patrick.net

One of the big issues about solving the carbon issue is, the benefits are enjoyed by people who will be DEAD before the bad effects are felt. These bad effects are left for Greta's generation and younger to suffer and pay for, without having enjoyed the benefits. That's why I respect young people speaking out about this issue.

OK that said, Greta really DOES display weird eye movement and unusual affect. If she's really a plant by "handlers," couldn't they have picked someone who's weird-but-possibly-cool like the Toaster Strudel kid? https://www.ispot.tv/ad/7qL2/pillsbury-toaster-strudel-door-kick-with-hans-strudel# Instead, Greta is weird-but-possibly-Carrie looking in my opinion.

I think these child activist invokers are playing the semi long game, and it will likely prove very effective for them because teens will soon be the generation in charge.

When teens see adults on TV championing for a cause, they mostly yawn. But, if they see another teen ... they get inspired and feel connected to them, and can relate to them. It's like how teens idolize other teen musicians and famous teens to an absurd degree. Greta's a bit eccentric, but she comes off as smart, and could be a teen climate activist "idol".

Also, the anti-adult rhetoric is smart. Young people tend to have a rebellious, anti-establishment / anti-adult nature regardless, but when you start blaming adults for the climate, and telling the kids it's "their climate" that's being shit on by adults, it stirs them well.

They may rally together based on their identity (younger, woke) and share a common enemy (stupid greedy adults), and might be a real force. Especially if they get political and start voting before they really experience paying bills, or enter into financially obligating lifestyles.

Greta blames greed and discounted the typical adult counterpoint of "it costs too much to change". Again, children don't understand money so much, and likely harbor resentment from their own parents harping on them about "money not growing on trees" etc..., and are likely to really take to that style of "fuck your stupid adult money excuses" rhetoric.

Hircus says

Young people tend to have a rebellious, anti-establishment / anti-adult nature

Yes, exactly. Young people feel themselves rather powerless and perhaps inferior in knowledge and abilities so far, and this has always led young people to be anti-adult.

It's exactly the same kind of resentment that motivates feminists (who know they are not as strong as men), gays (who know they kinda fucked up life), and blacks (who see the situation of blacks and suspect it really is at least partly genetic).

And they all vote Democrat because the Democrats are the party of grievances.

The good thing about young people is that they recover from their resentments as they grow up and become one of those horrible "oppressors" themselves.

Automan Empire says

One of the big issues about solving the carbon issue is, the benefits are enjoyed by people who will be DEAD before the bad effects are felt. These bad effects are left for Greta's generation and younger to suffer and pay for, without having enjoyed the benefits. That's why I respect young people speaking out about this issue.

They don't suggest solutions that are realistic. Instead, there is autistic screeching and indirect suggestions for corporate welfare and/or command economy which makes all this very suspect.

I'm going to make this my screen saver.

Prince Andrew taking a strong interest in mentoring the teen.

Automan Empire says

One of the big issues about solving the carbon issue is, the benefits are enjoyed by people who will be DEAD before the bad effects are felt. These bad effects are left for Greta's generation and younger to suffer and pay for, without having enjoyed the benefits. That's why I respect young people speaking out about this issue.

OK that said, Greta really DOES display weird eye movement and unusual affect. If she's really a plant by "handlers," couldn't they have picked someone who's weird-but-possibly-cool like the Toaster Strudel kid? https://www.ispot.tv/ad/7qL2/pillsbury-toaster-strudel-door-kick-with-hans-strudel# Instead, Greta is weird-but-possibly-Carrie looking in my opinion.

That curl in toaster Strudel's hair is creepy.

One of the big issues about solving the carbon issue is, the benefits are enjoyed by people who will be DEAD before the bad effects are felt. These bad effects are left for Greta's generation and younger to suffer and pay for, without having enjoyed the benefits. That's why I respect young people speaking out about this issue.
I think it is as likely that in 20 years she will be seen as having been irrelevant.
I was born in 1958 and already lived through numerous predicted environmental apocalypses. There is a reason mentally challenged 16 year olds do not formulate policy.

There was a study out of Berkeley showing that the increased CO2 levels have led to a record breaking "greening" of Earth which is responsible for the slow increase in CO2 in the atm despite the much greater increase in overall emissions. Does this stop the effect of warming? No? Does it lead to a more fertile earth? Yes. Has it been proven that increases in temperature lead to a decrease in quality of life? No...quite the opposite in fact.

So far, the past 100 years gains in productivity, standard of living, life expectancy, and a number of other things have been positively correlated with a rise in temperature. Why should the next 100 years be any different? Scientists who argue otherwise have not even come close to making this case.

The elephant solution in the room is to emit magenta house gases, but the greenhouse lobby won't have any of it!

Hircus says

If they want to be serious about stopping greenhouse gas emissions, they need to start talking about something serious - like physically compelling china and india against their will

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/what-would-happen-if-earth-started-to-spin-faster?utm_source=pocket-newtab
A whole new potential environmental apocalypse to worry about, for the left to blame on civilization and technology. and Greta to rant about. "Cow farts act like jet engines and accelerate earth spin."

