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

Thelonious Monk

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

He could indeed have lived in a house or maybe not. I personally knew several of those guys who got kicked out of their bedsits in 2013 when the council came through with their inspections on foot of that legislation. One of them even held a post as a TCD professor at the height of his career before a fondness for the juice got him fired. All of those men in their 30s and 40s, generally rejected from polite society and too embarrassed to return home, several were divorced so no options to go to. The Summer was fine that year so they initially camped out in the Phoenix Park, the council cleared the undergrowth to discourage them, when Winter came they moved on towards the city center. Single men with problems often self inflicted rank lowest on the poverty line.

I don't think you can blame this one on the greens!
There's all kinds of sick men on the streets now too. At lunchtime there was a bloke with his dick out pissing at people outside the Gaeity theatre and shouting in Aramaic or something. Jesus if you ever think you have it bad...

Pa ElGrande

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I don't think you can blame this one on the greens!
There's all kinds of sick men on the streets now too. At lunchtime there was a bloke with his dick out pissing at people outside the Gaeity theatre and shouting in Aramaic or something. Jesus if you ever think you have it bad...

Abandoned men are difficult to deal with or be around as you observed. The bedsit was their last refuge, next stop was a shelter with no privacy or the street, all these guys wanted was a cheap place to stay and enough money for the essentials (and more for drink and drugs). Nevertheless it's an aspect that the Green party did not think through when they pushed the legislation which they claimed full credit for.

Upshot was the scumlords sold up and retired, the taxman also raided them for his rainy day fund around the same time and the buy to let crowd were bankrupt after the bust and the banks moved in and closed their operations. The upshot was the landlords who were solvent upgraded to the new standards and increased their markup and the difficult single male was excluded from this market.

Thelonious Monk

Ok the Greens made mistakes but what party hasn't? They're all a bunch of clowns.

Pa ElGrande

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Ok the Greens made mistakes but what party hasn't? They're all a bunch of clowns.

Any decision you make has costs or trade-offs associated with it. When you make energy more expensive and less available to the marginally attached in society you increase the probability that they will die as a consequence.

We live in the Northern hemisphere on an island that is cold and damp for much of the year (avg 10 C in January) and that cold kills more people (excess Winter deaths), fuel poverty is a real problem and there are quite a few people who are confined to the kitchen and maybe one room for the Winter, sometimes they co to hospital to survive the Winter and when it gets really bitterly cold they will get on the buses (free bus pass) for the day in order to stay warm.

Those carbon taxes may not seem much when you are wealthy and by in large the urban gentry who votes Green are wealthy, but all those costs work their way into the distribution chain making food and services more expensive. The people who benefit from these subsidies are not the poor who can't afford to have the latest subsidised energy saving options installed so the tax becomes a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich.

James Brown

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

He could indeed have lived in a house or maybe not. I personally knew several of those guys who got kicked out of their bedsits in 2013 when the council came through with their inspections on foot of that legislation. One of them even held a post as a TCD professor at the height of his career before a fondness for the juice got him fired. All of those men in their 30s and 40s, generally rejected from polite society and too embarrassed to return home, several were divorced so no options to go to. The Summer was fine that year so they initially camped out in the Phoenix Park, the council cleared the undergrowth to discourage them, when Winter came they moved on towards the city center. Single men with problems often self inflicted rank lowest on the poverty line.

Haven't you heard? There's no housing crisis. It's all single mothers want a forever home near mammy. Oh, and Immigrants.

recedite

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

that guy was not a product of the state. He could have lived in a house if he wanted.

A kippy hostel, maybe.
Not a chance of getting a house unless he was a single mother, or an asylum seeker sent over here by Merkel and Macron.

Pa ElGrande

recedite wrote: »

A kippy hostel, maybe.
Not a chance of getting a house unless he was a single mother, or an asylum seeker sent over here by Merkel and Macron.

