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

baaba maal

SJW Lover wrote: »

If you are worried about the Koch's then i'd also look up Maurice Strong



Strong commissioned the report "Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet". He then established the Stockholm Conference which was the first time countries were brought together to discuss the global environment. He then established the UNEP and was its first executive director. He was one of the Commissioners of the World Commission on Environment and Development. He was appointed Secretary General of the UN Conference on Environment and Development known as the "Earth Summit" in Rio. He drafted the terms of reference for the IPCC whose studies are being relied on to support the claims of human carbon emissions driven global climate change. He was a co-founder of the 1001 Club which is the piggy bank of the World Wildlife Fund.


Why is the above interesting or relevant? Strong was an associate of David Rockefeller (Standard Oil) and Strong himself was involved in Dome Petroleum, Ajax Petroleum, Norcen Resources, AZL Resources, Ontario Hydro and headed up Petro-Canada at the request of Daddy Trudeau.


So, when you decry people like the Koch's, who i have no time for by the way, you might also want to take a look at who is behind the climate movement and then have a think about why such amoral capitalists see this as a good thing to tie their mast to.

Your post makes it look as if for every Koch, there is a Strong- I would suggest the total number of petrochemical billionaires who secretly undercut the industry to fool the public with climate change chicanery is rather small.

I had never heard of Maurice Strong- his Wiki page lists his achievements in summary:
Maurice Frederick Strong, PC, CC, OM, FRSC, FRAIC (April 29, 1929 – November 27, 2015) was a Canadian oil and mineral businessman and a diplomat who served as Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations.[4][5]
Strong had his start as an entrepreneur in the Alberta oil patch and was President of Power Corporation of Canada until 1966. In the early 1970s he was Secretary General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and then became the first executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme. He returned to Canada to become Chief Executive Officer of Petro-Canada from 1976 to 1978. He headed Ontario Hydro, one of North America's largest power utilities, was national president and chairman of the Extension Committee of the World Alliance of YMCAs, and headed American Water Development Incorporated. He served as a commissioner of the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1986[6] and was recognised by the International Union for Conservation of Nature as a leader in the international environmental movement.[7]
He was President of the Council of the University for Peace from 1998 to 2006. More recently Strong was an active honorary professor at Peking University and honorary chairman of its Environmental Foundation. He was chairman of the advisory board for the Institute for Research on Security and Sustainability for Northeast Asia.[8] He died at the age of 86 in 2015.[9]

Looks to me that he may well have been a dodgy businessman (in both oil and water projects), but once he made his money he moved towards things that might benefit humanity (for whatever reason). There is no evidence presented that he has been secretly funding a wide range of CC conspiracy nonsense a la the Kochs (and I appreciate you said you were not a fan of them).

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Gees, you need every thing pointed out to you don't you.

It's when those people make a public comment on something outside of their profession that is relevant. People don't immediately say 'look what Ronaldo's PR company put out'

in context of defending what greta brings to the table without having been selected and platformed, you said that sports stars et al were platformed to achieve what they do. which is rubbish.

now you're shifting when called out.

unsurprising.

gozunda

baaba maal wrote: »

It isn't an actual observation, you had called out a personal slight on you but then belittle somebody else by sarcastically suggesting they were children. Just because you then claim that you were being humorous does not differentiate between the two as you can't possibly know (for a fact) the intention of the other person.
I never said I didn't like smiley faces, I only pointed out your use of one in that situation. So add a many little faces as you like to express your emotions- I'll honestly be ok (insert- thumbs up, smiley, rainbows etc.).However, as a general point, you should read actually posts first and then comment on them.

Your lack of comprehension is showing again I'm afraid. There was no 'sarcasm' and that was the point - quoting someone repetively like they are a god is indeed childish and yes by that fact it was indeed humourous. Do you understand that no?

As to the rest of what you have written - I'm sorry to burst your bubble but that is absolute tosh and bollix. Whilst your solicitude can be viewed as possibly endearing and creepy in equal measure - If you really dont like what others say then report it or get off the pot.

Perhaps you could actually try discussing the topic in hand and not take to soley attacking other posters?

baaba maal

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

The IPCC report, a single source of flawed information that isn’t even peer reviewed.

1. Not a single source- elements of the reports (you are aware they have issued five major reports so far and a number of smaller ones) are drawn from organisations in 180 countries.

