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

IamtheWalrus

EXTINCTION

REBELLION

gozunda

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

EXTINCTION

REBELLION

On the vino?

Lol. Thread is about gretas voyage to the new world ...

Crusties thread here

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

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.

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

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.

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.

You are deliberately misinterpreting my position, and indeed Greta's which is your prerogative but has no basis in what is going on.

So be it, but let's not dress it up as anything else. Your motivations for doing so are your own but if you were someone I cared about in real life, I would suggest you explore them to give yourself some peace.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

You are deliberately misinterpreting my position, and indeed Greta's which is your prerogative but has no basis in what is going on. So be it, but let's not dress it up as anything else. Your motivations for doing so are your own but if you were someone I cared about in real life, I would suggest you explore them to give yourself some peace.

Nope. Wrong. It is simply as described. No requirement for the ad hominem btw...

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. Wrong. It is simply as described. No requirement for the ad hominem btw...

You've had about 10 different positions for your opposition to Greta so if it's anything, it isn't 'simply as described'.

I'm going to continue calling that as it is even though it is boring for me to do it, and others to read it but I have no interest in letting someone spout nonsense and just not challenge it because they refuse to stop.

This is a topic where action is needed, and voices reducing the awareness of that without suggesting positive alternative approaches are ultimately delaying positive action been taken. Those voices are entitled to express their opinion, I'm entitled to challenge it.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

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.

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?

You do seem obsessed with Koch and not only are you mesmerized by all things Koch - you also appear to a place a lot of meaning into checking who thanks what and if you dont like it - it's more to do with Kochs :rolleyes:

Unlike most of your own repetitive comments about Kochs - PAs are fully referenced and properly put together. I certainly am not going to thank your ramblings for sure about 'Kochs'.

Its all a bit well frankly puerile. In the same vein oddly you appear to use the thanks system to approve of all kinds of dubious comments - yet attribute anyone else thanking a poster as 'back slapping" for the Kochs

Is there any oppinion which you do not agree with - that you do not attribute to some variation of Koch? Tbh It sounds like you are obsessed for sure ...

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

You've had about 10 different positions for your opposition to Greta so if it's anything, it isn't 'simply as described'.I'm going to continue calling that as it is even though it is boring for me to do it, and others to read it but I have no interest in letting someone spout nonsense and just not challenge it because they refuse to stop. This is a topic where action is needed, and voices reducing the awareness of that without suggesting positive alternative approaches are ultimately delaying positive action been taken. Those voices are entitled to express their opinion, I'm entitled to challenge it.

That was referring to your comments - not mine btw lol. Capiche? Interesting that you state that posters should only have one single argument to voice. Which I presume as you are suggesting - must like yours be repeated ad infinitum or is it the case that no one allowed to discuss multiple issues no? Why is that? Because you say so? - or censure by the divine right of 'Tell me how'? Who says you are the dictator of what is right or what is needed? To be honest such sentiments show a purely delusional bent of argument at best. To paraphrase the general direction of your comments are disingenuous to the point of tedium. But heyho that's not new.....

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

You are obsessed with Koch and not only are you mesmerized by all things Koch - you also appear to a place a lot of meaning into checking who thanks what and if you dont like it - it's more Koch :rolleyes:

Its all a bit well frankly puerile. In the same vein oddly you appear to use the thanks system to approve of all kinds of dubious comments - yet attribute anyone else thanking a poster as 'back slapping" for the Kochs

Is there any oppinion which you do not agree with - that you do not attribute to some variation of Koch? Tbh It sounds like you are obsessed with Kochs lot for sure ...

Well done on the subtle repeated wordplay - almost missed that...

It's pretty simple: Why is almost everything Grande links, easily tied back to funding from the Koch's? They are notorious and very well documented propagandists - it is ridiculously trivial/easy to expose sources who have ties to them - and Grande knows all of this, and keeps doing the same thing over and over again.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Well done on the subtle repeated wordplay - almost missed that...
It's pretty simple: Why is almost everything Grande links, easily tied back to funding from the Koch's? They are notorious and very well documented propagandists - it is ridiculously trivial/easy to expose sources who have ties to them - and Grande knows all of this, and keeps doing the same thing over and over again.

