Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

So you want sources now https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/kochland-examines-how-the-koch-brothers-made-their-fortune-and-the-influence-it-bought"]New YorkerIf I thought you'd read it, I'd buy the book and send it to you. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/26/koch-brothers-americans-for-prosperity-rightwing-political-group"]The Guardianhttps://www.campaigncc.org/climate_change/sceptics/funders"]Funding Insight Only just saw this post now, I believe this really shows how devoid of interest you are in 'discussing' this topic. I know you're constantly pivoting on why it apparently annoys you but I think we are getting close to the the root cause. No one with any awareness of the Koch brothers could plead ignorance as to their motivations over recent years and yet here you are. The alignment of those arguing against Greta on this thread and in favour of the likes of Trump on others is quite revealing. It is clear it isn't discussion on climate change any longer. It is on overarching ideals.

Btw it was good to eventually see some sources (even if they are simply little more than media opinion pieces). However the point is that it's a bit late link dumping now after how many pages - all the while that poster oddly swiping others who did provide sources.

But yes correct - it's not an discussion on a very particular take on 'climate change' as has been pointed put to many times. It's a thread about gretas voyage to the new world. So the continued rantings about 'libetarian-koch-trump-anarcho capitalist' or whatever ****e thrown by way of insult at have nothing to do with the topic of this thread at all.

But there you go

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

CinemaGuy45

Tell me how wrote: »

You must understand it is not necessarily climate advocates calling for blanket/radical/impractical ideas. It is climate change luddites suggesting that that is what all activists want.
There is a distinct difference there. And one that is happening a lot, see the plant at the AOC meeting last week calling for eating babies. I've seen several on this thread say that climate activists think everyone should just die off. That is not what the majority or the loudest voices are saying. Please understand this.



We waste a lot. In a lot of ways. Waste is never good.
I don't see how that relates to your working habits. Unless you are a baker. Up to 54% of bread is never actually consumed...

Right then I see you are for sensible changes.
There are a fair few loons however.

Tell me how

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Right then I see you are for sensible changes.
There are a fair few loons however.

There are. Always will be. On both sides.
But, the majority, the vast majority of the 'loons' are those decrying the need for change or lambasting Greta for calling for it.

She is strongly, repeatedly, consistently advocating for science to take the lead and to influence governmental strategy to suggest changes.

To dispute the need for that is lunacy even though it will likely mean changes to our lifestyle in some ways.

We trust scientific practices in other ways.
Smokers stop on Dr's advice.
People try to lose weight on Dr's advice.
People cut down on alcohol on Dr's advice.
We eat foods scientists have said is safe for us to eat.
We take medications scientists have developed.
We use equipment that engineers have designed to be safe for us to use.

Why? To try to ensure longevity. Why should it be different with the environment?

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Btw it was good to eventually provide some sources (even if they are simply little more than opinion pieces). However the point is that it's a bit late link dumping now after how many pages - all the while that poster oddly swiping others who did provide sources.

But yes correct - it's not an discussion on a very particular take on 'climate change' as has been pointed put to many times. It's a thread about gretas voyage to the new world. So the continued rantings about 'libetarian-koch-trump-anarcho capitalist/i]' or whatever ****e thrown by way of insult at have nothing to do with the topic of this thread at all.

But there you go

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I hope you are recycling all the materials from the strawmen you are building and fighting before moving on to the next.

It would be at least one beneficial approach to your contribution here.

JJayoo

There are plenty of positive climate change projects going on unfortunately negativity/end of the world seems to sell more papers.

http://www.climateaction.org/news/portugal-runs-on-renewable-power-for-the-whole-of-march

"Portugal runs on renewable power for the whole of March"

"The high levels of renewable energy meant that a total of 1.8 million tonnes of CO2 was avoided"

That was in March 2018.


In 2019
"Portugal wants to more than double the production of renewable electricity by 2030, mainly through solar energy, under Portugal’s National Energy and Climate Plan 2030."

Pretty impressive, but positive = no sell

Professor Moriarty

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Edward Krug is a scientist who found out what happens when you publish and publicise research which disagrees with the political consensus. In his case it was the acid rain scare, he publicised his findings on the American TV program: "60 minutes" and was attacked for it.

That article is 27 years old. Irrelevant.

The acid rain scare originated in Sweden and was used by politicians of the generation to promote nuclear power. You have to see that in the context of the 1970s oil embargo, the campaign for nuclear disarmament they needed to sway public opinion and the issue of nuclear waste.