2. Review process is built in to the programme with every organisation invited to nominate reviewers for each report.

I'd be delighted for your detailed analysis of all the flaws (and flaws there will be given the scale of the process), but I will go out on a limb here and say you might be overreaching with your sweeping statement above.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

At this point, my posts read like they are meant for a different thread. If I were making more sense when I was pirouetting from one argument to the next. My latest contributions are..... well, they're gibberish really.

FYP ...

I couldnt agree more. You are spot on there for sure

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Your lack of comprehension is showing again I'm afraid. There was no 'sarcasm' and that was the point - quoting someone repetively like they are a god is indeed childish and yes by that fact it was indeed humourous. Do you understand that no?

As to the rest of the crap you have written - I'm sorry to bust your bubble but that is absolute tosh and bollix. Whilst your solicitude can be viewed as possibly endearing and creepy in equal measure - If you really dont like what others say then report it or get off the pot.

Perhaps you could actually try discussing the topic in hand and not take to soley attacking other posters?

You've lost it mate. Go for a walk.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

FYP ...

I couldnt agree more. You are spot on there for sure

Wow, editing someones posts without acknowledging it, quality debate. Make that walk a long one.

Veritas Libertas

drunkmonkey wrote: »

A carbon tax is a tax on everything, prices rises across the board from a bar of chocolate to insurance. More tax means more money for politicans and their follies.

Not necessarily true from what I can gather, I used to be in the same boat of belief as you.

They not only help the environment but also make companies more efficient.
You only need to make green energies marginally cheaper than their carbon counterparts to create a market, which then drives the technology further; it has a snowball effect.

There's also quotas that everybody has which helps small companies more; it more so forces the larger polluters to re-asses their company practises.

It seems taxes/incentives already have had a great effect on carbon output, and we're nearly on course to meet our goal by 2050.

I've posted this video series couple times now; but I'm yet to see anyone counter the points in these videos:

• Global warming is a real and valid problem
• Its a problem first addressed by conservatives(Margaret Thatcher not Al Gore)
• We have been globally addressing this problem since Thatcher
• The green movement has been coopted by socialists intent on overthrowing society
• We're pretty much on course to reduce our carbon emissions to where needed by 2050
• We have dumped enough carbon into the atmosphere to cause more extreme weather events/patterns

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D99qI42KGB0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fV6eeckxTs

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

in context of defending what greta brings to the table without having been selected and platformed, you said that sports stars et al were platformed to achieve what they do. which is rubbish.

now you're shifting when called out.

unsurprising.

Except I didn't say that. My point was (as you know) many famous peoples statements or positions are taken as being tied to their own beliefs.
Greta though, it is being suggested it is all being managed by PR.

baaba maal

@gozunda- I was referring to your line "I'll take it you've yet to reach the age of majority What more can I say" and contrasting that with you telling others not to use ad hominems.

No lack of comprehension there, except possibly on your side.

"If you really don't like what others say then report it or get off the pot"- I was responding to you saying "sorry" for using smilies.- you like the little bit of drama I see.

"Perhaps you could actually try discussing the topic in hand and not take to soley attacking other posters?"- says the person who has posted a number of times on issues not in the original subject line. You might take your own advice on that.

so what we have here is a group of posters who dont wish to discuss nor explain the role of figurehead for a vulnerable teenager, conditioned to panic on a particular topic, in a highly influential media and policy campaign that puts her in the eye of the storm in a current hotly debated global topic

they dont want to discuss who put her there. Who keeps her there. Why they want her there. Why she is so vital (in their words all she says that we need to listen to is "listen to the science").

they dont want to discuss her stress levels when speaking to the collected might of the UN, and they certainly dont want to discuss her falsehoods and her dramatics on that stage (because hey, headlines).

they instead derail this thread into discussion of their hobbyhorse economic conspiracy theories and their hobbyhorse climate change studies.

they engage frequently and reflexively in ad-hom and drag the debate off topic constantly.

they may or may not want the thread locked (i suspect they do, their behaviour follows a strict pattern) but one thing is sure- they dont want anyone discussing who puts greta thunberg in front of us and our leaders, how they have done so and why they are doing so.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

so what we have here is a group of posters who dont wish to discuss nor explain the role of figurehead for a vulnerable teenager, conditioned to panic on a particular topic, in a highly influential media and policy campaign that puts her in the eye of the storm in a current hotly debated global topic

they dont want to discuss who put her there. Who keeps her there. Why they want her there. Why she is so vital (in their words all she says that we need to listen to is "listen to the science").

they dont want to discuss her stress levels when speaking to the collected might of the UN, and they certainly dont want to discuss her falsehoods and her dramatics on that stage (because hey, headlines).

they instead derail this thread into discussion of their hobbyhorse economic conspiracy theories and their hobbyhorse climate change studies.

they engage frequently and reflexively in ad-hom and drag the debate off topic constantly.

they may or may not want the thread locked (i suspect they do, their behaviour follows a strict pattern) but one thing is sure- they dont want anyone discussing who puts greta thunberg in front of us and our leaders, how they have done so and why they are doing so.

