Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Except there are multiple data sets and studies other than Mann's replicating the hockey stick graph, with differing margins of error - yet the same general trend of warming.The hockey stick graph certainly doesn't depend on any one persons work - neither does it fall on it...
That's why it's a complete non-issue.

Wrong . You fail to acknowledge it was Manns hocky stick graph (ie most extreme of the projections considered) which was used by the IPCC and touted by Al Gore as an absolute. That data can no longer be relied on.

Leaked emails from the University of East Anglia detail that there was considerable concern as to the overt nature of Manns findings. That was over 10 years ago and only now are we seeing published concerns regarding his work.

It is an important issue for the very reason that all scientific research requires ongoing rigorous evaluation - something that some here are bizarrely suggesting is not required.

You suggest that all the scientists were in agreement with regard to the hocky stick graph. They were not. Ray Bradley, the co-author with Mann on the hockey stick study attempted to dissociated himself from Mike Mann's views on the the primacy of his data over other scientists work prior to the IPCC using it in the published IPCC report.

Two scientists namely Phil Jones and Keith Briffa wrote that

It should not be taken as read that Mike's (Mann) series is "the correct one" ... "I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data', but in reality the situation is not quite so simple... For the record, I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago."

So no - there is no nice tidy picture with ribbons which wraps this particular debacle up. That questions are being asked is the correct approach. Suggesting 'there is nothing to see here' is certainly not.

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

It’s well-established that various proxies can be used to reconstruct rough approximations of past temperatures.

The problem occurs when they splice instrumental temperatures onto the end of proxy reconstructions. In the private sector, this is called "fraud." In government and academic climate "science" this is called Mike’s Nature Trick, "nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."


It was Mann who first devised the "trick" of splicing in the thermometer record, which was eagerly copied by Phil Jones of the university of east Anglia climate research unit. And as Jones admits, it was very much a "trick" designed to fool governments, the media and the people.




The intent was to hide the decline in proxy derived temperatures, where they overlapped the instrumental temperature records, during 20 year and 40 year periods when the real temperatures were rising but the proxy derived temperatures were falling. The problem for them being that if they did not hide the declines in the proxies, it would have shown that their tree ring-based temperature reconstruction methodology was unreliable, spoiled the hockeystick shape of the graph, and undermined the narrative of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

TLDR: The temperature data from the past has a higher margin of error, and the instrumental/thermometer temperature recordings in more modern times, have less margin of error.

Zero problems splicing them together, so long as you include the margin of error - as can be seen visually, right here:


Even when you consider the worst case of the margin of error being biased towards past warming (i.e. trace the top of the blue outline to the present), it still shows a distinct/immediate warming in the present.

This is a complete non-issue among climate scientists.

gozunda

Hockey Stick Science - The Unintended Consequences ...

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

Wrong . You fail to acknowledge it was Manns hocky stick graph (ie most extreme of the projections considered) which was used by the IPCC and touted by Al Gore as an absolute. That data can no longer be relied on.

Leaked emails from the University of East Anglia detail that there was considerable concern as to the overt nature of Manns findings. That was over 10 years ago and only now are we seeing published concerns regarding his work.

It is an important issue for the very reason that all scientific research requires ongoing rigorous evaluation - something that some here are bizarrely suggesting is not required.

You suggest that all the scientists were in agreement with regard to the hocky stick graph. They were not. Ray Bradley, the co-author with Mann on the hockey stick study attempted to dissociated himself from Mike Mann's views on the the primacy of his data over other scientists work prior to the IPCC using it in the published IPCC report.

Two scientists namely Phil Jones and Keith Briffa wrote that


So no - there is no nice tidy picture with ribbons which wraps this particular debacle up. That questions are being asked is the correct approach. Suggesting 'there is nothing to see here' is certainly not.

You're ignoring what I said: The hockey stick graph has been replicated independently of Mann's work - it is completely uncontroversial within the climate science community.

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Datasets won't help you when you don't know the underlying assumptions behind them and whether they are linked to the reality or not. If you are genuinely interested start with a skeptical position on the matter and ask lots of questions of the people looking for your money, otherwise how can you tell you getting value for money? Remember it is your sweat and capital that are ultimately up for grabs.


