I think she is neither a hero or a villain. Obviously like all of the AGW fellow travelers she absolutely clueless about the climate or the drivers of it but because she is on that side and being a young woman makes for good propaganda she is front and center. She needs a lot of education before I will even listen to her.
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Nothing to do with Exxon or any other oil company. The evidence points to the fact that CO2 is NOT a driver of climate. However the earth's magnetosphere and the sun's variable output are drivers of climate. All the evidence shows CO2 levels follow the warming/cooling trends and do not lead it. Also if CO2 is such a driver of climate how did life ever survive when the CO2 levels were much much much higher than they are today? Most biologists point out that our present levels of CO2 are so low as to endanger plant life. Little things that the anti oil crowd conveniently forgets all the time. Strange how that works. eh wot?
@fairefoutre Not nearly as much as you. I have studied the physics of CO2 theory. It was first debunked in the 1800s and the experiment has never been shown to be false. CO2 is not a driver of climate. BTW did you notice that Micheal Mann lost a law suit to the renowned climatologist Dr Tim Ball when Mann sued Ball. Ball simply asked Mann for his data and Mann refused to provide it. It will cost Mann over a million dollars since he has to pay Ball's legal bills. Now why would Mann refuse to release his data? I don't know of any other legitimate science or scientist that would refuse to turn over his data. Let alone refuse to turn them over under penalty of law which would cost you millions.
@fairefoutre how comes climate change has happened throughout time, the years between 950-1150 the earth warmed up much warmer than now and again in the 13th century...it's a circle and it will continue and the sea temperatures will go back to normal....they are having snow and flooding in Spain and this is all part of climate change and there is nothing that needs to done...it's normal....
A lot more than you obviously.....you're just a sheep following anything someone tells you ...and you can only reply with insults instead of common sense....@fairefoutre
Who is an expert....scientists continually are proved to be wrong and they have to appear to be earning the big money they are being paid....they will just follow other scientists who are wrong....no one can stop climate change until it's ready to change...@fairefoutre
@fairefoutre not the majority, but it's easy for them to follow and get paid, only the good ones know the truth...there you go with insults again...a losers trait....
@fairefoutre Hippie Joe would rather argue over the chair arrangement on the Titanic rather than consider he might not know everything. And claiming anthropomorphic climate change is not a thing because the climate has changed over billions of years is like saying an H bomb blast is normal because cosmic background radiation exists.
@fairefoutre [quote] Unlike you, I am trained in meteorology and also weather observation. [/quote] Ok, since you are so well-trained in these matters, perhaps you can answer a question I have about global warming, a question I have [i]never[/i] gotten a satisfactory answer to, including from some climatologists ("um, well, it's complicated...")
You will notice in the chart above, that the mean Earth temperature increased by about 0.5 C between 1910 and 1940. It likewise increased by about 0.6 C between 1980 and 2015, after remaining relatively unchanged between 1940 and 1980.
If global warming is primarily driven by human CO2 emissions, why was the rate of temperature increase about the same between 1910-1940 as it was between 1980-2015? The CO2 levels in the atmosphere are about 30% greater now than they were in 1910, and the [i]rate[/i] of CO2 emisssions is about 7 times greater now than then, so why is the rate of temperature increase about the same for both periods...?
I would be perfectly willing to accept anthropogenic global warming if someone could answer this for me.
(PS: "expert" opinion for a long time thought blood-letting with leeches was a good cure for many ailments)
I don't doubt that we are making [i]some[/i] contribution to climate change, but what [i]is[/i] that contribution? Is it 1%, 10%, 50%, 90%? If it's 10%, all the green new deals in the world won't make a significant dent.
I went to a lecture last year by the climatologist Michael Mann, the coiner of the expression 'hockey stick', regarding average global temperatures. I found his lecture very unconvincing, and of course he never mentioned the [i]real[/i] hockey stick, namely human population.
If human population were, say, 1 or 2 billion instead of almost 8 billion, none of this alleged anthropogenic climate change would be an issue.
