Greta; hero or villain ... ?

@Budwick And far more knowledgeable on climate change than the Goon-in-Chief leading the US.

@windinhishair And, I'm certain you actually believe that.

@Budwick I do, because it is true. Trump lacks even basic understanding of science and how it works. Just another facet of his complete and utter lack of fitness for office.

@windinhishair Windbag - you are as much a tool of the left as she is.

Perhaps you should go to the playground with her and play outdoors - you know, while you still can.

@Budwick So believing in science and facts is being a tool? Strange definition. How would you define people like yourself who don't believe in objective science and deny the things they can see with their own eyes, while supporting something running the country that is scientifically illiterate?

@windinhishair No, you poor lost thing.
It's parroting all the shit the feed you.

THAT'S what makes you and Greta tools.

@Budwick You're wrong as usual. I have been following climate science since 1973 and have multiple technical degrees, so yes, I understand the science behind it. What's your background that informs science denial and willful ignorance?

@Budwick You have nothing. As usual. Continue living in willful denial and ignorance. Carry on.

@Budwick “Parroting” information provided by the world’s scientific body on a topic of immediate concern is... rational for laymen.

Regurgitating kook nonsense based on gut feelings of dumbasses with no background in the field, however... is just fucking retarded.

Your epistemology is fucking stupid bud 🤷‍♂️

@Budwick

@windinhishair [quote] I have been following climate science since 1973[/quote]

Oh, good! Then your remember when were supposed to die of starvation. And the world was gonna freeze.

Which degree taught you that?

@QuixoticSoul [quote]Your epistemology is fucking stupid [/quote]

Oh yeah? I'll have you know I am taking antibiotics for my epistemology !

@Budwick We are currently in an intermission between ice ages. Some scientists (by no means all or even a majority) speculated in the mid-1970s what would happen if the several years of cooling noted then persisted until the 2000s. Small articles several paragraphs long were printed in Time and Newsweek in 1975 and 1976. There never was a scientific consensus that predicted global cooling, just cherry picking minor articles from almost 50 years ago. A very disingenuous approach, but typical for wingnuts.

Paul Ehrlich predicted major consequences from uncontrolled population increase in The Population Bomb, including starvation. He was wrong, and his views were not part of mainstream science. But you already knew that, right?

As incredible as it may seem, finding one or two scientists who were wrong doesn't invalidate the work of tens of thousands of others. Only in Wingnut World, where you reside.

@windinhishair I'm sure one of many degrees taught you about the collusion and corruption discovered amongst some of your counterparts to skew the data, fuck up the models to make the results come out 'right'. You and the rest of you multi-degree, self promoting, academic blowhards destroyed your own credibility. So now, your only choice is to grab onto pathetic children to state your losing case.

@Budwick You are a sad example of the anti-science, anti-fact troglodytes make the world a worst place to live. There are literally tens of thousands of scientists working on global climate change issues, over 99% of whom accept the reality of a warming planet. There is no collusion or corruption of scientists in over 50 countries. You can jump up and down and cry and whine, but it doesn't change the facts.

@windinhishair [quote]over 99% of whom accept the reality [/quote]

The reality that their funding will vanish if they don't tow the line.

@Budwick Bullshit. But keep eating it. It keeps you alive.