Perhaps you have an over active imagination regarding the Kochs - ever think that?
For certain you have provided no backup information or eliable references to your various allegations - just long rambling soliloquys on how they Kochs are responsible for everything including the dog.

Pehaps simply try having a normal discussions without conjuring up the Kochs at every single daft opportunity when you happen to disagree with someone.

KyussB

Another poster already has provided ample information on the Koch's - and everyone reading the thread has seen your stupid game of demanding that you be spoonfed a meticulous level of detailed, tedious, goalpost-shifting proof - which you then shit on in the end, anyway.

Here is an example of something I know in advance you're just going to shit on, rather than acknowledge:
The video posted earlier - William Happer - co-founder of CO2 Coalition - which "receives funding from the Mercer Family Foundation and Koch brothers" (previous link).

If you're not here to engage with posters genuinely, what are you here for?

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Another poster already has provided ample information on the Koch's - and everyone reading the thread has seen your stupid game of demanding that you be spoonfed a meticulous level of detailed, tedious, goalpost-shifting proof - which you then shit on in the end, anyway.
Here is an example of something I know in advance you're just going to shit on, rather than acknowledge:
The video posted earlier - William Happer - co-founder of CO2 Coalition - which "receives funding from the Mercer Family Foundation and Koch brothers" (previous link).
If you're not here to engage with posters genuinely, what are you here for?

Nope. Just some proper references for your various statements and allegations would be sufficient.

Yet we have posters deriding others for providing sourced and referenced information - see:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111449925&postcount=5403
and you claim that others asking the same of you are somehow requesting "spoonfed a meticulous level of detailed, tedious, goalpost-shifting proof"

Btw the 'other poster's' 'ample information' (sic) were simply a couple of media opinion pieces and now you only offer a video and wiki? :rolleyes: where one group receives funding - That's it? Seriously?

Indeed. I've no need to restate yet again this thread is about greta travels to the new world - it's not about the the family Koch - so my opportunity to ask what exactly are you here for?

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. Just some proper references for your various statements and allegations would be sufficient.

Yet we have posters deriding others for providing sourced and referenced information - see:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111449925&postcount=5403
and you claim that others asking the same of you are somehow requesting "spoonfed a meticulous level of detailed, tedious, goalpost-shifting proof"

Btw the 'other poster's' 'ample information' (sic) were simply a couple of media opinion pieces and now you only offer a video and wiki? :rolleyes: where one group receives funding - That's it? Seriously?

Indeed. I've no need to restate yet again this thread is about greta travels to the new world - it's not about the the family Koch - so my opportunity to ask what exactly are you here for?

You've thanked virtually every post opposing climate activism or decrying those in support of Greta or her efforts.

Including those using 30 year old information, Fox News or a myriad of 'conservative' voices with nothing more than their opinion so I'd stop rolling the eyes if I were you and admit you have no interest in any voice other than those finding fault with climate activists.

Jimmy Garlic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNmeWNdX5-g

pjohnson

KyussB wrote: »

If you're not here to engage with posters genuinely, what are you here for?

To mock a child possibly smarter than him so he can feel good about himself.

Fr_Dougal

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

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"

I think you might have mixed up your links. There’s no rebuttal of his research.

Happer is a well respected scientist.

They simply refer back to the flawed IPCC report.

pjohnson

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

I think you might have mixed up your links. There’s no rebuttal of his research.

Happer is a well respected scientist.

They simply refer back to the flawed IPCC report.

Wakefield is a well respected doctor.

lleti

Sick of people saying "even if it is all a lie, the result is a cleaner planet. It's a win win"

I have no problem with a cleaner planet, it's who pays for it. We're ramping up population while taxing people more and more. That's the problem.

