Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

Overheal wrote: »

And who are you a serial re reg of?

You dont need to be a registered user to access this site. Been a long time lurker on Boards, probably 10 years. I remember yourself and Billy86 lording over the election thread in the politics forum in 2016, mocking anyone that thought Trump had a chance. Showed yourself up on that thread nicely.

SJW Lover wrote: »

Your immediate response to someone disagreeing with you is to insult their intelligence.

I think the evidence is that my immediate response is to point to a respected opinion (such as David Attenborough) or to academic evidence (such as IPCC report) to challenge a view I disagree with.

I'm not surprised some choose to interpret that as their intelligence being insulted.

Overheal

SJW Lover wrote: »

You dont need to be a registered user to access this site. Been a long time lurker on Boards, probably 10 years. I remember yourself and Billy86 lording over the election thread in the politics forum in 2016, mocking anyone that thought Trump had a chance. Showed yourself up on that thread nicely.

A serial lurker. Suuure.

is_that_so

Tell me how wrote: »

That sentence is contradictory. The fact that I challenge implies I am interested in giving people the opportunity to defend their position.

I'm not going to apologise for disagreeing with them.

It's really not. The first part encourages your questioning, the latter raises the honesty of your questioning. Nobody expects you to apologise but one would question your simplistic labelling.

Tell me how wrote: »

I think the evidence is that my immediate response is to point to a respected opinion (such as David Attenborough) or to academic evidence (such as IPCC report) to challenge a view I disagree with.

I'm not surprised some choose to interpret that as their intelligence being insulted.

And even when presented with evidence, you just ignore and plough on. Jog on.

pjohnson wrote: »

Wait are you agreeing with Welly now re. Man made climate change and CO2?

... I was pointing out weld's strawman

Just pointing out the strawmen when I see them.

Weld : No evidence of man made climate change
others: There's plenty of evidence of man made climate change
weld: I'm not denying there's evidence for climate change(Strawman)

Classic bait and switch evident in many of the statistics about this stuff.

Overheal wrote: »

A serial lurker. Suuure.

Your use of the word "serial" is both presumptive and incorrect in this instance. Kudos on the non-denial though

Overheal

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

It's really not that complicated. They use same tech with nappies, pour a litre of water into a modern nappy, and it turns to a gel.

If you could do it on a giant scale then you could use the gel to build homes.

You’re talking about silica gel, and it won’t work, you’d need hundreds billions of tons of the stuff. Doesn’t exist.

is_that_so wrote:

Tell me how wrote:

And so, after weeks of 'Oh I do care about the environment, I just don't agree with Greta' being used to lambaste any advocacy for climate protection, it is now clear that some people are, as was suggested from very early on, just motivated by their individual present and selfish needs.

That is your right, just stop with trying to come up with an argument that makes sense when you don't have it.You seem absolutely intent on nailing a label on people who disagree with you, the label's getting crazier too BTW. You're unmoved by what they say and they what you have to say so just let it go man. You're really just shadow boxing at this stage.

This ^^^ Afraid it seems to be the usual modus operandi. - attacking anyone they dont agree with. Same with a whole bunch other posters at the receiving end. And still repeating the same rubbish. You couldnt make it up tbh.

Overheal

SJW Lover wrote: »

Your use of the word "serial" is both presumptive and incorrect in this instance. Kudos on the non-denial though

Well unlike you Billy I don’t have a year’s old thread seared into my memory. At best I remember thinking nobody in their right mind should vote for Trump and that’s still true; 538 had him with odds to win the whole way through so idk that I trust your accusation that I made any categorical statement that his election was impossible.

gozunda wrote: »

This ^^^ Afraid it seems to be the usual modus operandi. - attacking anyone they dont agree with. Same with a whole bunch other posters at the receiving end. And still repeating the same rubbish. You couldnt make it up tbh.

Except, you do.

gozunda wrote: »

This ^^^ Afraid it seems to be the usual modus operandi. - attacking anyone they dont agree with. Same with a whole bunch other posters at the receiving end. And still repeating the same rubbish. You couldnt make it up tbh.

Thankfully this is a conversation free from the stigma of stuff that usually sticks.

The crazy's tactics don't work in this debate; since the debate usually says 'refer to scientist'.

Gaoth Laidir

Anyway, tell me again why Greta's not in school? Did someone say she quit?

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Anyway, tell me again why Greta's not in school? Did someone say she quit?

She's on a years sabbatical. Somewhat similar to students in Ireland doing transition year.

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Thankfully this is a conversation free from the stigma of stuff that usually sticks.

The crazy's tactics don't work in this debate; since the debate usually says 'refer to scientist'.

Yeah, such a foolish suggestion isn't it, asking people to listen to the scientists who have completed extensive testing and analysis on the topic.

Why would you bother.

KyussB

This threads gotten really unhinged, in a very wierd way, in the last half dozen pages - with fresh posters coming in, supporting posts that are really very...well, saying some pretty out-there things (that would put a persons faculties in question, genuinely), and suddenly getting fresh posters in that are supportive of them.

It's really odd. It looks a lot like sockpuppeting, and not just from rereg accounts, from older ones too - which is a pattern I haven't seen before on Boards.

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Thankfully this is a conversation free from the stigma of stuff that usually sticks.

The crazy's tactics don't work in this debate; since the debate usually says 'refer to scientist'.

True. I reckon most of it is has to be a front. It simply has to be made up ... nothing could be that one dimensional and still somehow believe there is any coherent argument.

Tell me how wrote: »

Yeah, such a foolish suggestion isn't it, asking people to listen to the scientists who have completed extensive testing and analysis on the topic.