If you want a starting position use the Skeptics handbook - part I and part II. They will not give you all the answers you are looking for but it will give you a compass to navigate the debate.

Oh look, another person affiliated with Koch oil-oligarch funded think tanks, producing propaganda material!

Tip: 'Skeptic' is key word for Denialist. Google authors for links to oil industry funded think tanks.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

You're ignoring what I said: The hockey stick graph has been replicated independently of Mann's work - it is completely uncontroversial within the climate science community.

Nope. I'm simply pointing out what you are saying is incorrect. The Hockey Stick debacle remains a significant issue which has been going on amongst scientists for well over a decade. Why you ask? Here are some scientists who can explain the issues (in addition to those already detailed with Manns work) and how other studies using the same methodology are equally problematic...

Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records...

If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions...

A phony hockey stick is more dangerous than a broken one–if we know it is broken. It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a mistake, we admit it, learn from it, and perhaps discover once again the value of caution.

A scientist an an academic and not a 'skeptic' or climate denier in sight ...

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/403256/global-warming-bombshell/

KyussB

They are not climate scientists. They are economists with ties to oil-oligarch Koch funded think tanks...

The debate on the hockey stick graph is done and dusted among climate scientists. It is confirmed.

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

Oh look, another person affiliated with Koch oil-oligarch funded think tanks, producing propaganda material!

Tip: 'Skeptic' is key word for Denialist. Google authors for links to oil industry funded think tanks.

You have sunk to name calling and repeating public relations agency derived nonsense. The public relations agency objective is to denigrate people by creating favourable interpretations to the following questions.

• Were these climate skeptics qualified?
• Were they doing any research in the climate change field?
• Were they accepting money, directly or indirectly, from the fossil fuel industry?

This doesn’t answer skeptics questions about the science and as they acknowledge themselves, are about public relations in the climategate emails.

I'm a DeSmogBlog writer [Richard LIttlemore] (I got your email from Kevin Grandia) and I am trying to fend off the latest announcement that global warming has not actually occurred in the 20th century.

It looks to me like Gerd Burger is trying to deny climate change by “smoothing,” “correcting” or otherwise rounding off the temperatures that we know for a flat fact have been recorded since the 1970s, but I am out of my depth (as I am sure you have noticed: we're all about PR here, not much about science) so I wonder if you guys have done anything or are going to do anything with Burger's intervention in Science.

source

The other connection this PR agency has is with David Suzuki a Canadian activist whose daughter was the original Greta.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

They are not climate scientists. They are economists with ties to oil-oligarch Koch funded think tanks...

The debate on the hockey stick graph is done and dusted among climate scientists. It is confirmed.

Everyone with whom you dont agee with a KOCH OIL OLIGARCH? :rolleyes:

The lack of basic comprehension in your comments regarding how scientific research works is quite astounding. Just to let you know that not every scientist needs to be 'climate scientist' btw. These scientists are qualified to review the methodology used by Mann and it was they who found his methodology deeply flawed. The writer of the article is yet another scientist who is neither a climate denier or a skeptic. He simply cautions others to learn from those mistakes (whether deliberate or otherwise). Here is the quote again- in case you are in doubt.

If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions...

It's a shame that by repetition - you identify the real denier and skeptic of those very basic facts. Truely Bizarre.

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

They are not climate scientists. They are economists with ties to oil-oligarch Koch funded think tanks...

The debate on the hockey stick graph is done and dusted among climate scientists. It is confirmed.

Perhaps people who are interested might like to listen to Steve McIntryes opinion on the matter about how it was whitewashed. Start 2 minutes and 15 seconds in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqzcA7SsqSA

KyussB

People may wonder why the Koch's are so discreditable - apart from being the most extreme version of free market Libertarians, one of their key publications, Reason, has a history of defending racist apartheid in South Africa, for one - some choice quotes:

Let the people who advocate immediate majority rule in South Africa and Rhodesia take note. It would be very nice to have a minimal libertarian government and that is what South African libertarians would like to achieve. But as long as the choice is between being governed by a relatively informed white minority and a Socialist black majority, ‘apartheid’ in South Africa will stay.

