KyussB wrote: » Oh look, yet another propagandist with direct ties to the Libertarian oil-oligarch think tank network, including think tanks with a seasoned history of denial of the negative health effects of smokng...
KyussB wrote: » What 'research'? It's a fucking hour and a half long YouTube video of some speech, from a known propagandist/bullshitter. Why don't you fucking watch it and rebut it then? Oh wait...it agrees with your side of the argument, so you're perfectly fine with ignoring conflicts of interests and known bad-faith-propaganda, then.
SafeSurfer wrote: » Are the swear words to stress a point or an indication of a restricted vocabulary?
KyussB wrote: » SafeSurfer wrote: » Are the swear words to stress a point or an indication of a restricted vocabulary? No they're generously placed there, purely so that you to have something to turn to when you lack of any other argument/rebuttal.
KyussB wrote: » 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.
Similarly, environmentalists boast that households in the United Kingdom have reduced their electricity consumption by almost 10 per cent since 2005. But they neglect to mention that this reflects a 50% increase in electricity prices, mostly to pay for an increase in the share of renewables from 1.8% to 4.6%. The poor, no surprise, have reduced their consumption by much more than 10 per cent, whereas the rich have not reduced theirs at all. Over the past five years, heating a UK home has become 63 per cent more expensive, while real wages have declined. Some 17 per cent of households are now energy poor – that is, they have to spend more than 10 per cent of their income on energy; and, because elderly people are typically poorer, about a quarter of their households are energy poor. Deprived pensioners burn old books to keep warm, because they are cheaper than coal, they ride on heated buses all day, and a third leave part of their homes cold.source
Exposure to either cold or heat or a large variation in temperature was associated with increased mortality risk in Australia, but population adaptation appeared to have not occurred in most cities studied. Most of the temperature-induced deaths were attributable to cold, and contributions from temperature variability were greater than that from heat. Our findings highlight that, in addition to heat and cold, temperature variability needs to be considered in assessing and projecting the health impacts of climate change.source
There were 6,404 deaths recorded in the north over the winter of 2017/18 - 1,500 more than expected. This was a huge jump from the 960 and 640 the previous two winters. Nisra's new Excess Winter Mortality shows the difference between the actual and expected numbers of deaths in the four month period from December to March. Similar peaks have been seen in previous years. There were 1,230 in 1981/82 and 1,200 in 1975/76. Of the 1,500 excess deaths in 2017/18, there were 1,420 among people aged 65 and over. The Nisra statistics also showed most occurred in the over-85s.source
SafeSurfer wrote: » You dismiss the views of a founder of green peace because you don’t agree with what he says or because he is funded by some carbon crazed evil oligarchs?
Pa ElGrande wrote: » What about the mortality risk of building your socialist utopia? How many more people deaths are acceptable to you in pursuit of your puritanical ideology?
KyussB wrote: » SafeSurfer wrote: » You dismiss the views of a founder of green peace because you don’t agree with what he says or because he is funded by some carbon crazed evil oligarchs? Uh...yes, of course :rolleyes: Who is going to waste their time watching a 1h 30m video of a known oil oligarch propagandist - known for putting out proven lies and directly working with think tanks that do this? Do you believe the words of paid/proven propagandists - i.e. are you an idiot? There's no conspiring - they are completely out in the open, funding well proven lies and propaganda, on all sorts of things. I suppose you think smoking is good for us (propaganda they produce...) - just like the way that guy thinks carbon emissions are good for us?
SafeSurfer wrote: » So basically you dismiss the views of a speaker you refuse to listen to? And you ask others to rebut your swear word laden not arguments? What are the “proven lies” the speaker is “putting out”? You see that’s kind of how debates/discussions work among grown ups. Rather than dismissing arguments with the “because I say so” refrain you present evidence to rebut points and diminish the credibility of the opposing argument. Otherwise one comes across as an ignorant foul mouthed zealot.
KyussB wrote: » SafeSurfer wrote: » So basically you dismiss the views of a speaker you refuse to listen to? And you ask others to rebut your swear word laden not arguments? What are the “proven lies” the speaker is “putting out”? You see that’s kind of how debates/discussions work among grown ups. Rather than dismissing arguments with the “because I say so” refrain you present evidence to rebut points and diminish the credibility of the opposing argument. Otherwise one comes across as an ignorant foul mouthed zealot. Show me the same views from a speaker worth listening to in the first place. Tell me: What exactly are that persons arguments? Please get back to me when you finish watching the 1h 30m long video, listing all of his arguments. Instead of wasting my time and filling the thread with shite further, why don't you Google his name? This is the type of shite he's known for: During March 2015 in an interview by French investigative journalist Paul Moreira, which was first broadcast on French television station Canal+ in September 2014, Moore was asked about the safety of the herbicide glyphosate. Moore told Paul Moreira that one "could drink a whole quart of it" without any harm. When Moore was challenged to drink a glass of the weedkiller, he refused, saying "I'm not an idiot" and "I'm not stupid" before ending the interview. Monsanto, primary producers of glyphosate weedkillers under the Roundup brand, denied having retained Moore or his PR agency. The interview came shortly after the release of a World Health Organization (WHO) report adding glyphosate to a list of probable carcinogens. You can't be arsed to Google any of the sources you're busy fellating, because you don't give a toss about their credibility - you only care that they push your point of view.
KyussB wrote: » The Green New Deal's purpose is to save Capitalism from destroying itself, through gradual climate change - are you a Capitalist, or not? For someone who claims to be a strong Capitalist supporter, and constantly regurgitating the press releases of think tanks that claim the same - you (and they) sure as hell seem a lot more interested in letting Capitalism deliberately self-destruct, rather than preserving it. It's almost as if they don't give a toss about Capitalism at all - just about accumulating and preserving power... You also seem to think there won't be any death toll from this self-destruction, either.
