MENU
On Thursday, in a video that has since gone viral, Greta Thunberg emphasized to Rebel News that climate change was strictly non-political. It was simply "science."
So it struck me as odd that the major rally she staged at the Alberta Legislature building in Edmonton on the eve of our federal election had so many political signs there. It was almost like Greta was rallying the troops before election day.
I asked political activists about this canonical discrepancy, and their responses were, frankly, hilarious.
PS: Send Greta a clear message — Sign our petition at HowDareYou.ca and tell her she was wrong to interfere in the Canadian election.
Do you like this Rebel News story?
Showing 33 reactions
Comment using
Facebook Twitter“we’ve gone from climate change being a hypothetical idea, to possibility, to probabilty, to near-certainty, in the last 40 years as both computer models and our pool of data improve. " ? ? ?
NOT TRUE Andy . . . . IPCC klimate models all 117 of them have been Consistently WRONG . . . . real Climate Scientists say that these systems are far too complex to model in a computer . . . . you do remember that the IPCC gang did not include the SUN !
Fact is Andy . . . AGW = Unproven Hypothesis after 30 years of ranting and raving by unqualified loons like Hansen and dozens of University Profs who have squandered 100s of Millions of dollars.
CO2 has been much higher than today during Ice Ages . . . and Klimate has Changed for Millenium.
“Should we trust these computer models of doom? Let’s find out by comparing the actual temperatures since 1979 with what the 32 families of climate models used in the latest U.N. report on climate science predicted they would be.
Atmospheric scientist John Christy developed a global temperature record of the lower atmosphere using highly accurate satellite soundings. NASA honored him for this achievement, and he was an author for a previous edition of the U.N. report. He told a House Science Committee hearing in March 2017 that the U.N. climate models have failed badly.
Christy compared the average model projections since 1979 to the most reliable observations — those made by satellites and weather balloons over the vast tropics. The result? In the upper levels of the lower atmosphere, the models predicted seven times as much warming as has been observed. Overprediction also occurred at all other levels.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/the-great-failure-of-the-climate-models
Fakest July On Record
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUprclkVrNPls7PR-nHhf1Ow&v=uMldKLR0Vwc
Age does not make one correct, either.
““Chronological snobbery is an argument that the thinking, art, or science of an earlier time is inherently inferior to that of the present, simply by virtue of its temporal priority or the belief that since civilization has advanced in certain areas, people of earlier periods were less intelligent.””
Perhaps more true for art than science. Science is dynamic and changes, improves constantly. Mendel or Newton were fine scientists and their theories worked well for the information they had, but they were both wrong. Climate science is also another extremely dynamic field, with both rapidly improving data and a phenomenon itself that is rather dynamic – we’ve gone from climate change being a hypothetical idea, to possibility, to probabilty, to near-certainty, in the last 40 years as both computer models and our pool of data improve. Yes, we used to think that an ice age was imminent. A bit more research, and we found out otherwise – all the while exacerbating the opposing forces of the greenhouse effect.
I’m a biochemist. and I can say that we have seen the same thing. To the point where we know things I was taught as an undergrad, in the middle of the last decade, are now known wrong. Several open questions have been resolved, and many new ones have arisen.
SOme guy got disillusioned with Greenpeace 35 years ago. This is not a qualification to be a modern scietnist, particularly if you work for a company which has a vested interest in a certain outcome. Would he lose his job if he suddenly and very publicly decided htat climate change was a thing? Most likely … yes.
As for me? I have decided to burn through 2 Tanks of Premium Fuel today. Why? Because I can, and I like to drive my Hi-Performance Car. In fact, I will purposely go out of my way to antagonize EV’s and their Owners. Why? Because I can, and it’s fun. They refuse to listen to reason, so why not toy with them?
The entire Apocalyptic AGW/CC mob can be broken down into two components: a handful of eco-parasites and a great crowd of fools. Yet the opposition shakes in its boots – not only too cowardly and dishonest to speak out against the foolishness, but actually endorsing it.
Old….but not obsolete…..is a very valid thought to consider….when humans older than yourself have something to say that may be more coherent and more on target than your Pretzel Principle rhetoric.
