placeholder

This is your idea of evidence? A non-scientist's assertion. Moreover, he's a proven liar: Patrick Moore Did Not Found Greenpeace Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. ... A copy of his application letter and Greenpeace's response are available here (PDF). http://web.archive.org/web/20110827151509/http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/nuclear/patric-moore-background-inform/

More empty insults.

You're asking questions but you're not interested in the answers? That makes it clear that you're here just to engage in libel.

Just another empty, unbacked insult from you. You've got nothing.

If If you're really interested in where the money goes, I suggest you avail yourself of something called google and do a search with it. I did and it took all of a minute to find this: https://thegretathunbergfoundation.org/where-the-money-goes/

What media questions would those be? That one video where a reporter basically asks her how to better promote public awareness of climate change? What has that got to do with the science of climate change and climate change's consequences for humanity? You've got nothing.

Usually, maybe always?, in cars with 3 rows of seats the last row at least is foldable We actually removed the last row to give us even more space in our ICE vehicle.

Do you understand that there are 2 ways to increase debt? One is by more spending and the other is by slashing revenue.

Yes, all those lying blinkered climatologists. What you're denying is basically an established fact since the mid 19th century when the eminent Irish physicist, John Tindall, discovered what is popularly known as the greenhouse effect. It only became controversial when its application threatened certain economic interests Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

You need "wonder' no more. Electrifying transportation reduces emissions AND saves massive amounts of energy "Even if the grid were entirely fueled by coal, 31% less energy would be needed to charge EVs than to fuel gasoline cars. If EVs were charged by natural gas, the total energy demand for highway transportation would fall by nearly half. Add in hydropower or other renewables, and the result gets even better, saving up to three-fourths of the energy currently used by gasoline-powered vehicles." https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/08/electrifying-transportation-reduces-emissions-and-saves-massive-amounts-of-energy/

In case you haven't heard, there's a war going on. Wars usually generate all kinds of unpleasant consequences. One of the positive consequences of this dreadful war is that it has accelerated Germany's plans for renewables.

Someone else who doesn't understand the difference between "climate" and "weather".

Thanks not producing a link. It makes your contention so convincing. In fact, there were some ridiculous criticisms directed at a previous survey. The gist of them was that only a fraction of climatological papers referenced global warming. This is true. But it's about as valid as denying the theory of evolution is valid because most research in biology doesn't reference Darwin or his successors. Whenever global warming or climate change is referenced in climatological research, it's now virtually always that it either is based on the fact of human caused climate change or is actively researching its mechanisms. https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

It's really not that simple. You have to take into account how much the average consumption of those people are vs. the average consumption in developed economies. And then there's the question of how much the wealthy contribute to environmental degradation: Carbon emissions of richest 1 percent more than double the emissions of the poorest half of humanity https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-richest-1-percent-more-double-emissions-poorest-half-humanity

And even thought it's a wild guess, you decided it would be a good idea to pollute the discussion with it.

That you think meeting someone is determinative rather than what they wrote and said , says all we need to know about your standards for evidence.

Even if the nonsense you claim here was valid, it's apparently irrelevant to you that what they are saying in this case is scientifically valid.

Not by the standards you have cited. You claim that Greta is just repeating what science has established. How does this differ from what Huxley did? By your logic he was just Darwin's marionette or sock puppet.

"other's stuff"? Nobody owns science. Subscribing to the science and popularizing it is not about obedience to a person or persons.

So Thomas Huxley, the great populiser of the Theory of Evolution was also a puppet? Subscribing to the overwhelming scientific evidence makes one a puppet? Denying that overwhelming evidence means that one is free? If that's the case, then you are about as free as someone can be. I guess as a corollary to Knowledge is Power, you would have us believe that Ignorance is Freedom.

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."