99problems1 wrote: » That comic strip is rendered useless when someone is literally taking a boat across the atlantic in the name of 0 emissions which is not 0 emissions because the other lads in the boat are getting a plane sent over for them...
IamtheWalrus wrote: » Do the deniers think we should sit by and watch our biodiversity die? The figure I kept hearing in David Attenborough’s Netflix series was 90 - nearly every ecological element had decreased by 90%, from forestation, coral, wildlife. That’s quite a big loss regardless of what’s behind it. Something’s not right.
KyussB wrote: » That simply isn't true - people just tried to drag the debate back down from step 5 in my post above, to step 4 - an entire soluton to the core macroeconomic problems was being put forward (putting together, funding and mobilizing huge amounts of labour/resources to fight climate change), with people pretending there was nothing that could be done to wield that macroeconomic power productively, to fight climate change.
weldoninhio wrote: » Was that the one he was caught lying in??
is_that_so wrote: » This is not debate and it is not any form of solution. Let me give you an example. We have a Climate Change Plan and God knows you could put an oil tanker through some of the holes in it, but it a plan, an outline of they want/hope with timelines, milestones and all that lovely stuff and something we can discuss. Your version is wishy washy and has no examples whatsoever. Just how is this mass mobilisation going to take place? To do what what exactly? How can we use macroeconomic power productively?
KyussB wrote: » This thread reads like people have swallowed the script from oil-oligarch think tanks with a proven track record for all varieties of science denialism, especially global warming - where such people will then spin conspiracy theories about climate scientists being the ones with a vast network of oligarch funded think tanks, as well as being part of a vast international Communist conspiracy (because Ireland is full of Communists, don't you know?...).
In its reportage on climate change research at ExxonMobil, the Los Angeles Times made a very telling editorial decision. The paper chose not to publish the document it cites as Exhibit A in its case against us: a 1989 presentation to Exxon’s board of directors by senior company scientist Duane Levine. I have no doubt why the newspaper doesn’t want the public to see this document. When you read it – which you can do here – it soon becomes clear that the document undercuts the paper’s claims that ExxonMobil knew with certainty everything there is to know about global warming back in the 1980s yet failed to sound alarms.By deliberately hiding this report from readers (while simultaneously citing it to make damaging claims about our corporation’s history of scientific research), the Los Angeles Times undermines the already low levels of trust in the media and in the media’s ability to cover issues of science and policy with accuracy and fairness.source
Skylinehead wrote: » Well done on spectacularly missing the point, I guess.
KyussB wrote: » Lol exxonmobileperspectives.com. You don't need conspiracy theories to nail Exxon Mobil - they openly propagandize, there's no conspiring going on, there.
They were lying about our forestry practices, so we did something that none of the group’s other targets have yet found the wherewithal to do: We sued them, in Canada, for defamation and intentional interference with economic relations, and in the United States under RICO statutes. A funny thing happened when Greenpeace and allies were forced to account for their claims in court. They started changing their tune. Their condemnations of our forestry practices “do not hew to strict literalism or scientific precision,” as they concede in their latest legal filings. Their accusations against Resolute were instead “hyperbole,” “heated rhetoric,” and “non-verifiable statements of subjective opinion” that should not be taken “literally” or expose them to any legal liability. These are sober admissions after years of irresponsible attacks. No “forest loss” was caused by Resolute, the groups concede — now that they are being held accountable. Of course, these late admissions are consistent with the findings of just about every independent journalist and commentator who has covered the dispute, from the Wall Street Journal editorial board to Enquête, a Canadian version, roughly, of 60 Minutes. Even Steve Forbes weighed in, calling our lawsuit “an outstanding example of how unfairly attacked companies should respond.” Peter Reich, one of the world’s leading forest ecologists, has said that Greenpeace has “a fundamental disregard for scientific reality.”source
99problems1 wrote: » Must have! Care to explain in words? You won't be able to mock with the "I am intelligent" thing though!
Skylinehead wrote: » How do you suggest anyone gets a message across without using a phone or PC in this day and age? That's the point of the comic. You can be against something while still logically having to use it. Same goes for planes etc. It's fairly straightforward.
