placeholder

If you could show us where her views diverge from that of the overwhelming scientific consensus you'd have a better point. You may have heard of a fellow named Charles Darwin. He wasn't much of one for trying to win the public over to accepting the Theory of Evolution. That cause was taken up by a fellow named Thomas Huxley, who labored long and hard to make the general public understand the scientific basis of the Theory of Evolution. There's a place for science and a place for popularizers in the public sphere. So long as the latter don't contradict the former, I fail to see the problem.

But what she says is based on the the overwhelming scientific evidence. Given that what she says is based on the overwhelming scientific consensus of climatologists, she doesn't need to be one.

The question directed at her was not a scientific one. It tells us nothing about her understanding of the science. Absolutely nothing. She makes no claim to be a marketing expert.

What a ridiculous standard you set. Short of publishing in a scientific journal, how would she prove to you that she understands the science? In fact, how would anyone who's not a scientist measure up to your standards? Here's a few quotes from her speech to the UN "To have a 67% chance of staying below a 1.5 degrees global temperature rise – the best odds given by the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] – the world had 420 gigatons of CO2 left to emit back on Jan. 1st, 2018. Today that figure is already down to less than 350 gigatons." https://www.npr.org/2019/09/23/763452863/transcript-greta-thunbergs-speech-at-the-u-n-climate-action-summit Do climatologists have a problem with that? Or this: "The popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50% chance of staying below 1.5 degrees [Celsius], and the risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control. ...But those numbers do not include tipping points, most feedback loops, additional warming hidden by toxic air pollution or the aspects of equity and climate justice." https://www.npr.org/2019/09/23/763452863/transcript-greta-thunbergs-speech-at-the-u-n-climate-action-summit What is problematic about these statements?

Interesting how you'll subscribe to what Greenpeace says when it suits your needs. The article was very short on specifics. And not only does your second link only deal with Australia, but that program is for businesses to buy credits, not private individuals. I prefer to go with a publication that often publishes real research and is staffed by knowledgeable people. Are carbon offsets a scam? "To protect your wallet, you can buy offsets that have been authenticated by third-party certification programs, such as Verified Carbon Standard, Gold Standard, and Green-e Climate Standard. Those programs help confirm that projects actually exist and that you’re not wasting your money." https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/05/are-carbon-offsets-a-scam/ You categorically asserted that these people paid into a "faux scheme". So far, you have provided no proof that the scheme, as you call it, that they paid into, is some kind of scam. If you have specific evidence, provide it. Otherwise, as the World News landing page specifies: "Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source."

Of course, you have no way of knowing if her weight condition is due to diet or medication. So, yes, you did engage in a personal attack. In fact, if you had any real knowledge of the relationship between diet and obesity, you would know that scientists now know that other factors than calories consumed can account for obesity. https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?contenttypeid=56&contentid=DM300#:~:text=Some medicines might affect your,t put on extra fat. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S075333222200066X

Given the Russian military's performance in Ukraine, it's clear that Wikipedia entry's prediction needs some serious qualification. Anyway, it's amusing to see that Putin, for one, disagrees with Saanim. I don't imagine that Saanim is going to accuse Putin of lying.

Of course the primary measurement is GDP. You can't sustain power and influence on a meager budget. Can a country sustain I'm such a budget. We've seen that clearly in the case of Russia. Of course are lack of power is compounded by the extraordinary level of corruption. And what has economic turmoil got to do with it? The economies of the developed Nations on their worst days are still far better off than Russia on its best. Do GDP per capita figures mean nothing to you?

I'm sure you're going to share with us the details of this fraudulent scheme that you claim these people paid into. Or are you again making fake allegations for which you can provide no acceptable links to back them up?

I get it. You raised the issue by claiming Russia is now a superpower thanks to Putin and now you're claiming it's irrelevant? Hypocritical much? As for proof, you'd have to live in an extremely opaque bubble not to know how comparatively weak and underdeveloped the Russian economy was even before the invasion of Ukraine. But since you seem to need links here they are: This is Russia's GDP rank by nation. https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/ But when you do it by GDP per capita,which is obvously a more realistic way to gauge its economy it's a lot worse: https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-per-capita/

Actually, you also attempted to mitigate your misstatement that Kalli was the vice-president of the EU when in fact she was only one of 14, and that most of the VPs, including her, actually have very little power. Just part of your history of repeated exaggerations.

Still defending your use of the plural? So, it's your position that until a claim is definitively disproved, it's evidence?

Even if it was relevant, you are claiming that she was standing with the police before she was carried away and not that she was carried away and then was standing with the police?

Because Gore may have profited from his opposition to human caused climate change, that means his motives were insincere or corrupt? As for those Hollywood celebrities, how are they profiting from climate change? The hypocrisy of these non-scientists is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether or not the threats posed by climate change are to be taken seriously. But this kind of deflection is typical of the BS you offer.

False, Gates is not the owner. He's a shareholder. And not even the biggest one. He owns 1.38% of Microsoft shares. The top five shareholders of Microsoft are brokerage firms. They hold the stock in many of the investment vehicles they offer or as custodians for the customers that use their proprietary trading platforms. The largest individual stockholder of the company is Bill Gates, who owns 1.38% of the total common shares in circulation. https://capital.com/microsoft-shareholder-who-owns-most-msft-stock#:~:text=They hold the stock in,total common shares in circulation.

It show how little actual facts you have that you have to resort to this kind of nastiness. And I failed to note another of your gratuitous and nasty comments. That one about Didn't want to get her expensive shoes dirty? Can you please share with us what shoes she was actually wearing and how much they cost? It show how few actual facts you have to support your case that you consistently resort to this kind of nastiness.

Because the word "criminal" is part and parcel of the repeated character assassinations you offer when referring to people who support strong intervention to slow and reverse human caused climate change. ANdwhat actual disproof did you offer?. If she refused to budge, then they would have had to carry her away.

Can you share with us some names of the "rentseekers and charlatans" who are profiting from this? And how big are the profits being generated by this this alleged "climate crisis industry"?

So now Greta Thunberg is a criminal? Can you share with us what crime she was convicted of here? Libeling much?

Now it's a climate crisis industry? Have you read the IPCC's latest report? You know, the one put together by climatologists and economists? Yours is just another irrelevant attempt to distract from the profound dangers posed by human caused climate change.

Do you understand that Bill Gates is no longer running Microsoft? Also, what percentage of Microsoft employees were laid off vs the percentage of Twitter employees were laid off? And did Microsoft insult the performance of those laid-off employees? How does that compare to Musk's gratuitous nastiness when Twitter employees were laid off?

Fair enough. But given that you try to justify your misstatement of facts when called to account for them, for instance alleging that "vice presidents" had been corrupt, when it was only one, the 'strawman" comment is just another of your many cheap and false shots. For a change, try not to spin your errors when you are called out on them.

Republicans consistently slashed taxes while making the absurd claim that slashing taxes will pay for itself because of increased economic activity generated by such cuts. To date, no such result has been observed. It is, in fact, a very big lie.

There are other, more sensible ways to discourage driving than by destroying infrastructure.