This thread is 5535 posts in.
The conspiracy theorists have had their go (from several angles).
I can't speak for everyone but I know my position is that ultimately Greta is talking sense, has done tremendous work, is leading by example and is deferring to the professionals.

All of the above is evidence based, if you want to produce similar evidence about your chosen topic, please offer it rather than hypothesising that it cannot be discussed.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Wow, editing someones posts without acknowledging it, quality debate. Make that walk a long one.

You really somehow believe your last narkey comment met the criteria for 'quality debate' ?....

I gather that similar to not understanding the use of the term 'sic' - you also do not know what the acronym FYP stands for ?

It means - Fixed Your Post. I did that. No need to thank me

I'm going to leave you now to your insults ....

gozunda

baaba maal wrote: »

@gozunda- I was referring to your line "I'll take it you've yet to reach the age of majority What more can I say" and contrasting that with you telling others not to use ad hominems.No lack of comprehension there, except possibly on your side."If you really don't like what others say then report it or get off the pot"- I was responding to you saying "sorry" for using smilies.- you like the little bit of drama I see."Perhaps you could actually try discussing the topic in hand and not take to soley attacking other posters?"- says the person who has posted a number of times on issues not in the original subject line. You might take your own advice on that.

Yeah and as pointed out you were wrong so you can get over that. Though it is evident you still dont understand what was said. Deliberately so I would imagine.

Indeed yes - I do abide by what I have said. So either discuss the topic or items which are relevant to that topic or stop pissing in the wind. Not my alleged use of 'sarcasm' or whatever.

Or is it that you have some more utensils from the kitchen sink you would like to keep throwing? As I said if you don't like something report it. Dont write a fracking fictional essay and bore us all to tears ..

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

You really somehow believe your last narkey comment met the criteria for 'quality debate' ? lol ....

I gather that similar to not understanding the use of the term 'sic' - you also do not know what the acronym FYP stands for ?

It means - Fixed Your Post. I did that. No need to thank me

I'm going to leave you now to your insults ....

I'm still quite sure you are wrong on the (sic) by the way, I did ask for examples to support your view of it but I have yet to receive them.

As for FYP, it's common practice to strike through the changed text so others can see just how exactly it was changed but maybe that is something else you haven't come around to acknowledging.

Glad to see you are going for that walk.

Fr_Dougal

baaba maal wrote: »

1. Not a single source- elements of the reports (you are aware they have issued five major reports so far and a number of smaller ones) are drawn from organisations in 180 countries.

2. Review process is built in to the programme with every organisation invited to nominate reviewers for each report.

I'd be delighted for your detailed analysis of all the flaws (and flaws there will be given the scale of the process), but I will go out on a limb here and say you might be overreaching with your sweeping statement above.

I was referring to the latest report.

Here’s an example of them using a retracted report in their report:

Via Retraction Watch:

A major new report about the dramatic warming of the oceans cites a 2018 Nature paper on the topic that was retracted earlier this week — the same day, in fact, that the report dropped.

But one of the authors of that paper tells Retraction Watch that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report, released September 25, must have meant to cite a different paper by the same authors.

The report concluded that:

It is virtually certain that the global ocean has warmed unabated since 1970 and has taken up more than 90% of the excess heat in the climate system (high confidence). Since 1993, the rate of ocean warming has more than doubled (likely).

…

What makes the flawed citation more remarkable is that researchers have been aware of errors in the analysis for more than 10 months. As we — and others — have reported, almost immediately after publication of the paper Nic Lewis blogged about his concerns with the analysis, concerns that eventually prompted the retraction.

Full story at Retraction Watch

The paper, Resplandy et al. has been well covered in WUWT since Nic Lewis first pointed out the fatal flaw in the “peer reviewed” paper.

This latest blunder seems pretty par for the course with the IPCC, and as we’ve seen in the past they’ve not only used “grey literature” but travel brochures as references to “scientific” assessments.

This latest blunder underscores the worthlessness of the IPCC to real science.