Yeah did you actually watch that video? It's short and shallow, but it's a relatively interesting discussion on how to dispose of nuclear waste in Finland. Apparently there isn't a lot anyway. Based on the video, apart from some archaeologist digging it up in 100,000 years, it's all good. So I've no idea why you use it to support any argument you're making.

The comparison between the use of fossil fuels and nuclear energy is interesting in another respect as well. In the same period when nuclear waste became part Of an intense public debate in Sweden and was identified as a problem, the first oil-crisis occurred.

In October 1973 the oil-producing countries in the Middle East decided to raise prices and cut the supplies to the Netherlands and USA, while the latter were in control of much of the international oil commerce. The public debate about energy started in Sweden at this time and was, for the rest of the decade, part of a broad debate about energy supply and environmental concerns. Nuclear power and nuclear waste were discussed and compared to Oil supply shortages and the effects of acid rain. The debate about energy issues overshadowed all other political questions in Swedish society during the 70s.

Politicians in favour of nuclear energy used to focus on the acid rain problem. Prime Minister Olaf Palme argued for expanding nuclear power, and often referred to Sweden's dependency on foreign oil, which he viewed as detrimental to national security as well as the economy and the environment. In the campaign before the general election in 1976, Palme said that his 'firm belief is that oil brings larger risks for human health and for the environment than nuclear power does", and concerning the management of the risks involved he argued that the risks associated with nuclear power are clearly mapped, and wished he "could be that sure concerning the management of the damage caused by burning oil." source

Why did you link to a book on the siting of nuclear waste? Especially as it is discussing issues from the 1960s and 1970s?

As he discovered a bureaucracy had built up around the acid rain scare and when it became a non-issue that did not please many people since "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.". That's also why catastrophic anthropogenic global warming does not have a solution either it is politicised science, if a magic bullet such as cold fusion was discovered tomorrow they would not be pleased at all.

Dunno why you needed to link to your quotation. Catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is science that is not, unfortunately, politicised enough.

Since Dr. Krug is retired you will not hear much from him, but if you would like to hear Dr. Krug speak here is his speech to CPAC in 1993. (Start at 2:30 if you want to skip the introduction).

He's discredited. Also, the video is 26 years old. I won't be watching it.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

There are. Always will be. On both sides.
But, the majority, the vast majority of the 'loons' are those decrying the need for change or lambasting Greta for calling for it.

want to address the questions over gretas repeated false statements, histrionics and performative outrage at all adults at platforms she hasnt earned?

theres really no need to tell everyone what you think they think again.

just your thoughts on the above, which has been asked of you yet again in the last few posts.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

want to address the questions over gretas repeated false statements, histrionics and performative outrage at all adults at platforms she hasnt earned?

theres really no need to tell everyone what you think they think again.

just your thoughts on the above, which has been asked of you yet again in the last few posts.

Has it? where?

On the first part.

I don't beleive Greta has intentionally used false statements. I believe she has always used a scientific basis for her position.
'Histronics and performative outragre' I think this is indicitive of the absence of any argument to her position that people want to attack the manner in which she delivers it.
we listen to sports people say things like 'scoring that goal was the best moment of my life'. Do we think they mean it?
When someone comes in to work on a Monday morning after a heavy weekend drinking and says 'I'm so sick I think I am going to die' do we rush and ring for an ambulance?
I can completely believe that Greta is frustrated by the inaction of bodies who are meant to be working for the benefit of all society and the fact that she got emotional on such a stage is evidence of how much this means to her rather than her 'performing' as some want to suggest.

By the way, she has most definitely earned the right to speak at such venues given her activism for such a cause. If anyone can motivate millions of people in over a hundred countries throughout at least a year to protest and call for action, they most definitely have earned the right to speak about that topic.



Now, why don't you tell me why you have a problem with governments using the advice of scientists to promote climate protecting policies and Greta's role in advocating for this?

Pa ElGrande

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

That article is 27 years old. Irrelevant.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Professor Moriarty

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Indeed. And all that is necessary for evil to flourish is that good men do nothing. Or block their eyes and ears.

Tell me how

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Those who do not understand science would be better off not discussing it....

JJayoo

The sleeping hedgehog finds no fish

Tell me how

JJayoo wrote: »

The sleeping hedgehog finds no fish

This is one of your more sensible posts.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Has it? where?

On the first part.

I don't beleive Greta has intentionally used false statements.

weasel words, and frankly i dont even believe you at that.

