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

Tell me how

ELM327 wrote: »

There needs to be change.
The shrieking of a child being fed lines from ecomentalists is not how to go about it.

Has set an example by which at least 10M people have followed in protesting and calling for change.
Are you an ecomentalist given you too think there needs to be change?

ELM327 wrote: »

T
When I was young and children screeched they were punished. Not humored at a meeting of the UN.

Thankfully society has moved on where the merits of an argument are judged rather than people playing the 'I'm older, I'm right' card.

ELM327

Tell me how wrote: »

Has set an example by which at least 10M people have followed in protesting and calling for change.
Are you an ecomentalist given you too think there needs to be change?



Thankfully society has moved on where the merits of an argument are judged rather than people playing the 'I'm older, I'm right' card.

Listening to the screeches of a child being fed lines by ecomentalists is not a demarcation of "better".


I am not an ecomentalist. Far from it.

Tell me how

ELM327 wrote: »

Listening to the screeches of a child being fed lines by ecomentalists is not a demarcation of "better".


I am not an ecomentalist. Far from it.

So, how come you are not, but Greta's angle of listen to the scientists deems her to be?

Also, if you do see the need for change, why are you so motivated to dislike the person who has done more for bringing the conversation in to the public space than anyone else. Surely you would be supportive of someone who wants what you want?

tell me bow wow wow:


1: do you seriously contend that with another candidate selected by her backers that the number wouldnt have been 10m or close

or that the number would have been zero without a greta figurehead

2: is lecturing people who have not asked for you to lecture them something you think works, or is it just something you enjoy doing

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

No certainly its not the 'environmentalists' saying that. The 'no meat' / reduction rubbish is mainly coming from the screamers in the plant food lobby. And no 'everyone' does not know this. Some people simply need to start thinking for themselves

Here's the issues discussed without hype

https://chriskresser.com/the-real-environmental-impact-of-red-meat-part-1/

That guy is a woo pedller, anti-vaxxer etc.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Chris_Kresser

Tell me how

Seanachai wrote: »

'and it is going to have to be taken up by many more', we don't have to take up any message we don't want to take up, we do however have to pay taxes. What's the point of Thunberg's campaign if we're just going to have to put up and shut up anyway? Ordinary people have to pay whatever taxes the gov conjures up, they have sfa choice in the matter. We could do without the lecturing and patronisation though.

How many on here are actually denying climate change? It seems to be mostly issues with Thunberg being used as a proxy to shove an agenda down people's throats. Hardly anybody is denying that there is actually a problem, it's opposition to the belief that punitive measures on ordinary people will slow or reverse climate change. Much more emphasis should be placed on plastics and pollution as well as soil erosion, things we can actually realistically do something about.

Surprising this has to be explained.
One of two things would happen if the majority agreed and supported Greta's message.
Either the government would change its focus, or the people would change the government to one with a preferred focus.

It's baffling to see people say they don't disagree with climate change and then work so hard to undermine the message that something needs to be done.

topper75

KyussB wrote: »

In Ireland the main duopoly parties have demonstrated that they are openly contemptuous of the public.

They have perhaps. But nobody is barring you or anyone else going on a ballot paper. Get a mandate and you can do stuff. If you don't you are merely a political extremist.

I don't think people in Ireland really want this stuff anyway. They simply don't have it as a real-world priority. We saw the 'green wave'. What percentage of the vote was that again? It stands forever now as a joke on media wishful thinking - the 2019 euro and local elections.

Myself I'm not interested. I live the way I live regarding transport/food/enjoying life. I live better than the people who came before me. The ones who come after have to accept that challenge and rise just the same. To stop me doing that, you'd have to kill me. Maybe that is a challenge to the extremists!

jimgoose

topper75 wrote: »

...We saw the 'green wave'. What percentage of the vote was that again?...D

I was talking to Simon Coveney that night in City Hall - he told me (quietly) that he was a lot happier with that than a resurgence from a load of SF boot-boys and leftie-loopers. :pac:

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

That guy is a woo pedller, anti-vaxxer etc.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Chris_Kresser

Ah 'Rational Wkiki' lol

RationalWiki

Online wiki devoted to propagating left-wing ideals without explicitly stating so. The title "Rational Wiki" is deliberately misleading, as it implies a logical, unbiased, emotionally detached approach when the site reads like a hotly opinionated liberal blog.

According to RationalWiki, "reality has a liberal bias," not them.

From an equally on the level source ...

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=RationalWiki

And just because the left wingers dont like some of his ideas does nor mean everything he says is wrong. Seems to be quite a bit of 'woo' in this thread from the climate alarmists for sure

And no I'm not an anti-vaxer

hetuzozaho

gozunda wrote: »

Ah 'Rational Wkiki' lol

RationalWiki



From an equally on the level source ...

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=RationalWiki

And just because the left wingers dont like some of his ideas does nor mean everything he says is wrong. Seems to be quite a bit of 'woo' in this thread from the climate alarmists for sure

And no I'm not an anti-vaxer

Chris is though is he?