-————————Right you are John. Andrew the master of logical fallacies has committed one of her favourites; The Fallacy of Chronological Snobbery.
“Chronological snobbery is an argument that the thinking, art, or science of an earlier time is inherently inferior to that of the present, simply by virtue of its temporal priority or the belief that since civilization has advanced in certain areas, people of earlier periods were less intelligent.” Or in Andrew’s case it is inferior because it predated Andrew’s divine omniscient existence.
-—————————Andrew’s god-complex is showing again. There was no life before Andrew. The world revolves around him/her.
Sounds a lot like the Witch in C.S. Lewis’s Silver Chair :
Well, ‘tis a pretty make-believe, though, to say truth, it would suit you all better if you were younger. And look how you can put nothing into your make-believe without coping it from the real world, this world of mine, which is the only world.
Andrew…..many….many times I have to lean toward the evidence that you are STILL in diapers…..
Bombast is a common tactic but……try not to go down the John Wick road of Reductio ad Absurdum …(or Absurdo Infinitum if you prefer ….). Do try to remember that….it is not always about you.
Old….but not obsolete…..is a very valid thought to consider….when humans older than yourself have something to say that may be more coherent and more on target than your Pretzel Principle rhetoric.
You weren’t looking hard enough. Heartland lobbied … hard… in favour of tobacco. Theu have also historicaly recieved fossil fuel sourced funding – Exxon stopped when they realized how bad the optics were, but they still seem to get money from the Kochs et al (albeit indirectly, to make it harder to show that, now).
Countering all the lies peddled by the leftist criminals takes money. Especially when you’re up against corrupt government, who uses money stolen from the the taxpayer and handed over to anyone that will peddle the lies they want peddled. Like Clinton who put up a hundred million for climate scientists to prove man made global warming. The fake climate scientists came out of the woodwork with junk science, misleading information and outright lies. Any real climate scientist who told them it was all BS got nothing.
When did he leave Greenpeace? Apparently 1985? I’m not sure how much activist credit I give a guy who gave up that life when I was still in diapers.
Robert Hewgill commented 2019-10-20 15:49:32 -0400 · Flag
Andrew Stephenson commented 2019-10-19 22:00:13 -0400
Do you have a better model?
No, and neither does anyone else have a model that can work. Climate is not something that can be predicted with any great accuracy, only measured well after the fact.’
So, in your opinion, it’s a question mark?
From a risk assesment perspective, how do we typically handle unknown, but potentially significant risks? Generally … we mitigate them.
“Not that one has anything to with the other, because it doesn’t. Nor do I recall anyone putting out such a study”
You weren’t looking hard enough. Heartland lobbied … hard… in favour of tobacco. Theu have also historicaly recieved fossil fuel sourced funding – Exxon stopped when they realized how bad the optics were, but they still seem to get money from the Kochs et al (albeit indirectly, to make it harder to show that, now).
My point here, is that is’ silly to pretend that someone that works for a think tank which is basically a front for different lobby groups, is somehow more objective than someone who receieves government funding (which, incidentally, doesn’t presuppose outcomes), is specious.
“Maurice, it is pointless to show Andrew those real scientists who disagree with the current Global Warming/Climate Change religious dogma because Andrew will scoff at all of them. The only “scientists” Andrew will consider legitimate are those that support the current Climate Change dogma.”
Scientist, singular. And, he’s got a hell of a conflict of interest, in that he’d lose his plush job with the right wing think tank if he said anything else.
There will be a few that oppose it. The consensus is not 100% – about 3 or 5% actively reject the idea, so out of tens of thousand of scientists, you’ll find a few hundred who oppose.
Why are they waiting?
Send your cheques to Gerald Butts and he’ll take care of it.
Maurice, it is pointless to show Andrew those real scientists who disagree with the current Global Warming/Climate Change religious dogma because Andrew will scoff at all of them. The only “scientists” Andrew will consider legitimate are those that support the current Climate Change dogma.