What we can do though, is alert them with reports about this error. From their website:

In case of a suspected error in an IPCC report, please send a mail to ipccerrorprotocol@wmo.int containing the following information: Complete name, Telephone, Organization, Country, Publication, Chapter, Page, Line, and Comments. The IPCC Protocol for Addressing Possible Errors is here

They are knowing quoting flawed and retracted reports.

Jimmy Garlic

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Economic growth needs to stop or were effed. Why can't so many of you understand this? There needs to be another way or it leads to war and other horrors. Of course we will continue trying to grow as is, but you'd want to be pretty stupid not to think itll end badly.

I thought you were on the beer in Switzerland comrade.

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

so what we have here is a group of posters who dont wish to discuss nor explain the role of figurehead for a vulnerable teenager, conditioned to panic on a particular topic, in a highly influential media and policy campaign that puts her in the eye of the storm in a current hotly debated global topic

they dont want to discuss who put her there. Who keeps her there. Why they want her there. Why she is so vital (in their words all she says that we need to listen to is "listen to the science").

they dont want to discuss her stress levels when speaking to the collected might of the UN, and they certainly dont want to discuss her falsehoods and her dramatics on that stage (because hey, headlines).

they instead derail this thread into discussion of their hobbyhorse economic conspiracy theories and their hobbyhorse climate change studies.

they engage frequently and reflexively in ad-hom and drag the debate off topic constantly.

they may or may not want the thread locked (i suspect they do, their behaviour follows a strict pattern) but one thing is sure- they dont want anyone discussing who puts greta thunberg in front of us and our leaders, how they have done so and why they are doing so.

At this point - I would suggest that the discussion is perhaps being deliberately derailed. I have noticed that for the last dozen pages or so - the amount of rubbish being posted is significant. Its almost as if some do not want the topic of the thread discussed or perhaps do not wish to hear any argument other than their own particular take on the world, the universe and everything but the topic or relevant to the thread.

As to the various bizarre and frankly idiotic comments on the use of grammar and sarcasm and even the attempted deriding of posters for including linked sources and references whilst failing to do so by return - the mind boggles that some of the same believe this amounts to 'quality debate'. I **** you not ...

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

Sorry but I cant help lauging at that. Considering the thread is not about the Kochs or any of the other stuff you keep on rabbiting on about - I would suggest your own comments are largely facetious and 'disrupting discussion' of the topic of the thread viz. gretas travels in the new world. And there you have it for sure - "your stupid game"

And more importantly it's irrelevant whether anyone 'cares' about your concerns or otherwise. This is a discussion. Emotive supposition should not come into it.

As previously detailed you have variously failed to back up your allegations with any accompanying links or source that the other posters links are "from someone paid by notorious propagandists". Perhaps you should discuss it with the poster in question if you are confused.

So until you provide some proper backup - no one can help you - no matter how much your scream and get your knickers in a knot about Kochs-oil oligarchs-anarcho capitalists' or whatever other rubbish you keep on harping on about.

Btw you failed once again to answer the questions asked of you.



Edit: Yup hands up / mea culpa / I did it / I'm guilty. I accidently hit delete instead of edit. A la Father Jack "I'm so sooryyyyyy" :rolleyes:

Do you care if a link/source you support, is from someone who is paid by notorious propagandists?

You can answer that while leaving the debate open as to whether or not certain people count as propagandists.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Do you care if a link/source you support, is from someone who is paid by notorious propagandists?You can answer that while leaving the debate open as to whether or not certain people count as propagandists.

See what I mean :rolleyes:

"Care"? As detailed this is a discussion not some bizarre emotive supposition circle. Btw who says anyone supports a pariculuar listed link / source? By hitting "thanks" lol? Nope it don't work like that lad.

And who is being "paid"? And if we dont know that they are "propagandists" (other than your word for it) how can anyone decide whether they "care" or not?

Anyway enough of this ****e. You can direct it elsewhere thanks. Bye

baaba maal

gozunda wrote: »

Yeah and as pointed out you were wrong so you can get over it. Though it is evident you still dont understand what was said. Deliberately so I would imagine.

Indeed yes - I do abide by what I have said. So either discuss the topic or items which are relevant to that topic or stop pissing in the wind. Not my alleged use of 'sarcasm' or whatever.

Or is it that you have some more utensils from the kitchen sink you would like to keep throwing? As I said if you don't like something report it. Dont write a fracking fictional essay and bore us all to tears ..[/QUOTE

And another post by yourself pointing out that people are posting off topic...involving you posting off topic. With more hyperbolic guff (four lines of a post constitutes a "fracking fictional essay" apparently). If you don't like what I'm posting why don't you report it as this is your advice to me.