His adoptive parents left him property so he could have lived there, but for whatever reason, shame, alienation who knows he still ended up on the street where he died of exposure.

gozunda

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Nuclear power is the only viable solution to cheap clean energy. Wind farms, I don't know enough about them to comment.I'd take a stab at the regular anti greta posters here wouldn't want the clocks to stay on summertime. I'm just using it as an example of how any kind of change gets them rabbling.

Well some seem to know fuk all about cattle numbers etc and yet that doesnt prevent the usual contributing repetitive bull****ery on that topic tbh.

Jeez you presume a lot to believe that anyone being in any way critical of the greta dog and pony show traipsing across the Atlantic means 'clocks to stay on summertime'

I mean wtf type of derangment of logic results in that deduction - I really dont know!

Wanting or not wanting 'change' has got fuk all to with being critical of stupidity

Thelonious Monk

recedite wrote: »

A kippy hostel, maybe.
Not a chance of getting a house unless he was a single mother, or an asylum seeker sent over here by Merkel and Macron.

Is this a tongue in cheek response? I honestly can't tell!

recedite

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Is this a tongue in cheek response? I honestly can't tell!

No its not. I didn't know the guy's personal family circumstances, but what I said is true regarding the general situation for people such as him.

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

https://twitter.com/_waleedshahid/status/1099076130089459712



Climate Change and the Ten Warning Signs for Cults




So you believe in Climate change? Belief - an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. One has to have faith to accept the doctrines of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW). People who reject this article of faith are guilty of heresy and labelled as deniers.

They answer "because the science" without ever explaining what the specifics of the science behind the hypothesis of CAGW is, they say the IPCC (the bible) says this without ever quoting the passage or the revisions to the documents produced. These documents are also littered with ambiguous, obfuscatory or weasel words & phrases such as:

– can, clearly, could, conjectured, considered, expected, may, might, perhaps, possibly, projected, robust, unprecedented

– “Experts suggest…” “It has been said that …” “Research has shown…” “Science indicates …”

“It can be argued…” “Scientists believe….” “A high level of certainty” “Models predict….” etc,


Yet somehow these words become certainty in the minds of the true believer and for someone whose condition makes her especially susceptible to this is convinced that the end is nigh and becomes trapped in the cult that is convinced thermageddon is coming.

Article from a guy who works in an oilfield - no bias there...

Cult members usually ignore all signs of conflicts of interest, in order to promote their true faith - almost every post from you reliably comes from somewhere linked to the oil industry and/or oil oligarch think-tanks.

You have to be a real True Believer, to be that consistent.


Notice as well, how the denialists try to hijack left-leaning/progressive criticisms aimed at exploitative finance and political corruption - using the same language and trying to aim it at the movement looking to fight climate change.

It's a dead-ringer for the tactics used by Libertarian think-tanks in particular - of which the poster has cited members of. Pretty much every single post from this poster is heavily pushing that type of angle, while also citing material that almost always links back to the same think-tank propaganda network.

Not at all new to Boards, but it fits the scripted astoturfing template, perfectly - and linking back to the groups with long-established/proven form, for this.

KyussB

99problems1 wrote: »

Also do these greeny obsessed people know that reducing our emissions etc does not solve the problem? There is a finite level of emissions we can produce before it all goes to ****e anyways.

It's not like if we cut emissions by 50% the earth can handle it and things will stay as they are now, things will get worse but just half as fast.

So, it doesn't really matter what we do. It's either we experience the extremes of climate ourselves or else we just kick the can down the road so 2 or 3 generations time experience it. I see no difference.

We can not only reduce emissions, we can transition into carbon-negative economies that sequester carbon out of the atmosphere, if we're serious about it.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Article from a guy who works in an oilfield - no bias there...Cult members usually ignore all signs of conflicts of interest, in order to promote their true faith - almost every post from you reliably comes from somewhere linked to the oil industry and/or oil oligarch think-tanks.You have to be a real True Believer, to be that consistent. Notice as well, how the denialists try to hijack left-leaning /progressive criticisms aimed at exploitative finance and political corruption - using the same language and trying to aim it at the movement looking to fight climate change.It's a dead-ringer for the tactics used by Libertarian think-tanks in particular - of which the poster has cited members of. Pretty much every single post from this poster is heavily pushing that type of angle, while also citing material that almost always links back to the same think-tank propaganda network.Not at all new to Boards, but it fits the scripted astoturfing template, perfectly - and linking back to the groups with long-established/proven form, for this.

