La Vagabonde as celebrities

[geoleo]

Im in Florida right now and my friend went to the Veterans Hospital and they gave him a tailored prescription of Maryjane and EBT! Free too. The Maryjane is drops you put under your tongue. Its for 'pain' you know. The pain of eduring in this crazy world of a "million mosquito details of merely existing". That quote is from a James Jones novel the Deer Park. Nothing in the book is about deer or parks. Mysterioso sells-- you know it. lol

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by boatman61

What I'd like to know is...
How come Greta never goes to India... or China where the Smog is already back to pre Covid levels.

My favorite was when she arrived at the UN and had to wait at security while Trump walked in.

The glare she gave Trump was entertaining enough to be worth a YouTube donation...

[BlueHeeler]

https://youtu.be/gl99R6FM5s8

[Andy744]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Personally I find Greta no different to La Vagabonde, or the Kardashians..
Her parents have found a plalform to fame and fortune for the family and are playing the game.
As for climate change.. The only thing the humanity can possibly control, albeit unlikely, is the pollution.
Controlling the climate however is purely an exercise for the super egos.
Its a process of planetary evolution plain and simple but hey.. Rail Away..

Well said !

[StuM]

Originally Posted by tp12

It only speaks volumes to you. You're a climate science denier; would anything I post change your mind? No. If you were genuinely interested in the science and approached it with a learning attitude you'd already have read the multitudes of work, understood it and wouldn't be posting stuff like this.

You know nothing about my science background nor the depth of my knowledge about the fields related to "climate science".

You also know nothing about my beliefs concerning "climate science"

You have decided that because I don't believe the ill informed, alarmist doomsaying which is based on:

• the totally unrealistic RPC8.5;
• flawed, unvalidated climate models with unrealistic built in assumption concerning TCR and ECS;
• grossly manipulated climate reconstructions based on dubious proxies (Yamal, upside down Tiljander ) ;
• wilful ignorance of a vast range of historical and archeological data showing that there is nothing unprecedented about current conditions;

and is being promoted by people who don't understand any of the above but see an opportunty to either profit personally or to implement their political philosphy that somehow than makes me a "denier".

Wake up and take a look at who really "denies" the real science.

FWIW, I believe that:

• Modern civilisation is increasing CO2 concentration in the atmmosphere.
• That this is resulting in some degree of warning.
• There are natural factors which always have and always will cause climate change, generally cyclic and a range of time spans from a few years (El Nino/La Nina) to multi-millennia (Milankovich cycles, plate tectonics changing major ocean currents)
• Based on the declining temperature peaks throughout the Holocene and its length compared to previous inter-glacials, we are probably approaching the end of the current inter-glacial and should be more concerned about future cooling than catastrophic warming.

Base on the physics and geology I studied at university and the considerable reading since of scientific journals, I do not believe that "we are about 11 years away from being in the position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control. To avoid that, unprecedented changes in all aspects of society need to have taken place within this coming decade." and there is certainly nothing in the last IPCC report that says this.

Have your read the 5th Assessent Report? I have.
There is NO scientific justification for such a statement and much evidence to suggest that statement is false.
If you accept that statement by St Greta, you are the "science denier".

(Oh and by the way, I'm not middle aged and I'm a libertarian, not right wing with authoritarian tendencies )

[BlueHeeler]

[QUOTE=StuM;3155837]You know nothing about my science background nor the depth of my knowledge about the fields related to "climate science".

Which is probably why so many people disregard what you have to say.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by StuM

You know nothing about my science background nor the depth of my knowledge about the fields related to "climate science".

You've given us plenty to go on, no matter how much you wriggle.

[BlueHeeler]

Originally Posted by StuM

You know nothing about my science background nor the depth of my knowledge about the fields related to "climate science".

You also know nothing about my beliefs concerning "climate science"

You have decided that because I don't believe the ill informed, alarmist doomsaying which is based on:

• the totally unrealistic RPC8.5;
• flawed, unvalidated climate models with unrealistic built in assumption concerning TCR and ECS;
• grossly manipulated climate reconstructions based on dubious proxies (Yamal, upside down Tiljander ) ;
• wilful ignorance of a vast range of historical and archeological data showing that there is nothing unprecedented about current conditions;

and is being promoted by people who don't understand any of the above but see an opportunty to either profit personally or to implement their political philosphy that somehow than makes me a "denier".

Wake up and take a look at who really "denies" the real science.

FWIW, I believe that:

• Modern civilisation is increasing CO2 concentration in the atmmosphere.
• That this is resulting in some degree of warning.
• There are natural factors which always have and always will cause climate change, generally cyclic and a range of time spans from a few years (El Nino/La Nina) to multi-millennia (Milankovich cycles, plate tectonics changing major ocean currents)
• Based on the declining temperature peaks throughout the Holocene and its length compared to previous inter-glacials, we are probably approaching the end of the current inter-glacial and should be more concerned about future cooling than catastrophic warming.

Base on the physics and geology I studied at university and the considerable reading since of scientific journals, I do not believe that "we are about 11 years away from being in the position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control. To avoid that, unprecedented changes in all aspects of society need to have taken place within this coming decade." and there is certainly nothing in the last IPCC report that says this.

Have your read the 5th Assessent Report? I have.
There is NO scientific justification for such a statement and much evidence to suggest that statement is false.
If you accept that statement by St Greta, you are the "science denier".

(Oh and by the way, I'm not middle aged and I'm a libertarian, not right wing with authoritarian tendencies )

Does anybody else find it odd that a person claims the IPCC is full of fake information but THEN uses the IPCC actual report to try to discredit a young activists actions and words??