Hircus says

If they want to be serious about stopping greenhouse gas emissions,

That is a made up problem. Pollution, deforestation, clear cut farming practices, over fishing, and Mismanagement of natural resources, is a big problem.
Chasing fart gas around in a windstorm is just plain silly. And makes no sense at all, while these people pretend to be concerned about the environment and never once talk about the scale of destruction we actually can do something about. Without carbon taxes or burdening anyone but the people guilty of those environment destruction.
And it doesn't even require building moratoriums on land that has nothing to do with resource destruction in order to protect Real Estate values.

These Idiots especially her are so far off the mark of the real global environmental issues, that they are sticking their dick in a belly button, calling it the poopshoot.

Apocalyptic claims about global warming are wrong


https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/

An author wrote an article about how Greta Thunberg was being marketed to be a big name way back in January, before she ever appeared before the U.N.

It was titled "The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg". Her entire rise to stardom was no different than a record executive turning a no talent hack into pop music's next big thing. It's been very effective on the leftists masses who eat it up...She serves as a propaganda tool because if you disagree with her, you will immediately be hit with an argument about how you are against a child.....

The reality is, the girl is scientifically illiterate and cannot debate the science with anyone. She's 16 and has been skipping school.

http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/01/17/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-for-consent-the-political-economy-of-the-non-profit-industrial-complex/

Climatology is hardly a science that has even remotely come close to making any significant contributions to society to date. It is still in the stone ages with respect to Physics. If it were at all accurate, you would be seeing people referencing all types of articles from the 80s and 90s about how their corrections were correct. You don't see any of that...because as it stands, the field involves scientists who invent a black box that spits out data based on input. They've created their own fictitious reality and act as the gatekeepers to truth. In Physics, we generally ridicule theoreticians and simulations because they have no basis in reality.

And in Brazil https://www.sfgate.com/news/world/article/Brazil-s-Bolsonaro-calls-activist-Greta-Thunberg-14895777.php
fairly apt description of someone who will simply fade into irrelevance before growing up.

Greta claimed asylum, and got thousands of recommendations from psychiatrists around the world.

'Brainwashed Propaganda Parrot Guilt Tripping Schizoid Child' named Person Of The Year by Time.

Let's keep this objective now. 20 million scientists without a scintilla of opposition all BELIEVE in the impending doom of GLOBAL WARMING!

Good sticker for the car.



from ebay
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Greta-Thunberg-How-Dare-you-funny-meme-Decal-drift-jdm-car-sticker-window-/401916659556

I'm not surprised it sold out lol. I want one.

edit - more rofls


https://www.ebay.com/itm/Greta-Thunberg-car-sticker-window-decal-exterior-vinyl-How-dare-you/123932586136?hash=item1cdaf53098:g:FrIAAOSw08xdnFBL

Here's a story for you to consider...even though the 99% of scientists stat is completely made up.

I teach high school physics and chemistry. If you ask any one of the biology teachers a simple question in physics, they will likely get it wrong. Same goes for the chem teachers. If you ask the physics teachers the most basic concept in biology, they will also get it wrong. Nearly every scientist in the world has no background to even legitimately form an opinion. Moreover, those same scientists have likely not read a single published journal article on the topic. And they most certainly have never tried to fit any data to perform their own analysis.

Now that being said...I will concede that most journal articles on the topic of global warming tilt one direction. Here's why I don't care.

1. Their funding is more likely to be increased by creating the idea of a dire impending situation. The CDC also does this all the time with a new illness each year.
2. The field itself is suffering from a massive case of groupthink where you are not allowed to reach any other conclusions without being outcasted. Very dangerous territory for science. Any scientific field that has historically acted this way to differing opinion has been proven to be incredibly wrong.
3. The data itself is too noisy to make any valid statistical arguments. The error bars are always greater than the trend...
4. Forecasting in this field at this stage in the game is no different in terms of accuracy than a tarot card reader. The Earth is too complex to model accurately. A box of 10 water molecules has not been successfully modeled. I'm sorry, but the Earth has 10^50 more molecules. That's not to say we shouldn't try to improve. But this field is in it's complete infancy and has had a very very poor track record of forecasting anything in it's time.

You can't put faith in a science that hasn't even been developed yet.

Here's what I believe:
1. The temperature is increasing
2. CO2 does affect things...but not nearly at the level the media is claiming
3. CO2 does green the Earth...and this was confirmed by a very good study done at UC Berkeley and published later by NASA
4. Slow temperature increases over time have been a benefit for humanity...not a detriment
5. We are no where near any type of tipping point for any ecosystem. Anyone who knows anything about growing zones and the life that inhabits them would know this.
6. Sea level rise occurs at a very slow time scale....much longer than the time it takes to build cities like NYC.