed under public protection totals approximately 230,000,000 acres (930,000 km²).^[147]

Roosevelt extensively used executive orders on a number of occasions to protect forest and wildlife lands during his tenure as President.^[148] By the end of his second term in office, Roosevelt used executive orders to establish 150 million acres of reserved forestry land.^[149] Roosevelt was unapologetic about his extensive use of executive orders to protect the environment, despite the perception in Congress that he was encroaching on too many lands.^[149] Eventually, Senator Charles Fulton (R-OR) attached an amendment to an agricultural appropriations bill that effectively prevented the president from reserving any further land.^[149] Before signing that bill into law, Roosevelt used executive orders to establish an additional 21 forest reserves, waiting until the last minute to sign the bill into law.^[150] In total, Roosevelt used executive orders to establish 121 forest reserves in 31 states.^[150] Prior to Roosevelt, only one president had issued over 200 executive orders, Grover Cleveland (253). The first 25 presidents issued a total of 1,262 executive orders; Roosevelt issued 1,081.^[151]

[billvon 2,400]

9 hours ago, richravizza said:

I have no fear of a mass extintion.I hike thru nature nearly every day and reval in life.

OK.  Great.  Good thing you don't live in Newtok, Alaska.

Quote

Your the ones running around with hair on fire.Doomsday theorists.

Nope.  I have never predicted a "doomsday."  The Earth will persist just fine even if it's warmer.  The ecosystem - and humanity - will suffer, of course.

Quote

But since I can't deny,I'm in denial. You leave me in quite the Pickle, so I guess We're all fucked. Where do I sign that GND.  Unless you know of the Huge meteor hurling thru space that about to hit us. You shouldn't put yourself thru such torturer.  This is what your Ideology has produced,a generation that suffers from "Visceral Anxiety" and depression.The resugence of the Mutual Assured Destruction Psychology, Bravo..

Couldn't parse much of that, but you sure sound pretty anxious and angry.  Not sure why that is.  Perhaps it's the movement that Thunberg has started?

Quote

 

"By promising one thing and doing another."

What the hell did America promise her?

 

Well, that they would participate in the Paris agreement, for one.  That they would take the lead on reducing emissions.

Quote

The EPA was founded by Commonsense Conservative Dick Nixon and that Montreal agreement that banned CFC was signed by Ronnie.As for conservation well...

Yep.  It would be great if modern conservatives started, you know, conserving again, instead of doing all they can to harm the environment.  Ronnie Reagan would be labeled a hyperventilating progressive liberal for his policies by modern conservatives.

[brenthutch 384]

9 hours ago, billvon said:

Well, that they would participate in the Paris agreement, for one.  That they would take the lead on reducing emissions.

Well according to the Paris agreement, its full implementation would result in an unmeasurable impact on climate.....so I don't see how that is relevant.   

[brenthutch 384]

On 10/2/2019 at 8:45 PM, kallend said:

It is truly amazing how a small teenage girl and a young freshman congresswoman have managed to whip up such a frenzy of fear,   hate, and online bullying among the right wing climate change deniers.

No, just amusement, jocularity and some good natured jesting.  We are just laughing at you. Given you have no sense of humor, I understand that you would not understand.  

Edited October 10, 2019 by brenthutch

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

No, just amusement, jocularity and some good natured jesting.  We are just laughing at you. Given you have no sense of humor, I understand that you would not understand.  

There's just no way to sugar coat this: I agree with Brent. Do you now see what you've done John? It's not right. Hopefully those near you can do an intervention. Maybe forcing you to binge watch all 45 Monty Python episodes, except Jabberwocky obviously, would help. Maybe a little dress up for a Rocky Horror Picture Show? That sort of thing. That sort of anything. We're here for you. You can trust us.

[billvon 2,400]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Well according to the Paris agreement, its full implementation would result in an unmeasurable impact on climate.....so I don't see how that is relevant.   

Why do you think that lying is a good approach to these issues?  Do you think everyone here is as ignorant as some deniers are?

Quote

No, just amusement, jocularity and some good natured jesting.

Did you get a good chuckle over the guy who promised to bring a sniper rifle to her talk?  Or the guy who hung her in effigy?  Those wacky fun right wingers!

[brenthutch 384]

7 hours ago, billvon said:

Why do you think that lying is a good approach to these issues?  Do you think everyone here is as ignorant as some deniers are?

"A pair of studies in Nature have said that, as of 2017, none of the major industrialized nations were implementing the policies they had envisioned and have not met their pledged emission reduction targets,^[76] and even if they had, the sum of all member pledges (as of 2016) would not keep global temperature rise "well below 2 °C".

