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

biko

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/why-is-greta-thunberg-so-triggering-for-certain-men-1.4002264
Irish Times' Jennifer O'Connell goes full SJW

But who’s the real freak – the activist whose determination has single-handedly started a powerful global movement for change, or the middle-aged man taunting a child with Asperger syndrome from behind the safety of their computer screens?

And that, of course, is the real reason why Greta Thunberg is so triggering. They can’t admit it even to themselves, so they ridicule her instead. But the truth is that they’re afraid of her. The poor dears are terrified of her as an individual, and of what she stands for – youth, determination, change.

The article is full of Jennifer guessing at the state of the world.
And of course she arrives at the most obvious SJW conclusion, middle-aged men are afraid of a young girl.

Nermal

KyussB wrote: »

Pretty much everything has been answered, only to be met with "but Communism...".

I've got pretty much a solution to every problem put to me - even stupid/obvious shit like the exact solutions for producing timber in a carbon-negative way - and I'm just met with retarded Communism accusations.

It's the level of discourse you'd expect from a child - one who thinks responding to everything with "but Communism! :rolleyes:" is hilarious.

If it's meant to be humorous or something, it fails to even meet the level of "yore ma" jokes - it's just retarded.

The people spouting that shite aren't even supporters of Capitalism either, because they want Capitalism to run itself into the ground through gradual climate change - instead of leveraging the full power of Capitalist Mixed Economies, to prevent that.

The idea that we can materially reduce our carbon emissions without collapsing our living standards is utter fantasy.

You are asking people to vote to make themselves poorer. No society will voluntarily do that, they will have to be forced to do so. That's why the 'communist' tag is thrown back at you.

By the way, if by some miracle the globe unites around the 'GND' and actually attempted to enact it, the massive 'burp' of carbon that would result from re-building all of our infrastructure would be quite something.

Eric Cartman

The problem with literally all of these ‘reforms’ is that all of the solutions require more tax and are inferior. Rather than just give out about emissions stats, these people should be raising money to research clean alternatives that can be installed under the current spending model and dont reduce our quality of life.

Im never going to not eat meat, same for most , so work out how to mitigate those emissions elsewhere, electric cars are inferior to ICE cars at present, research better technology, start a campaign to end peoples stigma of nuclear power

Jimmy Garlic

Nermal wrote: »

You are asking people to vote to make themselves poorer. No society will voluntarily do that, they will have to be forced to do so. That's why the 'communist' tag is thrown back at you.

Don't think he likes the idea of putting it to a vote. It wouldn't fit in with the 'wartime' style approach . Utopian fanatics don't generally like the idea of transparency and democracy, gets in the way of whatever the 'big idea' is, they like to shove things down people's throats "for their own good".

JRant

biko wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/why-is-greta-thunberg-so-triggering-for-certain-men-1.4002264
Irish Times' Jennifer O'Connell goes full SJW



The article is full of Jennifer guessing at the state of the world.
And of course she arrives at the most obvious SJW conclusion, middle-aged men are afraid of a young girl.

If I didn't know better I would say she posts on this thread. It's almost word for word the same tired arguments being used here.

Eric Cartman

biko wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/why-is-greta-thunberg-so-triggering-for-certain-men-1.4002264
Irish Times' Jennifer O'Connell goes full SJW



The article is full of Jennifer guessing at the state of the world.
And of course she arrives at the most obvious SJW conclusion, middle-aged men are afraid of a young girl.

what is with that side and fear. You can't just disagree with something anymore, you are automatically afraid of it. Im one new 'phobia' away from being told im afraid of restaurants ive had bad meals in.

Pa ElGrande

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDCCvOv3qZY

November 15, 2005

The late Michael Crichton, author of "State of Fear," along with a panel of distinguished scientists, examine the increasing politicization of science at an event sponsored by the Independent Institute.

Bypass introduction and start 8 minutes in. States of Fear: Science or Politics?

KyussB

People can barely afford a home anymore - the economy we live in now is harming peoples standard of living, so it's a further lie that the Green New Deal would harm standards of living - the GND contains within it not just the mechanisms for resolving climate change, but for raising peoples standard of living, so that a home is actually affordable to them.

Voting against the GND is voting for letting Capitalism destroy itself and the environment - it is voting for continuing the trend of destroying peoples quality of life and ability to afford a decent living - it is voting for continued acceleration of inequality, and climate change.

Voting for the GND, is voting for fixing the faults in our economies in order to save Capitalism from self-destructing - and to raise everybodies standard of living while at it, and ensuring everyone has the ablity to earn, and that the general cost of living and of accommodation is affordable.

Many people on the thread have pretty much said they want to let Capitalism destroy itself - that they don't care about climate change because they'll be gone by the the time it gets bad.

