Greta Thunberg (Continued...)

Blue Badger · 28-01-2020 9:49am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm not really a fan of her but her message is 100% correct

Yeah, full agreement here from me too.

The vehicle of a message doesn't matter. What matters is that the need for action is pushed to the forefront. And whatever people say, I can tell you that my circles of friends are now all discussing the environment regularly because of Greta (they're big fans).

Genuinely, a number of them are actively looking into ways they can donate to organisations that replant native woodlands, protect the amazon, DO something (especially with regard protecting biodiversity as keeps being trumpeted by the Greens). And indeed, a number have now said they will vote Green (I don't like a lot of their policies but tbh who likes any party atm).

Even I'm coming around to the idea of donating 5% of my paycheck to charities that deal with the above^. I know one person who took a 10% pledge (this is a thing that you sign up to) for 'normal' charities but as far as I'm concerned Environment > People.

The_Conductor · 28-01-2020 10:19am

Lyan wrote: »

So, aside from power hungry elites and braindead teenagers do regular people actually take this kid seriously? It would be sad to see emotion triumph over reason on such an important issue.

Ditto- I'm not a fan of hers.

I prefer to look at the bigger picture and the pros and cons of various situations and proposals. Life is not black and white- and there is always a cost associated with going down particular paths, or not doing so- and the costs and benefits of differing actions (or inactions) needs to be logically weighed up and deliberated on.

Stomping on the ground and pouting- only gets people's backs up- and regardless of the relative merits of the message- the messenger becomes the story- rather than the message. At the moment Greta is on a pedestal and afforded an audience by virtue of the fact that she is Greta. She only speaks in absolutes and refuses to engage with anyone who tries to logically look at her proposals.

I'm sorry that I don't like her (or her friend Luisa). I'm not a rabid environmentalist- but I do have more than a passing interest in it- and hold an undergrad degree in forestry and postgrad qualifications in environmental resource management- so I'm not exactly a random person who hasn't got a clue what they're talking about either.

is_that_so · 28-01-2020 10:35am

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not really a fan of her but her message is 100% correct

No message is 100% correct. There's nuance and a "but" to everything. The risk of her message is that she is divisive. Most would accept the core of a message about climate issues, without her own adulterations of course. Where that division comes in is whether she should be the conduit, which of course spurs outrage all over. In politics things get done in that Goldilocks zone of the centre and where compromise can be found. Megaphone activism does little to foster anything more than entrenched positions and random abuse.

28-01-2020 10:39am

is_that_so wrote: »

No message is 100% correct. There's nuance and a "but" to everything. The risk of her message is that she is divisive. Most would accept the core of a message about climate issues, without her own adulterations of course. Where that division comes in is whether she should be the conduit, which of course spurs outrage all over. In politics things get done in that Goldilocks zone of the centre and where compromise can be found. Megaphone activism does little to foster anything more than entrenched positions and random abuse.

I'd argue that the extreme ends of activism can pull the center.

is_that_so · 28-01-2020 10:43am

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd argue that the extreme ends of activism can pull the center.

It depends what their activism is about. They can go either way and may change some attitudes but its their outright intolerance that makes people reject them. The most recent example is ER, although peopled by a bunch of utter cretins has never helped their cause.

mandrake04 · 28-01-2020 10:44am

is_that_so wrote: »

No message is 100% correct. There's nuance and a "but" to everything. The risk of her message is that she is divisive. Most would accept the core of a message about climate issues, without her own adulterations of course. Where that division comes in is whether she should be the conduit, which of course spurs outrage all over. In politics things get done in that Goldilocks zone of the centre and where compromise can be found. Megaphone activism does little to foster anything more than entrenched positions and random abuse.

I agree, I look at the science and the data and am intelligent enough to make up my own mind. I don’t feel the need to applause the monkey even though I agree with some of her points ...a broken clock is technically correct twice a day.

Goldilocks zone where you have people onside with credibility rather than shock value of idiotism, stunts, Twitter BS and whatever else that is flavour of the month.

AlekSmart · 28-01-2020 9:18pm

The_Conductor wrote: »

Ditto- I'm not a fan of hers.

I prefer to look at the bigger picture and the pros and cons of various situations and proposals. Life is not black and white- and there is always a cost associated with going down particular paths, or not doing so- and the costs and benefits of differing actions (or inactions) needs to be logically weighed up and deliberated on.

Stomping on the ground and pouting- only gets people's backs up- and regardless of the relative merits of the message- the messenger becomes the story- rather than the message. At the moment Greta is on a pedestal and afforded an audience by virtue of the fact that she is Greta. She only speaks in absolutes and refuses to engage with anyone who tries to logically look at her proposals.

