Greta Hates You All

[billvon 2,400]

10 hours ago, airdvr said:

She's a good actress...I'll give you that.

Yep.  It's all a vast conspiracy.  Tell yourself that often enough and you won't have to think.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

7 minutes ago, billvon said:

Yep.  It's all a vast conspiracy.  Tell yourself that often enough and you won't have to think.

Can you imagine if one person walked in, said "How dare you!" and walked out. You know, if one person does it, they may think he's real sick and they won't take him.
If two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them.
And three people do it, can you imagine, three people walking in, saying "How dare you!" and walking out. They may think it's an organization. 

And can you imagine fifty people a day, I said FIFTY people a day walking in, saying "How dare you!" and walking out. And friends, they may think it's a Movement. 

 

And that's what it is. The Alice's Restaurant Anti-Global Warming movement. And all you have to do to join is sing it the next time it comes around on the guitar.

 

(Apologies to Arlo Guthrie)

[ryoder 1,384]

47 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

(Apologies to Arlo Guthrie)

That was horrible. If you want to end climate change and stuff you got to sing loud!

[billvon 2,400]

4 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

(a most grievous theft of Guthrie's work)

And then this guy sat down next me and said, "What you in for, kid?" And I said, "Goin' to a climate change rally."  And they all moved away from me on the bench there, and the hairy eyeball and all kinds of mean nasty things, till I said, "And harrasin' an immigrant." And they all came back, shook my hand, and we had a great time on the bench, talkin' about crime, mother stabbing, father raping, all kinds of groovy things that we was talking about on the bench. 

[airdvr 197]

14 hours ago, billvon said:

Yep.  It's all a vast conspiracy.  Tell yourself that often enough and you won't have to think.

I don't have to think.  I've said before this train has left the station and there isn't anyone who can stop it now.  Anyone in any position to slow it down or bring it to a halt would be vilified by the climate change gestapo.  It would be a form of social suicide.  I only post my concerns here for fear of anyone knowing how I feel.

[billvon 2,400]

5 hours ago, airdvr said:

I don't have to think.  

Well, that's great.  Many of us, however, do.

[airdvr 197]

Good one...I knew right after I hit submit that someone would come back with that.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

7 hours ago, airdvr said:

I don't have to think.  I've said before this train has left the station and there isn't anyone who can stop it now.  Anyone in any position to slow it down or bring it to a halt would be vilified by the climate change gestapo.  It would be a form of social suicide.  I only post my concerns here for fear of anyone knowing how I feel.

Who would be in a position to slow it or bring it to a halt?

What scientific information can you show that it isn't happening? 

I haven't seen any. I keep seeing the 'deniers' being paid shills for a variety of interests (Heartland is one of them). The 'science' they use is suspect at best. Intentionally misleading and fraudulent at worst. 

I see the 'climate change deniers' in a similar light to the 'creationists'. 

Both are in serious denial of solid, scientific theories. Theories that have a mountain of evidence behind them, and little or no serious evidence against them.

The creationists pretend to have 'evidence', yet none of it stands up to rigorous examination. They also claim that the 'science community' ignores any evidence of them being right. Yet what little 'evidence' they show is either wrong or flat out lies (check out the "Creation Museum" in Kentucky to see what I mean).

Yet, if someone were to find evidence (real, solid, scientifically valid evidence) that 'creation' happened, it would stand the world on it's head. It would be highly criticized. It would be 'rigorously examined' (torn to shreds). If it could stand that scrutiny, it would win a Nobel for the discoverers. 

The same would go for anyone who could show scientific evidence that AGW isn't happening. 

[turtlespeed 212]

58 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Good one...I knew right after I hit submit that someone would come back with that.

well - at least along the lines of knowing that 1 + 1 = 2 . . . not a lot of thinking goes into that.

I figure you meant something along those lines.

Instinctual, I presume.

[DJL 232]

8 hours ago, airdvr said:

Anyone in any position to slow it down or bring it to a halt would be vilified by the climate change gestapo.  It would be a form of social suicide. 

You say that as if you don't see the fossil fuel lobby paying tons of money into attempts to refute what is an incredibly large consensus of research.

[brenthutch 383]

17 minutes ago, DJL said:

You say that as if you don't see the fossil fuel lobby paying tons of money into attempts to refute what is an incredibly large consensus of research.