There should be an incentive to not have kids.

Professor Moriarty

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

I think you might have mixed up your links. There’s no rebuttal of his research.

Happer is a well respected scientist.

They simply refer back to the flawed IPCC report.

You didn't bother reading the links. Happer respected? Eh no.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

You've thanked virtually every post opposing climate activism or decrying those in support of Greta or her efforts.
Including those using 30 year old information, Fox News or a myriad of 'conservative' voices with nothing more than their opinion so I'd stop rolling the eyes if I were you and admit you have no interest in any voice other than those finding fault with climate activists.

Lol. You do have a bee in the old bonnet dont you. Btw you spend considerable time taking notice of who thanks what - I dont.

But as to who I thank - not only is that none of your business- the ones thanked are generally well argued posts which are referenced. So that excludes most of yours for sure.

And If any of those thanked posts do 'oppose climate activism' (sic) it is because said activism is little more than hogwash masquerading as righteousness. Christ and there you go again with the gretacisms lol . I'll take it you've yet to reach the age of majority What more can I say ...

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Lol. You do have a bee in the old bonnet dont you. Btw you spend considerable time taking notice of who thanks what - I dont.

But as to who I thank - not only is that none of your business- the ones thanked are generally well argued posts which are referenced. So that excludes most of yours for sure.

And If any of those thanked posts do 'oppose climate activism' (sic) it is because said activism is little more than hogwash masquerading as righteousness. Christ and there you go again with the gretacisms lol . I'll take it you've yet to reach the age of majority What more can I say ...

For the love of God, stop using '(sic)' incorrectly.

The sic you see in quoted text marks a spelling or grammatical error. It means that the text was quoted verbatim, and the mistake it marks appears in the source. It’s actually a Latin word that means “so” or “thus.”

Sic is usually found in brackets or parentheses, and it can also be italicized. If you want to quote someone or something in your work, and you notice the source material contains a spelling or grammatical error, you use sic to denote the error by placing it right after the mistake. It shows your readers that you didn’t just make a typo.

baaba maal

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. Wrong. It is simply as described. No requirement for the ad hominem btw...

gozunda wrote: »

Lol. You do have a bee in the old bonnet dont you. Btw you spend considerable time taking notice of who thanks what - I dont.

But as to who I thank - not only is that none of your business- the ones thanked are generally well argued posts which are referenced. So that excludes most of yours for sure.

And If any of those thanked posts do 'oppose climate activism' (sic) it is because said activism is little more than hogwash masquerading as righteousness. Christ and there you go again with the gretacisms lol . I'll take it you've yet to reach the age of majority What more can I say ...

You pointed out another poster's ad hominems a few posts back- you then smiley face joke about a poster reaching the age of majority. Which one of this reflects the real Gozunda?

YFlyer

I bet that guy in the recent video believes in the perpetual energy machine.

drunkmonkey

https://twitter.com/virginiaraggi/status/1181119461811769344?s=19

They really shouldn't be using kids for political gains. Shame on Leo and the rest or them for exploting her and we've ended up in a situation where people want to hang her from a bridge. Can't be good for her well being.

Tell me how

drunkmonkey wrote: »

They really shouldn't be using kids for political gains. Shame on Leo and the rest or them for exploting her and we've ended up in a situation where people want to hang her from a bridge. Can't be good for her well being.

It's a measure of the messed up behaviour of many that someone would look at that tweet, and blame people on the side of climate change for putting Greta in such a position instead of the neanderthals that thought of making a mannequin and doing that to it.

Shame on you for suggesting it.

drunkmonkey

On the side of climate change, listens to the science. Pure nonsense, nobody is going to change the climate and the left cherry pick what science they listen to.
They've used the lowest of low tactics exploting a girl with special needs as their mascot. There complete low life's shame on them. If she was an Irish student her parents would be facing prosecution.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

For the love of God, stop using '(sic)' incorrectly.

