Sorry Greta but you’re mostly wrong
invite response
2019 Sep 24, 9:04pm 11,125 views 89 comments
by tovarichpeter ➕follow (7) 💰tip ignore
https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-sorry-greta-youre-mostly-wrong-20190924-t7depfksqnfmhpjgcwv6iyfesm-story.html
« First « Previous Comments 29 - 68 of 89 Next » Last » Search these comments
29
Hircus
2019 Dec 14, 1:40pm
Hircus
2019 Dec 14, 1:40pm
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
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
30
theoakman
2019 Dec 14, 3:54pm
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.
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.
52
tovarichpeter
2020 Jan 22, 9:34am
tovarichpeter
2020 Jan 22, 9:34am
Infectious diseases are a much bigger and much more immediate threat to humans than climate change
63
Bd6r
2020 Jan 27, 1:07pm
Bd6r
2020 Jan 27, 1:07pm
CO emissions (extremely deadly, it is carbon monoxide or flue gas), or CO2 emissions?
CO is very indirectly related to global warming
zzyzzx says
CO is very indirectly related to global warming
zzyzzx says
65
Booger
2020 Feb 1, 7:39am
Booger
2020 Feb 1, 7:39am
Greta is one pugnacious and very unstable Bolshevik brat.
And one with expert handlers, too.
No way did the Bolshevik brat write all that by herself.
It even seems beyond her negligent parents to put such a manifesto together.
She starts off with her usual and customary obnoxious admonishments, goes after anyone who goes near her name without her royal permission, has the business smarts to register her name even though she is a truant with issues, and tops it all off with the foundation which at 17 she assures all of us is for the benefit of the earth, social stability, etc.
A bit like what Gyorgi Schwarz/George Soros does.
And one with expert handlers, too.
No way did the Bolshevik brat write all that by herself.
It even seems beyond her negligent parents to put such a manifesto together.
She starts off with her usual and customary obnoxious admonishments, goes after anyone who goes near her name without her royal permission, has the business smarts to register her name even though she is a truant with issues, and tops it all off with the foundation which at 17 she assures all of us is for the benefit of the earth, social stability, etc.
A bit like what Gyorgi Schwarz/George Soros does.
« First « Previous Comments 29 - 68 of 89 Next » Last » Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,260,195 comments by 15,050 users - AmericanKulak, krc, Patrick, WookieMan online now