The major black ethnic groups lumped together under the general term 'Bantu' are as distinct from one another as Germany and France. They are largely illiterate, largely uncaring, mutually mistrustful, mutually antagonistic. They are not the great single black mass yearning to be free that sentimentalists and self-servers in other lands try to portray them.

In defence of denying poperty rights to black people:

I regret the fact that honest, law-abiding blacks cannot own property in or near white cities, but I realize that without this restriction separate development will fail — and with it the capitalist system in South Africa.

As all libertarians should know, unlimited democracies tend towards totalitarian systems, with the rulers competing with each other to control the political machinery. Some years ago, the whites realized that a democracy may deteriorate into a dictatorship in the ‘wrong’ hands—especially when those hands have the wrong color to boot.

https://pando.com/2014/07/18/homophobia-racism-and-the-kochs-san-franciscos-tech-libertarian-reboot-conference-is-a-cesspool/

This is an example of the type of material the Koch's fund. It is equally as discreditable and propagandistic, today.

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

You have sunk to name calling and repeating public relations agency derived nonsense. The public relations agency objective is to denigrate people by creating favourable interpretations to the following questions.

• Were these climate skeptics qualified?
• Were they doing any research in the climate change field?
• Were they accepting money, directly or indirectly, from the fossil fuel industry?

This doesn’t answer skeptics questions about the science and as they acknowledge themselves, are about public relations in the climategate emails.



The other connection this PR agency has is with David Suzuki a Canadian activist whose daughter was the original Greta.

So lets make this clear:
1: You don't think qualifications are relevant - i.e. you don't care if someone is a qualified climate scientist.

2: You don't care about conflicts of interest - i.e. people in the pocket of the oil industry.

Actually, I derive nearly all of the links to the fossil fuel industry from Wikipedia and Google - most of these people have their links to oil oligarch think-tanks directly on wiki pages.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

Oh ffs - You are obsessed. Is everyone with whom you dont agee with a KOCH OIL OLIGARCH!

The lack of basic comprehension in your comments regarding how scientific research works is quite astounding. Just to let you know that not every scientist needs to be 'climate scientist' btw. These scientists are qualified to review the methodology used by Mann and it was they who found his methodology deeply flawed. The writer of the article is yet another scientist who is neither a climate denier or a skeptic. He simply cautions others to learn from those mistakes (whether deliberate or otherwise). Here is the quote again- in case you are in doubt.




It's a shame that by repetition - you identify the real denier and skeptic of those very basic facts. Truely Bizarre.

Their criticisms were dealt with and debunked by climate scientists more than a decade ago...

If someone is funded by known propagandists - i.e. has massive conflicts of interest - does that affect their credibility, in your eyes?

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

So lets make this clear: . . .

TLDR.


Why do you ignore the for profit organisations and activists behind the PR you cite?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-Y4qTLPFJY

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Their criticisms were dealt with and debunked by climate scientists more than a decade ago...If someone is funded by known propagandists - i.e. has massive conflicts of interest - does that affect their credibility, in your eyes?

The findings regarding flaws in the methodology of Manns work remain along with the emails from East Anglia University and the latest refusal by Mann to allow his data to be verified as an indication of issues of alarmist type data which has crept into the issue of climate change.

So what you are saying is that Richard Muller (who btw is a fully qualified and bonafide scientist) is contrary to his own declaration a 'denier' and 'skeptic'. Or are you saying that as an keyboard warrior you are somehow more qualified to decide what is science and what is not? Really? I dont think so.

You see thats the thing about science - it's not the cult of personality that you would like it to be. In this instance one scientist has reviewed other scientists work and found there is a case to answer. The recent court case involving Manns now debunked Hockey Stick data further backs up these issues with regards to Manns research and its use by the IPCC. That some of the climate screamers and real deniers dont like that is completely irrelevant.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

The findings regarding flaws in the methodology of Manns work remain along with the emails from East Anglia University and the latest refusal by Mann to allow his data to be verified as an indication of issues of alarmist data which has crept into the issue of climate change.

