Topic: Greta Thornbird
Anonymous A started this discussion 6 years ago #91,850
Is she too angry?
tteh !GETFUCKED joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #1,044,036
What's with everybody's obsession with Great Thornbush all of a sudden?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,037
@previous (tteh !GETFUCKED)
Idk. If it hadn't been for constant right wing madposting about her I would have forgotten she existed the minute after the news moved onto the next hot topic.
Idk. If it hadn't been for constant right wing madposting about her I would have forgotten she existed the minute after the news moved onto the next hot topic.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 29 minutes later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,041
I imagine that Fox news or /pol/ or something got mad about her and it's set off our local right fans. I imagine they will soon forget about her and move onto something else, perhaps a transgender person existing or something.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
tteh !GETFUCKED replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,044
@1,044,037 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
It's the level of animosity I don't understand. Yeah, she's autistic, confrontational, irritating, but she's a kid. Are climate denialists that distressed by a 16-year-old girl? ?
It's the level of animosity I don't understand. Yeah, she's autistic, confrontational, irritating, but she's a kid. Are climate denialists that distressed by a 16-year-old girl? ?
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 31 seconds later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,045
@1,044,036 (tteh !GETFUCKED)
This question is fascinating. I don't know either, but I imagine the answer has something to do with Plato's ship of fools.
This question is fascinating. I don't know either, but I imagine the answer has something to do with Plato's ship of fools.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,048
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,049
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> In what way?
Lots of way, mainly viz human behavioral psychology - what makes people tick? Why do so many people need messiah figures / scapegoats? The weirdness of crowd mentality, and so on.
> In what way?
Lots of way, mainly viz human behavioral psychology - what makes people tick? Why do so many people need messiah figures / scapegoats? The weirdness of crowd mentality, and so on.
jodi !ariasXXmaE joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 4 hours later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,138
Green !StaYqkzUPc joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 6 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,303
@1,044,044 (tteh !GETFUCKED)
To be fair, I don't believe in climate change and I wish everybody else would shut up about her too.
To be fair, I don't believe in climate change and I wish everybody else would shut up about her too.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,305
@previous (Green !StaYqkzUPc)
Despite the agreement of the vast majority of all scientists who study it?
Despite the agreement of the vast majority of all scientists who study it?
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 48 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,323
@previous (H)
I think many people are sceptical because of just how many wrong predictions are made time and time again. Every wrong prediction hurts credibility when they all basically say that the world is going to end in the next 10 years, and have been saying that since the 70's when they were predicting another ice age.
There's a lot of over hype and disingenuous media about it too. Like the guy from the UN standing in knee deep water wearing a suit in Tuvalu that was on the cover of Time magazine. The reality is that the islands land mass has actually increased, based on 30+ years of measuring the shore line. People like to call out bullshit I guess.
I think many people are sceptical because of just how many wrong predictions are made time and time again. Every wrong prediction hurts credibility when they all basically say that the world is going to end in the next 10 years, and have been saying that since the 70's when they were predicting another ice age.
There's a lot of over hype and disingenuous media about it too. Like the guy from the UN standing in knee deep water wearing a suit in Tuvalu that was on the cover of Time magazine. The reality is that the islands land mass has actually increased, based on 30+ years of measuring the shore line. People like to call out bullshit I guess.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 26 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,337
It's like the reporter doing a spot during a hurricane and acting like the wind is going to blow him down the street and he can barely stand up in the driving rain...and in the background a couple of guy roll by on their bikes casual as can be.
Green !StaYqkzUPc replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,339
@1,044,305 (H)
Yep. I don't just blindly believe whatever a scientist says you know. And there are also a few scientists (albeit a small percentage) who don't believe in global warming.
Yep. I don't just blindly believe whatever a scientist says you know. And there are also a few scientists (albeit a small percentage) who don't believe in global warming.
Anonymous I replied with this 6 years ago, 18 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,361
@previous (Green !StaYqkzUPc)
It's not about not believing it. They are just looking at flawed studies, disregarding their conclusions and laughing at the constant predictions of immediate and total global annihilation the authors make to get noticed and or clicks in the media.
It's not about not believing it. They are just looking at flawed studies, disregarding their conclusions and laughing at the constant predictions of immediate and total global annihilation the authors make to get noticed and or clicks in the media.
