does she jet?

the whole Greta L thing is F absurd... and she is a puppet. her father designed all this.

imagine if you had some rude, mentally imbalanced kid who loved the republicans... CNN would laugh.

Turns out my son is better at messing with me than you are...

Its a shame water vapour maxes out the temperature of desserts has not shown his face again.

Don't get too upset. The records frankly don't go back very far.

Maybe you are talking about Greta Thunberg?

Who has been awarded:

- An honorary fellowship to the Royal Scottish Geographical Society,
- Time magazine 100 most influential people award
- Youngest Time Magazine Person of the Year ever
- Inclusion in Forbe's magazine 100 most influential women in the world
- 3 consecutive nominations for the Nobel peace Prize

You can downplay her all you want and pretend she isn't incredibly smart. But the thing I like most about her is what she did after Trump attacked her on Twitter several times:

"She seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future! So nice to see!"

"Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend!” Trump wrote of teenage climate crisis activist Greta Thunberg. “Chill Greta, Chill!”

Thunberg responded by changing her Twitter bio to mock the President’s words, referring to herself as: “A teenager working on her anger management problem. Currently chilling and watching a good old fashioned movie with a friend.”

And then after Trump was boarding his Marine One helicopter one last time on his way out of the White House he failed to hold onto:

'He seems like a very happy old man looking forward to a bright and wonderful future. So nice to see!,'

I would be proud to be her father watching her take a bully to task with relative ease.

I feel sorry for Greta. Like you said, Greta was being used to promote an agenda. It's most unseemly in my opinion when kids are used to promote a political agenda that they probably don't know or care much about anyway. It's a borderline case of child abuse, in my opinion.

Someone like Greta, who is obviously very passionate and smart, is the perfect teen to use as a shill, because anyone who attacks what Greta says is "attacking that poor child." It's a good cover for avoiding tough questions.

Her handlers made the mistake of once having her do a press conference, and she was flummoxed* by even elementary questions. Very wrong to put her in that spot.

Politicians, Hollywood, and Big Business in general exploit children all the time and it's disgusting, in my opinion.

*Who else but me still uses the word flummoxed?

1921? Seems like long enough

100 years is an almost meaningless timeframe in terms of projecting much of anything in climate or geography.

In the late 1970's, many climate "experts" were warning about an impending Ice Age! Time magazine had a story about it around 1979 or 1980. And the "experts" had tons of "scientific evidence" to prove it!

I didn't study climate science myself, so now I find myself in the unenviable predicament of wondering whether to believe the guys who did, or the guy who believes in talking snakes. It's a poser! Especially as I find your argument of "some climate scientists were wrong about one thing once 40 years ago, ergo all climate scientists are wrong about everything always" very persuasive.

fyp

Nice use of the Strawman Fallacy. I never claimed that scientists are wrong about climate change. Please try to pay attention. It might help if you post when you're sober.

My post was specifically about scientists' limited ability to take currently available climate data and project many years in the future what the climate will be like.

How limited do you think this ability is? Is it precise enough that the warnings about the damage that anthropogenic climate change will cause are within a confidence interval you find persuasive, or not?

Nice!

I recently moved to Chico, California. It is very bicycle friendly.

............

right now - at this moment - the Bootleg Fire in Oregon is destroying land and homes - it is one of the largest fires in history - it has burned more than 300,000 acres - the fire covers more area than the city of Los Angeles

.

the intensity of it has caused very rare fire tornados to appear

.





.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57890935

Well, both of our resident creationists are climate skeptics, so there's that.

The term is "climate change deniers". "Skeptics" gives them an unwarranted air of legitimacy.

Can we just call them “morons” instead?

I think that label is more about making you feel better than it is accuracy. I don't know anyone who denies that the climate changes over time. Do you?

FallawayJumper, I think it might surprise you to know that forest fires were much, much larger before mankind showed up and started putting them out prematurely or building unnatural boundaries.

Most of us are smart enough to understand that this discussion is about *anthropogenic* climate change, but I guess this has to be said explicitly for the Noah’s Ark crowd.

BTW that is the saturation "theory" I've seen popping up lately. It was debunked ( https://bartonlevenson.com/Saturation.html ) in 1956, but obviously climate change deniers don't really care about anything that can't be misunderstood to "support" their opinion.

I think it's ridiculous how this has been talked by media and by politicians.They always say threats of climate change are +1.5...2 C, and what problems they will bring. Just like 20 years ago, when those options were actually possible, now it's not a threat anymore, can we move on and talk about the actual probable temperature rises and problems we'll face. And to actions where we can make terrible outcomes really really unlikely, instead of just hoping for top 5% outcome and thinking it will be fine because that only means death of millions and misery of billions but mostly poor.

Which leads to at least in Finland most of people who I've talked to and are actually reasonable people, seem to have absolutely no realistic idea of the state of climate or what future looks like.

100yrs in a context of ~6k total or ~4.5B?

Limited enough to be almost useless in predicting the future.

Not persuasive at all.

I am not a "climate skeptic." I firmly believe that climate exists.

That's up for the Mods to decide.