My problem.with Greta Thunberg.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Sure, that would help, but if the results are pointing to that same conclusion, then failed predictions and pride be damned, you'd better f*cking do something to prevent it.

Again, if a group of people have a long history of being wrong and massively exaggerating things. you can hardly blame others for not taking their current claims seriously. especially when the current claims are also being exaggerated.

If you want the message to be taken seriously, you should be trying to get the people making the claims to stick to the facts and stop acting like Chicken Little.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Again, if a group of people have a long history of being wrong and massively exaggerating things. you can hardly blame others for not taking their current claims seriously. especially when the current claims are also being exaggerated.

If you want the message to be taken seriously, you should be trying to get the people making the claims to stick to the facts and stop acting like Chicken Little.

As George Carlin once said, the planet is fine, the people are f*cked. For the good of our species and others, we owe it to future generations to minimize our impact on the environment they will inherit.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Again, if a group of people have a long history of being wrong and massively exaggerating things. you can hardly blame others for not taking their current claims seriously. especially when the current claims are also being exaggerated.

If you want the message to be taken seriously, you should be trying to get the people making the claims to stick to the facts and stop acting like Chicken Little.

👆 Well said.

It's almost like some people have never heard the story of the boy who cried wolf before.

So everyone agrees that if people want the message to be taken seriously, They should stick to the facts and stop acting like Chicken Little?

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Our technology is much more advanced than it has been in previous decades, and we have half a century's worth more data today to refer to than in the 70s. It's happening, the data points to it happening, and only retards would ignore it because of wrong predictions with rigid timeframes in the past.

As George Carlin once said, the planet is fine, the people are f*cked. For the good of our species and others, we owe it to future generations to minimize our impact on the environment they will inherit.

So you believe that this new data and technology has made the current crop of claims 100% accurate?

Originally posted by Silent Master
So you believe that this new data and technology has made the current crop of claims 100% accurate?

Again, pinpointing the timeframe is irrelevant; the predicted outcomes are increasing in frequency and severity. It's happening, and I'm okay if the current given timeframes are incorrect again, because the urgency to make significant changes is still there.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Not 100% accurate, given the nature of science, in that it uses our best understanding to measure and calculate outcomes, but is open to new information which challenges previous understandings.

Again, pinpointing the timeframe is irrelevant; the predicted outcomes are increasing in frequency and severity. It's happening, and I'm okay if the current given timeframes are incorrect again, because the urgency to make significant changes is still there.

Timeframes are based on their data, so if the timeframes are wrong, their data is wrong.

So, on a scale of 1%-100%. how accurate is the data?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Timeframes are based on their data, so if the timeframes are wrong, their data is wrong.

So, on a scale of 1%-100%. how accurate is the data?

You want to ignore the symptoms because a given timeframe is not 100% accurate. Terminal patients sometimes outlive the timeframes their doctors expected them to live, but they often die soon after that anyhow. The timeframe being off did not change the failing condition of their health, or the credibility of the doctor's diagnosis or prognosis.

The accuracy of their data isn't a tangent.

So, on a scale of 1%-100%. how accurate are you claiming their data is?

Originally posted by Silent Master
The accuracy of their data isn't a tangent.

So, on a scale of 1%-100%. how accurate are you claiming their data is?

I couldn't tell you how accurate it is because I'm not a f*cking climate scientist, and from the sound of it, neither are you. Given that the consequences they predicted are occurring, in spite of happening at a different rate than they previously expected, we should probably listen to them, which is exactly the point Thunberg is making.

I'm not wasting any more time arguing back and forth over your pointless b*llshit.

Again, I never said anything about dismissing the reseach, so nice try.

Are you going to actually answer the question or are you going to continue to dodge?

Originally posted by Silent Master
So everyone agrees that if people want the message to be taken seriously, They should stick to the facts and stop acting like Chicken Little?

It won't be taken seriously anyway.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
It won't be taken seriously anyway.

Not by everyone, no. but if they were more honest and factual. far more people would likely cross over.

Although, maybe they don't actually want more people to take the situation seriously. that would explain their actions.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Again, I never said anything about dismissing the reseach, so nice try.

Are you going to actually answer the question or are you going to continue to dodge?

How important is climate change to you?

How urgent do you think is to make drastic changes to our means of production and way of life?

What large-scale changes do you think we need to implement?

And how soon would you want these changes?

I just told you I don't know what percentage of the data is accurate, and neither do you.

I'm arguing

Originally posted by Silent Master
If people are reacting to the delivery rather than the message, then the delivery needs to be changed as it obviously failed.

At no point have I ever said that research should be dismissed, that was just you letting your anger get the best of you.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I'm arguing

At no point have I ever said that research should be dismissed, that was just you letting your anger get the best of you.

It's not the delivery though. Plenty rational, intelligent members of the scientific community with large public profiles have been delivering the message in a non exaggerated way for years. They haven't changed deniers minds.

Even if you deny human impact in climate change what difference does it make? There's only 3 facts that matter.

Is climate change happening? ...Yes
Are we the only species on earth capable of doing anything about it?... Yes
Are we actually doing anything substantive about it?...No

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
It's not the delivery though. Plenty rational, intelligent members of the scientific community with large public profiles have been delivering the message in a non exaggerated way for years. They haven't changed deniers minds.

Even if you deny human impact in climate change what difference does it make? There's only 3 facts that matter.

Is climate change happening? ...Yes
Are we the only species on earth capable of doing anything about it?... Yes
Are we actually doing anything substantive about it?...No

It is about the delivery as the people you're referring to are consistently drowned out by the people we are talking about.

We're talking about people like Professor Brian Cox, Bill Nye, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Carl Sagan Stephen Hawking. They've not been drowned out. A certain portion of society will simply never believe the evidence. No matter how factually correct it is.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
We're talking about people like Professor Brian Cox, Bill Nye, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Carl Sagan Stephen Hawking. They've not been drowned out. A certain portion of society will simply never believe the evidence. No matter how factually correct it is.

I don't recall any of them getting the push back Greta did, it's almost like their delivery directly related to the amount of pushback they got.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
We're talking about people like Professor Brian Cox, Bill Nye, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Carl Sagan Stephen Hawking. They've not been drowned out. A certain portion of society will simply never believe the evidence. No matter how factually correct it is.

Bill Nye. lmao

Yeah, there's a damn good reason people don't take clowns like him seriously. He goes around calling himself "the science guy" (even though he's not an actual scientist) while saying shit like "gender is a spectrum" lol. Yep, that's sooo "scientific." 🙄

Stephen Hawking was just a God-hating a-hole. He is now at this very moment reaping the "rewards" of his unbelief and lies just as little Charlie Darwin has been for a long time now.😉