Climate muppet?

daftcunt's picture

16-Year-Old Greta Thunberg's Inspiring Fight Against Climate Change | Good Morning Britain

I did not even watch the video. I just upped this for discussion. 

 

Is it the right thing to do to give a 16yo child th role of a "climate ambassador"? 

 

Are the deniers or "skeptics" not simply going to laugh at her face and make condescending remarks?

 

Or is it a good idea to bring (at least moderately informed) youngsters like her to the table as they inherit what we leave of the planet.

 

I personally think it is unnecessary and rather pathetic but please elaborate if you wish.....

3
Average: 3 (3 votes)

Comments

subroutine's picture

well ... she has done more to get the problems of climate change into the minds of all the "grown ups" than anyone else in the last decades. and furthermore - she is the generation which will suffer - not those old fucks making the laws and ignoring the facts (look at those trump tweets - lol..).

 

maybe pathetic in the way she gets iconified by those shitty news stations - but in no way it is unnecessary.

+1
+3
-1
Vote comment up/down
stokkebye's picture

Yeah, people will mock her to her face, people like Therasa May. T May refused to meet her and said it was an excuse to get out of school.

+1
+3
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman's picture

And what are the members of Spiked Nation doing to fight climate change?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
stokkebye's picture

Keeping my fat ass at home playing videos games and not driving around town socializing wasting gas and drinking alcohal, thats what Im fucking doing to help the goddamn enviroment! 

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman's picture

So you're saying if your ass is fat you are eating processed foods and sugar aiding the industries that are destroying the planet.

 

It's ok, I'm not helping the environment either, but I'm also not virtue signalling for the climate change cult of scientology.

 

But then again, I haven't put a single harmful emission into the planet beyond an arosole can or bean farts.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
stokkebye's picture

There aint shit we (as a singe person) can do to change course of climate change, it has to be a whole shift in society towards fixing this shit and we needed to do about 2 decades ago. We cant/wont becuase the corporate oligarchy that rules our world wont fucking allow it and spreads misinformation on an epic scale. We need millions of people to stand up to the corporate oligarchy and their puppet politicians to demand the change we need and probably a revolution or two. But that wont happen, there are too many good distractions for people to revolt anymore in any meaningful way. 

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
tumbi's picture
Beta Tester

heeding the advice of scientific community which has a pretty well established consensus on the reality of climate change is now 'virtue signalling'? I think the term is starting to lose its meaning.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman's picture

Climate change is cyclical in nature. You can't treat the symptoms, you have to stop the cause. which is the cycle itself. So far. Completely impossible. It also happens with momentum, so once the shift starts it gets faster until we hit a flash freeze. Then the shift resets.

 

Instead of dumping money into what you can't stop, focus on colonization instead.

 

As mentioned above, we can't even treat the symptoms on an individual level anyway.

 

There really is no point in panicing about it.

 

Also, science is bought. Research needs money, financiers always have agendas. They pay for one project, but demand other projects in return which may or may not be misinformation that benefit the financiers and their companies that made them wealthy.

 

And science isn't EVERYTHING. It is dogmatic in nature, and the mouth of the community is pretty much unquestioned. It is an oligarchy with a monopoly on truth.

 

The goal of science is to demystify the universe based on PROOF. It's not possible as the universe is infinite.

 

Proof is a flawed concept because it requires TRUTH and BEING. Hence proof is not the root of existence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
tumbi's picture
Beta Tester

If you don't believe in the scientific method then I'll admit I'll have a hard time convincing you that we should heed the scientific consensus. As for the idea that climate scientists have been bribed I'll refer to the image below

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman's picture

I believe in the scientific method. But it's still not perfect. Simply an incredible step foward that has in fact solved many problems.

 

But it's not being used properly anymore.

 

It's too expensive and labor intensive.

 

The proper sceintific method is that an experiment must be perfectly replicated 1000 times with zero changes and must yeild the same result every time.

 

It must also be replicated by any other scientist under the same conditions another 1000 times but in a different location for it to be properly peer reviewed.

 

As for your chart. The right side makes perfect sense. They provide funding for scientists to study the ideas they have trained their whole lives to study. In exchange they publicly support the ideologies of these corperations whether they are right or wrong. The caveat is the subject these scientists WANT to study cannot interfere with the corperate agenda.

 

Also, if it's not about money, as in the sceintist hold truth above everything else. Then they can be threatened, or their families could be threatened if they come out with the truth.

 

If you have enough money, you are above the law. It's always been that way.

 

Look at Bill Nye. An engineer really, but still a smart man. He was used to push forward a transgender narrative.

 

Neil Degrassie Tyson. Is demanding that the public stop questioning proven concepts. An anti sceintific concept. If ANY questions exists it begs to be asked.

 

 

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
tumbi's picture
Beta Tester

"The proper sceintific method is that an experiment must be perfectly replicated 1000 times with zero changes and must yeild the same result every time."

 

What on earth do you base that on? statistical variation is common, including in the hard sciences. And I think you should double check the chart. It is pointing out that if we believe that powerful interests are influencing scientists then that is way more likely to skew them towards climate denial.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman's picture

Have you gone to university for physics, chemistry, or science. I know people that have with IQ's over 125. That is exactly how they were taught the sceintific method. They had to base their thesis upon that method.

 

 Like I said about scientists, if they value truth more than money, then you just need to threaten them instead. Fear can make most men do anything.

 

Sceintists in particular are vulnerable because they are predominantly logical. Which means they arn't as experienced with the emotional mind. If you don't use your emotional mind much, you don't understand it well, which makes you very vulnerable to emotional leverage.