So what you are saying is thst Richard Muller (who btw) is a fully qualified and bonafide scientist is contrary to his own declaration a 'denier' and 'skeptic'. Or are you saying that as an keyboard warrior you are somehow more qualified to decide what is science and what is not? Really? I dont think so.

You see thats the thing about science - it's not the cult of personality that you would like it to be. In this instance one scientist has reviewed other scientists work and found there is a case to answer. The recent court case involving Manns now debunked Hockey Stick data further backs up these issues with regards to Manns research and its use by the IPCC. That some of the climate screamers and real deniers dont like that is completely irrelevant.

Richard Muller the director of a Koch oil-oligarch funded think-tank? Yea I'll pass on that discreditable source, thanks...

Why the fuck is everyone you guys cite linked to Koch think tanks? If your views aren't so discreditable - go find people citing those views, who aren't associated with such discreditable think-tanks...

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Richard Muller the director of a Koch oil-oligarch funded think-tank? Yea I'll pass on that discreditable source, thanks...Why the fuck is everyone you guys cite linked to Koch think tanks? If your views aren't so discreditable - go find people citing those views, who aren't associated with such discreditable think-tanks...

This Richard Muller?From your favourite source - Wikipedia:

Richard A. Muller (born January 6, 1944) is an American physicist and professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley. He is also a faculty senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Muller

I'm afraid to tell you this but only one here with the Koch hang up. The above comments come across as some deranged (open) conspiracy rant at best.

The guy - Muller couldn't be more an pro-anthropomorphic climate change advocate if we gave him a large hat emblazoned with the words "I'm a Big Climate Change Fan" in neon letters with LEDs for extra effect.

Just ignoring the bits you dont like?

Any idea how academic funding works? Or only choose to believe 'Google' ?

Pa ElGrande

This could be an interesting sideshow to the Canadian elections - GRETA & JUSTIN TRUDEAU. Interfering in another country s elections. . . .

1) How many layers are there to the rotten onion that is the Trudeau Foundation? You're going to want to buckle up for this one!


2) It appears as though Greta Thunberg and Justin Trudeau are more closely linked than we know, but it's very likely that Greta has absolutely no idea. Let's take a look at some interesting connections.

<snip>

16) The head of events and media relations for the Thunberg family is a guy named Daniel Donner. There are many articles online that state this, but this one from Everyone Group details how he presented Greta with the 2019 Makwan Prize.


17) Daniel Donner also just happens to work with media strategy and outreach as part of the European Climate Foundation’s Strategic Communications team, focusing on both news media and digital platforms.


18) It probably won't surprise anyone to learn that the ECF’s founder, John H. McCall MacBain, is the Chair of the Board of Directors for the Trudeau Foundation.


19) McCall MacBain gave the Trudeau Foundation $928,000 between 2015-2016. This National Post article highlights many of the corporate kingpins involved in the Trudeau Foundation. The connections between these companies and the Foundation are staggering!


source

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

I think Tmh is bizarrely referencing Rosa Parks who helped highlight and bring an end to discrimination and segregation during the civil rights era in the US.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks

Quite hilarious that a wealthy kid from a privileged background could be held in comparison. We know greta thinks her childhood was stolen by all the adults but seriously?

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

They are trying to insinuate that anyone who questions the motives behind Greta and co is also a racist. Much like the start of this thread when it was insinuated that those who questions Greta must be paedophiles. Smear tactics.

Swing and a miss for both of you.
The analogy implied that at that time, on the first of December 1955 and the days immediately afterwards, Rosa would not have been spoken highly of in many of the bars and houses around Montgomery. She was not the first person to refuse to move from their seat to accommodate a white person, but, given her prominence with the NAACP they initiated a strike of the bus system which ultimately lead to a change in the practice of segregation.
Now, people, black and white look at Rosa as a trailblazer.

See the similarities with Greta's story at least to the point of
Not being the first person to do it. initiating wide scale protests, became a figurehead for the cause.