Those people don't give a shit whether or not something is Capitalist or Communist - they will deliberately portray saving Capitalism from destroying itself as actually being Communism - because what they really want is basically just to pull up the ladder on future generations, and don't want to risk the status quo that benefits them - even if the GND reforms would benfit everybody, pretty much.

JRant

The GND has one major flaw in it. It completely ignores known human behaviour.

It also shows a naive understanding of current technology and what can actually be achieved.

KyussB

JRant wrote: »

The GND has one major flaw in it. It completely ignores known human behaviour.

Such as?

JRant wrote: »

It also shows a naive understanding of current technology and what can actually be achieved.

It prioritizes technological R&D as one of its core purposes.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

People can barely afford a home anymore - the economy we live in now is harming peoples standard of living, so it's a further lie that the Green New Deal would harm standards of living - the GND contains within it not just the mechanisms for resolving climate change, but for raising peoples standard of living, so that a home is actually affordable to them.Voting against the GND is voting for letting Capitalism destroy itself and the environment - it is voting for continuing the trend of destroying peoples quality of life and ability to afford a decent living - it is voting for continued acceleration of inequality, and climate change.Voting for the GND, is voting for fixing the faults in our economies in order to save Capitalism from self-destructing - and to raise everybodies standard of living while at it, and ensuring everyone has the ablity to earn, and that the general cost of living and of accommodation is affordable.Many people on the thread have pretty much said they want to let Capitalism destroy itself - that they don't care about climate change because they'll be gone by the the time it gets bad.Those people don't give a shit whether or not something is Capitalist or Communist - they will deliberately portray saving Capitalism from destroying itself as actually being Communism - because what they really want is basically just to pull up the ladder on future generations, and don't want to risk the status quo that benefits them - even if the GND reforms would benfit everybody, pretty much.

Would you give it a rest.

Green New Deal yada yada yada. It's magic - it's a miracle - it will solve everything including wrinkles and baldness.

This is a discussion forum not a polling station. No ones is voting for anything here btw ...

ExoPolitic

Out of all of this, the only thing I agree with is going to nuclear power with electric cars. But even then, you'd want to reduce the cost of electricity, like France did.

Pa ElGrande

Climate scare tactics have been running for a long time and somehow there are more people than ever before living long and better quality lives compared to their ancestors. The world is even getting greener. Anyone promoting socialism as a means to protect the environment should carefully examine what happened to the environment under such regimes.










And not forgetting this global cooling scare from the 70s.



The climate is subject to more immediate cycles it always changes and over a long enough time horizon due to continental drift and Milankovitch cycles it will change on that basis without human intervention. As can be seen anyone who dares argue that climate change is not caused by humans is ridiculed because this is a political issue being used to raise taxes and to regulate human activity by removing more human rights and freedom gained over hundreds of years. Those who attack anyone who denies catastrophic anthropogenic global warming are either brainwashed or have a self-interest in the entire scam since the evidence increasingly does not fit the narrative.

Pa ElGrande

The backlash against the alarmists using and hiding behind Greta Thunberg is beginning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUR0LrSadkg

Former German Bundestag President Warns Of Climate Activism’s “Anti-Democratic Affection”, “Debate Rigorism”

You really know that climate activism is going way off the rails when even a leading German socialist thinks the movement is becoming a threat to democracy. Leading German socialist politician Wolfgang Thierse warns of Greta Thunberg’s “anti-democratic”, uncompromising rhetoric.
<snip>
Young people don’t see the complexity

Thierse is not alone. Last month well-known nature filmmaker David Attenborough also told WELT: “The young climate activists see things in black and white, very clearly. They don’t yet know all the buts…”

In other words, the youth are being manipulated.

Attenborough added: “Maybe the young people don’t see the complexity of the problems to be solved and how to deal with them in a reasonable democratic way. Bringing the whole population along democratically is a big problem.”

German political scientist says climate movement like a religion

Also in a recent interview with German DLF here, political scientist Ulrike Ackermann said: “Rescuing the climate is almost like a religion.” She warned: “It is of no use to paint the world catastrophe on the wall in an alarmism that can only be countered radically.”
source

WMO Secretary-General Warns Against Climate 'Doomsters and Extremists'

Speaking to Finland's financial newspaper Talouselämä (“The Journal”) on 6 September 2019, Petteri Taalas called for cooler heads to prevail, saying that he does not accept arguments of climate alarmists that the end of the world is at hand.

Dr Taalas also spoke of the dangers of green extremism:

"While climate sceptisism has become less of an issue, now we are being challenged from the other side. Climate experts have been attacked by these people and they claim that we should be much more radical. They are doomsters and extremists; they make threats."

source

jackboy

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

The backlash against the alarmists using and hiding behind Greta Thunberg is beginning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUR0LrSadkg

Former German Bundestag President Warns Of Climate Activism’s “Anti-Democratic Affection”, “Debate Rigorism”




WMO Secretary-General Warns Against Climate 'Doomsters and Extremists'

The part about climate activism being like a religion is certainly true. How often we have seen religious language such as 'deniers' in this thread.

