Greta Thunberg (Continued...)

ancapailldorcha

No thanks. Ben Shapiro is just a professional troll.

gozunda

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

No thanks. Ben Shapiro is just a professional troll.

I'm aware of his reputation. The extreme left dont like him for sure some of the stuff he had has opined is certainly ott - just maybe that gives him an edge for giving alarmism a run its money.

Thelonious Monk

gozunda wrote: »

I'm aware of his reputation. The extreme left dont like him for sure some of the stuff he had has opined is certainly ott - just maybe that gives him an edge for giving alarmism a run its money.

He's an absolute gobsh*te. Even for you that's low, posting his stuff.
;)
:pac:

Turquoise Hexagon Sun

I don't agree with a lot of what Shapiro says but I mostly agree with what he said about Greta in the video posted above. And not just Greta but the tactic of using poster children for causes and then his main point of "if you disagree with the points the child is making, you are somehow dispicable becasue...look...she/he is only a child." And that's what's happened me in conversations before. This alarmist behaviour. I disagree with it. I would rather some middle-aged, experienced scientist campaining for such issues. Not some "kid."

BTW, I'm absolutely not a climate change denier. And I absolutely support change for relation to climate change but doesn't mean I have to agree with Greta's schtick either.

gozunda

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

He's an absolute gobsh*te. Even for you that's low, posting his stuff. :pac:

So good company for some of the alarmist eejits out there. Fair enough.

Ah yeah sure ignore the topic and shoot anyone with any criticism whatseover. Even for you that's the course posting the usual . No change there then lol. :pac:

KyussB

Turquoise Hexagon Sun wrote: »

I don't agree with a lot of what Shapiro says but I mostly agree with what he said about Greta in the video posted above. And not just Greta but the tactic of using poster children for causes and then his main point of "if you disagree with the points the child is making, you are somehow dispicable becasue...look...she/he is only a child." And that's what's happened me in conversations before. This alarmist behaviour. I disagree with it. I would rather some middle-aged, experienced scientist campaining for such issues. Not some "kid."

BTW, I'm absolutely not a climate change denier. And I absolutely support change for relation to climate change but doesn't mean I have to agree with Greta's schtick either.

What type of change? Would you support or oppose massive government economic activity (taking on a significant additional portion of GDP) to address emissions, if market-based solutions can't do it fast enough?

The dividing line between denialists and those who aren't, is those who support effective action, and those who oppose it, imo (with a fair bit of room for people inbetween).

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

What type of change? Would you support or oppose massive government economic activity (taking on a significant additional portion of GDP) to address emissions, if market-based solutions can't do it fast enough?

The dividing line between denialists and those who aren't, is those who support effective action, and those who oppose it, imo (with a fair bit of room for people inbetween).

Interesting the use of the phrase 'denialist' where anyone does not agree with a particular set of political views...

Not being a fan of greta et al has nothing to do with being a supporter of change. As someone has pointed out the issues are certainly not as black and white as some would propose they are ...

KyussB

Either people support effective action that's going to arrest climate change emissions in a timely manner, or they don't - the latter is part of the definition of climate change denial:

Climate change denial can also be implicit, when individuals or social groups accept the science but fail to come to terms with it or to translate their acceptance into action.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

There are only two broad paths for action (which can be undertaken together): Market-based solutions, and non-market based solutions.
We have decades of proof that market based solutions will not arrest emissions fast enough, and thus are not effective enough.

Do posters admit the failure of market-based solutions, and the decades of evidence of this failure? Posters can't claim ignorance of that failure, since it's being put to them here.

Either they admit it, effectively admitting that non-market-based solutions are the only remaining effective action - or they deny it, and end up painting themselves into a corner trying to propose market-based solutions that resolve the issue in a timely manner (despite the decades of evidence against this, making it extremely improbable/unlikely).

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Either people support effective action that's going to arrest climate change emissions in a timely manner, or they don't - the latter is part of the definition of climate change denial:Climate change denial can also be implicit, when individuals or social groups accept the science but fail to come to terms with it or to translate their acceptance into actionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denialThere are only two broad paths for action (which can be undertaken together): Market-based solutions, and non-market based solutionsWe have decades of proof that market based solutions will not arrest emissions fast enough, and thus are not effective enough.Do posters admit the failure of market-based solutions, and the decades of evidence of this failure? Posters can't claim ignorance of that failure, since it's being put to them here.Either they admit it, effectively admitting that non-market-based solutions are the only remaining effective action - or they deny it, and end up painting themselves into a corner trying to propose market-based solutions that resolve the issue in a timely manner (despite the decades of evidence against this, making it extremely improbable/unlikely).

Ah I see you are either ' with' greta or you are against her. Get ya. :pac:

But nope all thats just grade A rubbish tbh. Not supporting your or anyone else's personal ideas does not equate either btw.