“I don’t, Andrew, but Ecologist, Dr. Patrick Moore, does…. and he doesn’t have a UN Globalist agenda. All he’s got is objective science.”
Doesnt’ he work for the Heartland Institute? LOL. objective indeed, they’re one of the most brazen of the mercenary think tanks out there They’re the ones who didn’t even bother hiding the fact that they accepted money from Phillip Morris the whole time they were putting out study after study insisting smoking was safe.
You mean one of the founding members of Greenpeace? The one who had to leave Greenpeace when they switched from science to ideology? Who was a consultant and adviser to the Heartland Institute, attempting to keep them on the straight and narrow ecology-wise? Yup! Same guy.
They’re the ones who didn’t even bother hiding the fact that they accepted money from Phillip Morris the whole time they were putting out study after study insisting smoking was safe.
Not that one has anything to with the other, because it doesn’t. Nor do I recall anyone putting out such a study, At the time it wasn’t about smoking, it was about whether second hand smoke was bad or not. Even the WHO put out two studies which could find no evidence for harm from second hand smoke. The first study they tried to hide and cover up, until someone leaked it. Besides, was always about demonizing, and set up to shakedown the tobacco companies. If you want to know who their lining up for the next shakedown, look to see who they’re demonizing now.
Do you have a better model?
No, and neither does anyone else have a model that can work. Climate is not something that can be predicted with any great accuracy, only measured well after the fact.
Doesnt’ he work for the Heartland Institute? LOL. objective indeed, they’re one of the most brazen of the mercenary think tanks out there They’re the ones who didn’t even bother hiding the fact that they accepted money from Phillip Morris the whole time they were putting out study after study insisting smoking was safe.
I haven’t heard if The Rebel is covering the election; if not it would sure be entertaining to get Ezra and Manny in an open form giving their opinions.
“The phony climate model projections are more akin to tarot cards and crystal ball fortunte tellers, than science.”
Do you have a better model?
I don’t, Andrew, but Ecologist, Dr. Patrick Moore, does…. and he doesn’t have a UN Globalist agenda. All he’s got is objective science.
16 year old Swedish girls have much more to worry about than the weather!
Despite off-the-charts crime and rape levels, the direct result of Muslim migration, Sweden is more concerned with online “hate speech”
https://barenakedislam.com/2019/10/18/despite-off-the-charts-crime-and-rape-levels-the-direct-result-of-muslim-migration-sweden-is-more-concerned-with-online-hate-speech/
:-(
Actually John Galt that should be taken a step further as you are being too kind – most are of the herd mentality content to graze at the grass at their feet ignoring the world so when Chicken Little comes running screaming the sky is falling the sky is falling they all jump on the hysteria band wagon. Low IQ and/or low info usually is at the “root” of it.
I suspect that many initiators of whatever “alarmist” doctrine you wish to look at….realize this fact and use this format accordingly.This makes them politically motivated…..because they know that a great many people will get behind an issue (without valid information) when that issue is presented as A Clear and Present Danger…..
Just within the last few decades,there have been numerous "alarmist"platforms that were all going to “do us in” in very short order….if we did not act immediately and in a fashion that followed the alarmists’ instructions.The Ice Age predicted in the Seventies…..the Y2K bug that was going to stop the computerized world as we know it…….the Ozone Layer…….Acid Rain…..The Mayan Calendar …..and many ,many more.
Go back a bit farther(not much) and you will find ads for Comet Pills to protect you from the life-threatening passing of Halley;s Comet.The “alarmists” had it on very good authority…..don’t you know…….
Simply put……too many humans do not put enough thought process into too many seriously important issues and this leaves the door open for the numerous and various snake oil salesmen to step forward with “the majic bullet” cure……
Do you have a better model?
https://www.chp.ca/commentary/chp-candidates-shine-the-light-in-every-province
No. “Climate alarmism” is not, itself, inherently political. It is used politically, by politicians, but it is not political. It is merely an overly dramatic description of a scientifically valid hypothesis.
Communism has always been based on lies, and the man made global warming / climate change scam is nothing but new lies for old. The phony climate model projections are more akin to tarot cards and crystal ball fortunte tellers, than science.