Pa ElGrande wrote: » Conspiracy theories are no good in court you need conspiracy facts and thus far the Democrats and their backers have not been able to prove their case and are only wasting their taxpayers dollars while the lawyers get rich. You should follow these cases though they are revealing some interesting findings (to me anyway) such as:At Last, Greenpeace Admits to ‘Rhetorical Hyperbole
KyussB wrote: » I don't give a toss about those court cases - ExonnMobil is one of the biggest and most well documented funders of climate denial out there - there's mountains of evidence of that, they fund loads of think tanks with a known history of climate change denialism. It's right out in the open - no conspiracies...
KyussB wrote: » I've already explained the political and macroeconomic problems that need to be resolved before it can take place - "To do what exctly" is asking what people should be put to work on to fight climate change - the latter I am not going to discuss with people who can't even acknolwedge the macroeconomic problems and their solutions, and the possibility of mobilizing people at a large scale, to be put to work on tasks involving fighting climate change. There are thousands of different things that get discussed regularly, work that can be done, for fighting climate change - and if I get into the minutiae of discussing that, then that's the bigger issue of resolving the problems with macroeconomic practice, gone from discussion - so it pretty much means, that people have to acknowledge that there is no lack of useful work to do for fighting climate change, or to agree to put that concern to the side to hash out the bigger issue above first.
We know how to stop plastic pollution. We know how to improve the environment, but what can we possibly do about climate change? Climate change is a problem in the same way that original sin is a problem. Modern society cannot function without energy. We abandoned renewable energy in the 19th century for good reason, can we really turn the clocks back? I doubt it because today’s renewables aren’t even what they claim to be because they can’t even renew themselves without fossil fuels, let alone power transport and heating.source
Pa ElGrande wrote: » Despite the efforts of the Rockefellers their detractors have been unable to make their case in a court of law. They even fund their own 'peer reviewed 'research as shown here Activists Manipulated Academic Research To Smear Exxon. Are the Rockefellers motives any more pure than those of Exxon? All you see are the puppets such as Greta, behind the scenes there is serious money passing hands.
is_that_so wrote: » Well you've talked about them endlessly but still not one single idea anyone can could get behind, explore or dismiss. I'm really not sure why you can't see the problem with this approach of yours - you're effectively stuck on a merry go round of theory. If we are 11 years, 20 years or 100 years from total disaster time has run out on that.
KyussB wrote: » The court case has fuck all to do with what I've stated - you're using it as an attempted bait-and-switch. . . .
1. In brief, the proceedings on appeal in this climate case concern Urgenda’s claim to order the State to achieve a level of reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by end-2020 that is more ambitious than envisioned by the State in its policy. 2. As the facts established by the district court in legal grounds 2.1 through to 2.78 of the contested judgment (hereinafter: the judgment) are not disputed between the parties, the Court shall also take them as starting points. However, it should be noted that the parties disagree about the weighting of several of these facts, and specifically the conclusions that can be drawn from them in light of the claim. The Court shall discuss this further below. 3. The assessment starts with an introduction of the dispute and the factual framework (legal ground 3), followed by a brief description of the treaties, international agreements, policy proposals and the actual situation at the global, EU and Dutch level (legal grounds 4 through to 26), for which the Court takes as a starting point the developments up to the oral arguments of 28 May 2018 (i.e., the moment when the debate was closed and the ruling was scheduled).source
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Oh he's another conniving fraud as well?
recedite wrote: » He claimed that overcrowded walruses were committing suicide due to melting sea ice. In fact he was splicing film footage from two different places. One place was a crowded beach, where walruses were happily hauled out. Another place was near a cliff, and they were being driven over the edge by something that scared them, something just out of the camera shot. Most likely a drone operated by the camera crew. When he was caught out, he claimed it must have been polar bears scaring them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IatVKZZcPG0
jackboy wrote: » In fairness to him he is just a narrator, he does not make the programs. He just reads from whatever script is pushed in front of him.
Instead, Attenborough intones at the end of each episode that you can visit a website to find out how to help. Yet said site offers only the most classic of neoliberal solutions. You, the consumer, can sign a pledge to consume responsibly once redirected to World Wildlife Fund’s (WWF) website. Once you sign it, I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before the first fundraising email reaches your inbox. Which itself is hugely problematic given the recent bombshell BuzzFeed News investigation into how the WWF backs wildlife rangers that have engaged in serious human rights violations. The other option is adding your “voice to call for urgent action” on a cool-looking spinny globe on the website that also sends your email to WWF. These solutions have about as much to do with the solutions laid out on-screen in Our Planet as a walrus does with a deep sea oar fish.source
KyussB wrote: » Since the thread is full of vast majority denialists, I take it the new Current Affairs section of Boards has been a fuckup that few venture to? (unless they want to be in an echo chamber) Boards is definitely not representative of general views - what you're reading here is a mostly hijacked discussion, turned into an echo chamber, tbh.
