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.
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...
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Ok the Greens made mistakes but what party hasn't? They're all a bunch of clowns.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » that guy was not a product of the state. He could have lived in a house if he wanted.
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.
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.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Is this a tongue in cheek response? I honestly can't tell!
Pa ElGrande wrote: » https://twitter.com/_waleedshahid/status/1099076130089459712Climate 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Umaro wrote: » Some of the responses in this thread remind me of this old cartoon:
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.
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?
99problems1 wrote: » How?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Umaro wrote: Some of the responses in this thread remind me of this old cartoon:https://i.imgur.com/XTAZDHS.png
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).
Umaro wrote: » Some of the responses in this thread remind me of this old cartoon:https://i.imgur.com/XTAZDHS.png