I believe she has always used a scientific basis for her position.

you know she has not. the headline grabbing elements are at best a dishonest stretch but in reality theyre lies, knowingly told in all likelihood but certainly knowingly not corrected because hey "raising awareness"

'Histronics and performative outragre' I think this is indicitive of the absence of any argument to her position that people want to attack the manner in which she delivers it.

it is no such thing. it is the heart of the matter. but your elision of the point is demonstrative of why greta is platformed, to tell anyone asking the hard questions about her headline-grabbing rants that they are attacking a young girl who just ~cares so damn much~

you either believe this and are imo intellectually compromised or you push it as a strategy in which case imo you are part of a problem in marketing good science and good policy to the population as if they were idiots. nothing good will come of this archly snobbish approach.

we listen to sports people say things like 'scoring that goal was the best moment of my life'. Do we think they mean it?
When someone comes in to work on a Monday morning after a heavy weekend drinking and says 'I'm so sick I think I am going to die' do we rush and ring for an ambulance?

i wont address such balderdash

I can completely believe that Greta is frustrated by the inaction of bodies who are meant to be working for the benefit of all society and the fact that she got emotional on such a stage is evidence of how much this means to her rather than her 'performing' as some want to suggest.

what an emotional, coached, scared and frankly conditioned teenager "believes" - weasel words again, imo- is of no interest and no relevance. this is precisely why she has no place on the platform. she is irrational and is no ambassador for science nor policy (which trumps science as a moral tool of governance under our civil structure).

she is either performing or she is behaving as she has been conditioned to. the end effect is the same, a moral panic bypassing our democratic structures using appeals to emotion, appeals to legitimacy (but dont ask any questions), appeals to majority, appeals to power.

it stinks.

By the way, she has most definitely earned the right to speak at such venues given her activism for such a cause. If anyone can motivate millions of people in over a hundred countries throughout at least a year to protest and call for action, they most definitely have earned the right to speak about that topic.

she is the symbolic figurehead of an enormous calculated well-funded and influential movement. if not her, someone else with the required characteristics (be that young, female, blonde, autistic, malleable, whatever) would have "motivated millions" instead.

she's been picked and youve gone along. your call but dont presume to bark at anyone disinclined to join the crusade, nor to know their position on anything other than nordic goddess-child-queen movements.

Now, why don't you tell me why you have a problem with governments using the advice of scientists to promote climate protecting policies

i dont

and Greta's role in advocating for this?

see above for my answer, and this is exactly the type of presumptuous projection that makes your position a limited use of anyone's time in discussion, including both of ours.

Pa ElGrande

Tell me how wrote: »

Those who do not understand science would be better off not discussing it....

That does not stop Greta and her enablers. She is a school drop out who does not understand any science behind her chosen subject and then has the temerity to put her hand on the IPCC bible and swear by it that we are all doomed. If she actually listened and learned from the scientists who research the subject there would be no grounds for her alarmism.


When I put up a presentation previously outlining the physics and the problems with CO2 warming nobody wanted to know. Here it is again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oog7-KOtpEA

Hal3000

The problem with all these little Eco kiddies flying up the ranks is - it didn’t take any discipline for them to attain it ( Dr Ian Malcolm)

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

weasel words, and frankly i dont even believe you at that.



you know she has not. the headline grabbing elements are at best a dishonest stretch but in reality theyre lies, knowingly told in all likelihood but certainly knowingly not corrected because hey "raising awareness"



it is no such thing. it is the heart of the matter. but your elision of the point is demonstrative of why greta is platformed, to tell anyone asking the hard questions about her headline-grabbing rants that they are attacking a young girl who just ~cares so damn much~

you either believe this and are imo intellectually compromised or you push it as a strategy in which case imo you are part of a problem in marketing good science and good policy to the population as if they were idiots. nothing good will come of this archly snobbish approach.



i wont address such balderdash



what an emotional, coached, scared and frankly conditioned teenager "believes" - weasel words again, imo- is of no interest and no relevance. this is precisely why she has no place on the platform. she is irrational and is no ambassador for science nor policy (which trumps science as a moral tool of governance under our civil structure).

she is either performing or she is behaving as she has been conditioned to. the end effect is the same, a moral panic bypassing our democratic structures using appeals to emotion, appeals to legitimacy (but dont ask any questions), appeals to majority, appeals to power.

it stinks.



she is the symbolic figurehead of an enormous calculated well-funded and influential movement. if not her, someone else with the required characteristics (be that young, female, blonde, autistic, malleable, whatever) would have "motivated millions" instead.

she's been picked and youve gone along. your call but dont presume to bark at anyone disinclined to join the crusade, nor to know their position on anything other than nordic goddess-child-queen movements.





i dont



see above for my answer, and this is exactly the type of presumptuous projection that makes your position a limited use of anyone's time in discussion, including both of ours.