So be clear, I'm not suggesting you are a racist for questioning Greta, I'm suggesting you are a Luddite in coming to terms with the reality of what is happening.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Swing and a miss for both of you. The analogy implied that at that time, on the first of December 1955 and the days immediately afterwards, Rosa would not have been spoken highly of in many of the bars and houses around Montgomery. She was not the first person to refuse to move from their seat to accommodate a white person, but, given her prominence with the NAACP they initiated a strike of the bus system which ultimately lead to a change in the practice of segregation.
Now, people, black and white look at Rosa as a trailblazer.

See the similarities with Greta's story at least to the point of Not being the first person to do it. initiating wide scale protests, became a figurehead for the cause.

So be clear, I'm not suggesting you are a racist for questioning Greta, I'm suggesting you are a Luddite in coming to terms with the reality of what is happening.

Frankly - No.

Hitler would also meets the criteria of of "not being the first person to do it. initiating wide scale protests, became a figurehead for the cause" but I wouldn't put him on a pedestal tbh. And no I'm not suggesting greta is Hitler either...

I'd suggest perhaps you dont know the meaning of "Luddite' ...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Frankly - No.

I'd suggest perhaps you are a fantasist? And dont know the meaning of "Luddite' ...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You should add that little confused guy graphic to your profile. It's quite apt.

Also, I see your usual added edit and it is irrelevant. The point wasn't whether or not Greta is equal to Rosa (or anyone else) it is how some people are hardwired to complain irrespective of the lack of validity in their reasoning.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

You should add that little confused guy graphic to your profile. It's quite apt.

It's a shrug and denotes 'whatever'. I do think you may just be projecting yourself there

Btw you seem to have missed the main part of my comment. Had a issue posting when my laptop ran out of power. But no worries

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

It's a shrug and denotes 'whatever' I do think you may ust be projecting yourself there

Btw you seem to have missed the main part of my comment.

I know you edit comments up to 6 hours after they have been posted.

It is hard to know when you are finally finished. I had caught it though.

gozunda

gozunda wrote: »

It's a shrug and denotes 'whatever'. I do think you may just be projecting yourself there

Btw you seem to have missed the main part of my comment. Had a issue posting when my laptop ran out of power. But no worries

Also, I see your usual added edit and it is irrelevant. The point ... is how some people are hardwired to complain irrespective of the lack of validity in their reasoning.

I see you are not too bad at the old Ninja edit yourself lol.

And no that clearly was not your point Lol. Gotcha there buddy

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

I know you edit comments up to 6 hours after they have been posted. It is hard to know when you are finally finished. I had caught it though.

Lol. You do get caught up the smallest of things. Yes indeed I do sometimes use edit. I also have a dodgy connection which can fek up posting. But there you go. :rolleyes:

As per Fr Jack - I'm soooooo Sorry.

Glad to see the thread back to toungue in cheek humour a la the OP who started the thread.

Night.

hetuzozaho

Her latest updates are cool

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1185967021156159488

I guess she'll soon be heading south for Santiago on her slow travels as she says.

#uniteBehindTheScience. Go greta!

is_that_so

Thought it useful to post this here given that the world is apparently ending and people's indecent haste to prognosticate on the current state of affairs. Dare I say it, it does seem that technology may indeed come to the rescue.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/21/renewable-energy-to-expand-by-50-in-next-five-years-report

no, no- the guardian is Koch propaganda and you sir are a propagandist!

jimgoose

Yes! 400 pages of bull-scutter! :pac:

gozunda

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Her latest updates are cool

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1185967021156159488
I guess she'll soon be heading south for Santiago on her slow travels as she says.
#uniteBehindTheScience. Go greta!

Ermh not too sure what her holiday visiting people got to do with the 'unitedscience'?

Eitherway I do hope she is not lecturing the Native people of America and telling them that they ruined her childhood et tedium...

gozunda

jimgoose wrote: »

Yes! 400 pages of bull-scutter! :pac:

That Sir - is unfair on Bulls! :mad:

Eric Cartman

KyussB wrote: »

Richard Muller the director of a Koch oil-oligarch funded think-tank? Yea I'll pass on that discreditable source, thanks...