KyussB

That poster just regurgitates press releases and easily-outed propaganda from oil industry think tanks (just Google the sources...).

People back it with religious fervour, with zero critical analysis and creating a cult-like echo chamber out of the thread.

People don't deny this either, they just respond with lame-ass and unfounded "but you do it too!" accusations - which are pretty much an implicit admission.

On the other hand of things: Variants of the Green New Deal have already hit the mainstream worldwide. The type of hysterical screeching from climate change deniers, like in this thread, has fuck all effect on that, as the GND already winning popular support - the screeching just attract a toxic echo chamber, it doesn't influence anyones opinion - all it achieves at best, is retarding the debate in a minor way.

Thargor

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Climate scare tactics have been running for a long time and somehow there are more people than ever before living long and better quality lives compared to their ancestors. The world is even getting greener. Anyone promoting socialism as a means to protect the environment should carefully examine what happened to the environment under such regimes.

[IMG][/img][IMG][/img][IMG]https://d33wjekvz3zs1a.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/1994-Sunspot.jpg[/MG] And not forgetting this[/img]global cooling scare from the 70s.



The climate is subject to more immediate cycles it always changes and over a long enough time horizon due to continental drift and Milankovitch cycles it will change on that basis without human intervention. As can be seen anyone who dares argue that climate change is not caused by humans is ridiculed because this is a political issue being used to raise taxes and to regulate human activity by removing more human rights and freedom gained over hundreds of years. Those who attack anyone who denies catastrophic anthropogenic global warming are either brainwashed or have a self-interest in the entire scam since the evidence increasingly does not fit the narrative.

Continental drift lol :rolleyes:

Arent you clever, did you come up with that ingenious "climate always changing" line by yourself? The problem is and has always been the rate of change we're inflicting on the environment through the massive release of greenhouse gases.

Pa ElGrande

Thargor wrote: »

Continental drift lol :rolleyes:

The continents are moving and it's not just laterally.

Thargor wrote: »

Arent you clever, did you come up with that ingenious "climate always changing" line by yourself? The problem is and has always been the rate of change we're inflicting on the environment through the massive release of greenhouse gases.

Our ability to influence global climate is conjecture. We think we are relevant, but that’s just a function of our narcissism. You have presented no evidence to demonstrate this is a problem, it is not and there are new discoveries.

“Our study shows that nitrogen weathering is a globally significant source of nutrition to soils and ecosystems worldwide,” said co-lead author Ben Houlton, a professor in the UC Davis Department of Land, Air and Water Resources and director of the UC Davis Muir Institute. “This runs counter the centuries-long paradigm that has laid the foundation for the environmental sciences. We think that this nitrogen may allow forests and grasslands to sequester more fossil fuel CO2 emissions than previously thought.”

source

Note he uses the word “paradigm”. Clearly, if his discovery of a vast storehouse of nitrogen is correct, then it would have an enormous impact on global warming predictions.

“If there is more nitrogen there than expected, then the constraints on plant growth in a high-CO2 world may not be as great as we think,” says Ronald Amundson, who studies soil biogeochemistry at the University of California, Berkeley.

source

That's not all, if you look at the aftermath of disasters like Chernobyl nature is very quick to adapt and if look at the northern Tundra and alpine tree lines you can see they have changed with the climate of those regions. Then you have another problem climate is not measured in terms of a few tenths of a degree Celsius. Climate is not global, it is regional. The arbitrary rolling average of 30 years is not long enough to measure climate change.

As more is being discovered from historical records and palaeoclimatological examination of any country/region, you can observe that what we are seeing today has all been seen before, many times in the past. What we are seeing today is within the bounds of the historical climate record for that country or region.

The IPCC reports don't set out a country by country pre-industrial climate classification and compare it to today, its still all in range.

Thelonious Monk

Pa ElGrande would you not go and give some talks in Oxford or the UN, given you seem to have figured the whole thing out as a scam? You could save the world from the green hoax.

James Brown

jackboy wrote: »

The part about climate activism being like a religion is certainly true. How often we have seen religious language such as 'deniers' in this thread.

You could say the same in regard to flat earthers. They deny it's round like a globe. Is believing the world is a globe because science, like a religion too?

I'll jump in for the loonies:

Columbusts : People who believe the world is round.

jackboy

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You could say the same in regard to flat earthers. They deny it's round like a globe. Is believing the world is a globe because science, like a religion too?

I'll jump in for the loonies:

Columbusts : People who believe the world is round.