I'm sorry that I don't like her (or her friend Luisa). I'm not a rabid environmentalist- but I do have more than a passing interest in it- and hold an undergrad degree in forestry and postgrad qualifications in environmental resource management- so I'm not exactly a random person who hasn't got a clue what they're talking about either.

It does'nt,or should'nt be about being "a fan" of Greta Thunberg's.

For somebody like Ms Thunberg however,it often IS Black & White,for that is how they view and interact with the broader world,that is WHEN they choose to interact at all.

In my view,Ms Thunberg and her particular ability (and it IS that...not the DISability which many describe it as),was spotted at a particular stage in this campaign by people well versed in campaigning,who were sufficiently astute,and cruel enough to see an opening for their views to be pushed far along the scale in media terms...and that is exactly how it has panned out.

At some point it may well come to pass that Ms Thunberg and her backers will part company,and this is where the real risks lie for her.

In the meantime,and noting The Conductor's impressive environmental credentials,I cannot but feel that Ms Thunberg could benefit hugely from pursuing a similar path in order to accquire REAL insight and knowledge of the VERY complex structures which surround Mankind's (temporary) occupation of some of this planet.

KyussB · 29-01-2020 3:40pm

It's very black and white: We arrest our carbon emissions - and quickly - or we push the planets temperature to a point that we know is severely ecologically/environmentally/economically destructive, and which raises the threat of reaching tipping points that make it much harder to arrest this process.

It's that simple. The consensus from the vast majority of scientists who are experts in this area says this. The consensus is also that we aren't doing nearly enough - even though we are capable of doing far more.

The scientists are relying on non-experts heeding this message and acting - they don't subscribe to the idiotic fallacy that everyone has to be a climate scientist before they can have a valid opinion, and before we can do anything (nobody here is a climate scientist btw...) - they need non-experts lobbying and acting based on the scientific consensus.

The_Conductor · 29-01-2020 4:38pm

Its not black and white though- its thousands and thousands of shades of grey.
People cannot be forced to sit in cold unheated houses, in the dark- not go anywhere, radically alter their diets and be glad to pay extra for the pain and misery of doing so. There has to be a carrot and a stick approach- cognisant of the fact that people have to live. We also have to be cognisant of the fact that burning in the Amazon (and Australia this year) and the lack of any targets to reduce emissions but rather allow a tapered increase in India and China in particular- negate the small changes that consumers in Europe may be making. The planet is a whole- and the actions of one person can be easily undone by the inactions or active destructive tendencies of another. Then we have the US (sigh...……)

We currently have carbon taxes of EUR26/tonne- with a suggested increase in this to EUR100/tonne in the coming years. This cannot happen without causing some pain...…….

On a national basis- we also have an abnormally large sized beef herd and unusually low afforestation levels. Its a bit of a no-brainer that many of the beef farmers should be actively encouraged to afforest instead- beef farming is considered to the lazy farmers approach to farming anyhow- the hard work is in dairy farming...……

There are so many different approaches to looking at the issues facing the planet- however, we have to accept that they are planet wide issues- focusing on little old Ireland and its 26 Euro a tonne carbon tax- without any cognisance of India and China increasing their CO output or the US running roughshod over international treaties and agreements- is a form of self flagellation- it might make some people feel better psychologically- but overall, not only has nothing changed- but things continue to get a whole lot worse.

Lots of things have to happen- lots of changes have to happen- everywhere. Getting our knickers in a twist about Sean and Mary burning a turf fire outside of Ballyhaunis and bringing them to court over it- isn't going to break the planet- its just a mindless distraction from the bigger picture.

We all have a part to play- however, we all are everybody- not just the people of Ireland, or Europe- we all share this little planet and have to manage it in an appropriate manner. Making exceptions for one person- ends up punishing another- and ignoring the flagrant abuses that are happening- belittles the hardships that we insist on imposing on the little people who have no say in the matter.

Paddygreen · 29-01-2020 5:03pm

KyussB wrote: »

It's very black and white: We arrest our carbon emissions - and quickly - or we push the planets temperature to a point that we know is severely ecologically/environmentally/economically destructive, and which raises the threat of reaching tipping points that make it much harder to arrest this process.

It's that simple. The consensus from the vast majority of scientists who are experts in this area says this. The consensus is also that we aren't doing nearly enough - even though we are capable of doing far more.

The scientists are relying on non-experts heeding this message and acting - they don't subscribe to the idiotic fallacy that everyone has to be a climate scientist before they can have a valid opinion, and before we can do anything (nobody here is a climate scientist btw...) - they need non-experts lobbying and acting based on the scientific consensus.