Why the fuck is everyone you guys cite linked to Koch think tanks? If your views aren't so discreditable - go find people citing those views, who aren't associated with such discreditable think-tanks...

are Soros funded astroturf groups and think tanks ok or is it only the Koch ones that are bad ?

James Brown

...and Greta is an unwitting shill for the Illuminati? Yeah, I don't buy it.

Eric Cartman

Matt Barrett wrote: »

...and Greta is an unwitting shill for the Illuminati? Yeah, I don't buy it.

don't think anyone said that. That said I doubt she's doing it on her own. Many posters here insist greta is doing this on her own of her own virtue and everything is above board.......while also insisting that every group opposing her is some sort of koch/ big oil funded conspiracy...

Beasty

Please note KryssB is banned from the forum, so please do not respond to their posts as they cannot reply further

Thanks

James Brown

Eric Cartman wrote: »

don't think anyone said that. That said I doubt she's doing it on her own. Many posters here insist greta is doing this on her own of her own virtue and everything is above board.......while also insisting that every group opposing her is some sort of koch/ big oil funded conspiracy...

I assumed you read the OP.

She's likely a hell of a lot of help being a teenager. I can't see her being fed opinions, maybe help with speech writing.

PopePalpatine

You'd think that such dastardly, scheming individuals as the Illuminati would have found someone like Greta sooner, or better yet, find her 2004 counterpart rather than getting Gore out there and having the Warmunist agenda derailed by people pointing at his lifestyle.

weldoninhio

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I assumed you read the OP.

She's likely a hell of a lot of help being a teenager. I can't see her being fed opinions, maybe help with speech writing.

So explain the videos where she is asked a question and has no idea at all how to answer. She’s nothing without a script.

mzungu

weldoninhio wrote: »

So explain the videos where she is asked a question and has no idea at all how to answer. She’s nothing without a script.

Ah listen, she is 16 years old. She does better than most would in that situation. So what if she has a few lapses? Plus, most people in the public eye operate off a script. Whether that be politicians, actors, musicians etc. When things go off script even they start to flounder a little. Usually those that can go free form easily would be academics and journalists, mainly because they would have decades of research in various fields behind them. But a 16 year old? Nah, a few silent moments here and there and some botched answers is not out of the norm.

TL;DR Some of the most world renowned orators would be nowhere near as impressive if they were not working from a script. Nobody just goes out and starts winging it like some kind of open mic rap battle in a Detroit bar.

Tell me how

weldoninhio wrote: »

So explain the videos where she is asked a question and has no idea at all how to answer. She’s nothing without a script.

This is beyond ridiculous.
She is a 16 year old. The president of the united states struggles to formulate a sentence and goes off point virtually every time he speaks without a teleprompter, that deserves commentary about his need for a script.

This girl has a simple message, consistently delivered and has motivated millions more to follow her example. She is to be applauded for her efforts.

We need to act.
Unite behind the science.'

How much of a script do you want?

how does a 16 year old girl get to that position, who organises and backs her and why cant we focus on it without ye behaving like we slapped your niece on her birthday?

for any of the examples youve both given there anyone can ask about the how and why that person became a public figure, on their own steam or by a particular talent or by being harnessed in a pact that mutually benefits the backers and the figurehead

asking this about greta, who tells headline-grabbing fibs we cant discuss, causes ructions. ye seem to think that an autistic teenage girl has fewer questions behind her placement as an environmental christ

ye are wrong. theres ten times the questions about the use of an autistic child in such a position.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

how does a 16 year old girl get to that position, who organises and backs her and why cant we focus on it without ye behaving like we slapped your niece on her birthday?

for any of the examples youve both given there anyone can ask about the how and why that person became a public figure, on their own steam or by a particular talent or by being harnessed in a pact that mutually benefits the backers and the figurehead

asking this about greta, who tells headline-grabbing fibs we cant discuss, causes ructions. ye seem to think that an autistic teenage girl has fewer questions behind her placement as an environmental christ

ye are wrong. theres ten times the questions about the use of an autistic child in such a position.

Her story is straightforward.