Plus using wiki or indent for emphasis or even constantly repeating the same nonsense doesnt make any of it valid...

Heres a relevant wiki article

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

hetuzozaho

A link to tomorrow's press conference for anyone interested

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1222947197957877766

weldoninhio

I see that Gertie is trademarking her name and her school strike name. Quite savvy for a child

The_Conductor

weldoninhio wrote: »

I see that Gertie is trademarking her name and her school strike name. Quite savvy for a child

She is going to be so angry in a year or two when she discovers just how used she was........

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

Ah I see you are either ' with' greta or you are against her. Get ya. :pac:

But nope all thats just grade A rubbish tbh. Not supporting your or anyone else's personal ideas does not equate either btw.

Plus using wiki or indent for emphasis or even constantly repeating the same nonsense doesnt make any of it valid...

Heres a relevant wiki article

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Yea a bunch of you could take some instruction from that link/fallacy:

The false dilemma fallacy can also arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception. For example, "Stacey spoke out against capitalism, therefore she must be a communist" (she may be neither capitalist nor communist, or a capitalist who disagrees with portions of capitalism)

If you think the idea of market or non-market based solutions to bringing down climate emissions enough and in a timely manner, is a False Dichotomy - then this means you think there are other options for doing this, or you think it doesn't need to be done at all (the latter of which, still fits the definition of denialism).

Which is it? If you acknowledge that it needs doing - then what options do you present that are not market or non-market based?

You seem to just follow a pattern of being dismissive simply for the sake of it - because you know if you engaged in actual discussion/dialogue, rather than one-way dismissiveness, you'd quickly be painted into a corner - the same with most people in the thread supporting the same views.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Plus using wiki or indent for emphasis or even constantly repeating the same nonsense doesnt make any of it valid...

Heres a relevant wiki article

This is incredible.

hetuzozaho

Tell me how wrote: »

This is incredible.

Haha I think I enjoyed the, greta is a annoying but shapiro on the other hand, more

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

This is incredible.

You are absolutely correct Claiming that you have to swallow all the green new deal guff or be a greta supporter or else you are denialist of some kind is indeed incredible. I would even suggest truely bizarre.

Btw the inclusion of the by return wiki reference was ironic btw - I see that went straight over the head. But no matter

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

You are absolutely correct Claiming that you have to swallow all the green new deal guff or be a greta supporter or else you are denialist of some kind is indeed incredible. I would even suggest truely bizarre.

Btw the inclusion of the by return wiki reference was ironic btw - I see that went straight over the head. But no matter

What was said is that you have to support some kind of solutions that will arrest climate changing emissions in a timely enough manner - and if you oppose that, you fit the definition of an implicit denialist.

Even without going into market vs non-market solutions, you won't even definitively state support or opposition of the above.

It's like you want to avoid discussion, and just clown around shitting on the thread.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

What was said is that you have to support some kind of solutions that will arrest climate changing emissions in a timely enough manner - and if you oppose that, you fit the definition of an implicit denialist.Even without going into market vs non-market solutions, you won't even definitively state support or opposition of the above.It's like you want to avoid discussion, and just clown around shitting on the thread.

Who says posters dont? For sure you seem to be sure that anyone not following your green new deal / non market solutions stuff (ie nearly all your posts) or being a fan of greta is 'denislism' That's a crock of crap imho.

Not me "shitting" about the exact same idea non stop and 'clowning' tbh. The poster above was talking about the video on greta (topic of thread) when you jumped. It's like your comments avoid that discussion and just have the same party political broadcast again and again ...

But hey if this were a campaign trail - I reckon most voters would have headed for the hills already:pac:

KyussB

Well state it then: (and a response to the full sentence, not quote mining the part you bolded)

What was said is that you have to support some kind of solutions that will arrest climate changing emissions in a timely enough manner - and if you oppose that, you fit the definition of an implicit denialist.

Is your position the former or the latter?

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Well state it then: (and a response to the full sentence, not quote mining the part you bolded) What was said is that you have to support some kind of solutions that will arrest climate changing emissions in a timely enough manner - and if you oppose that, you fit the definition of an implicit denialist.Is your position the former or the latter?

So moving from interrogating other posters being ' Implicit denislists' to just me now? Well done!

How many times do you reckon it has it been pointed that this is a thread about greta not a party political broadcast or even your take on the inquisition. Go read my comments if you've forgotten what I've or indeed others have said about your topic.