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 8 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,475
@1,044,339 (Green !StaYqkzUPc)
Those few scientists are right, I think. Their argument (based on both empirical and theoretical evidence, which correlates) goes very roughly like this:
- According to greenhouse effect theory, temperature rises by 1 degree for every doubling of the air's CO2 content.
- Since the industrial revolution we have increased CO2 by 40%, so the effect of CO2 alone is small.
- There is additional warming caused by radiative transfer / temperature feedback response, mostly due to water vapor, which is a much more powerful greenhouse gas.
- This additional warming is often wrongly attributed to C02, but it's entirely natural and has always happened - this is where that erroneous 3.5 degrees comes from.
- The conventional assumption is that the lower atmosphere is only in local rather than global equilibrium, however recently it was discovered fairly recently that it is in thermodynamic equilibrium globally, from troposphere to stratosphere (Connolly & Connolly, 2014).
- If a gas is in thermodynamic equilibrium, by definition the net temperature change is zero.
- Therefore the greenhouse effect, both due to CO2 and water, is negligible.
Those few scientists are right, I think. Their argument (based on both empirical and theoretical evidence, which correlates) goes very roughly like this:
- According to greenhouse effect theory, temperature rises by 1 degree for every doubling of the air's CO2 content.
- Since the industrial revolution we have increased CO2 by 40%, so the effect of CO2 alone is small.
- There is additional warming caused by radiative transfer / temperature feedback response, mostly due to water vapor, which is a much more powerful greenhouse gas.
- This additional warming is often wrongly attributed to C02, but it's entirely natural and has always happened - this is where that erroneous 3.5 degrees comes from.
- The conventional assumption is that the lower atmosphere is only in local rather than global equilibrium, however recently it was discovered fairly recently that it is in thermodynamic equilibrium globally, from troposphere to stratosphere (Connolly & Connolly, 2014).
- If a gas is in thermodynamic equilibrium, by definition the net temperature change is zero.
- Therefore the greenhouse effect, both due to CO2 and water, is negligible.
Ananthanarayanan M R joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 week later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,054
@1,044,339 (Green !StaYqkzUPc)
yes you do you just decided not to on this occasion because you don't like the conclusion
yes you do you just decided not to on this occasion because you don't like the conclusion
Ananthanarayanan M R double-posted this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,055
Green !StaYqkzUPc replied with this 6 years ago, 52 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,059
@previous (Ananthanarayanan M R)
Because we're exiting an ice age.
@1,048,054 (Ananthanarayanan M R)
It's a scam to raise taxes/utility bills. The irony is that I recycle, get the bus/train/walk everywhere and am with a renewable energy utility company. I'm probably more green than most of the global warming cultists.
Because we're exiting an ice age.
@1,048,054 (Ananthanarayanan M R)
It's a scam to raise taxes/utility bills. The irony is that I recycle, get the bus/train/walk everywhere and am with a renewable energy utility company. I'm probably more green than most of the global warming cultists.
Ananthanarayanan M R replied with this 6 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,063
Syntax joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,125
@previous (Ananthanarayanan M R)Make sure it does not rise so high as to take out the bluff I sit upon.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,131
@1,044,305 (H)
Even the ones who don't, it's rare to find a full denialist.
Most just say it's not anthrogenic.
Even the ones who don't, it's rare to find a full denialist.
Most just say it's not anthrogenic.
Ananthanarayanan M R replied with this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,133
Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6 joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 55 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,148
@1,048,059 (Green !StaYqkzUPc)
> It's a scam to raise taxes/utility bills.
This is your brain on Fox News
> It's a scam to raise taxes/utility bills.
This is your brain on Fox News
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,199
green !StaYqkzUPc replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,221
Anonymous O replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,265
Greta Thunberg:
-16 yrs old
-No accomplishments
-Has no practical solutions
-176M Google results
Boyan Slat:
-Invented the first ocean plastic cleanup system at 16 yrs old
-Requires no economic destruction
-270k Google results
But they don’t want solutions, they want more taxes
-16 yrs old
-No accomplishments
-Has no practical solutions
-176M Google results
Boyan Slat:
-Invented the first ocean plastic cleanup system at 16 yrs old
-Requires no economic destruction
-270k Google results
But they don’t want solutions, they want more taxes