SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Journal by turgid
The Alt-Wrong have got themselves an Anti-Greta by the name of Naomi Seibt.
The 19-year-old German is a Climate Change Denier and Islamophobe. She is also apparently a member of and speaks to the far-right Alternative für Deutschland, an organisation associated with Brexit's very own Nigel Farage.
Apparently Seibt will be addressing the conservative CPAC this week in the USA along side Trump and Pence.
Reply to: Re:Unabashed hypocrites
Post Comment
No self-made man ever did such a good job that some woman didn't
want to make some alterations.
-- Kim Hubbard
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @06:13AM
Speech of Greta [youtube.com]
Speech of Naomi [youtube.com]
Anti-greta doesn't make any sense. Greta relies on invoking her own emotion paired with emotional appeals, hyperbole, ad-hominem, and so on.
Naomi literally says "Do not create an ideology out of what a young girl has to say on a topic, regardless of the side she's on." "Do not believe every word I say unconditionally.. do your research and form your opinion on the climate change situation and on any other political topic." And she says that in a mature, direct fashion.
---
An anti-Greta would be shredding crocodile tears and ranting and raving in an equal but opposite fashion of Greta. She does not do this. And indeed it remains stupid to listen to what a young girl has personally to say on such topics. But unlike Greta she tends to mention specific testable and, most importantly, *FALSIFIABLE* facts. For instance did the IPCC predict a third of a degree of global warming per decade from 1990? Have we had less, or more warming? Have we had more, or less, CO2 emissions than the IPCC was assuming for their models? If you're not aware of the answers here it's [Yes][Much Less][Much more].
If you'd actually stop to read the papers you site with headlines like 'Climate Models Have Been Really Accurate, Honestly!' you'll see that's only after they dramatically change the climate forcing assumptions. Climate forcing basically being how much human CO2 influences atmospheric CO2 levels. Turns out it's *way* less than we used to think, and there's no real reason to think we have it correct now either. We just keep changing the "constant" to fit observed reality which, invariably, has little to no connection to predicted reality.
But people don't personally look at these things, or even read the papers they site. They just rant and rave. And people like Greta fuel the hysteria by making claims we're in a mass extinction. It's very reckless and very dangerous. Charismatic speakers tickling people's emotions has a very checkered past, and one I think few people would ever support if they could somehow force themselves to have some degree of objective introspection.