What A Surprise NOT! Greta Thunberg’s Dad Writes Her Facebook Posts

a reply to: Jay-morris

You're describing every POTUS in my lifetime to some degree.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Jay-morris
And is it a coincidence that since trump, we have seen a huge increase in human climate change denier threads popping up almost daily, esp in the last year.

Stop and think for a moment. How many of the most ridiculous predictions of doom since the mid 90s included "By 2020 XYZ will be under water/a desert/dead/etc due to climate change?" Here we are in 2020 and those predictions have been demonstrated as not only false, but vapidly baseless. Of course when that happens we're going to see a significant increase in threads pointing out how wrong the AGW fear mongers were. Trump doesn't have a goddamned thing to do with that aside from possibly shielding us from the predictable horsesnip of the AGW crowd saying "Look! Look! We made all these small changes and doom was temporarily averted!!! Now let's make these massive changes and try to avert it further!" We didn't change jack squat, yet NYC still sits the same degree above sea level as it was 100 years ago, Miami isn't in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean yet, coastal property is still the most expensive and sought after real estate in the world... People woke up and started smelling the AGW crowd's bullsnip. Mock and insult them if you wish, it doesn't change the fact that you lost, common sense won... those seeking to steal our wealth and our freedoms will just have to wait until they dream up the next hairbrained scam of doom intended to rob us blind.

Because scientists were wrong in their predictions, does thst mean human made climate change is BS? Seriously? Evidence points overwhelmingly that climate change is to do with us! But this thread is not about that. This thread is about Greta, and another BS thread!

originally posted by: Jay-morris
Because scientists were wrong in their predictions, does thst mean human made climate change is BS? Seriously?

Yeah, that's sort of the backbone of the scientific method where theories are concerned... you remember the scientific method? That process that used to be the gold standard science practiced in which theories were encouraged to be tested and challenged for predicted results and which scientists modified their theories based on the results from rather than stomping their feet like toddlers and calling those who pushed challenges and testing of their theories "deniers?"

Evidence points overwhelmingly that climate change is to do with us!

That's about as accurate as saying the existence of Bigfoot is overwhelmingly proved by evidence. I get it... you really, really want humanity to be responsible for climate change. You've invested so much of yourself in believing that to be the case that you feel in your heart that you *need* it to be true... All cults experience the same thing when their god is proven to be little more than a tool by which the cult's leaders can obtain fortune, fame, or other gains. Sorry you fell for a scam, but you did.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yeah, that's sort of the backbone of the scientific method where theories are concerned... you remember the scientific method? That process that used to be the gold standard science practiced in which theories were encouraged to be tested and challenged for predicted results and which scientists modified their theories based on the results from rather than stomping their feet like toddlers and calling those who pushed challenges and testing of their theories "deniers?"

Since when has "predicting something been a solid scientific method? That is a ridiculous thing to say. Scientists are always predicting, do they always get it right? No! Why? Because predictions, esp like this are always going to be unpredictable.

That's about as accurate as saying the existence of Bigfoot is overwhelmingly proved by evidence. I get it... you really, really want humanity to be responsible for climate change. You've invested so much of yourself in believing that to be the case that you feel in your heart that you *need* it to be true... All cults experience the same thing when their god is proven to be little more than a tool by which the cult's leaders can obtain fortune, fame, or other gains. Sorry you fell for a scam, but you did.

Absolute rubbish! No matter what evidence is thrown at you, you will never change your mind. It's the same with flat earthers and the HIV does not cause AIDS deniers. They rarely change their mind no matter what evidence you throw at them.

You talk about cult lolol Loom at the cult we are seeing now regarding trump! Look at all the trump fanatics we are seeing on this site? So you talking about cults is quite funny, considering people think trump is the second coming!

Anyways, like I said before! This is a thread about Greta! I have managed to silence yet another BS Greta thread, unless you can change that, which I doubt very much!

If you want to get into a climate change debate, then do it in the proper thread!

People who deny climate change at this point are as pathetic as the people suing tobacco companies because they were convinced by the adverts that it was good for them.

I mean come on, seriously... when people start to feel the need to sink as low as posting a youtube clip of a 16 year old girl being stumped by a question in front of a large crowd, just to prove their point... you must have to stop and wonder.

originally posted by: Jay-morris
Since when has "predicting something been a solid scientific method? That is a ridiculous thing to say. Scientists are always predicting, do they always get it right? No! Why? Because predictions, esp like this are always going to be unpredictable.

WHAT!?!?!? Holy hell, it becomes now very clear why you are rabidly defensive of the AGW positions. You poor soul you don't even know what the scientific method is.
en.wikipedia.org...

The overall process involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments based on those predictions to determine whether the original conjecture was correct

When the results don't equal the prediction, you know something about your hypothesis is wrong or your understanding of that hypothesis is flawed...

Absolute rubbish! No matter what evidence is thrown at you, you will never change your mind. It's the same with flat earthers and the HIV does not cause AIDS deniers. They rarely change their mind no matter what evidence you throw at them.