KyussB

topper75 wrote: »

They have perhaps. But nobody is barring you or anyone else going on a ballot paper. Get a mandate and you can do stuff. If you don't you are merely a political extremist.

I don't think people in Ireland really want this stuff anyway. They simply don't have it as a real-world priority. We saw the 'green wave'. What percentage of the vote was that again? It stands forever now as a joke on media wishful thinking - the 2019 euro and local elections.

Myself I'm not interested. I live the way I live regarding transport/food/enjoying life. I live better than the people who came before me. The ones who come after have to accept that challenge and rise just the same. To stop me doing that, you'd have to kill me. Maybe that is a challenge to the extremists!

It's very far to the authoritarian end of the politically extreme, to say that political activity should be limited to the ballot box.

hetuzozaho

topper75 wrote: »

Myself I'm not interested. I live the way I live regarding transport/food/enjoying life. I live better than the people who came before me. The ones who come after have to accept that challenge and rise just the same.

What do you mean rise just the same? Rise just the same as the scientists who made things better for you, who are now asking for people to listen to science?

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

tell me bow wow wow:


1: do you seriously contend that with another candidate selected by her backers that the number wouldnt have been 10m or close

or that the number would have been zero without a greta figurehead

2: is lecturing people who have not asked for you to lecture them something you think works, or is it just something you enjoy doing

All I know about her is she's giving out about the environment and being a great role model to kids. Since day one Boards has been rife with talk about her backers and the people using her and her mental health.
Can't say I've heard more than a few sentences out of her, so what ever nefarious message her backers have in mind missed me I think.
She's a kid drawing more attention to climate change. That's about it.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

And just because the left wingers dont like some of his ideas does nor mean everything he says is wrong. Seems to be quite a bit of 'woo' in this thread from the climate alarmists for sure

And no I'm not an anti-vaxer

If the stuff he says is accurate, then it can be found from a source that doesn't spout anti-vax nonsense, and which is generally more credible.

It's always the climate 'skeptic' end of the discussion here demanding people waste time taking dodgy sources credibly.

KyussB

KyussB wrote: »

If the stuff he says is accurate, then it can be found from a source that doesn't spout anti-vax nonsense, and which is generally more credible.

It's always the climate 'skeptic' end of the discussion here demanding people waste time taking dodgy sources credibly.

if what greta says is accurate then it can be found from a source that doesnt claim an end date of 2030, lay outrageous accusations at all adults, has scientific credentials and can answer questions in public

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

if what greta says is accurate then it can be found from a source that doesnt claim an end date of 2030, lay outrageous accusations at all adults, has scientific credentials and can answer questions in public

So you are in agreement with the scientists who contributed to the IPCC report then? Cool. Progress.

(You can ignore the fact that that is ultimately what Greta is saying to do.)

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

So you are in agreement with the scientists who contributed to the IPCC report then? Cool. Progress.

(You can ignore the fact that that is ultimately what Greta is saying to do.)

still telling posters what they think?

again, dyou find this stuff works?

KyussB

Deleted User wrote: »

if what greta says is accurate then it can be found from a source that doesnt claim an end date of 2030, lay outrageous accusations at all adults, has scientific credentials and can answer questions in public

Are you agreeing that people should aim to use credible sources? Or is that a 'tu quoque' aimed at justifying use of non-credible sources?

tu quoque is as tiresome as any other shorthand ill-applied "i saw this on twitter" non-argument that has ever existed.

i mean

folks

if you find yourselves constantly circling ready to say anything, and i mean *anything* that even vaguely resembles

"AHA! so you DO agree with me!"

you need to stop and consider your own dignity

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

still telling posters what they think?

again, dyou find this stuff works?

Could you answer the question?

Tell me how wrote: »

So you are in agreement with the scientists who contributed to the IPCC report then?

KyussB

Deleted User wrote: »

i mean

folks

if you find yourselves constantly circling ready to say anything, and i mean *anything* that even vaguely resembles

"AHA! so you DO agree with me!"

you need to stop and consider your own dignity

I just want to find out if you think people should use credible sources, instead of discreditable ones?

It's not a trick question. It's not a 'gotcha'. A reluctance to answer would just get people thinking that posters want to defend the use of discreditable sources.

Beasty

Deleted User wrote: »

tell me bow wow wow:


......

2: is lecturing people who have not asked for you to lecture them something you think works, or is it just something you enjoy doing

Cut out the cheap shots

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

If the stuff he says is accurate, then it can be found from a source that doesn't spout anti-vax nonsense, and which is generally more credible.It's always the climate 'skeptic' end of the discussion here demanding people waste time taking dodgy sources credibly.