"KyussB wrote: The way the ****ing forum is run, plays right into the hands of that kind of bull****, as well - letting it gradually take over.
Pa ElGrande wrote: » The various court cases are an attempt to do an end run around voters and force an agenda on the general public that they do not in general subscribe to. You should at least pay attention to them, especially the ruling from the Dutch court last October that may be used to set a precedent for the Irish case. You are the one calling for a central state authority to impose a command economy which is the same goal of the people pushing the court cases. We shall see how the government increases our tax burden in the next budget since they have already being laying the groundwork for that.
KyussB wrote: » Hwre we go, conspiracy theories regarding Communism again... Not every economic policy differing from the present is Communism. The court case is a red herring, conpletely unrelated to anything I've been discussing.
KyussB wrote: » I haven't paid attention to Boards for a long time, now. Have people copped that that fighting climate change, requires a level of direct government involvement and spending in the economy, rarely seen outside of an existential war threat? Bernie/AOC's Green New Deal etc.? That's what is different to the last 'x' number of decades of climate change warnings - but has it even taken hold in a single posters consciousness, here? Or are we still at the "it's too expensive to fight climate change despite the fact that it will cost us far more if we don't fight it now" stage? Do people still fail to realize that fighting climate change, requires completely reforming mainstream economic views, in a way that permanently ends the fetish for austerity and budget-balancing policies? It's impossible to mobilize the scale of economic resources needed for fighting climate change now, without doing this first - as it requires a level of direct government intervention/spending that is almost literally unthinkable to most people, today - and is especially difficult to achieve, without reforming the EU itself, too (given its bias towards austerity/budget-balancing, and lack of a central fiscal power proportional to a national government)
gozunda wrote: » That's your manifesto and not a debate btw and more importantly has nothing to do with the topic of this thread tbh. You also previously spectacularly failed to defend even the first point of your five point plan (5 year plan?) Claiming doing so was beneath you lol. So actually answering the question asked previously what this "massive mobilising of labour" is going to be doing exactly - would be a good start. .... Otherwise all the above is simply busted flush
KyussB wrote: » Poster A: *Presents solutions* Poster B in reply to A: Well, what are the solutions then? The denialists aims, in order of priority, are to: 1: Avoid discussing climate change altogether - divert the topic into anything other than this (such as alleged hypocrisy of Greta). 2: If they have to talk about it, debate whether or not it's an actual real problem (with a bias towards stating it's not a problem), instead of debating it is a real/valid issue. 3: If they have to acknowledge it as a real issue, pretend there are no solutions - if faced with actual solutions, continue saying "there are no solutions" as if nothing was said, with the unstated position behind that being "that disagrees with my political/ideological views so I'm going to lie and pretend no solutions were presented" 4: If they have to debate solutions, keep the discussion at a microscopic level, debating heatedly, individual solutions to very minor/individual issues that do not tackle the big picture. 5: If any solutions tackle the macroeconomic problems, persistently declare them as impractical/impossible (because this is the heart of the debate, the danger zone that threatens the interests of the powerful/wealthy) - divide posters along ideological lines - and bring it all the way down to Capitalist vs Communist dog whistling and howling, persistently painting posters into views they don't subscribe to. It's a bloody tired script.
Pa ElGrande wrote: » In your previous post . . . By definition what you are calling for is a command and control economy, there are two economic models for this, the Soviet model or the fascist model. In the fascist economic model, ownership of the firms it nominally private and the government directs the production targets and rations the resources you can use. In the Soviet model the property and resources are directly controlled by the state as are the production targets. Both systems lead to massive waste through mis-allocation of resources and a reduced standard of living and eventually collapse.
KyussB wrote: » You don't think it's possible to mobilize such a labour force to begin with - even before considering what they would do - yet with the right changes in politics and economic policy (the actual thing I'm focusing on...), that government is capable of hiring labour and commanding resources to do whatever that labour/resources allow, and at a enormous scale - you disagree with this in principle even before getting to the discussion of what can be worked on. The debate over the actual capability of mobilizing workers and resources at that scale comes first - before the debate on what to put them to work on.