Democracy is standing in the way of climate action. Politicians cave in to populism and by virtue of the fact they need votes to remain politicians it is unlikely that they will push measures that will inevitably lead to people being forced to change their behaviour in light of the climate emergency.people are allergic to taxes and being told that they have to radically change how they live.

That said it is clear to me that the only solution is for democracy to be suspended for the duration of the Climate Emergency and governance should be administered by a panel of experts.

29-01-2020 5:07pm

Paddygreen wrote: »

That said it is clear to me that the only solution is for democracy to be suspended for the duration of the Climate Emergency and governance should be administered by a panel of experts.

What has been clear to me from day one is that you believe the exact opposite of what you preach. You're as bad as the clowns who register after midnight to sidestep the mods. Pack it in.

KyussB · 29-01-2020 6:14pm

The_Conductor wrote: »

Its not black and white though- its thousands and thousands of shades of grey.
People cannot be forced to sit in cold unheated houses, in the dark- not go anywhere, radically alter their diets and be glad to pay extra for the pain and misery of doing so. There has to be a carrot and a stick approach- cognisant of the fact that people have to live. We also have to be cognisant of the fact that burning in the Amazon (and Australia this year) and the lack of any targets to reduce emissions but rather allow a tapered increase in India and China in particular- negate the small changes that consumers in Europe may be making. The planet is a whole- and the actions of one person can be easily undone by the inactions or active destructive tendencies of another. Then we have the US (sigh...……)

We currently have carbon taxes of EUR26/tonne- with a suggested increase in this to EUR100/tonne in the coming years. This cannot happen without causing some pain...…….

On a national basis- we also have an abnormally large sized beef herd and unusually low afforestation levels. Its a bit of a no-brainer that many of the beef farmers should be actively encouraged to afforest instead- beef farming is considered to the lazy farmers approach to farming anyhow- the hard work is in dairy farming...……

There are so many different approaches to looking at the issues facing the planet- however, we have to accept that they are planet wide issues- focusing on little old Ireland and its 26 Euro a tonne carbon tax- without any cognisance of India and China increasing their CO output or the US running roughshod over international treaties and agreements- is a form of self flagellation- it might make some people feel better psychologically- but overall, not only has nothing changed- but things continue to get a whole lot worse.

Lots of things have to happen- lots of changes have to happen- everywhere. Getting our knickers in a twist about Sean and Mary burning a turf fire outside of Ballyhaunis and bringing them to court over it- isn't going to break the planet- its just a mindless distraction from the bigger picture.

We all have a part to play- however, we all are everybody- not just the people of Ireland, or Europe- we all share this little planet and have to manage it in an appropriate manner. Making exceptions for one person- ends up punishing another- and ignoring the flagrant abuses that are happening- belittles the hardships that we insist on imposing on the little people who have no say in the matter.

Nobody is saying to take the path of subsistence living - the solution with the most mainstream acceptance follows the Green New Deal pattern of overhauling our economies.

The carrot and stick approach only applies to market solutions. Market solutions have shown they are incapable of arresting emissions fast enough - only non-market solutions can achieve the scale of action needed.

A good article in the Guardian today, pointed out that targets aren't enough, as they regularly fail to be achieved - a policy of maximization of effort to arrest climate emissions (within agreed quality of life standards) is what's needed.

It's very black and white, because there is a consensus on the problem of climate change among the qualified experts, and we have detailed plans of the necessary solutions, and how to enact them, ready to go - we now need the political pressure to put it into action.

The_Conductor · 29-01-2020 8:01pm

I never suggested 'subsistence living'- the stick that you and others propose to tax people into compliance, will force people to make unpalatable choices. Many people already have difficulty heating their homes to a reasonable standard, feeding themselves, commuting to and from work etc etc. Taxing them into compliance in the name of climate activism- what is that going to achieve. Some personal satisfaction that they're doing their bit for the planet- while all the other countries are undoing any good that they might be doing? Its an integrated system- you can't look at one country and how they can change their behaviour to the betterment of the planet- it has to be looked at as a whole, or else its worthless.

Whether you like it or not- we are in a market economy- and that is not going to change. You are going to have to live with it. You can quote Marxism or any other dogma at me until the cows come home- however, at the end of the day- the premise of our economy is that it is market based, and you are going to have to base any actions you propose to take on that basis. So- there has to be a carrot and a stick- like it or lump it. There has to be give and take. Farmers will have to be bribed to divest of beef herds and invest in afforestation. They are not going to do it out of the goodness of their hearts- climate change or any other mitigating factor be damned.