Moving the goalposts again? The author of that article does not refer to vaccinations in that article in any way. Please read it if you are in any doubt. Btw you provided the 'dodgy source' of rational wiki*

KyussB wrote: »

I just want to find out if you think people should use credible sources, instead of discreditable ones?
It's not a trick question. It's not a 'gotcha'. A reluctance to answer would just get people thinking that posters want to defend the use of discreditable sources.

*You just answered your own question here. But then I suppose it really boils down to whether a poster believes only their own viewpoint is creditable.

KyussB

6 hour later edit, adding the second quoted bit, there...My question was not answered, and I wasn't asking you.

Tell me how

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1182487845694365696

KyussB

Basic but good article on longstanding propaganda funding for climate denial - linking back to the Koch's, and Exxon Mobil - who have been cited heavily, in this thread:

...
Robert Brulle, a professor of sociology and environmental science at Drexel University in Pennsylvania, published the first peer-reviewed study in 2013 of who was funding what he called the climate change counter-movement that delayed action on the crisis. He found that between 2003 and 2010 more than $500m had been donated by private conservative philanthropic foundations to organisations whose output included material disputing the consensus.

Thinktanks, trade associations and front groups were a key part of the effort, he concluded, with their major funders including foundations affiliated to the fossil fuel magnates the Koch brothers, ExxonMobil, and the ultra-conservative Scaife and Bradley foundations.

Brulle also found evidence of a trend to conceal the sources of funding once campaign groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, Greenpeace and the Climate Disinformation Database started tracking what they called dark money to climate denial from the mid-2000s.

In the second half of that decade, Koch, Scaife, Bradley and ExxonMobil foundation funding to organisations involved in propagating doubt declined while donations to the same organisations via two anonymised vehicles, the Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund, increased rapidly.

Among the thinktanks most identified with spreading doubt are the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Marshall Institute (which folded in 2015), the Cato Institute, the Heartland Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the campaign group Americans for Prosperity.

Elsewhere the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Global Warming Policy Foundation have been prominent publishers of material questioning the consensus on climate science in the UK. These organisations fiercely dispute that any of their work constitutes organised climate change denial.

Americans for Prosperity, which has received a very substantial part of its funding from the Kochs, helped make resistance to action on climate a feature of Tea Party rallies in the US.
...
Half a decade later some fossil fuel industry funding of climate contrarian science was exposed, when Greenpeace found out via freedom of information requests that a prominent academic at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Willie Soon, had attracted more than $1.2m in payments over 14 years from ExxonMobil, Southern Company, the API and a Koch foundation, to the centre for his work. Soon doubted the scientific consensus that emissions were the principal cause of global heating.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/10/vested-interests-public-against-climate-science-fossil-fuel-lobby

Pretty much justifies my emphasis on the Koch's, and how so many Koch-linked sources have been cited in this thread.

Do 'skeptic' posters think Koch-funded sources, are credible sources? Should such sources be shunned in favour of more credible ones?

Thelonious Monk

They think Koch funded sources are credible yes. Theres no point in arguing. Hopefully Greta and the protests lead to doing things on the planet in cleaner ways and we respect the earth a bit more going forward and make better consumer decisions. People arguing against Greta and science wont make any difference to anything anyway.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

6 hour later edit, adding the second quoted bit, there...My question was not answered, and I wasn't asking you.

??? So you were late replying. And I clarified my comment. The problem is what exactly?

It stands you've recieved an relevant answer. And even if you don't like that - it's extremly disengenious to point at only others supposedly providing 'discreditable' sources.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

....
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/10/vested-interests-public-against-climate-science-fossil-fuel-lobby
Pretty much justifies my emphasis on the Koch's, and how so many Koch-linked sources have been cited in this thread.
Do 'skeptic' posters think Koch-funded sources, are credible sources? Should such sources be shunned in favour of more credible ones?

I see you quote the Guardian Newspaper in your latest Koch news flash

Regarding creditable media sources. Of interest the Guardian is paid by a US pro-plant food lobby Open Philanthropy Project (OPP) to publish articles specifically to criticise and attack agriculture.

https://ghgguru.faculty.ucdavis.edu/2019/03/18/guardian-and-opp-ink-deal-to-pen-stories/

And yet the Guardian bizarrely claim editorial independence.

Hard to reconcile the details of the 
Open Philanthropy Project funding above  and the Guardian Editorial note included in their newspaper articles tbh.

Our editorial independence means we set our own agenda and voice our own opinions. Guardian journalism is free from commercial and political bias and not influenced by billionaire owners or shareholders. This means we can give a voice to those less heard, explore where others turn away, and rigorously challenge those in power

Not just me saying this btw. Some Interesting comments here:

https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/watch-out-watch-out-the-guardians-about.278002/


The Guardian are also one of the principle climate alarmist media sources out there. I would take anything they report on with a bucket of salt. And no that's not denying climate change btw.

So certainly there are non 'Koch' sources which are not credible either. As to whether certain " sources be shunned in favour of more credible ones?" Well that very much depends on who is deciding what is credible or otherwise ...

And finally a bit of humour ...