KyussB wrote: » 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.
SafeSurfer wrote: » Says the guy defending a person who claims to be able to see carbon ����
osarusan wrote: » SafeSurfer wrote: » So basically you dismiss the views of a speaker you refuse to listen to? And you ask others to rebut your swear word laden not arguments? What are the “proven lies” the speaker is “putting out”? You see that’s kind of how debates/discussions work among grown ups. Rather than dismissing arguments with the “because I say so” refrain you present evidence to rebut points and diminish the credibility of the opposing argument. Otherwise one comes across as an ignorant foul mouthed zealot. SafeSurfer wrote: » Says the guy defending a person who claims to be able to see carbon ���� In one post you lament the quality of debate and lack of rebuttal, and then when the other poster provides the kind of evidence you asked for, that's your response? The same childish crap you supposedly are so against? Jesus, that's embarrassing stuff.
SafeSurfer wrote: » Says the guy defending a person who claims to be able to see carbon ����
SafeSurfer wrote: » Embarrassing that claims of Greta’s ability to see carbon are not addressed in the same post that questions others credibility. If one studies Soviet era “denouncements” of “counter revolutionaries” one finds striking parallels with the climate alarmists “denouncement” of “deniers”. Any non conformist thought or “collaboration” with the enemy aka industry over a lifetimes work is seized upon to dismiss all the individuals views no matter their validity. It is actually quite frightening. Dismissing all Patrick’ Moore’s views because of one bull**** statement is the same as dismissing all of Greta’s pronouncements as balderdash on the grounds of her ludicrous claims to be able to see carbon.
osarusan wrote: » SafeSurfer wrote: » Embarrassing that claims of Greta’s ability to see carbon are not addressed in the same post that questions others credibility. If one studies Soviet era “denouncements” of “counter revolutionaries” one finds striking parallels with the climate alarmists “denouncement” of “deniers”. Any non conformist thought or “collaboration” with the enemy aka industry over a lifetimes work is seized upon to dismiss all the individuals views no matter their validity. It is actually quite frightening. Dismissing all Patrick’ Moore’s views because of one bull**** statement is the same as dismissing all of Greta’s pronouncements as balderdash on the grounds of her ludicrous claims to be able to see carbon. None of that has anything to do with what I said. If you're going to waffle on evidence and rebuttal and what constitutes proper grown-up debate, then practice what you preach and engage with the evidence they provided, instead of some childish response.
SafeSurfer wrote: » Fair enough. Now can you address Greta’s claims to be able to see carbon and if it effects her credibility at all.
Jimmy Garlic wrote: » The CPUSA endorses your miricacoulous, wonderous, fandiddlyastic 'green New deal'. If there was even a whiff of what they consider to be capitalism off it they would be foaming at their mouths and telling us to burn the witch.
osarusan wrote: » SafeSurfer wrote: » Fair enough. Now can you address Greta’s claims to be able to see carbon and if it effects her credibility at all. I think it's a load of rubbish. She doesn't have any credibility in my eyes anyway. My post to you was my first post in this thread - I haven't even opened it in about two weeks, and only did so as I wondered what people are talking about with her journey long over. I only looked at the last page, saw your interaction with KyussB, and thought it was poor stuff, and said so.
KyussB wrote: » Jimmy Garlic wrote: » The CPUSA endorses your miricacoulous, wonderous, fandiddlyastic 'green New deal'. If there was even a whiff of what they consider to be capitalism off it they would be foaming at their mouths and telling us to burn the witch. Ironically, that would make them more supportive of Capitalism's continued future, than anyone in the thread regurgitating free market think-tank talking points, against fighting climate change. Why are the Communist Party in the US, more supportive of Capitalism's continued existence, than people in this thread who label others as 'Communist'? Fucking demented/bizarre. The posters railing against alleged/misattributed Commnism, don't even support the continuance of Capitalism...
KyussB wrote: » The Green New Deal's purpose is to save Capitalism from destroying itself, through gradual climate change - are you a Capitalist, or not? For someone who claims to be a strong Capitalist supporter, and constantly regurgitating the press releases of think tanks that claim the same - you (and they) sure as hell seem a lot more interested in letting Capitalism deliberately self-destruct, rather than preserving it. It's almost as if they don't give a toss about Capitalism at all - just about accumulating and preserving power...You also seem to think there won't be any death toll from this self-destruction, either.
politicians, such as left Democratic Party congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (AOC) in the US, a self-declared socialist, have raised the idea of a 'Green New Deal', gaining support from many workers and young people, and including many measures which socialists would strongly support... That's why fighting for Green New Deal policies raised by the likes of AOC - achieving carbon neutrality by 2030, public investment into new industries and technologies and the creation of millions of decent jobs on trade union rates of pay - means fighting capitalism, and for a socialist Green New Deal.
KyussB wrote: » It might shock you to find out, but preventing self-destruction through gradual climate change is a pan-ideological idea.
KyussB wrote: The Green New Deals purpose is to save Capitalism from destroying itself, through gradual climate change
KyussB wrote: » Capitalists don't support self-destruction through gradual climate change. The people who support self-destruction while claiming to be Capitalists, are not Capitalists - how could they be Capitalist while supporting the self-destruction of that system? They are supporters of Oligarchy at any cost. They'll use whatever ideology is most favourable for the day, to achieve that. Typically this is something closer to Anarcho-Capitalism/Libertarianism - just like all the think-tanks you lot are fellating - which is a form of Capitalism which is nothing like what we see in the real world, it's a deliberately extreme/unachievable form of Capitalism, that happens to be very useful to Oil Oligarchs.
KyussB wrote: » Hey I'm not the one deep-throating Charles Koch, and think think tank network he affiliates with.