Targets are only one aspect of dealing with carbon emissions (to say nothing of other emissions)- they may be imperfect- however, they are better than a free-for-all, and even the emerging economies have signed up to specific targets. Its when you have a bull in the China shop- such as the US- who are pulling out of international agreements and doing their own thing- that a system of targets breaks down.

Its most certainly not black and white. It is accepted that climate change is happening. It is not accepted how best to deal with it- and even with accords- they are merely words if people only pay them lipservice. There are a smorgasbord of options on the table which detail possible courses of action for mitigating carbon and other emissions. All of these options have both costs and opportunities associated with them. It is a lie to pretend there is no cost involved and that its not going to hurt people- the very least you can do is acknowledge solutions are not free, they are often elaborate and costly- and involve redesigning societies on a grandscale.

When you have a country like Ireland where you can't even use wind power without some gombeen kicking up hell over the whine from a turbine- or a few bird strikes- to say nothing of the cost of the turbines (I did a placement in Nordtank back in the 90s) you can see why your black and white is manure.

Regardless of whether people are willing to subscribe to your pivot away from market based economies (they aren't) or not- while there are solutions to specific issues on the table- to try and pretend its black and white is an insult- and cannot but bring hardship on those who can least afford to pay for your pie in the sky dreams.

Climate change is an issue. However there is no consensus on how to deal with it- and it is duplicitous of you to pretend its a done deal, its far from the fact.

Eric Cartman · 29-01-2020 8:15pm

KyussB wrote: »

Nobody is saying to take the path of subsistence living - the solution with the most mainstream acceptance follows the Green New Deal pattern of overhauling our economies.

The carrot and stick approach only applies to market solutions. Market solutions have shown they are incapable of arresting emissions fast enough - only non-market solutions can achieve the scale of action needed.

A good article in the Guardian today, pointed out that targets aren't enough, as they regularly fail to be achieved - a policy of maximization of effort to arrest climate emissions (within agreed quality of life standards) is what's needed.

It's very black and white, because there is a consensus on the problem of climate change among the qualified experts, and we have detailed plans of the necessary solutions, and how to enact them, ready to go - we now need the political pressure to put it into action.

So 'socialism is the solution' , heard that one before, NEXT...

KyussB · 29-01-2020 8:16pm

The_Conductor wrote: »

*snip*

You are talking about subsitence living - you're also still going on about 'market solutions' i.e. using taxes as a stick - when that's not what I said at all...

We live in mixed economies, not pure market economies - this is not 'Marxist' it's the reality we live in, I have not advocated moving away from mixed economies - and given that the market side of our economies is not capable of acting fast enough, we need to use the non-market portion of our economies to arrest our emissions.

You're the type who'd rather spend the next couple of decades wrangling over imagined 'complexity', rather than doing anything even when we have workable solutions Right. Now.

We know what the solutions are, and the set of solutions capable of arresting emissions fast enough is pretty much limited to those templated on the Green New Deal - and we know we need to act on them straight away.

The_Conductor · 29-01-2020 8:22pm

Please don't patronise me, socialism or marxism is still socialism or marxism however you like to dress it up.

KyussB · 29-01-2020 8:29pm

At this stage you don't even know what you're criticizing. We live in mixed economies - we don't live in pure market economies, they don't exist.

You'll be pleased to know that this doesn't make us all Marxists :rolleyes: - neither does it make it Marxist to use the non-market portion of our economies, to arrest our emissions.

We're not in the US guys - you can give up importing the McCarthyist buzzword shite - just right-wing version of virtue signalling.

gozunda · 29-01-2020 9:29pm

The_Conductor wrote: »

Its not black and white though- its thousands and thousands of shades of grey.
People cannot be forced to sit in cold unheated houses, in the dark- not go anywhere, radically alter their diets and be glad to pay extra for the pain and misery of doing so. There has to be a carrot and a stick approach- cognisant of the fact that people have to live. We also have to be cognisant of the fact that burning in the Amazon (and Australia this year) and the lack of any targets to reduce emissions but rather allow a tapered increase in India and China in particular- negate the small changes that consumers in Europe may be making. The planet is a whole- and the actions of one person can be easily undone by the inactions or active destructive tendencies of another. Then we have the US (sigh...……)

We currently have carbon taxes of EUR26/tonne- with a suggested increase in this to EUR100/tonne in the coming years. This cannot happen without causing some pain...…….

On a national basis- we also have an abnormally large sized beef herd and unusually low afforestation levels. Its a bit of a no-brainer that many of the beef farmers should be actively encouraged to afforest instead- beef farming is considered to the lazy farmers approach to farming anyhow- the hard work is in dairy farming...……

There are so many different approaches to looking at the issues facing the planet- however, we have to accept that they are planet wide issues- focusing on little old Ireland and its 26 Euro a tonne carbon tax- without any cognisance of India and China increasing their CO output or the US running roughshod over international treaties and agreements- is a form of self flagellation- it might make some people feel better psychologically- but overall, not only has nothing changed- but things continue to get a whole lot worse.

