• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Has Greta studied this?

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I am aware that nothing in science has 100%.

You could say the same about the theory of evolution.
In fact, many a science denier creationist does just that.

As for your video, I very seldom will watch them. A tell (like Einstein)
that is shown before it even starts will particularly make sure I dont
look.
Evolution differs in that there is no alternative explanation.
GW does have alternative causes to consider.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
GW does have alternative causes to consider.

Solar activity was considered and rejected, so were change in the Earth's orbit and volcanic activities. Man made global warming due to carbon dioxyde polution is the only theory that can explain the current level of global warming and has actual evidence to back it up.

As for the OP, if he thinks that a 20 minutes video on Youtube is such a revolutionnary leap in our understanding of climate, maybe he should ask the producer to publish his findings in a scientific paper and collect his Nobel prize.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Solar activity was considered and rejected, so were change in the Earth's orbit and volcanic activities. Man made global warming due to carbon dioxyde polution is the only theory that can explain the current level of global warming and has actual evidence to back it up.

As for the OP, if he thinks that a 20 minutes video on Youtube is such a revolutionnary leap in our understanding of climate, maybe he should ask the producer to publish his findings in a scientific paper and collect his Nobel prize.
I didn't see the video.
And I don't dispute the existence of GW.
I only pointed out the difference between GW & evolution.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Ya, let some "men" pile on a 16 year-old girl with a form of autism who happens to accept what the vast majority of climate scientists around the world now say is clearly happening. Ya, she's clearly a global threat to their masculinity. :rolleyes:
 

Notanumber

A Free Man
Solar activity was considered and rejected, so were change in the Earth's orbit and volcanic activities. Man made global warming due to carbon dioxyde polution is the only theory that can explain the current level of global warming and has actual evidence to back it up.

As for the OP, if he thinks that a 20 minutes video on Youtube is such a revolutionnary leap in our understanding of climate, maybe he should ask the producer to publish his findings in a scientific paper and collect his Nobel prize.

If you think that video is 20 minutes long, you must have watched it twice.

You can tell when a video is making some good points when YouTube finds it necessary to put a banner to global warming propaganda underneath it.

Water vapour has a greater effect than CO2. Are they going to tax water vapour?

Anyone that does not agree with the consensus is lucky to keep his or her job never mind receive a Nobel Prize. Fortunately, this does not deter those with a conscience.

BTW, who considered and rejected solar activity, the change in the Earth's orbit and volcanic activities?

Do you have a link?

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

Was it high levels of carbon dioxide that brought the earth out of the mini ice age?

If so, was that manmade?
 

Notanumber

A Free Man
Ya, let some "men" pile on a 16 year-old girl with a form of autism who happens to accept what the vast majority of climate scientists around the world now say is clearly happening. Ya, she's clearly a global threat to their masculinity. :rolleyes:

Who are the ones that are using and abusing her?
 

Stanyon

WWMRD?
Ya, she's clearly a global threat to their masculinity. :rolleyes:

I think it has a lot more to do with the fact she was basically groomed, promoted, and passed off as some maverick child when the reality is that very wealthy and influential people with interests in green technology cultivated and backed her for their own interests. It's not Greta they dislike, it's the fakery and manipulations behind her.
"How dare you criticize or question this young girl" it's a farce, the men behind the facade is what they are actually railing against, Greta is just the public face.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member

Altfish

Veteran Member
I think it has a lot more to do with the fact she was basically groomed, promoted, and passed off as some maverick child when the reality is that very wealthy and influential people with interests in green technology cultivated and backed her for their own interests. It's not Greta they dislike, it's the fakery and manipulations behind her.
"How dare you criticize or question this young girl" it's a farce, the men behind the facade is what they are actually railing against, Greta is just the public face.
If she was talking rubbish there would be no fight back from rich white men and the Murdoch media. But they are scared of her, that's why they attack her personally.
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
I am aware that nothing in science has 100%.

You could say the same about the theory of evolution.
In fact, many a science denier creationist does just that.

As for your video, I very seldom will watch them. A tell (like Einstein)
that is shown before it even starts will particularly make sure I dont
look.


I didn't post a video. You should avail yourself of information out there that might not support your opinion.
 
Top