You have a nice day now.

Veritas Libertas

KyussB wrote: »

Do you care if a link/source you support, is from someone who is paid by notorious propagandists?

Everyone who disagrees with your position is a paid notorious propogandist including mediabiascheck.

Lame.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm still quite sure you are wrong on the (sic) by the way, I did ask for examples to support your view of it but I have yet to receive them.As for FYP, it's common practice to strike through the changed text so others can see just how exactly it was changed but maybe that is something else you haven't come around to acknowledging.Glad to see you are going for that walk.

More? Lol

Of course you do. But yes you are wrong. Read the reply posted if still confused. And in my experience FYPs here done exactly as above and indicated with the words surprisingly enough FYP*! . Btw to loosely paraphrase- don't forget not to fall into that huge hole you've dug for yourself

Edit:* Two recent examples of FYPs because you seem to believe no one except your self ...

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111437810&postcount=94

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111399135&postcount=64

baaba maal

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

I was referring to the latest report.

Here’s an example of them using a retracted report in their report:



They are knowing quoting flawed and retracted reports.

I had a look at that and 100% that is a flawed use of a study- but it does appear to be the only flawed study that Retraction Watch have linked to IPCC reports (from doing a search on the Retraction Watch site). One retracted report is not acceptable, but I don't see the IPCC model falling just on this one report.

Thelonious Monk

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

I thought you were on the beer in Switzerland comrade.

Still in Zurich. Surely i get a pass as ive no kids or a car?

SJW Lover

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So you're saying some people are frauds? That's a given. What has that got to do with supporting climate initiatives?

You said and i quote "There is rarely ever any 'fake news' in mainstream journalism" on another thread. So i think i'd get more sense discussing any issue with a golden labrador rather than your good self. However, to bite a little, one of the founders of the whole movement is, as you say, a fraud. Happy you used that word

SJW Lover

Tell me how wrote: »

You're right, except no one is advocating the words or practices of Maurice Strong on this thread.

Just the entire movement he had a pivotal part in creating.

SJW Lover

baaba maal wrote: »

Your post makes it look as if for every Koch, there is a Strong.

Not my intention.

KyussB

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Everyone who disagrees with your position is a paid notorious propogandist including mediabiascheck.

Lame.

Their lead guy is easily mixed up with a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, but isn't the same guy - they are a bunch of nobodies, basically - none of them are an authority on anything.

Their methodology renders them worthless, as they deliberately look past outlets having a history of propaganda/falsehoods - they rate Cato and Reason as 'high' for factual reporting - some of the most notorious propaganda rags for science denialism, even going back to the classic/archetypal denialism about the dangers of smoking.

What exactly is the point of a fact checker, which rates factually false information as 'high' for factual reporting?

gozunda

Anyway getting back on topic and away from the various **** slinging episodes from those who believe greta is god or wtte and shouldn't be under discussion. I came across the following which details the singing career of Beata Thunberg - gretas sister. Why is this relevant I hear you say - bare with me...

Beata is following in her parents’ footsteps and well on her way to becoming a famous singer and performer. Her mom was a famous opera singer in Sweden who gained international fame when she represented Sweden at the Eurovision Song Contest 2009 in Moscow.

Svante Thunberg is an author, actor, and producer. He also manages Malena’s career.

Beata was chosen as the face for the marketing campaign for a series of books titled “Handbook for Superheroes” written by author Elias Våhlund that focus on the subject of bullying. The series has been translated to 17 languages and has sent Beata on an international marketing tour.

Beata first appeared on the Swedish television shows Malou and discussed her history of ADHD, OCD, and dealing with bullying as a teenager. She then performed an original song titled “Bara Du Vill” while wearing a dress emblazoned with one of the superheroes from the book.

She continues to appear on TV and at various concerts performing her single and promoting the book with Våhlund.

She boasts over 11,000 followers on her Instagram and her fame is steadily rising due to her talent and sister Greta’s coverage in the press.

https://heavy.com/news/2019/09/beata-ernman-thunberg/


A strange coincidence perhaps? . Two young girls from the same family. Both whose careers are being managed by their actor father. Both who have significant social media followings with media coverage and media campaigns to their name. One on campaign in the US - the other in Sweden. That said it does seem that Beata has a decent singing voice. And I do wish her well. However like greta - I would have serious concerns as to how such public exposure will effect these kids later in life. Not something I would willingly impose on any child or teenager tbh.