Lots of things have to happen- lots of changes have to happen- everywhere. Getting our knickers in a twist about Sean and Mary burning a turf fire outside of Ballyhaunis and bringing them to court over it- isn't going to break the planet- its just a mindless distraction from the bigger picture.

We all have a part to play- however, we all are everybody- not just the people of Ireland, or Europe- we all share this little planet and have to manage it in an appropriate manner. Making exceptions for one person- ends up punishing another- and ignoring the flagrant abuses that are happening- belittles the hardships that we insist on imposing on the little people who have no say in the matter.

I agree with much of what you say there. Those screaming for all fossil fuels to be kept in the ground right now (such as greta et al) really have no friggin idea what that entails in practice. No flying, no transport of goods no heating and lots of other no's on things that are essential for society to function and provide essential services.

In some ways the whole carbon tax issue appears to be devolving into demands simply to extract money from those already paying the most with the least benefit. With little or no evidence that those carbon taxes are to be used to actually make positive changes.

With regard to agriculture - the facts are that we currently have less cattle in the country than we did in 1973. That said the dairy herd is increasing because that's where the returns are atm. Imo beef farming is not necessarily a lazy approach - many farmers involved in producing beef cattle choose to so because that is the best enterprise fit for their farm setup and many work full or part time in addition to farming. The fact is that despite the usual hyperbole - in Ireland all forms of agriculture contribute approx 30% of ghgs. The largest proportion - approx 70% of emissions come from fossil fuel use in energy production and transport. Interestingly Ghg emissions for transport have increased by 137% since 1990 with emissions from agriculture have risen by just over 1% in tte same period. Beef produced here is exported mainly to EU trading partners and contributes to export earnings. Whether that continues is probably more down to the cartels controlling prices paid to suppliers here than real market forces.

Forestry at present is expanding mainly through the planting of commercial types of coniferous trees - adding other tree cover found in hedgerows etc brings our current tree cover to over 15%. Looks like forestry cover is likley to increase further.

Tbh I see to plenty of snakesoil salesmen and carpet bagging going on in relation to climate change at present. They just need a kick up the hole imo.

Tell me how · 30-01-2020 12:13am

Eric Cartman wrote: »

So 'socialism is the solution' , heard that one before, NEXT...

What do you think is the solution?

gozunda · 30-01-2020 11:30am

An interesting overview of the greta effect:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RVooYlyl20

And yes before we get the usual backlash - I'm aware his primarily orthodox Jewish beliefs are on the conservative side of many issues. But as far as I'm aware that's a personal perogerative.

ancapailldorcha · 30-01-2020 12:11pm

No thanks. Ben Shapiro is just a professional troll.

gozunda · 30-01-2020 12:23pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

No thanks. Ben Shapiro is just a professional troll.

I'm aware of his reputation. The extreme left dont like him for sure

some of the stuff he had has opined is certainly ott - just maybe that gives him an edge for giving alarmism a run its money.

Thelonious Monk · 30-01-2020 12:43pm

gozunda wrote: »

I'm aware of his reputation. The extreme left dont like him for sure some of the stuff he had has opined is certainly ott - just maybe that gives him an edge for giving alarmism a run its money.

He's an absolute gobsh*te. Even for you that's low, posting his stuff.

;)
:pac:

Turquoise Hexagon Sun · 30-01-2020 2:38pm

I don't agree with a lot of what Shapiro says but I mostly agree with what he said about Greta in the video posted above. And not just Greta but the tactic of using poster children for causes and then his main point of "if you disagree with the points the child is making, you are somehow dispicable becasue...look...she/he is only a child." And that's what's happened me in conversations before. This alarmist behaviour. I disagree with it. I would rather some middle-aged, experienced scientist campaining for such issues. Not some "kid."

BTW, I'm absolutely not a climate change denier. And I absolutely support change for relation to climate change but doesn't mean I have to agree with Greta's schtick either.

gozunda · 30-01-2020 2:46pm

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

He's an absolute gobsh*te. Even for you that's low, posting his stuff. :pac:

So good company for some of the alarmist eejits out there. Fair enough.

