16 year old Greta speaking on climate change at UN

I watched her "speech".....if this is the future of leaders then we have NO hope. 

Yes, dear, your little spec of sand on a gnats arse, in a giant desert of time, is the most important in the history of the planet.  LMAO  

Still, your mean faces were pretty funny. 

It's hard to say who is more crazy, her or her parents......but I know who stole her childhood, and it had nothing to do with climate change.....geez.  If you don't have kids yet......read the bolded below carefully.....this is what happens when you're stupid with your kids......"parent" is a damn VERB!!!!

Thunberg says she first heard about climate change in 2011, when she was 8 years old, and could not understand why so little was being done about it.[11] Three years later she became depressed and lethargic, stopped talking and eating, and was eventually diagnosed with Asperger syndrome,[12] obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD),[12] and selective mutism.[12][13] While acknowledging that her diagnosis "has limited me before", she does not view her autism as an illness and has instead called it her "superpower".[13]

For about two years, Thunberg challenged her parents to lower the family's carbon footprint by becoming vegan and giving up flying, which in part meant her mother had to give up her international career as an opera singer.[9][14] Thunberg credits her parents' eventual response and lifestyle changes with giving her hope and belief that she could make a difference.[9] The family story is recounted in the 2018 book Scenes from the Heart.[15]

In late 2018, Thunberg began the school climate strikes and public speeches by which she has become an internationally recognized climate activist. Her father does not like her missing school, but said: "[We] respect that she wants to make a stand. She can either sit at home and be really unhappy, or protest, and be happy"

Here's the kid who is happier protesting then she is in school.  LMAO

(batchitcrazy.jpg)

Here's some.....

https://www.nas.org/blogs/press_release/estimated_40_percent_of_scientists_doubt_manmade_global_warming

Yeah, it's 8 years old.....it's from back in the day when we still had 20 years to live.  LMAO

Here's some more...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

These folks are everywhere!!!

https://www.afa.net/the-stand/culture/2019/07/90-scientists-global-warming-is-a-total-hoax/

The problem I have with it, personally, is that I've watched the behavior of liberals over the past 3 years.......I believe NOTHING that they espouse.

Meh......there's a good article out there about  how long that 97% number has been thrown around...."fire for effect" as they say on the artillery line...I'm sure that number sounded right for their target.   As for doing something about it.....how about the libs shut their pie holes and clean up San Francisco, or Los Angeles......maybe I'll open one eye.  These liberal elite blow hards want me to believe they have answers for "climate change" and they can't even clean up the chit in ONE DAMN CITY BLOCK.  Unbelievable.

Damn.....if those dinosaurs could have just done something about those meteors. 

The absolute arrogance of mankind to think the earth cares about them is ridiculous.......and now we've raised a couple generations of "special children" who believe they are SO important.  You're right, marcaq, our poor grandchildren will have to listen to these idiots their entire lives. LOL

A good global warming and the loss of a few billion people is just what this planet needs....hopefully most of it will come from the coasts.

"The average human exhales about 2.3 pounds of carbon dioxide on an average day. (The exact quantity depends on your activity level—a person engaged in vigorous exercise produces up to eight times as much CO2 as his sedentary brethren"

Triathletes are some of the biggest contributors to global warming. 

So the problem is people (like yourself) make a factual statement about a consensus and then mock anyone who doesn't acknowledge that said consensus.  Do you even know what the 97% consensus is?  The NASA quote earlier is even incorrect.

The 97% consensus is that the climate is changing at that man is a contributing factor of that change.  I am part of the 97% consensus.  However to then take a consensus, which by the way has absolutely zero scientific validity, and morph it into the world is runaway warming and we must all change everything and pay lots of money to the government to protect us.  You know, because of 97% and all is the most non-scientific thing in the history of science. 

