CNN's new COVID-19 expert: Greta Thunberg

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
97,439
25,684
113
What a snappy reply. I've been wounded.


Honest question. Do you regard Greta as being smarter than you?
Greta is clearly smarter than you and doesn't suffer from Dunning Kruger effect.
I expect she's a smart kid, smart enough to understand bullshit propaganda from science.
Clearly you can't.
 

SowelHung

Member
Jan 26, 2017
167
0
16
Greta did tweet that she had covid but she had recovered. She also said she never got tested which implies she never saw a doctor. She must have cured herself.
According to you in other posts, plagues have been cured by prayer. Maybe she prayed and got cured.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
62,644
7,076
113
Putting aside your careless characterization of the people who believe in sound energy policies as being somehow "anti-science," I agree with much of what you have written here -- until you get to the part about people trying to promote Moore as "an expert."
....
Um, you are anti-science and you posted extensively in the thread idolozing Moore.
 

kkelso

Well-known member
Apr 27, 2003
2,468
28
48
Which scientists is Greta referring to? The ones that said that the corona virus was nothing to worry about but then it was a pandemic and we should all be afraid or that said to not wear masks then said to wear masks etc. But Greta is a self-diagnosed covid-19 survivor so she must know what she is talking about.
In all fairness, I think it's safe to assume that Greta knows as much about the virus as she does about climate science.

KK
 

dickydoem

Area 51 Escapee
Apr 15, 2003
1,179
65
48
Stuck in Lodi again
Greta is clearly smarter than you and doesn't suffer from Dunning Kruger effect.
I expect she's a smart kid, smart enough to understand bullshit propaganda from science.
Clearly you can't.
Nice deflection of the question. Of course I didn't expect a straight answer from you. Believe what you want about my intelligence but I don't post on a message 20 times a day every day for the past 5 years like you do. Seems like you are on the spectrum just like Greta.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
29,912
7,812
113

J.A. Prufrock

Well-known member
Feb 27, 2018
1,461
451
83
Weak men pick on young girls.
A weak man will grab a woman's pussy (well, dozens of women's pussies), knowing he can get away with it because he's rich and can afford the legal consequences.

An even weaker man will condone or dismiss these actions, even knowing one of those women could easily have been his wife, sister, daughter, mother -- hell, maybe even his grandmother.
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
172
63
Um, you are anti-science and you posted extensively in the thread idolozing Moore.
Environmental heroes such as James Hansen and Michael Shellenberger hold the same view as me when it comes to the fantasy of an energy future powered by wind and solar.

Does that mean they are also "anti-science"?
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
172
63
So you're pushing a film from a source you don't think is trustworthy because it suits your own agenda.
That qualifies as backing propaganda.
I love how the recommendation that countries should adopt sound energy policies is characterized as an "agenda."

If that's my "agenda," so be it. I guess that means Frankfooter prefers energy policies that are not sound. :biggrin1:
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
172
63
Straw man argument.
Nobody is arguing for the return of the Victorian era.

Solar and wind power doesn't mean you have to use a horse and carriage.
Actually, Greta's position does argue for a return to the Victorian era. Let's review her position.

Given the technology that exists today, it is impossible to create a future where energy is supplied primarily from wind and solar power. Having ruled those sources out as major suppliers, let's look at Greta's take on other sources:

- She opposes coal.
- She opposes oil.
- She opposes natural gas.
- She opposes nuclear power.

In the absence of coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear power and wind and solar, what's left? There are hydroelectric dams but that's not enough to power modern society and important services such as hospitals.

This is not a straw man argument. Having ruled out most sources (and with reality having ruled out wind and solar for her), what Greta champions ultimately is a return to the Victorian era.

She has been quite clear -- she thinks the advances made since the Industrial Revolution have destroyed the future for young bedwetters like her.

The fact that she idealizes the world that existed before the Industrial Revolution speaks to the fact she really doesn't know much about science or history.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
97,439
25,684
113

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
97,439
25,684
113
Actually, Greta's position does argue for a return to the Victorian era. Let's review her position.

Given the technology that exists today, it is impossible to create a future where energy is supplied primarily from wind and solar power. Having ruled those sources out as major suppliers, let's look at Greta's take on other sources:

- She opposes coal.
- She opposes oil.
- She opposes natural gas.
- She opposes nuclear power.

In the absence of coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear power and wind and solar, what's left? There are hydroelectric dams but that's not enough to power modern society and important services such as hospitals.

This is not a straw man argument. Having ruled out most sources (and with reality having ruled out wind and solar for her), what Greta champions ultimately is a return to the Victorian era.

She has been quite clear -- she thinks the advances made since the Industrial Revolution have destroyed the future for young bedwetters like her.

The fact that she idealizes the world that existed before the Industrial Revolution speaks to the fact she really doesn't know much about science or history.
You're lying about her positions again.
"Personally I am against nuclear power, but according to the IPCC [the United Nations Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change], it can be a small part of a very big new carbon free energy solution, especially in countries and areas that lack the possibility of a full scale renewable energy supply - even though it's extremely dangerous, expensive and time consuming. But let’s leave that debate until we start looking at the full picture." ---Greta Thunberg, founder, Youth Climate Strike
That's a straw man argument, by definition.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
62,644
7,076
113
I think the anti-science crowd being so concerned about Greta speaks volumes about what straws they are grasping at.
 
Toronto Escorts