Ah yeah sure ignore the topic and shoot anyone with any criticism whatseover. Even for you that's the course posting the usual . No change there then lol. :pac:

KyussB · 30-01-2020 3:11pm

Turquoise Hexagon Sun wrote: »

I don't agree with a lot of what Shapiro says but I mostly agree with what he said about Greta in the video posted above. And not just Greta but the tactic of using poster children for causes and then his main point of "if you disagree with the points the child is making, you are somehow dispicable becasue...look...she/he is only a child." And that's what's happened me in conversations before. This alarmist behaviour. I disagree with it. I would rather some middle-aged, experienced scientist campaining for such issues. Not some "kid."

BTW, I'm absolutely not a climate change denier. And I absolutely support change for relation to climate change but doesn't mean I have to agree with Greta's schtick either.

What type of change? Would you support or oppose massive government economic activity (taking on a significant additional portion of GDP) to address emissions, if market-based solutions can't do it fast enough?

The dividing line between denialists and those who aren't, is those who support effective action, and those who oppose it, imo (with a fair bit of room for people inbetween).

gozunda · 30-01-2020 3:27pm

KyussB wrote: »

What type of change? Would you support or oppose massive government economic activity (taking on a significant additional portion of GDP) to address emissions, if market-based solutions can't do it fast enough?

The dividing line between denialists and those who aren't, is those who support effective action, and those who oppose it, imo (with a fair bit of room for people inbetween).

Interesting the use of the phrase 'denialist' where anyone does not agree with a particular set of political views...

Not being a fan of greta et al has nothing to do with being a supporter of change. As someone has pointed out the issues are certainly not as black and white as some would propose they are ...

KyussB · 30-01-2020 5:29pm

Either people support effective action that's going to arrest climate change emissions in a timely manner, or they don't - the latter is part of the definition of climate change denial:

Climate change denial can also be implicit, when individuals or social groups accept the science but fail to come to terms with it or to translate their acceptance into action.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

There are only two broad paths for action (which can be undertaken together): Market-based solutions, and non-market based solutions.
We have decades of proof that market based solutions will not arrest emissions fast enough, and thus are not effective enough.

Do posters admit the failure of market-based solutions, and the decades of evidence of this failure? Posters can't claim ignorance of that failure, since it's being put to them here.

Either they admit it, effectively admitting that non-market-based solutions are the only remaining effective action - or they deny it, and end up painting themselves into a corner trying to propose market-based solutions that resolve the issue in a timely manner (despite the decades of evidence against this, making it extremely improbable/unlikely).

gozunda · 30-01-2020 6:56pm

KyussB wrote: »

Either people support effective action that's going to arrest climate change emissions in a timely manner, or they don't - the latter is part of the definition of climate change denial:Climate change denial can also be implicit, when individuals or social groups accept the science but fail to come to terms with it or to translate their acceptance into actionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denialThere are only two broad paths for action (which can be undertaken together): Market-based solutions, and non-market based solutionsWe have decades of proof that market based solutions will not arrest emissions fast enough, and thus are not effective enough.Do posters admit the failure of market-based solutions, and the decades of evidence of this failure? Posters can't claim ignorance of that failure, since it's being put to them here.Either they admit it, effectively admitting that non-market-based solutions are the only remaining effective action - or they deny it, and end up painting themselves into a corner trying to propose market-based solutions that resolve the issue in a timely manner (despite the decades of evidence against this, making it extremely improbable/unlikely).

Ah I see you are either ' with' greta or you are against her. Get ya. :pac:

But nope all thats just grade A rubbish tbh. Not supporting your or anyone else's personal ideas does not equate either btw.

Plus using wiki or indent for emphasis or even constantly repeating the same nonsense doesnt make any of it valid...

Heres a relevant wiki article

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

hetuzozaho · 30-01-2020 7:50pm

A link to tomorrow's press conference for anyone interested

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1222947197957877766

weldoninhio · 30-01-2020 7:54pm

I see that Gertie is trademarking her name and her school strike name. Quite savvy for a child

The_Conductor · 30-01-2020 7:56pm

weldoninhio wrote: »

I see that Gertie is trademarking her name and her school strike name. Quite savvy for a child

She is going to be so angry in a year or two when she discovers just how used she was........

KyussB · 30-01-2020 8:27pm

gozunda wrote: »

Ah I see you are either ' with' greta or you are against her. Get ya. :pac:

But nope all thats just grade A rubbish tbh. Not supporting your or anyone else's personal ideas does not equate either btw.

Plus using wiki or indent for emphasis or even constantly repeating the same nonsense doesnt make any of it valid...