Nope. It's simply pointing out BS. Theres no conspiracy - it's simply people pointing out what's wrong with those who scream 'deniers' no matter what the criticism is. That's where the serious reality issues are tbh.

99problems1

KyussB wrote: »

We can not only reduce emissions, we can transition into carbon-negative economies that sequester carbon out of the atmosphere, if we're serious about it.

How?

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

. . . .
Not at all new to Boards, but it fits the scripted astoturfing template, perfectly - and linking back to the groups with long-established/proven form, for this.

I'm still waiting for that transfer of wealth directly to my offshore bank account from big oil but somehow they have forgotten about me or the cheque is lost in the post or alternatively I'm not affiliated with them and you are spouting conspiracy theories.

I've been watching the climate cult develop since the Kyoto protocol which was an international treaty signed up to without a say from the Irish electorate. The undemocratic nature of how the Irish government signed this is what caught my attention rather than the subject matter but I did not pursue it at the time and put it to the back of my mind.

Umaro

Some of the responses in this thread remind me of this old cartoon:

99problems1

Umaro wrote: »

Some of the responses in this thread remind me of this old cartoon:

You people act like there's no negative affects to peoples lives though.

Sure, the aim is to make the environment better but at what cost?

All these taxes make life harder. Not much good to you then if it turned out to be a hoax would it?

I mean if you're all so concerned about the planet, how much have you donated to green initiatives the last number of years?

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

I'm still waiting for that transfer of wealth directly to my offshore bank account from big oil but somehow they have forgotten about me or the cheque is lost in the post or alternatively I'm not affiliated with them and you are spouting conspiracy theories.

I've been watching the climate cult develop since the Kyoto protocol which was an international treaty signed up to without a say from the Irish electorate. The undemocratic nature of how the Irish government signed this is what caught my attention rather than the subject matter but I did not pursue it at the time and put it to the back of my mind.

The think tanks networks and oil companies don't need conspiracies - they do it right out in the open - it's well documented stretching back decades.

Boards being brigaded by people spouting that general think-tank networks views, also goes back more than a decade.

KyussB

99problems1 wrote: »

You people act like there's no negative affects to peoples lives though.

Sure, the aim is to make the environment better but at what cost?

All these taxes make life harder. Not much good to you then if it turned out to be a hoax would it?

I mean if you're all so concerned about the planet, how much have you donated to green initiatives the last number of years?

Jobs and plentiful employment make everyones life better - it's pretty much a lie that crippling taxation is necessary to fund it, as the macroeconomic benefits of massive Green New Deal style projects, pay for themselves effectively.

KyussB

99problems1 wrote: »

How?

With enough R&D and manufacturing, renewable energy generation from solar on its own has more than enough potential to provide multiples of the current total power generating capacity of every country on the planet - combine this with electrochemical processes for collecting carbon from the atmosphere (plus tons of R&D to improve the efficiency of both), and we can remove enormous amounts of carbon from the atmosphere.

The planet is incredibly abundant with energy - with straightforward processes for using the energy we don't use, for carbon sequestration - and the technological barriers are low-hanging fruit, if proper worldwide Manhattan Project style R&D is engaged in.

weldoninhio

KyussB wrote: »

With enough R&D and manufacturing, renewable energy generation from solar on its own has more than enough potential to provide multiples of the current total power generating capacity of every country on the planet - combine this with electrochemical processes for collecting carbon from the atmosphere (plus tons of R&D to improve the efficiency of both), and we can remove enormous amounts of carbon from the atmosphere.

The planet is incredibly abundant with energy - with straightforward processes for using the energy we don't use, for carbon sequestration - and the technological barriers are low-hanging fruit, if proper worldwide Manhattan Project style R&D is engaged in.