All I get from this is that maybe you are jealous so that it is Greta that was 'picked' rather than yourself.
Is that the root of your argument or maybe you are simply 'intellectually compromised' yourself and see a problem where none exists if the issue is that there is a coordinated effort to enact change.

Weasel words? How do you even debate that?

JJayoo

What do all these young climate warriors think of Santa and his carbon footprint?

He clocks up serious miles and we have heard alot about how much large herbivores burp and fart harmful gasses.

you arent debating

youre telling anyone querying this platform that they are jealous of or lusting after the subject, and you then tell them they deny climate change

you've been doing it for several hundred pages or so

Tell me how

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

That does not stop Greta and her enablers. She is a school drop out who does not understand any science behind her chosen subject and then has the temerity to put her hand on the IPCC bible and swear by it that we are all doomed. If she actually listened and learned from the scientists who research the subject there would be no grounds for her alarmism.


When I put up a presentation previously outlining the physics and the problems with CO2 warming nobody wanted to know. Here it is again.

So, what is your issue with the IPCC report which was contributed to by scientists from 120 countries?

You keep putting up videos from YouTube. The first 5 minutes of that is the keynote speaker finding fault with the image used on an Al Gore book. Hardly indicative of scientific assessment. The presenter is not a climate scientist and in 1993 was dismissed from the Dept of Energy because his view on the Ozone hole countered with that of the rest of the scientists working there.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

you arent debating

youre telling anyone querying this platform that they are jealous of or lusting after the subject, and you then tell them they deny climate change

you've been doing it for several hundred pages or so

I'm countering positions of falsehood, including those denying climate change.
I'm countering people using subjective opinions as a basis for countering evidence.
I'm suggesting listening to scientists talking about their documented evidence.

If you think that anyone who disagrees with you is therefore 'not debating', I can't help you with that.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm countering positions of falsehood, including those denying climate change.
I'm countering people using subjective opinions as a basis for countering evidence.
I'm suggesting listening to scientists talking about their documented evidence.

If you think that anyone who disagrees with you is therefore 'not debating', I can't help you with that.

you finally pretended to address the actual subject of this thread just there- the troubling aspects of having a troubled teen figurehead a movement that claims to want to seriously address a complex, long term global issue.

you pooh-poohed and handwaved away the issues raised with the nature of her platforming, her tendency to repeatedly play with truth for headlines, etc

thats actually the thread topic and your big effort was that you didnt believe that greta believes she's lying for headlines.

you're fcukin right I'll call those weasel words. the whole thing is deeply troubling.

Professor Moriarty

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

That does not stop Greta and her enablers. She is a school drop out who does not understand any science behind her chosen subject and then has the temerity to put her hand on the IPCC bible and swear by it that we are all doomed. If she actually listened and learned from the scientists who research the subject there would be no grounds for her alarmism.


When I put up a presentation previously outlining the physics and the problems with CO2 warming nobody wanted to know. Here it is again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oog7-KOtpEA

William Happer? Seriously?

[URL="chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/The-Real-Truth-About-Greenhouse-Gases-and-Climate-Change.pdf"]Here[/URL] is a comprehensive rebuttal of Happer's arguments.
Here is another rebuttal by Nobel Prize winner Michael Oppenheimer. His views are even too off the wall for Trump.
Here's a simple deconstruction of some of Happer's outlandish claims

Here's a quote that just about sums him up: ""demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler"

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm countering positions of falsehood, including those denying climate change.

Are you really? - why pick on only one viewpoint. then? A multitude of 'falsehoods' evidently contained in many other replies (which you odly agree with) but strangely you haven't touched on them. Odd indeed.

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm countering people using subjective opinions as a basis for countering evidence. I'm suggesting listening to scientists talking about their documented evidence.

No you're not. It seems you keep on repeating inane gretacisms which have no bearing on reality.

Tell me how wrote: »

If you think that anyone who disagrees with you is therefore 'not debating', I can't help you with that.

I dont think you can - what you are saying is that you are basically a fulltime "counterer" or in other words a - contrarian

Well done. I must admit you seem to do that very well ...