Now you are more informed.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

11 hours ago, billvon said:

Why do you think that lying is a good approach to these issues?  Do you think everyone here is as ignorant as some deniers are?

Did you get a good chuckle over the guy who promised to bring a sniper rifle to her talk?  Or the guy who hung her in effigy?  Those wacky fun right wingers!

I'm not sure Brent is fairly characterized as a denier, even as regards AGW. He might argue degree, if you will, but not whether human caused CO2 emissions are contributing to an accelerated warming of the planet.

As am I, he's more of a change is good and who knows what tomorrow will bring sort of guy. Where we differ is that where I've become quite comfortable with geologic time he sees no reason to wait for whats coming anyway, especially if it cuts into his fun today. He also simply rejects the idea that it's our hands on the thermostat. I refuse to say he's right, but he is definitely not incorrect.

 

Leaving the Paris Accords was double down dumb for many more serious reasons than the futility of the effort. I'm not sure he sees that. Also, just saying that 500, 600, or even 800ppm of CO2 will be the bees, we then no longer have, knees doesn't begin to address how the holy hell we stop the accelerating increase once we arrive at happily ever after. To my mind that's the fatal flaw in the do nothing argument not which paragraph was missed when skimming the latest paper on the subject. Specifically, I'd argue that until we have the instructions, let's not take the goddamn planet apart.

[billvon 2,400]

30 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I'm not sure Brent is fairly characterized as a denier, even as regards AGW. He might argue degree, if you will, but not whether human caused CO2 emissions are contributing to an accelerated warming of the planet.

I've seen him argue that scientists tampered with the records so there's really not much warming, and then that sure, there's warming, but no one knows what's causing it, then that CO2 and warming are both amazing boons that will green the planet and enrich everyone's lives.  Those are contradictory positions.  The one constant is denial of the problem.

If you're right, great, that would be progress.  I'll wait to see if it comes from him though.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

I've seen him argue that scientists tampered with the records so there's really not much warming, and then that sure, there's warming, but no one knows what's causing it, then that CO2 and warming are both amazing boons that will green the planet and enrich everyone's lives.  Those are contradictory positions.  The one constant is denial of the problem.

If you're right, great, that would be progress.  I'll wait to see if it comes from him though.

On August 27 he wrote this in reply to BIGUN:

"I don’t deny climate change; I don’t deny that CO2 has some role.  I question that a slightly warmer planet with CO2 levels that are well within pre/historical norms will result in an imminent existential catastrophe.  I further question the efficacy of any attempts of mitigation." 

I think he might have said something similar to me that was also buried in the avalanche of crap that follows. I concede in advance that these sorts of statements by Brent are few and far between, but in fairness (and FUN!) he is under constant attack. He's just not the sort to yield an inch of ground in battle. 

[billvon 2,400]

26 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

"I don’t deny climate change; I don’t deny that CO2 has some role.  I question that a slightly warmer planet with CO2 levels that are well within pre/historical norms will result in an imminent existential catastrophe.  I further question the efficacy of any attempts of mitigation." 

 2012: "you will find that the gist of the new data is that global warming is not caused by co2"

August 2019: "No one really cares about a few hundredths of a degree of warming if it doesn’t hurt anything."

But tomorrow he will probably see something on FOX and change that.

I am all for hoping people change, and if his message to you indicates that he now believes that the world is warming per the actual measurements (degrees, not hundredths of a degree)  and that CO2 is causing most of it (and that he won't deny those thing next week) that would be awesome.  Let's hope you are right.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

5 minutes ago, billvon said:

 2012: "you will find that the gist of the new data is that global warming is not caused by co2"

August 2019: "No one really cares about a few hundredths of a degree of warming if it doesn’t hurt anything."

But tomorrow he will probably see something on FOX and change that.

I am all for hoping people change, and if his message to you indicates that he now believes that the world is warming per the actual measurements (degrees, not hundredths of a degree)  and that CO2 is causing most of it (and that he won't deny those thing next week) that would be awesome.  Let's hope you are right.

Well, it must count a little that he was wronger in 2012 then in 2019.  I don't think Brent is right on the issues. In fact I'm often baffled by the fact that a former bank officer who would never deny the effects of compound interest persistently denies, or simply ignores, the compounding effects of rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2. He's got a shit happens way of looking at the thing that is bothersome. But he's right, shit does happen. For example methane seeps from thawing underwater permafrost is todays happening shit. The point is that even were you to achieve the impossible and get him to agree that the entirety of the increase since 2010 was caused by burning fossil fuels he would still think it's peachy. I say he's not a denier because I believe he knows AGW is real. He just doesn't want this generation to pay for fixing the problem.