• She became concerned and asked what she could do.
• Someone suggested joining a protest.
• She did, and continued protesting on her own.
• She kept at it.
• Swedish media started to pay attention.
• European media started to pay attention.
• Most who heard her message could see the simple truth in it.
• Millions started to follow her example
• Politicians in high places saw the success she was having and invited her to come and speak.

You can talk about her parents, Soros, taxes, snowflakes, PR, etc and so on but it smacks of tin hat conspiracy beliefs or bitterness at the attention a 16 year old girl has earned or plain old ostrich behaviour. This particularly goes for your statement 'use of an autistic child' like she is being coerced or trafficked in to something against her will.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Her story is straightforward.

• She became concerned and asked what she could do.
• Someone suggested joining a protest.
• She did, and continued protesting on her own.
• She kept at it.
• Swedish media started to pay attention.
• European media started to pay attention.
• Most who heard her message could see the simple truth in it.
• Millions started to follow her example
• Politicians in high places saw the success she was having and invited her to come and speak.

You can talk about her parents, Soros, taxes, snowflakes, PR, etc and so on but it smacks of tin hat conspiracy beliefs or bitterness at the attention a 16 year old girl has earned or plain old ostrich behaviour. This particularly goes for your statement 'use of an autistic child' like she is being coerced or trafficked in to something against her will.

your characterisation of "oh yknow some ppl just noticed her, nbd" is laughable.

instance my mentions of soros, taxes, snowflakes in this entire thread or amend that please (yknow, like you usually do after a while)

justify the description of questioning the platform as conspiracy theory without that hackjob weaving in of those random elements, if you can. my position has been consistent throughout, the platform here is deeply questionable in purposely selecting an autistic child specifically in order that any queries may be shouted down.

i dont hold many further thoughts on who or why may be behind that or what their ideas are, because to have that as a concern is frankly enough for me to dismiss the greta roadshow as a gimmick, totally separate to climate change or anything else.


the "you're with us or against us" cohort get the usual rejection of that intellectually and morally bankrupt position.

the "she believes she's right/her stated goals justify the ends/dont ask awkward questions" crew are much more interesting to me, because id like to know if they can defend that position (for it is very much the position of the most dedicated greta wagoners in this thread imo)

and yes, to your final line. Greta's autism and her youth and quite possibly her upbringing are factors that make her platforming deeply questionable because they each in their own way raise the concern as to the extent she can consent fully to the platform she has been raised to.

any child that becomes a figurehead of an industry or movement is a tool of an adult or a group of them. sometimes thats the parent/s, sometimes they are merely complicit. these ones appear to particularly suck at their role as responsible decision makers imo, and i dont particularly care if saying so makes me an......ostrich....?

Tell me how

^^
Rinse and repeat.

There is nothing anyone can say to you that will make you accept Greta as being a positive influence on the environment discussion. I don't care what you believe.
I don't have posters of her on my wall, I'm not flying a flag for her but I am very impressed by her, admire her efforts and think she is 100% right in her view that we need to support scientists in getting to a solution.

You can carry on looking for your conspiracy theories.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Her story is straightforward.

• She became concerned and asked what she could do.
• Someone suggested joining a protest.
• She did, and continued protesting on her own.
• She kept at it.
• Swedish media started to pay attention.
• European media started to pay attention.
• Most who heard her message could see the simple truth in it.
• Millions started to follow her example
• Politicians in high places saw the success she was having and invited her to come and speak.

...

The story is far from straightforward and should ring alarm bells for any rational adult.

From her and her parents accounts

• As a young child she watched some highly dramatised environmental videos, became increasingly obsessed with these ideas, was diagnosed with depression, and was later diagnosed with aspergers
  
• She also later refused to go to school and stopped eating.
  
• She appears to have developed an innate fear and belief that civilisation is going to end within the next decade and that school / study is therefore a waste of time. Earlier this year she dropped out of school despite being only 16 years of age.
  
• Her parents seemed to have facilitated her promotion via social media and elsewhere, in the publication of a book written by her mother when she first started protesting and later with her father managing appearances at various events etc.
  