Why would you bother.

Maybe try talking to people with some manners. You might be surprised at the response you get.

weldoninhio wrote: »

Why is it a problem?? We are a virus and the earth is counteracting it. Do you honestly think humans are so important in the grand scheme of things??

"Anyone who believes in infinite growth on a finite planet is ‘either a madman or an economist’".-David Attenborough

We are currently 7.53billion and rising.

gozunda wrote: »

True. I reckon most of it is has to be a front. It simply has to be made up ... nothing could be that one dimensional and still somehow believe there is any coherent argument.

Their usual tactics don't work, so it drives them potty :rolleyes:

There is an equally incoherent argument being made from the other polar extreme (at least they're not throwing names around)

It seems people genuinely don't believe humans are having a significant effect on the climate or ever could.

SJW Lover wrote: »

Maybe try talking to people with some manners. You might be surprised at the response you get.

What, like this?

SJW Lover wrote: »

Crikey you're a fool.

SJW Lover wrote: »

Haha from someone who isnt laughing is just sad. Good luck with hanging on the words of a manipulated kid. You fool.

SJW Lover wrote: »

I've learnt you are an easily manipulated person. Let me find a 15 year old to convince you of that

SJW Lover wrote: »

You're nothing but useful fodder.

Now, can you show me where I've displayed anything close to the similar levels of manners.

Tony EH

SJW Lover wrote: »

Maybe try talking to people with some manners. You might be surprised at the response you get.

Looks like we need that Tommy Lee Jones pic again...

SJW Lover wrote: »

I am noticing that the insults seem to be coming from only one side of this Greta argument.

SJW Lover wrote: »

Crikey you're a fool.

SJW Lover wrote: »

Haha from someone who isnt laughing is just sad. Good luck with hanging on the words of a manipulated kid. You fool.

SJW Lover wrote: »

I've learnt you are an easily manipulated person. Let me find a 15 year old to convince you of that

SJW Lover wrote: »

You're nothing but useful fodder.

q85dw7osi4lebg

Tell me how wrote: »

She's on a years sabbatical. Somewhat similar to students in Ireland doing transition year.

That's not quite how transition year works.

She's a lizard so she has extra special liberties with education.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Anyway, tell me again why Greta's not in school? Did someone say she quit?

In Sweden she attends a special school for children with autism spectrum conditions etc. Prior to setting sail for the new world- she had taking to mitching school on fridays for at least a year. So yeah it would appear she has already missed a whole load of schooling.

According to one of her own interviews she decided not to go back to school this year and instead go off to the US etc. There was no comment made about returning to school. So no it doesnt seem to fit with being a gap year.

Not sure if the parents had any real input in this. Tbh they dont seem to have input into anything she does. According to her mother she managed to barage the other members of the family into giving up flying, only eating a plant food diet, not use their car etc. Though the mother did admit to sneaking some cheese when greta is not around.

Afaik - There was some talk of selling their swedish holiday house. Oh and the parents both gave up their full time jobs. Her father to accompany her on her travels and her mother as her singing career requires her to fly and greta didnt like that.

So if I had to place a bet on it - it's highly unlikely anyone will persuade her to return to finish school. I suppose there some chance of a job out of all this gallavanting. But who knows.

SJW Lover wrote: »

So true. Insulting people's intelligence when they dont agree with him. The surest sign of arrogance. Had me in the climate change denier box yesterday and telling me i just wasnt smart enough to understand his enlightened position because i said i didnt want to take my direction from a child's indulged tantrums.

I saw that comment. The arrogance was palpable and definitly not conducive to any rational discussion. But there we go.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

...

I've zero interest in dragging mods into this crap - there are many on the thread letting a lot pass from you without reports - are you seriously dinging reports on my posts discussing the Green New Deal? (which Greta supports, making it on topic...plus all of the posters demanding solutions to resolving climate change, pretending there are none, with the GND being the major obvious one...)

If there's abuse of the reporting system going on, then that's going to force people to not look past stuff, and report it (a recipe for a pain in the arse for mods) - because if they keep looking past stuff, they're going to be getting dinged themselves, in a lopsided manner - and that is how censorship of views happens on these forums, from posters trying to manipulate discussion, browbeat, bait and then report - I've been on Boards a long time, I know how all that shit works and have already been on the receiving end of it a lot of times.

gozunda wrote: »

I saw that comment. The arrogance was palpable and definitly not conducive to any rational discussion. But there we go.

Ooh, this is brilliant, attack the messenger.

Person A: I have several varied and unconnected reasons why I dislike Greta drawing attention to the climate.
Person B: You should listen to the scientists who have done work on climate issues.
Person A: You are very arrogant and insulting and clearly have no time for rational discussion.
Person B:

Tell me how wrote: »

What, like this?

Now, can you show me where I've displayed anything close to the similar levels of manners.

All in response to the following:

Tell me how wrote: »

You possibly don't have the capacity to understand it.

That's not a dig at your intellect by the way, it's just an acknowledgement of it. You have demonstrated an incapacity to comprehend a fairly simple situation.

I do believe your choice of username is indicative of your motivation in taking part in the discussion.

If you speak to people you dont know without manners and in a condescending and insulting tone, then you deserve to be called a fool. As i said, start the conversation with some manners and you might be surprised.

You've been told this by more than just me on this thread. Take the hint

Tony EH wrote: »

Looks like we need that Tommy Lee Jones pic again...

Ed Tom Bell would give a similar look to a 16 year old Norwegian kid telling him he has destroyed her childhood.