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Are you really? - why pick on only one viewpoint. then? A multitude of 'falsehoods' evidently contained in many other replies (which you odly agree with) but strangely you haven't touched on them. Odd indeed.

Because, if you analyse any opinion which takes place on a large scale, you will find subjective opinions do break in to it. But, accounting for these on both sides, leaves one with the suggestion of listen to the scientists and support their work and the other with virtually nothing.
I am in favour of doing what we can in order to become sustainable and I will support the view of those advocating for that as oppose to those who say they need 100% irrefutable evidence from their preferred source before considering any action.

gozunda wrote: »

No you're not. It seems you keep on repeating inane gretacisms which have no bearing on reality.

the only message I have repeated here is.
Listen. To. The. Scientists.

And will continute to do so.

gozunda wrote: »

NI dont think you can - what you are saying is that you are basically a fulltime "counterer" or in other words a - contrarian

Rather a contrarian of pessimism in the face of overwhelming evidence than a denier or a need for action.

I am glad that you seem to see my position as consistent. I wish I could ay the same for your good self.

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Edward Krug is a scientist who found out what happens when you publish and publicise research which disagrees with the political consensus. In his case it was the acid rain scare, he publicised his findings on the American TV program: "60 minutes" and was attacked for it.

Oh look, another link to an institution with strong links to the oil industry (Exxon Mobil funding) and the Koch's (through the president of the institution) - thanked by gozunda and all! - big fucking surprise...

If you're a fan of the Upton Sinclair quote - "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - then why in fuck are you always quoting sources paid by fossil fuel interests with a history of propaganda/lies/deciet?

KyussB

KyussB wrote: »

Oh look, another link to an institution with strong links to the oil industry (Exxon Mobil funding) and the Koch's (through the president of the institution) - thanked by gozunda and all! - big fucking surprise...

If you're a fan of the Upton Sinclair quote - "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - then why in fuck are you always quoting sources paid by fossil fuel interests with a history of propaganda/lies/deciet?

your language is atrocious

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Another interesting saying that, given that you seem to forget about the existence of the Koch's and the likes of Exxon Mobil, their history of blatant deceitful propaganda, and how citing sources majorly linked to their think tank networks, renders those sources worthless - in almost every post, repeating the past again and again...

It's almost like your selection of sources is deliberately chosen from this propaganda network...

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

That does not stop Greta and her enablers. She is a school drop out who does not understand any science behind her chosen subject and then has the temerity to put her hand on the IPCC bible and swear by it that we are all doomed. If she actually listened and learned from the scientists who research the subject there would be no grounds for her alarmism.


When I put up a presentation previously outlining the physics and the problems with CO2 warming nobody wanted to know. Here it is again.


[noparse]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oog7-KOtpEA

[/noparse]

Oh look! Another person who is the co-founder of a Koch funded think-tank denying the scientific consensus on climate change *puts hands to side of face in mock expression of shock* (oh and it's also thanked by gozunda - doubly shocking...)

This particular nutter assures us that CO2 is good for us, and that we should promote even more! Lovely.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Because, if you analyse any opinion which takes place on a large scale, you will find subjective opinions do break in to it. But, accounting for these on both sides, leaves one with the suggestion of listen to the scientists and support their work and the other with virtually nothing.

Nope. Your thoughts about your own intellectual largese appear off the scale. But heyho. The main idea I have seen pushed from your comments is that we should inexplicably believe greta. And that has been shown to be totally a non sequitur.

Tell me how wrote: »

I am in favour of doing what we can in order to become sustainable and I will support the view of those advocating for that as oppose to those who say they need 100% irrefutable evidence from their preferred source before considering any action.

Well indeed. Vague mutterings from a child prophetess are hardly "100% irrefutable evidence". Others are absolutely correct in pointing this out.

Tell me how wrote: »

the only message I have repeated here is.
Listen. To. The. Scientists.And will continute to do so.

Nope. Again. As you yourself have kept exhorting us to follow gretas word - which you have interpreted oddly as being 'listen to the scientists' even though it is clear - she hasn't bothered doing that herself.

Tell me how wrote: »

rather a contrarian of pessimism in the face of overwhelming evidence than a denier or a need for action.I am glad that you seem to see my position as consistent. I wish I could ay the same for your good self.

Trurly glad you've finally acknowledged your inate contrairan stance. But you need to also realise that reality is not 'pessimism' - it is simply reality. That's it.