What if the R leads us to realise that it impossible to D. That would be a huge waste of money on nothing.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Jobs and plentiful employment make everyones life better - it's pretty much a lie that crippling taxation is necessary to fund it, as the macroeconomic benefits of massive Green New Deal style projects, pay for themselves effectively.

There's already jobs and plenty of employment - so that's no gain there in making anyones lives better as unemployment is not an issue.

And in a world where a whole bunch of Industy and services get shut down in the short term and where none of this new carbon scrubbing technology etc has been invented yet and there is no house building due to wood and concrete being banned (because of the carbon emissions when used in construction ) - how is that going to make peoples lives better?

And when there are no taxes because all that employment in gone - Whose taxes exactly will go to fund what you've referred to as a "massive mobilization of labour" in this brave new world? The government?

The fact is - the government is dependant on thriving construction sector, industry and other sectors to pay tax to have money to spend on social welfare and health - without those how is that going to make peoples lives better?

If you wish to model this new economy on some Soviet era style economics (even if you wish to deny that) - then what you need to know is that they don't work. History has shown us that in detail.

You cant just expect to close employment sectors down and wait for money to magically appear in the governments coffers for massive labour initiatives or whatever

And that's where your utopian vision falters. Its all pie in the sky green-deal imagineering to keep us buying different crap and being good little worker drones who only get to do what the masters dictate. Green New Deal my rear end.

KyussB

weldoninhio wrote: »

What if the R leads us to realise that it impossible to D. That would be a huge waste of money on nothing.

We already know it's possible, we just need the R&D to make it more efficient in its use of rare-earths/resources and conversion efficiency.

It's tech we effectively already have and just need to incrementally refine, with us being able to roll out the current generation of tech through mass production, with improvements from R&D being adapted into production as we go.

All we are missing is the scale of R&D, mass production, and work put in building/adapting infrastructure - that we need to get it done fairly quickly.

All of the economic activity involved in that is inherently beneficial to economies, too - so it's a win-win situation.

The only people it's detrimental to, are the people who rely on their power and wealth-extracting abilities, being tied to the current energy-generating structure of economies - and on preventing governments from correcting massive market failures which enrich people positioned to benefit (which, in a roundabout way, climate change exactly is through being a massive externalized cost of our economies).

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

There's already jobs and plenty of employment - so that's no gain there in making anyones lives better as unemployment is not an issue.

And in a world where a whole bunch of Industy and services get shut down in the short term and where none of this new carbon scrubbing technology etc has been invented yet and there is no house building due to wood and concrete being banned (because of the carbon emissions when used in construction ) - how is that going to make peoples lives better?

And when there are no taxes because all that employment in gone - Whose taxes exactly will go to fund what you've referred to as a "massive mobilization of labour" in this brave new world? The government?

The fact is - the government is dependant on thriving construction sector, industry and other sectors to pay tax to have money to spend on social welfare and health - without those how is that going to make peoples lives better?

If you wish to model this new economy on some Soviet era style economics (even if you wish to deny that) - then what you need to know is that they don't work. History has shown us that in detail.

You cant just expect to close employment sectors down and wait for money to magically appear in the governments coffers for massive labour initiatives or whatever

And that's where your utopian vision falters. Its all pie in the sky green-deal imagineering to keep us buying different crap and being good little worker drones who only get to do what the masters dictate. Green New Deal my rear end.

If Europe was attacked and was in existential crisis, you'd have us all piss our pants and surrender because "shure where will the money come from, to fight back?" or "better to surrender than be Communists! (despite not being able to identify anything Communist)".

No government on Earth is limited in funding by taxes, spending 1:1 based on taxes - that's not how government finances work.

Dakota Dan

Umaro wrote: »

Some of the responses in this thread remind me of this old cartoon:

You do know that you'll never get 100% renewable energy, but carry dreaming anyway.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

If Europe was attacked and was in existential crisis, you'd have us all piss our pants and surrender because "shure where will the money come from, to fight back?" or "better to surrender than be Communists! (despite not being able to identify anything Communist)".No government on Earth is limited in funding by taxes, spending 1:1 based on taxes - that's not how government finances work.