Heres a relevant wiki article

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Yea a bunch of you could take some instruction from that link/fallacy:

The false dilemma fallacy can also arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception. For example, "Stacey spoke out against capitalism, therefore she must be a communist" (she may be neither capitalist nor communist, or a capitalist who disagrees with portions of capitalism)

If you think the idea of market or non-market based solutions to bringing down climate emissions enough and in a timely manner, is a False Dichotomy - then this means you think there are other options for doing this, or you think it doesn't need to be done at all (the latter of which, still fits the definition of denialism).

Which is it? If you acknowledge that it needs doing - then what options do you present that are not market or non-market based?

You seem to just follow a pattern of being dismissive simply for the sake of it - because you know if you engaged in actual discussion/dialogue, rather than one-way dismissiveness, you'd quickly be painted into a corner - the same with most people in the thread supporting the same views.

Tell me how · 30-01-2020 8:43pm

gozunda wrote: »

Plus using wiki or indent for emphasis or even constantly repeating the same nonsense doesnt make any of it valid...

Heres a relevant wiki article

This is incredible.

hetuzozaho · 30-01-2020 9:01pm

Tell me how wrote: »

This is incredible.

Haha I think I enjoyed the, greta is a annoying but shapiro on the other hand, more

gozunda · 30-01-2020 10:11pm

Tell me how wrote: »

This is incredible.

You are absolutely correct

Claiming that you have to swallow all the green new deal guff or be a greta supporter or else you are denialist of some kind is indeed incredible. I would even suggest truely bizarre.

Btw the inclusion of the by return wiki reference was ironic btw - I see that went straight over the head. But no matter

KyussB · 31-01-2020 1:07am

gozunda wrote: »

You are absolutely correct Claiming that you have to swallow all the green new deal guff or be a greta supporter or else you are denialist of some kind is indeed incredible. I would even suggest truely bizarre.

Btw the inclusion of the by return wiki reference was ironic btw - I see that went straight over the head. But no matter

What was said is that you have to support some kind of solutions that will arrest climate changing emissions in a timely enough manner - and if you oppose that, you fit the definition of an implicit denialist.

Even without going into market vs non-market solutions, you won't even definitively state support or opposition of the above.

It's like you want to avoid discussion, and just clown around shitting on the thread.

gozunda · 31-01-2020 1:47am

KyussB wrote: »

What was said is that you have to support some kind of solutions that will arrest climate changing emissions in a timely enough manner - and if you oppose that, you fit the definition of an implicit denialist.Even without going into market vs non-market solutions, you won't even definitively state support or opposition of the above.It's like you want to avoid discussion, and just clown around shitting on the thread.

Who says posters dont? For sure you seem to be sure that anyone not following your green new deal / non market solutions stuff (ie nearly all your posts) or being a fan of greta is 'denislism' That's a crock of crap imho.

Not me "shitting" about the exact same idea non stop and 'clowning' tbh. The poster above was talking about the video on greta (topic of thread) when you jumped. It's like your comments avoid that discussion and just have the same party political broadcast again and again ...

But hey if this were a campaign trail - I reckon most voters would have headed for the hills already:pac:

KyussB · 31-01-2020 2:19am

Well state it then: (and a response to the full sentence, not quote mining the part you bolded)

What was said is that you have to support some kind of solutions that will arrest climate changing emissions in a timely enough manner - and if you oppose that, you fit the definition of an implicit denialist.

Is your position the former or the latter?

gozunda · 31-01-2020 2:32am

KyussB wrote: »

Well state it then: (and a response to the full sentence, not quote mining the part you bolded) What was said is that you have to support some kind of solutions that will arrest climate changing emissions in a timely enough manner - and if you oppose that, you fit the definition of an implicit denialist.Is your position the former or the latter?

So moving from interrogating other posters being ' Implicit denislists' to just me now? Well done!

How many times do you reckon it has it been pointed that this is a thread about greta not a party political broadcast or even your take on the inquisition. Go read my comments if you've forgotten what I've or indeed others have said about your topic.

But yes the poster above clearly stated that they absolutely support change with regard to global warming. And no again as pointed out that does not mean anyone has to support green new deal / non market solutions bolloxology or indeed evem be a huge fan of greta.
This had to be the best bit yet -
"Implicit denialist"

Anyway back on topic! Heres another thought provoking piececby the American writer Andrew Klaven.

https://m.facebook.com/DailyWire/videos/453680678909148/?refsrc=https%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com%2FDailyWire%2Fvideos%2F453680678909148%2F&_rdr

KyussB · 31-01-2020 2:55am

You dodged it again: You say nothing about support or opposition to some kind of solutions that arrest climate change emissions in a timely manner.

So again:

What was said is that you have to support some kind of solutions that will arrest climate changing emissions in a timely enough manner - and if you oppose that, you fit the definition of an implicit denialist.

Is your position the former or the latter?