You mean like this?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxon-mobil-climatechange-donation/exxon-puts-1-million-into-climate-group-promoting-u-s-carbon-tax-idUSKCN1MJ2E9

[DJL 232]

7 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

You mean like this?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxon-mobil-climatechange-donation/exxon-puts-1-million-into-climate-group-promoting-u-s-carbon-tax-idUSKCN1MJ2E9

You think 1 million dollars is real money?

[brenthutch 383]

BTW the consensus is starting to crumble

http://www.journalpsij.com/index.php/PSIJ/article/view/30127/56520

Looks like the IPCC grossly overstates climate sensitivity to CO2

Edited January 27, 2020 by brenthutch

[DJL 232]

11 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

BTW the consensus is starting to crumble

http://www.journalpsij.com/index.php/PSIJ/article/view/30127/56520

Looks like the IPCC grossly overstates climate sensitivity to CO2

The phrase "consensus" has been used in this context for almost 20 years now and I don't think that finding a couple of scientists per year who disagree with the IPCC is proof of anything crumbling.

[turtlespeed 212]

21 minutes ago, DJL said:

The phrase "consensus" has been used in this context for almost 20 years now and I don't think that finding a couple of scientists per year who disagree with the IPCC is proof of anything crumbling.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Your points are inconceivable!

[brenthutch 383]

It only takes one to falsify a hypothesis.

[turtlespeed 212]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

It only takes one to falsify a hypothesis.

Are you familiar with the measurement PPM?

 

[brenthutch 383]

Check out what Alfred Wegener and Luis Alvarez did to the “consensus” of the experts. (Or Galileo for that matter)

Edited January 27, 2020 by brenthutch

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Check out what Alfred Wegener and Luis Alvarez did to the “consensus” of the experts. (Or Galileo for that matter)

Now THAT is a self image to be reckoned with!

 

[kallend 1,623]

7 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

well - at least along the lines of knowing that 1 + 1 = 2 . . . not a lot of thinking goes into that.

I figure you meant something along those lines.

Instinctual, I presume.

Actually a great deal of thinking went into that. 

[billvon 2,400]

19 hours ago, DJL said:

The phrase "consensus" has been used in this context for almost 20 years now and I don't think that finding a couple of scientists per year who disagree with the IPCC is proof of anything crumbling.

Yep.  There are a fair number of people who think the Earth is flat.  Doesn't change the consensus at NASA, either.

[turtlespeed 212]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

Yep.  There are a fair number of people who think the Earth is flat.  Doesn't change the consensus at NASA, either.

Yes - I mean - Anyone can OBVIOUSLY tell that the people on the ISS are paid participants and are obligated by finances to photoshop the pictures they take of the flat earth and make them into a spheroid!

[airdvr 197]

23 hours ago, DJL said:

The phrase "consensus" has been used in this context for almost 20 years now and I don't think that finding a couple of scientists per year who disagree with the IPCC is proof of anything crumbling.

I guess I was weak at making my point.  I started watching the Netflix Series "Mars".  I thought it was an extremely well done docudrama, with parts of the show being from 2016 and others from 2033.  Obviously the 2033 is fiction based around best guesses, and the 2016 based around current events.  Lots of space stuff, history of the space program, Spacex and Elon.  The part that was 2033 I'm guessing was probably a good interpretation of what a Mars mission might be like.  Alls is rolling along well until about the 6th episode where all of a sudden it changes to a political program on climate change.

My point is the AGW crowd has captured all of the media, not just the MSM. TV shows and movies now push the agenda.   One could say that's because AGW is true.  I just question whether anyone who might have a valid argument at this point could break through the fog.

 

[DJL 232]

1 minute ago, airdvr said:

I just question whether anyone who might have a valid argument at this point could break through the fog.

A valid argument would be back up with fact s and reproducible research.  It would need to show some sort of missing element that hasn't been seen within decades of research and the fact remains that we would still need to take steps to thwart the very rapid change in global temperatures that we had then discovered was not man made.

[timski 80]

OK Happy Valley guy,  Answer me this: in your time on this planet, have you not personally experienced milder winters? Spring and autumn that don't last like they used too???   I've only been here for 50 turns around the system but I can speak from what I've seen for myself. 

To be in TOTAL denial of OUR impact on climate is... PFD