Greta Thunberg

[hilts]

Just missing someone with a Sean Bean accent calling her a fake mentalist, Voomers green card must have expired.

 

[SWP's back]

There is simply no moral equivalency in that statement at all. The issues are totally different. A prime example of a common logical fallacy.

It’s a prime example of:

Common
Unthinking
Nonsense
Techniques

speak

 

[Ancient Citizen]

I don't know if I heard correctly, but did this girl say something about the last generation, and the one before, ruining the future or something similar?

 

[journolud]

I don't know if I heard correctly, but did this girl say something about the last generation, and the one before, ruining the future or something similar?

I think she said global warming ruins your hearing.

 

[blueinsa]

I think she said global warming ruins your hearing.

What?

 

[Machiavelli]

I think she said global warming ruins your hearing.

But I don’t wear earrings.

 

[inchy14]

But I don’t wear earrings.

Where did you get Herring?

 

[blueinsa]

Missed out on the Nobel peace prize.

How dare they!

 

[Dax777]

It’s weird how so many are divided on this subject on political lines.

One doesn’t have to be left wing to understand that’s it’s virtually certain that humans are speeding the warming of earth’s climate. You only have to be able to read and understand the 99.9% of climate scientists that have the data to make that claim.

Lord! I hope you got the above line from some left-wing blog. Leftist are just brilliant at obfuscation.
Duh! Sure it may be 'virtually certain' humans are speeding up the warming of the Earth's climate. But the critical question is by how much?

If it's 65% then that a serious problem. But if it 0.00065% then it's seriously stupid to have listen to climate alarmist whine and disrupt Life as w know it. Is it not?

The question is never about the absolute (something leftist seldom get) but rather it's about the nuance.

Let's take your 99% of Scientist agree claim for example ( side note it's 97% and not 99, but that's a minor point).

How was this number arrived at? I'll give you a hint "Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic global warming in the Science literature by Cook et al 2013.

Read it. Read the support and criticism of it. Understand how the consensus was 'formed.' And what it can at best be said to be saying. Better yet, aren't you an accountant? Analyze the numbers yourself.

Also familiarize yourself with all the other Consensus beliefs in the Climate Science field. You know, the ones that don't get the same TV play that the "97% of climate Scientist agree" does.

 

[BobKowalski]

Lord! I hope you got the above line from some left-wing blog. Leftist are just brilliant at obfuscation.
Duh! Sure it may be 'virtually certain' humans are speeding up the warming of the Earth's climate. But the critical question is by how much?

If it's 65% then that a serious problem. But if it 0.00065% then it's seriously stupid to have listen to climate alarmist whine and disrupt Life as w know it. Is it not?

The question is never about the absolute (something leftist seldom get) but rather it's about the nuance.

Let's take your 99% of Scientist agree claim for example ( side note it's 97% and not 99, but that's a minor point).

How was this number arrived at? I'll give you a hint "Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic global warming in the Science literature by Cook et al 2013.

Read it. Read the support and criticism of it. Understand how the consensus was 'formed.' And what it at best cabn be said to mean.


Also familiarize yourself with all the other Consensus beliefs in the Climate Science field.

Shouldn’t you be in the Trump thread or you taking a day off?