We're more than 10,000 posts since the original thread - you're probably the person with the most posts in that time - and you won't even clarify the most basic things like this, about your position.

gozunda · 31-01-2020 3:08am

KyussB wrote: »

You dodged it again: You say nothing about support or opposition to some kind of solutions that arrest climate change emissions in a timely manner So again:What was said is that you have to support some kind of solutions that will arrest climate changing emissions in a timely enough manner - and if you oppose that, you fit the definition of an implicit denialist.Is your position the former or the latter?We're more than 10,000 posts since the original thread - you're probably the person with the most posts in that time - and you won't even clarify the most basic things like this, about your position.

Since now the target of your particular obsession lol? I believe we were discussing the video btw. But yes absolutely theres other posters with more posts. And yes I will certainly clarify my position on the most basic thing here. Yes I confess I am not a greta fan. So rather than haranguing every other poster about "non market solutions" / "green new deal " again - Answer me one relevant question - do you agree with gretas et al's alarmism or otherwise? If you do - do you fit the definition of an implicit alarmist?

KyussB · 31-01-2020 3:43am

Fine, I tried beyond the point of tedium to get him to pin down his position - it's like a monkey flinging shit around here - I'm done with that.

Tell me how · 31-01-2020 3:50am

gozunda wrote: »

Answer me one relevant question - do you agree with gretas et al's alarmism or otherwise? If you do - do you fit the definition of an implicit alarmist?

Do you think David Attenborough is an 'implicit alarmist'? Because he agrees with Greta's position.

Pa ElGrande · 31-01-2020 7:35am

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you think David Attenborough is an 'implicit alarmist'? Because he agrees with Greta's position.

Gretas position is irrelevant in that context, the man can speak for himself and he does promote alarmism, notice how "on message" he is. Not only that he calls for population control in Africa.

David Attenborough: Mass extinction is ‘on the horizon’
Dec 3, 2018

“The world’s people have spoken, their message is clear, time is running out, they want you, the decision-makers, to act now. They’re supporting you in making tough decisions but they’re also willing to make sacrifices in their daily lives,” he added.

source

Sir David Attenborough: If we do not control population, the natural world will

When asked about comments he made on population control earlier this year, when he said human beings were a “plague on the Earth, Sir David agreed they could be considered “blindingly obvious” but claimed nobody else had made the point publicly.

source

gozunda · 31-01-2020 8:28am

KyussB wrote: »

Fine, I tried beyond the point of tedium to get him to pin down his position - it's like a monkey flinging shit around here - I'm done with that.

Incorrect the discussion is not posters 'positions' on party political ideas regarding 'non market solutions' aka the green new deal. The discussion above was alarmism as detailed in the video. And yet no comment about that? Hey no worries ...

suicide_circus · 31-01-2020 8:41am

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Gretas position is irrelevant in that context, the man can speak for himself and he does promote alarmism, notice how "on message" he is. Not only that he calls for population control in Africa.

David Attenborough: Mass extinction is ‘on the horizon’
Dec 3, 2018

Sir David Attenborough: If we do not control population, the natural world will

surprised he went after Africa with the population stuff. i mean, he's right, birth rates in Africa are massive but it's usually bourgeois westerners who are encouraged to remain childless.

Fr_Dougal · 31-01-2020 9:44am

Look at the bickering here, Greta is a divisive character in her actions. Poor Paddy Green is ashamed of his gender now, and he’s even taking sunbed sessions to change his colour.

She needs to go, let her enjoy the last 10 years of her life in peace.

The_Conductor · 31-01-2020 9:54am

suicide_circus wrote: »

surprised he went after Africa with the population stuff. i mean, he's right, birth rates in Africa are massive but it's usually bourgeois westerners who are encouraged to remain childless.

Its not just the bourgeois westerners who have been encouraged to remain childless- keep in mind China- which is in population decline.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/business/china-birth-rate-2019.html

Their child rate is now at 1.6

However, India is at 2.3.

Ireland's birthrate is 1.9 and the UK and the US are 1.8

Conversely the birthrate in Africa as a whole is still expanding at 4.8

(replacement rate = 2.0)

The only surprising thing is that David Attenborough had the guts to call out the growth in population for what it is...…….

Eric Cartman · 31-01-2020 10:28am

Tell me how wrote: »

What do you think is the solution?

Nuclear power, sanctions against asia and africa until they clean up their act, make electric cars completely tax free, no VAT on condensing gas boilers, solar or new clean fuel technology, re instate free recycling bin lifts, a bottle return scheme, An EU funded R&D fund available to universities and provate enterprise to research cleaner power technologies.

Greta Thunberg (Continued...)

Comments