Know everything do we? :rolleyes:

For the love of dodge stop fuking lecturing others about which you know nothing.

The Latin adverb sic ("thus", "just as"; in full: sic erat scriptum, "thus was it written")[1]inserted after a quoted word or passage indicates that the quoted matter has been transcribed or translated exactly as found in the source text, complete with any erroneous, archaic, or otherwise nonstandard spelling. It also applies to any surprising assertion, faulty reasoning, or other matter that might be likely interpreted as an error of transcription.

So yes - I was correctly highlighting your faulty reasoning that I was and I quote - thanking posts "opposing climate activism"

So you can mark today down as a good day - when you have actually learned something new and can drop your ignorance of the correct use of the term 'sic'.

You're welcome.

gozunda

baaba maal wrote: »

You pointed out another poster's ad hominems a few posts back- you then smiley face joke about a poster reaching the age of majority. Which one of this reflects the real Gozunda?

Nope. That was an actual observation with a hint of humour of who as an adult and goes around quoting gretacisms as if she was someone like Chairman Mao. I'm truely sorry you dont like smiley faces

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Know everything do we? :rolleyes:

For the love of dodge stop fuking lecturing others about which you know nothing.




So yes - I was correctly highlighting your faulty reasoning. So you can mark today down as a good day - when you have actually learned something new and can drop your ignorance of the correct use of the term 'sic'.

You're welcome.

Please read this until you understand it.

It also applies to any surprising assertion, faulty reasoning, or other matter that might be likely interpreted as an error of transcription.

The last 9 words are key, it does not suggest that it can be used to highlight faulty reasoning (or the judgment of content as such) without the erroneous spelling/transcription.

If you think it does, please feel free to PM me some examples where it has being used as such. I know some don't want the topic discussed excessively on this thread.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Please read this until you understand it. The last 9 words are key, it does not suggest that it can be used to highlight faulty reasoning (or the judgment of content as such) without the erroneous spelling/transcription.If you think it does, please feel free to PM me some examples where it has being used as such. I know some don't want the topic discussed excessively on this thread.

More faulty reasoning lol?

Do I have to point everything out. Back to school with you! So put down the shovel and step away from the hole you have dug for yourself before you fall in

Please note the use of the word OR

Here it is again as you clearly didnt understand it the first time with the 'OR' highlighted for you.

The Latin adverb sic ("thus", "just as"; in full: sic erat scriptum, "thus was it written")[1]inserted after a quoted word or passage indicates that the quoted matter has been transcribed or translated exactly as found in the source text, complete with any erroneous, archaic, or otherwise nonstandard spelling. It also applies to any surprising assertion, faulty reasoning, or other matter that might be likely interpreted as an error of transcription.

Heres that point reiterated

Sic may also be inserted derisively, to call attention to the original writer's spelling mistakes or erroneous logic, or to show general disapproval or dislike of the material.

Now if you are quite finished trying to derail the thread - let us proceed to talk about gretas travels in the new world ...

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. Just some proper references for your various statements and allegations would be sufficient.

Yet we have posters deriding others for providing sourced and referenced information - see:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111449925&postcount=5403
and you claim that others asking the same of you are somehow requesting "spoonfed a meticulous level of detailed, tedious, goalpost-shifting proof"

Btw the 'other poster's' 'ample information' (sic) were simply a couple of media opinion pieces and now you only offer a video and wiki? :rolleyes: where one group receives funding - That's it? Seriously?

Indeed. I've no need to restate yet again this thread is about greta travels to the new world - it's not about the the family Koch - so my opportunity to ask what exactly are you here for?

Do you care or have even the remotest interest in whether or not a source you're happy to back/backslap, is known for being funded by notorious propagandists/doubt-peddlers? (and I'm talking generally, here - not limited to the Koch's)

I think everyone seeing the last couple of pages from you will know the true answer - but I want to put the question to you and see what you say anyway...(am anticipating evasion)