Yes, I agree... there are many similarities between the flat Earth theorists and the Anthropogenic Global Warming cult. Good call there.

I have managed to silence yet another BS Greta thread

LMGDAO!!! Smell the E-back patting and superego! "I have managed to do yet another thing on this website, all genuflect and acknowledge the digital god of the AGW defense league! Kneel before Bullsnip Peddler!" To paraphrase a scene from one of my favorite movies, Spaceballs, "You ain't managed SNIP" calm yourself and let us continue down the road of merriment and amusement.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
People who deny climate change at this point are as pathetic as the people suing tobacco companies because they were convinced by the adverts that it was good for them.

I mean come on, seriously... when people start to feel the need to sink as low as posting a youtube clip of a 16 year old girl being stumped by a question in front of a large crowd, just to prove their point... you must have to stop and wonder.

Yeah i know! We are talking about grown adults here. But when you are a fanatic, the things like "She is only a child: goes out the window!

Just like this thread! Another stupid attempt by the fanatics, that can be explained easily!

a reply to: burdman30ott6

When the results don't equal the prediction, you know something about your hypothesis is wrong or your understanding of that hypothesis is flawed...

No! The only thing that is flawed is the prediction! That's using scientific method to predict something does not always happen around a certain time they predicted , but thst does not mean their theories are not valid!

Thought that was obvious! Guess not!

Yes, I agree... there are many similarities between the flat Earth theorists and the Anthropogenic Global Warming cult. Good call there.

Absolute load of rubbish! How can you agree with something I never said? When did i say similarities between the flat Earth theorists and the Anthropogenic Global Warming cult?

LMGDAO!!! Smell the E-back patting and superego! "I have managed to do yet another thing on this website, all genuflect and acknowledge the digital god of the AGW defense league! Kneel before Bullsnip Peddler!" To paraphrase a scene from one of my favorite movies, Spaceballs, "You ain't managed SNIP" calm yourself and let us continue down the road of merriment and amusement.

And you have added absolutly nothing to the debate with the above quote. What a suprise!

originally posted by: Jay-morris
Absolute load of rubbish! How can you agree with something I never said? When did i say similarities between the flat Earth theorists and the Anthropogenic Global Warming cult?

Uhm, your own words (which I agreed with)

originally posted by: Jay-morris
It's the same with flat earthers and the HIV does not cause AIDS deniers. They rarely change their mind no matter what evidence you throw at them.

Look, I am agreeing with you. No matter what evidence is thrown at the AGW cultists, their cult forbids them from thinking deeper or questioning their messiahs' predictions and hypothesis. Your mind is locked in, it isn't going to change... same as the flat Earthers and, I suppose, the HIV fools.

I'm directly quoting you and you're claiming you never said it? Has your account been hacked?

a reply to: Jay-morris

If you want to get into a climate change debate, then do it in the proper thread!

1. Post the hypothesis that Greta is remote controlled
2. Ignore any inquiry for evidence, take constructive criticism personal
3. Distract with a few half-baked snippets of climate change denial
4. Go back to stage 1 for the next thread

The science of muddy ATS threads in a nutshell.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Look, I am agreeing with you. No matter what evidence is thrown at the AGW cultists, their cult forbids them from thinking deeper or questioning their messiahs' predictions and hypothesis. Your mind is locked in, it isn't going to change... same as the flat Earthers and, I suppose, the HIV fools.

I'm directly quoting you and you're claiming you never said it? Has your account been hacked?

LOL you are blatantly twisting my words! You are not agreeing with me becsuse I said human climate change deniers are like flat earthers and HIV causes AIDS deniers.

So you are agreeing that human climate change deniers are like flat earthers and HIV causes AIDS deniers.

Please stop twisting my works! Does not make you look good!

a reply to: Jay-morris

How can a direct quote be a twisting of words? I'm saying that "They rarely change their mind no matter what evidence you throw at them." is an appropriate description of the AGW cult members, making the rest of what you said, when you compared those types of people to "Flat Earth and HIV doesn't cause AIDS," an eerily accurate statement. II'm taken aback here, I've never had someone fly off the handle over someone explicitly agreeing with them and directly quoting them in the process... not sure what game you're trying to play here?

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Well ya! Shes a child, and should be doing childish things. But this is far from the farthest or latest scripted thing out there. The past century has been one long drawn out script. 90% of the speeches given by the figure heads presidents and all sound like they were written by a 5th grader to appeal to a 4th grader. Last great speech likely being Kennedy or Lincoln.

And Greta! Just another kid, in the cog of disinformation for the goal of the almighty $$$. Most people dont even know the difference between climate change and localized weather events, or #ting in your own back yard. But in time everybody will learn, because this spinning spherical object your all on, is not always so nice warm and fuzzy. And shift happens. Of that there is no doupt, its written in the bones of the earth and in the mountains, a tale older then civilization itself.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Jay-morris

How can a direct quote be a twisting of words? I'm saying that "They rarely change their mind no matter what evidence you throw at them." is an appropriate description of the AGW cult members, making the rest of what you said, when you compared those types of people to "Flat Earth and HIV doesn't cause AIDS," an eerily accurate statement. II'm taken aback here, I've never had someone fly off the handle over someone explicitly agreeing with them and directly quoting them in the process... not sure what game you're trying to play here?

