Rockbeast2 wrote: » Go Nuclear or Go Home! I'm sneaking off for a nice Indian. With rice AND Naan bread! Take care. rb
Rockbeast2 wrote: » Bad PC so couldn't like the post... but vladmydad nailed it. #cult
Tell me how wrote: » Wrong. Again. One fanatical poster out of 4 million does not qualify as a cult. Particularly so when the climate activists are motivated by scientific reports. The denial of climate action is more akin to being a cult given the dedication to ignoring any evidence.
Jimmy Garlic wrote: » Alright so climate action man, who wrote the last scientific report that you have read?
Tell me how wrote: » . . . .Particularly so when the climate activists are motivated by scientific reports. . . .
And why is it so important to stay below the 1.5 degree limit? Because that is what the united science calls for, to avoid destabilising the climate, so that we stay clear of setting off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control. Even at 1 degree of warming we are seeing an unacceptable loss of life and livelihoods.source
pwurple wrote: Is there some benefit to it? Do we want to live in a rubbish tip?
pwurple wrote: » I genuinely don't get what the problem is with environmental improvement suggestions. Take stopping littering the seas with plastic for example.
pwurple wrote: » I genuinely don't get what the problem is with environmental improvement suggestions. Take stopping littering the seas with plastic for example. Is there some benefit to it? Do we want to live in a rubbish tip? What is the problem with waste reduction that I don't see?
lola85 wrote: » No one has a problem with this. That is an environmental issue. Climate change and it’s hoax it’s a total different issue. Plastic has nothing to do with the climate changing. More taxes on fossil fuels isn’t going to stop plastic ending up on a beach.
KyussB wrote: » . . . . .as they are always raving about Communists/Marxists etc. - even though nobody here is Marxist/Communist, and nobody in Ireland, outside of Libertarians on Boards perhaps, gets rabid about conspiracy theories involving Communists. . . . .
KyussB wrote: » The denialists are the same as the right-wing Libertarian cult from earlier in the decade - same network of think-tanks and everything - you can best spot them, as they are always raving about Communists/Marxists etc. - even though nobody here is Marxist/Communist, and nobody in Ireland, outside of Libertarians on Boards perhaps, gets rabid about conspiracy theories involving Communists.
handlemaster wrote: » How many plane flights did the crew of Gretas boat take ? Will she be going back to europe on a boat ?
At the moment, she faces no pressure to back up any science assertions she makes, or any political accusations she might make against critics. There’s already efforts underway to insulate her from that via ‘attack the attacker’ tactics, but they are downright laughable and of course are ultimately unsustainable. She must be protected at all costs because she can’t answer serious due diligence-style questions. It’s a microcosm for the larger global warming issue. Al Gore and the scientists on his side fear losing a science-based debate, so they call their critics ‘fossil fuel industry-paid/orchestrated shills.’ It’s been an amazingly effective propaganda tactic: “the science is settled” / “skeptics are industry-corrupted” / “reporters may therefore ignore skeptic material because of points 1 & 2.” Don’t even think of asking an innocent teenage girl rough questions about her sources of science information. <snip> In the interim time, we should take the focus off her personally, and focus as harshly as we can on what specifically was taught to her, who did the teaching, who in the scientific community is currently doing the fact-checking of her speeches, and whether those ‘fact-checkers’ are actually writing her speeches and telling her what to say.source
The_Brood wrote: » Pretty much every major street protest in Dublin on social issues is filled with Communist/Soviet union flags (carried by young/not old people) who seem utterly oblivious/not giving a damn about the history behind the Soviet union.
sabat wrote: » This is really resembling an Aquarian doomsday cult at this stage. The messianic virginal leader, a specific end of the world date (12 years left), the deliberate recruitment of masses of young people etc.
JohnMc1 wrote: » Its a religion to these people.
Wanderer78 wrote: » and we get paid well for it to, tis fecken great
JohnMc1 wrote: » Oh, its a safe bet that most of them are paid to be there.
Pa ElGrande wrote: » They don't read any science reports on climate. When challenged they can't even quote the part of the science report that backs up their claims, the material they get sounds "sciency" but they are are only green coloured material authored by the likes of an Taisce. Take Greta Thunberg, the queen of climate alarmism. We were all waiting to hear what she had to say, so she wisely said almost nothing. She merely tabled the October 2018 IPCC report looking at the small differences between future warming of 0.5 degrees and 1.0 degrees C. Thunberg told the American congress that they should read this report and that they were not doing enough. She never said what was important in the report, if anything, or what the Americans should be doing that they are not already doing. I am sure she did not want to be cross examined on specific statements and the congress people did not read it either.I have a dream that the powerful take the climate crisis seriously. The time for their fairytales is over No science reports support that statement from Greta, that's all in her imagination. In fact the reports show something else entirely. These people did not arrive at their conclusions from science reports, they got there through the efforts of NGOs pushing fake news.
joe40 wrote: » Pa ElGrande wrote: » They don't read any science reports on climate. When challenged they can't even quote the part of the science report that backs up their claims, the material they get sounds "sciency" but they are are only green coloured material authored by the likes of an Taisce. Take Greta Thunberg, the queen of climate alarmism. We were all waiting to hear what she had to say, so she wisely said almost nothing. She merely tabled the October 2018 IPCC report looking at the small differences between future warming of 0.5 degrees and 1.0 degrees C. Thunberg told the American congress that they should read this report and that they were not doing enough. She never said what was important in the report, if anything, or what the Americans should be doing that they are not already doing. I am sure she did not want to be cross examined on specific statements and the congress people did not read it either.I have a dream that the powerful take the climate crisis seriously. The time for their fairytales is over No science reports support that statement from Greta, that's all in her imagination. In fact the reports show something else entirely. These people did not arrive at their conclusions from science reports, they got there through the efforts of NGOs pushing fake news. I have never in my life read a scientific study about the effects of smoking. Should I therefore not have an opinion on the harm cigarettes do? The vast majority of climate scientists, NASA, IPCC have have provided the science. Most people are not qualified or have the time to read first hand scientific studies. It is however really easy to trawl the internet to find alternative narratives. I will continue to listen to the experts on this issue, not infowars or fox news.
joe40 wrote: » I have never in my life read a scientific study about the effects of smoking. Should I therefore not have an opinion on the harm cigarettes do?
Pa ElGrande wrote: » Your analogy failed because Greta tells you to listen to the scientists and gives you a report to read which it turns out does NOT support her catastrophic claims. No reputable scientist supports Gretas catastrophism and it is likely they are disgusted that their work is being claimed as the basis to make such outrageous statements that in turn undermines their credibility. Wherever they originate Gretas claims are not based on science. This is about the left side of politics wanting a revolution based on CAGW or at least capturing enough mind share to have these children in ten years all voting in a socialist government.
joe40 wrote: » Greta is not important, and everyone knows she is not a scientists and she has never claimed to be a scientist. She is simply raising awareness, and promoting the IPCC reports. Everything else is just noise, but it is the thing people that who don't want to accept climate change is a problem latch onto. It is easy to ridicule what you call alarmism, but the world is undoubtedly facing a huge crisis caused by climate change.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1a8522b26abe4367117071263a70671.svg)