The small few debates I have experienced about flat earthers have not resorted to calling them 'deniers'. Instead, it usually involved people explaining why they were wrong, from a scientific point of view.

The majority of climate activists do not do this, the 'denier' thing dominates.

James Brown

jackboy wrote: »

The small few debates I have experienced about flat earthers have not resorted to calling them 'deniers'. Instead, it usually involved people explaining why they were wrong, from a scientific point of view.

The majority of climate activists do not do this, the 'denier' thing dominates.

I take it you're not a flat earther.
They have a lot of the same rhetoric and conspiracy theories as climate change deniers.

The Flat Earth Society values scientific integrity and demands direct, conclusive, and repeatable evidence that our Earth is a globe.
https://www.tfes.org/

There is no Flat Earth Conspiracy. NASA is not hiding the shape of the earth from anyone. The purpose of NASA is not to 'hide the shape of the earth' or 'trick people into thinking it's round' or anything of the sort.

There is a Space Travel Conspiracy. The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel to further America's militaristic dominance of space. That was the purpose of NASA's creation from the very start: To put ICBMs and other weapons into space (or at least appear to). The motto "Scientific exploration of new frontiers for all mankind" was nothing more than a front.
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy#Motive_of_the_Conspiracy

jackboy

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I take it you're not a flat earther.
They have a lot of the same rhetoric and conspiracy theories as climate change deniers.

As I said, with climate activists, the ‘denier’ thing dominates.

James Brown

jackboy wrote: »

As I said, with climate activists, the ‘denier’ thing dominates.

It's descriptive.

randd1

So, did they save the world, or did they drown or what?

Pa ElGrande

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You could say the same in regard to flat earthers. They deny it's round like a globe. Is believing the world is a globe because science, like a religion too?

I'll jump in for the loonies:

Columbusts : People who believe the world is round.

The conspiracy theorists on this thread are those promoting alarmism aka catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW), despite decades of abusing the science to predict impending doom nothing of the sort has happened and the further back their predictions go the more out of line with reality they are. This alarmism is a fundamental problem for Greta Thunberg and those who back her, she is destroying the credibility of those around her which is why you see the recent attempts at damage limitation that I highlighted above.


GLOBAL WARMING and the irrelevance of science
Richard Lindzen

The implausibility or even outright silliness through which global warming be-came global warming catastrophism is so extensive that one hardly knows where to begin. It is crucial to emphasise catastrophism because the situation is made even more incoherent by the intentional conflation of simple basic results that are widely agreed upon, but which have no catastrophic implications, with catastrophism itself. Currently, there really is quite a lot of basic agreement within the climate science world:

• climate change exists
• there has been warming since the Little Ice Age ended around the beginning of the 19th century (well before emissions are regarded as contributing significantly)
• human emissions can contribute to climate change
• levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have been increasing.

None of this is controversial and none of this actually implies alarm. However, in the policy world, as emerges from virtually any reading of the current political discourse and its attendant media coverage, the innocuous agreement is taken to be equivalent (with essentially no support from observations, theory or even models) to rampant catastrophism.

there is more

suicide_circus

jackboy wrote: »

The part about climate activism being like a religion is certainly true. How often we have seen religious language such as 'deniers' in this thread.

The correct term for those who deny the CLIMATE EMERGENCY is "heretic". Any attempt to query the severity of the CLIMATE EMERGENCY is "blasphemy".

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

The conspiracy theorists on this thread are those promoting alarmism aka catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW), despite decades of abusing the science to predict impending doom nothing of the sort has happened and the further back their predictions go the more out of line with reality they are. This alarmism is a fundamental problem for Greta Thunberg and those who back her, she is destroying the credibility of those around her which is why you see the recent attempts at damage limitation that I highlighted above.


GLOBAL WARMING and the irrelevance of science
Richard Lindzen

Oh look, another propaganda article sourced from another oil-industry-aligned think-tank (which was gradually uncovered despite their attempts to hide that funding/influence) - why are the zealots not rushing to thank that post?

KyussB

suicide_circus wrote: »

The correct term for those who deny the CLIMATE EMERGENCY is "heretic". Any attempt to query the severity of the CLIMATE EMERGENCY is "blasphemy".

You ever wonder once why pretty much ALL of the pushback is from oil industry sources?

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

Oh look, another propaganda article sourced from another oil-industry-aligned think-tank (which was gradually uncovered despite their attempts to hide that funding/influence) - why are the zealots not rushing to thank that post?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWahKIG4BE4

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore gives a keynote address to the Economic Education Association of Alberta's 6th annual "Freedom School" conference, on "Things that Matter: An Agenda for Alberta", about changing the world by speaking the truth - in this case about the science, policy and politics of man-made global warming