Hyperbole much? Who is attacking Europe? What War? Who is Surrendering? Who is Fighting back? Who is 'pissing their pants'?

And yes the politics of the New Green Wave which you refer have many of the hallmarks of communism from direct state control of the economy at a 'massive scale', the rallying cries to war, of shoulders against the wheel, of the massive mobilisation of labour. It's all there whether you chose to recognise it or otherwise.

Though tbh It would be better for all if you could keep the greta speak aka ""existential "crisis, etc etc to a minimum btw. It is a word bastardised to mean something which it is not.

existentialism
A philosophical theory or approach which emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will.

Doesn't really fit in with your "existential crisis" (dic) now does it eh?

All it is - is yet another word adopted by the looney green fringe to frighten children. There is no war - there is no enemy. What there is - are people and livelihoods and the development of solutions to a range of ongoing issues. However those solutions do not need that we pull the rug out from under our own feet

Again leaving aside the usual platitudes above - how do you purpose to handle the short term situation that calls for the shutting down of human activities which provide for peoples livelihoods and are a significant source of domestic revenue?

More importantly when house building is stopped because building with wood and concrete used in construction involve the release of significant amounts of carbon - what happens then? Herd people into warehouses perhaps?

So you say goverment spending isnt dictated by taxes and revenue? Really? Why do you think we have budgets every year? Why do you think there are cutbacks and often a lack of essential services? Is it that you believe someone magically collects this money from golden trees or something and sprinkles it around like fairy dust?

Truely I have never seen such utter fairypoop and imagineering as is being used by the populist cause you expose and which frankly doesn't have a clue

It reminds me of where someone gets primary school kids to explain macro economics and them asks them to arrive at real world fiscal solutions. Very cute and camera worthy but really not much use in the real world.

gozunda

Umaro wrote:

Some of the responses in this thread remind me of this old cartoon:

https://i.imgur.com/XTAZDHS.png

I suppose it does in one way. Its painting the politics of the issue as being purely black and white. Which they clearly are not

It's also shows alt position that everything the green fringe are advocating is somehow the most beneficial to the lives of people. The list of worthy objectives are of course laudable - doesn't mean that's what we are going to get what is being held as our bright new future.

More importantly the one major point that the objectives completely ignore is the issue of overpopulation and the worlds finite resources.

It's not even being suggested that we are going nowhere with this type of fairy dust magical thinking on the human population and the planets finite resources.

But then that's propaganda for you ....

weldoninhio

KyussB wrote: »

We already know it's possible, we just need the R&D to make it more efficient in its use of rare-earths/resources and conversion efficiency.

It's tech we effectively already have and just need to incrementally refine, with us being able to roll out the current generation of tech through mass production, with improvements from R&D being adapted into production as we go.

All we are missing is the scale of R&D, mass production, and work put in building/adapting infrastructure - that we need to get it done fairly quickly.

All of the economic activity involved in that is inherently beneficial to economies, too - so it's a win-win situation.

The only people it's detrimental to, are the people who rely on their power and wealth-extracting abilities, being tied to the current energy-generating structure of economies - and on preventing governments from correcting massive market failures which enrich people positioned to benefit (which, in a roundabout way, climate change exactly is through being a massive externalized cost of our economies).

And if we do all of this and then realise that man has only 0.001% to do with climate change?? Seems an awful waste of money on a maybe.

99problems1

KyussB wrote: »

Jobs and plentiful employment make everyones life better - it's pretty much a lie that crippling taxation is necessary to fund it, as the macroeconomic benefits of massive Green New Deal style projects, pay for themselves effectively.

We have jobs and plentiful employment now.

Pa ElGrande

Umaro wrote: »

Some of the responses in this thread remind me of this old cartoon:

https://i.imgur.com/XTAZDHS.png

What's all this talk about healthy children - the idea is not to have any..