LOL you are not agreeing with me! We have overwhelming evidence the earth is not flat. We have overwhelming evidence thst HIV causes AIDS. When is comes to human climate change deniers, we have conspiracies like new world order and other conspiracy rubbish with no evidence to back it up!

You are basically saying that the thousands of experts who are saying climate change is to do with humans are lying, or part of this big conspiracy! It's absolutly nonsense!

Climate change threads on here, not one thread I have seen from human climate change deniers have won the debate! What do they normally do? They do what flat earthers and other deniers do! They refuse to admit they are wrong. I have seen the likes of phage completly destroy deniers on here regarding climate change. Do they change their mind? No! And they never will, hence the reason why I said human climate change deniers are like flat earthers and HIV does not cause AIDS deniers. They lose the debates, but still say they are right!

There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response. The data is there for all to see!

But as long as we have Trump sprouting his nonsense, we will always have fanatics backing him. As has been shown many times on this site!

a reply to: Jay-morris

Soooo we've established that it sucks when someone misrepresents your position on something? Are you and I in agreement with that statement?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Jay-morris

Soooo we've established that it sucks when someone misrepresents your position on something? Are you and I in agreement with that statement?

I will assume your answer to the above is "yes". Why is it important, though? Let's look into why it is important.

www.forbes.com...

“97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?

Yes, I am all too familiar with that implication, as I am literally starring right at someone who is openly making the "who are you to challenge the climate scientists?" argument from you... reading on:

Unfortunately, in the case of 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human beings are the main cause of warming, the researchers have engaged in egregious misconduct.

One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.

Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

So we see *where* the 97% claim came from, how was it reached in the first place? I wonder... reading on further:

Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

Uh-oh... cracks in the facade are appearing before our very eyes....

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

Ah, I see... this introduces a tremendously wide swatch of "consensus" when, in reality, we've got scientists doing what scientists actually do: apply a potential of A being caused by B and refusing to make that potential zero until they can prove it is zero while a collective of total hacks grasp onto that as "proof" that their delusions are real. We've seen this before in other venues. Science doesn't prove anything, or at least historically hasn't claimed to, it merely provides possible explanations for things and applies a "maybe" or a "no" on theories tested against those possible explanations. Any scientist who says "humans have absolutely caused global warming" is a hack and a wannabe "scientist."

wattsupwiththat.com...

Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.

This shock result comes scant weeks before the United Nations’ climate panel, the IPCC, issues its fifth five-yearly climate assessment, claiming “95% confidence” in the imagined – and, as the new paper shows, imaginary – consensus.

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, an expert reviewer for the IPCC’s imminent Fifth Assessment Report, who found the errors in Cook’s data, said: “It may be that more than 0.3% of climate scientists think Man caused at least half the warming since 1950. But only 0.3% of almost 12,000 published papers say so explicitly. Cook had not considered how many papers merely implied that. No doubt many scientists consider it possible, as we do, that Man caused some warming, but not most warming.

So Cook had nearly 12,000 peer reviewed papers to use as his foundation, he rejected all but 66 of them and claimed 64 of the 66 explicitly agree with his desired consensus outcome. In reality the man claimed those 64 papers out of 11944 publish climate papers, total... but wait, there is more. Reviews of his work have found that 23 of the papers he claimed supported this "consensus" actually did NOT support the idea that man's activities had caused most of Earth's warming! Uh-oh! part 2... we are actually now down to only 41 papers out of 11,944 which agree with this desired narrative of his and the rest of the AGW cult.

Now, you may be wondering why I asked you about your thoughts on having your work misrepresented. Well, there was a good reason I asked that...

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”

—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

The climatologists who Cook and the AGW cult used to support their fallacies didn't appreciate their words being twisted and used against them, either. A situation it would seem you would be a wonderful ally to them over, yes?

Checkmate.

originally posted by: Jay-morris
You are basically saying that the thousands of experts who are saying climate change is to do with humans are lying, or part of this big conspiracy

You misspelled "forty-one."

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Ouch, that was a serious spanking you administered there.

Not that it will do any good. Zealots' minds can nary be changed.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

So, is Alex Epstein a scientist? Surely he must be a scientist if you are using him as an example. How is he qualified to talk about the science of climate change? Please list his science credentials for l to see please.

We know that average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees since the late 19th century. Do you agree with this?


Science and data shows this change has been driven by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. Is it just a coincidence that most of the warming has occurred in the last 35 years?

Also to back this up, the last five warmest years on record have taken place since 2010. Is this another coincidence? Is tbis l just a coincidence, or are gou one of the conspiracy theorists who believe all official data is being manipalated!


Open up your own climate change thread and see how long you ladt until you are silence with data and facts. I think you might last a page or two.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Ouch, that was a serious spanking you administered there.

Not that it will do any good. Zealots' minds can nary be changed.

Hardly lolololol