 

If you were a sceintist, and I was a billionaire with immense connections. You need funding from me, I need scientific clout from you. You will do what I say, you will say what I want you to say. If you don't, no money from me, and I will use my influence to make sure you don't get it from anyone. If you manage to get the money I will then hire black book mercenaries. Infiltration and sabotage specialists in particular to either ruin your results, silence your opinion, create a counter arguement from other sceintists, or threaten to kill you and your family and make it look like a accident or murder suicide.

 

If you still won't yeild, then I will make you and your family go missing before your results are finished, and brutally torture you to death over the course of months.

 

That kind of threat will make a sceintist yeild no matter his values.

 

Why? Because with all of his intelligence he is still human.

 

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
stokkebye's picture

What the fuck kind of shit have you been smokin!!!??? I want some :) 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman's picture

Straight edge these days haha. I smoke about 2-3 J's a week, and only as a reward after guitar practice is done.  Just gotta kick the nicotine. *Lights*

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
tumbi's picture
Beta Tester

If your friends with IQ's over 125 are telling you that "an experiment must be perfectly replicated 1000 times with zero changes and must yeild the same result every time" then you should ask them to redo their course on statistics.

 

Most scientific papers that deal with data that are subject to uncertainty will have a section describing the statitical methodology used where, amongst other tings, the authors discuss with the sample size needed to draw meaningful conclusions and the study's scope of inference. If such an analysis were omitted from a study that actually needs it then it probably wouldn't make it past the peer review of a decent scientific journal. And of course they account for cyclical effects to the extent that the data allow.

 

Are you really sure you've familiarised yourself enough with the way that this type of science is conducted that you can dismiss the findings of the community of scientists who devote their careers to it?

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman's picture

If it is uncertain it is not fact.

 

If any changes occur during the experiments, the changes must be studied, isolated, and then experiment readjusted according to the findings and then restarted from 1 until you have perfect consistency.

 

Then during the peer review process, if any changes occur and the experiment is conducted to 100% specifications of the claimant then it does not pass.

 

It is quite a frustrating and tiresome process.

 

There is a world of difference between a study = theory.

 

And a completed and properly peer reviewed experiment = fact.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
tumbi's picture
Beta Tester

Are you really sure you've familiarised yourself enough with the way that this type of science is conducted that you can dismiss the findings of the community of scientists who devote their careers to it?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman's picture

This type? No. The scientific method. Yes. Which is the ONLY thing I will listen to. EVERYTHING else is trash.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

Why don't "climate change scientists" believe in the scientific method? They do, but they don't get to speak about the issue in depth for an extended period of time with for example a solar scientist. Instead we get Bill Nye the science guy. Suspicious Observers has been screaming for years about the failure to integrate the latest solar forcing models in the overall models used to predict the effects of human-provoked climate change. All he wants is for the overall models to be more accurate so we can get a stateful lock on the ongoing effects and then take measures based on that certainty. The models keep failing because the climate change "movement" transitioned from a scientific endeavor of understanding to a political endeavor hijacked by top-down globalists too quickly. So calls for more accuracy are seen as "climate change denial" instead of a plea for getting back to the goal of science, which is understanding. Cart before the horse and now we're in a mess.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

Sold my G35 in 2014 and haven't owned a car since. Do I get a gold star?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones's picture

Arnold Swarzenegger would be a great climate ambassador.

Nobody's gonna be swayed towards anything by a 16 yo.

+1
-2
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

Since last night I've given that a little more thought. Maybe she can be a good role model and educator for the offspring of the climate deniers who are around her age now?

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
puttefnask's picture

She dresses like a five year old. That's unquestionably on purpose. Could be the people around her doing that, but she's being trained in deception. They can't keep her adorable forever. And to be honest I just hate her smug face. She looks like the kid in the neighborhood who lies a lot and gets away with it. And getting out of school to promote a cause seems exactly like such a scenario.

 

She said herself that her parents were against it at first, but there is clearly some kind of financial motivation that has convinced them this was worth shipping her around the world to do while missing out on an education.

 

And she doesn't know more than any of us about anything. She doesn't have a secret to solve it or even an education to support her voice above anyone else about the topic. It's just promotion using a kid to promote a cause, and any criticism of a child's voice is automatically deemed defamatory and insensitive. Basic PR.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

Yeah, the last paragraph was my thinking too. The question is whether it is efficient PR or not. If it is then I don't think her missing a few classes is wasted energy but I honestly doubt it is unless she has a significant influence on the "deniers'" offspring.....

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

Do you think I'm a "denier" because I criticize the way this morphed into politics and advocate for the inclusion of additional relevant data that keeps being omitted again and again? I know humans affect the climate and I want to understand how much and what other factors are involved so we can deal with it. So how am I a science or climate change denier?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

What you do is follow your delusions and bias and the people that feed into it. Like SO.

Suspicious observers wrote a book now, your latest "revealing" video post from him was the promotion for said book.

Writing a book rather than issuing a scientific paper for review in the appropriate channels is questionable at best. When challenged on this he got very annoyed very quickly, probably for a good reason, when challenged on which of the 100's mentioned studies are actually RELEVANT (as quite a few actually have nothing to do with global warming and so are a red herring at best), for his hypothesis he answered "read the book"

A competent professional would have written a scientific study, as he did on another topic and it was recognised, so he nows how to do it. And then follow it up with a book if at all necessary.

 

Just writing a book is outright dumb because if he actually has found something so groundbreaking that it puts climate science in turmoil (don't worry, he hasn't, he's anything but dumb) a scientific study by others based on his book would give the scientific credit (maybe even the nobel prize) to others.

This of course does not make you question his intentions or the validity of his "research", of course not. 

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down