• Many who heard her speeches and or watched her videos have genuine concerns that the teenager is being encouraged in these doomsday beliefs in order to bolster an overt style of climate alarmism
  
• Her behaviour and visceral reaction during a short speech at the UN conference in New York was deeply concerning in many ways.

That others are using the child is without doubt as just after her speech at the Nations Climate Action Summit - she and a group of other other young people officially 'filed' a legal complaint against a number of countries for carbon emissions with the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child - who are now charged with assessing the case.

Just as it is clear that greta did not sail the Atlantic by herself - it is also evident that the the teenager did not organise this latest event by herself and certainly not without significant help and backing.

Tell me how

You can keep repeating the above.
It once again smacks of someone really digging deep to justifying their outrage at her.
And the faux concern? Spare me, I have seen no one express concern who didn't back it up with more of the conspiracy theories.

And as always, if you are that concerned, heed her message. She will be thankful and that will help her.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

You can keep repeating the above. It once again smacks of someone really digging deep to justifying their outrage at her. And the faux concern? Spare me, I have seen no one express concern who didn't back it up with more of the conspiracy theories.
And as always, if you are that concerned, heed her message. She will be thankful and that will help her.

No Tmh - that is simply in reply to your own rather one sided account of gretas rise to fame. Any rational adult or parent watching the teenager should have genuine concerns. No one is 'outraged'. No one is expressing 'faux' concern. It is all very real. There is no conspiracy theory there - it is simply evident she and the other young people did not organise the filling of that complaint off their own bat. Concerns as to the child being used by others- does not mean having to believe her 'message' that civilisation is going to end in the next decade. And doing so will certainly will not 'help' her or any other impressionable young poeople .

Edit:

The UN - using children for over a decade. Opening video used at the UN Climate Meeting in Copenhagen - 2009.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVGGgncVq-4

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

No Tmh - that is simply in reply to your own rather one sided account of gretas rise to fame. Any rational adult or parent watching the teenager should have genuine concerns. No one is 'outraged'. No one is expressing 'faux' concern. It is all very real. There is no conspiracy theory there - it is simply evident she and the other young people did not organise the filling of that complaint off their own bat. Concerns as to the child being used by others- does not mean having to believe her 'message' that civilisation is going to end in the next decade. And doing so will certainly will not 'help' her or any other impressionable young poeople .

If the concern is as real as you suggest (it most definitely isn't) then those expressing that concern might reign in the derogatory remarks about those suffering with Asperger. It kind of undermines the image of a compassionate society they are trying to project.

Action is needed.
Unite behind the science.

It's a simple message.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

If the concern is as real as you suggest (it most definitely isn't) then those expressing that concern might reign in the derogatory remarks about those suffering with Asperger. It kind of undermines the image of a compassionate society they are trying to project. Action is needed behind the united science. It's a simple message.

Seriously that's your only reply out of all of that detail - 'aspergers'? If you are going to throw crap like that at least be honest enough to point out where the 'derogatory' remarks are in the above comment.

Oddly enough the condition is highlighted in that she claims the condition as a 'superpower' and uses it as a handle in Twitter profile and yet no one is even allowed to mention that without being accused of being 'derogaroty'. A cheap shot. And no that's not the message being pushed and being heard by other young people like these ...

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-03/sydney-student-at-climate-protest/11077290

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Seriously that's your only reply out of all of that detail - 'aspergers'? If you are going to throw crap like that at least be honest enough to point out where the 'derogatory' remarks are in the above comment.

Oddly enough the condition is highlighted in that she claims the condition as a 'superpower' and uses it as a handle in Twitter profile and yet no one is even allowed to mention that without being accused of being 'derogaroty'. A cheap shot. And no that's not the message being pushed and being heard by other young people like these ...

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-03/sydney-student-at-climate-protest/11077290

There are 6100 comments on this thread. Every post does not specifically mean that items referenced were included in the post quoted.
And if you can't understand the difference between mentioning something and speaking in derogatory terms, then it explains a lot, but is no excuse.

This thread continues to convince me we are close to if not having already passed a threshold where the majority of people support Greta's views, there is no objective argument against it here only nonsense, subjectivity and straw men arguments.

Greta is going very well to communicate a necessary message. Fair play to her.