But yes the poster above clearly stated that they absolutely support change with regard to global warming. And no again as pointed out that does not mean anyone has to support green new deal / non market solutions bolloxology or indeed evem be a huge fan of greta.
This had to be the best bit yet -
"Implicit denialist"

Anyway back on topic! Heres another thought provoking piececby the American writer Andrew Klaven.

https://m.facebook.com/DailyWire/videos/453680678909148/?refsrc=https%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com%2FDailyWire%2Fvideos%2F453680678909148%2F&_rdr

KyussB

You dodged it again: You say nothing about support or opposition to some kind of solutions that arrest climate change emissions in a timely manner.

So again:

What was said is that you have to support some kind of solutions that will arrest climate changing emissions in a timely enough manner - and if you oppose that, you fit the definition of an implicit denialist.

Is your position the former or the latter?


We're more than 10,000 posts since the original thread - you're probably the person with the most posts in that time - and you won't even clarify the most basic things like this, about your position.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

You dodged it again: You say nothing about support or opposition to some kind of solutions that arrest climate change emissions in a timely manner So again:What was said is that you have to support some kind of solutions that will arrest climate changing emissions in a timely enough manner - and if you oppose that, you fit the definition of an implicit denialist.Is your position the former or the latter?We're more than 10,000 posts since the original thread - you're probably the person with the most posts in that time - and you won't even clarify the most basic things like this, about your position.

Since now the target of your particular obsession lol? I believe we were discussing the video btw. But yes absolutely theres other posters with more posts. And yes I will certainly clarify my position on the most basic thing here. Yes I confess I am not a greta fan. So rather than haranguing every other poster about "non market solutions" / "green new deal " again - Answer me one relevant question - do you agree with gretas et al's alarmism or otherwise? If you do - do you fit the definition of an implicit alarmist?

KyussB

Fine, I tried beyond the point of tedium to get him to pin down his position - it's like a monkey flinging shit around here - I'm done with that.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Answer me one relevant question - do you agree with gretas et al's alarmism or otherwise? If you do - do you fit the definition of an implicit alarmist?

Do you think David Attenborough is an 'implicit alarmist'? Because he agrees with Greta's position.

Pa ElGrande

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you think David Attenborough is an 'implicit alarmist'? Because he agrees with Greta's position.

Gretas position is irrelevant in that context, the man can speak for himself and he does promote alarmism, notice how "on message" he is. Not only that he calls for population control in Africa.


David Attenborough: Mass extinction is ‘on the horizon’
Dec 3, 2018

“The world’s people have spoken, their message is clear, time is running out, they want you, the decision-makers, to act now. They’re supporting you in making tough decisions but they’re also willing to make sacrifices in their daily lives,” he added.


source

Sir David Attenborough: If we do not control population, the natural world will

When asked about comments he made on population control earlier this year, when he said human beings were a “plague on the Earth, Sir David agreed they could be considered “blindingly obvious” but claimed nobody else had made the point publicly.

source

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Fine, I tried beyond the point of tedium to get him to pin down his position - it's like a monkey flinging shit around here - I'm done with that.

Incorrect the discussion is not posters 'positions' on party political ideas regarding 'non market solutions' aka the green new deal. The discussion above was alarmism as detailed in the video. And yet no comment about that? Hey no worries ...

suicide_circus

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Gretas position is irrelevant in that context, the man can speak for himself and he does promote alarmism, notice how "on message" he is. Not only that he calls for population control in Africa.


David Attenborough: Mass extinction is ‘on the horizon’
Dec 3, 2018





Sir David Attenborough: If we do not control population, the natural world will

surprised he went after Africa with the population stuff. i mean, he's right, birth rates in Africa are massive but it's usually bourgeois westerners who are encouraged to remain childless.

Fr_Dougal

Look at the bickering here, Greta is a divisive character in her actions. Poor Paddy Green is ashamed of his gender now, and he’s even taking sunbed sessions to change his colour.

She needs to go, let her enjoy the last 10 years of her life in peace.

The_Conductor

suicide_circus wrote: »

surprised he went after Africa with the population stuff. i mean, he's right, birth rates in Africa are massive but it's usually bourgeois westerners who are encouraged to remain childless.

Its not just the bourgeois westerners who have been encouraged to remain childless- keep in mind China- which is in population decline.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/business/china-birth-rate-2019.html

Their child rate is now at 1.6

However, India is at 2.3.

Ireland's birthrate is 1.9 and the UK and the US are 1.8

Conversely the birthrate in Africa as a whole is still expanding at 4.8

(replacement rate = 2.0)

The only surprising thing is that David Attenborough had the guts to call out the growth in population for what it is...…….

Eric Cartman

Tell me how wrote: »

What do you think is the solution?

Nuclear power, sanctions against asia and africa until they clean up their act, make electric cars completely tax free, no VAT on condensing gas boilers, solar or new clean fuel technology, re instate free recycling bin lifts, a bottle return scheme, An EU funded R&D fund available to universities and provate enterprise to research cleaner power technologies.