[brenthutch 384]

49 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Well, it must count a little that he was wronger in 2012 then in 2019.  I don't think Brent is right on the issues. In fact I'm often baffled by the fact that a former bank officer who would never deny the effects of compound interest persistently denies, or simply ignores, the compounding effects of rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2.

Actually Joe, the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas doesn’t compound as levels increase, it drops off, logarithmically.  Think about it this way; if you put on a blanket, you will be much warmer than without it.  Add a second blanket and you will be warmer still but it won’t be double that of one blanket.  Continue this thought experiment and you will see that the difference between 350 blankets and 410 blankets would be nearly undetectable.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

31 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Continue this thought experiment and you will see that the difference between 350 blankets and 410 blankets would be nearly undetectable.

Hi Brent,

I agree.  However, by adding blankets you never get colder.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm,

Jerry Baumchen

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Actually Joe, the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas doesn’t compound as levels increase, it drops off, logarithmically.  Think about it this way; if you put on a blanket, you will be much warmer than without it.  Add a second blanket and you will be warmer still but it won’t be double that of one blanket.  Continue this thought experiment and you will see that the difference between 350 blankets and 410 blankets would be nearly undetectable.

Not my position. A warmer climate causes CO2  and Methane to be released from thawing permafrost, for example. Let's continue the blanket analogy a bit further. At 800 blankets you'll have long since been suffocated by the sheer weight of them all. And depending on how gently each was laid you might never notice it was happening until it was too late.

[richravizza 25]

On 10/9/2019 at 8:19 AM, billvon said:

Yep.  It would be great if modern conservatives started, you know, conserving again, instead of doing all they can to harm the environment.  Ronnie Reagan

Would be Proud ...

On 10/4/2019 at 7:30 AM, kallend said:

None whinier than DJT himself. 

 

On 10/9/2019 at 8:19 AM, billvon said:

OK.  Great.  Good thing you don't live in Newtok, Alaska.

I live right here in Los Angeles California   Adam Shitts District  

MAGA

[DJL 232]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Actually Joe, the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas doesn’t compound as levels increase, it drops off, logarithmically.  Think about it this way; if you put on a blanket, you will be much warmer than without it.  Add a second blanket and you will be warmer still but it won’t be double that of one blanket.  Continue this thought experiment and you will see that the difference between 350 blankets and 410 blankets would be nearly undetectable.

We're really talking about a feedback loop but I agree.  Compounding would be a feedback loop but a feedback loop doesn't necessarily mean compounding.  A feedback loop could be compounding (run-away system), self sustaining or decreasing.

What people mean by the feed-back loop isn't the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas but that even if we eliminate all of our own sources that the CO2 released from melted permafrost and the loss of albedo from lost sea ice will cause global warming to continue.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, DJL said:

We're really talking about a feedback loop but I agree.  Compounding would be a feedback loop but a feedback loop doesn't necessarily mean compounding.  A feedback loop could be compounding (run-away system), self sustaining or decreasing.

What people mean by the feed-back loop isn't the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas but that even if we eliminate all of our own sources that the CO2 released from melted permafrost and the loss of albedo from lost sea ice will cause global warming to continue.

Thank you. I fixed it for readability.

"In fact I'm often baffled by the fact that a former bank officer who would never deny the effects of feed back loop interest persistently denies, or simply ignores, the not necessarily compounding feed back loop effects of rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2." 

[brenthutch 384]

3 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Thank you. I fixed it for readability.

"In fact I'm often baffled by the fact that a former bank officer who would never deny the effects of feed back loop interest persistently denies, or simply ignores, the not necessarily compounding feed back loop effects of rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2." 

That is the whole point, catastrophic AGW is predicted on the notion that once CO2 was all in, then other mechanisms would kick in and feed the feedback loop.  Well that hasn't happened. So....

[JoeWeber 2,299]

12 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

3 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Thank you. I fixed it for readability.

"In fact I'm often baffled by the fact that a former bank officer who would never deny the effects of feed back loop interest persistently denies, or simply ignores, the not necessarily compounding feed back loop effects of rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2." 

That is the whole point, catastrophic AGW is predicted on the notion that once CO2 was all in, then other mechanisms would kick in and feed the feedback loop.  Well that hasn't happened. So....

Now that's the problem with bottom fishing: you never know what you're gonna catch. That reply was not for you.

I'm not going to continue this endless debate with you, Brent. I think I know where you are coming from and I simply have a different, and equally stubborn, view. From what I can tell what you say hasn't happened yet is now happening. You think otherwise. Let's count our chips later on when history is over.