The actual science part of AGW is very unsettled and we continue to learn more about it every year.  There were genuine concerns about a chain reaction greenhouse effect because of the rapid increase in CO2.  There were many hypothesis created with some very alarming temperature predictions.  However, we've now had almost 30 years to observe real world data against those hypothesis and it's becoming more and more aparent that the world is far more resilient to CO2 than we ever thought before.  There is no runaway greenhouse effect and temperatures have been fairly stagnant the past 20 years.
For the 2°C increase to occur this century we would have to have the highest rate of temperature increase in the history of our planet, yet people like you continue to parrot 97% 97% . squawk squawk.  it's nothing but fear mongering for no scientific purpose.  97% is a political talking point, it is not science.   Science doesn't work from consensus, science works from empirical data supporting hypothesis and when it gets to the point that the hypothesis is proven through long term empirical data prediction it becomes accepted overall.  This stays that way until somebody else comes along with a different hypothesis that then proves otherwise through observation.

In the case of AGW, the hypothesis was made, the data did not prove it true, so we then started down a road of cleverly worded political pseudo science polls to create a consensus and other non-scientific garbage.

The earth warmed 1°C in the 20th century.  Half of that warming occurred prior to 1950 (industrial revolution) . Since then the earth's warming has slowed down substantially and is nowhere near the 1° rate we experienced last century.  Those are the facts. 

Stagnant was probably a poor choice of words on my part.  It has been increasing, but very slowly and much slower than any of the models predicted.  In comparison to the alarmist models, it's "stagnant", but overall it's increased slightly. 
You'll also notice on the data (and the graph you linked) that the temperatures went up almost the identical amount from 1900-1950 prior to any of the CO2 increases.  Those increases are considered natural by the AGW alarmists, but the identical increase over the next 50 years is OMG we are all going to die. 

Originally posted by Synon "So the problem is people (like yourself) make a factual statement about a consensus and then mock anyone who doesn't acknowledge that said consensus." Made factual statements. Others don't acknowledge factual statements. And the problem is.... ? It's not like I'm a grown man mocking a 16 year old girl, I've got standards Tony. "temperatures have been fairly stagnant the past 20 years." https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/Did you mean to say accelerating? "Eighteen of the 19 warmest years all have occurred since 2001" Or you can read the IPCC's report released just yesterday about ocean temps rising at an accelerating rate: https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/home/Having all that ice and snow gone sure does't help prevent a chain reaction, pretty reflective stuff. The temperature has never stagnated, maybe you could share where exactly you get your "science" from? The observation of temperature data is pretty damning IF you are paying attention (are you??). I mean, I too could just make up some numbers like the dude in LB's article about climate deniers, but I'd just look foolish. By the way, the World Meteorological Organization has said we are on course for 3-5C THIS century based on current evidence. I'd hoped we could make strides without government interference, but Rog is right, that will never happen. I assume you are familiar with the tragedy of the commons? Well, this is it. Those are the facts.

I addressed the stagnant question in my previous post, but do you disagree with my statements on the consensus and recognize you cited it improperly?

Alarmist global warming is nothing but a belief system that has no basis in science.  It's not science, it's a belief.  CO2 has been rising astronomically in our lifetimes, but the temperatures are not following suit as predicted.  CO2 is a factor in global temperature, but the science is showing that it's not the primary forcing agent. 

As for the warmest year/month ever argument those are kind of irrelevant because the earth is getting warmer and in our microscopically tiny amount of time on earth we've been recording data it makes total sense that the warmer temperatures would be towards the warmer end of the trend.   Remember, it's not about arguing if the earth is warming or not, it's about what is causing it.  The earth has obviously been warming for a very long time because there used to be ice and glaciers covering all of north america.  There were also times when the entire earth was without ice so we can safely deduct that the earth has been substantially warmer than it is today as well.

I'm all for being good stewards of our environment and I am a huge fan of alternative energy because long term sustainable consumption is just a good idea period.  My issue is when people take good science and mix it up with made up fear based beliefs to try and take my money with a gun and give it to "green" companies that paid them lots of money to get elected.