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

Gaoth Laidir

KyussB wrote: »

You have no interest in genuine science - you have a history of reciting known denialists like e.g. Ray Bates, who has links to known climate change denial organizations.

You have fuck all interest in science - you cherry pick your 'science', with zero regard to its credibility, and expressly for the purpose of furthering a purely political viewpoint - of climate change denial.

There is no science in climate change denial - it is all politics - and the scientific consensus among climate scientists, is resoundingly clear about this.

Your posts are pure politics, with a completely unconvincing and polar-opposite position, with regards to what actual credible climate scientists say.

Wow. There's really nothing to say about that. I think it's clear for all to see that you're probably a chemtrail activist by the style of the reply.

Tuisceanch

gozunda wrote: »

Nope.

Oh you do want to discuss the report? What did you have in mind? Are you sure because it does seem you want to now discuss how Greta is a time traveler. Again I'm afraid I've nothing to contribute there either. Have fun. I'm sure it will be enlightening.

SafeSurfer

Does anyone know if Greta got to the conference that was one of the purposes of her boat trip to begin with?

Tuisceanch

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Does anyone know if Greta got to the conference that was one of the purposes of her boat trip to begin with?

It's not 'til December.https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/14/20964670/greta-thunberg-boat-madrid-youtube-family

UN Conference closes 13th December and then she is booked to host an episode of Radio 4's today program over the Christmas period.

gozunda

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Does anyone know if Greta got to the conference that was one of the purposes of her boat trip to begin with?

She's being magically transported back across the Atlantic and apparently has been booked by the BBC to direct a Radio programme in the near future. Then she will once again be transported by fairy dust to Madrid after the last conference in Chile was cancelled due to political unrest. How dare they eh?

KyussB

KyussB wrote: »

Reminder that these two posters regularly defend/back-up sources linked to Koch funding (some of the most notorious propagandists on the planet)

instance or withdraw, please. I'd take an apology while you were at it.

yours and tell me how's tactics of "everyone who disagrees with me is X" is disgraceful and has been far too indulged in this thread.

Akrasia

You’d like her to go away though

You are perfectly ok with a billionaire having a fleet of private jets following them around the world but if a climate activist has to get a taxi then this is hypocritical

Yet you’re not a ‘denier’

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

You’d like her to go away though

You are perfectly ok with a billionaire having a fleet of private jets following them around the world but if a climate activist has to get a taxi then this is hypocritical

Yet you’re not a ‘denier’

its unclear to me to whom this is addressed, tbh.

SaintLeibowitz

[Deleted User] wrote: »

id say that the poster responsible for several hundred posts about neoliberalism in a thread about the platforming of a raging child as the face of a worldwide panic movement,

one of the top three posters quickest to throw terms like 'denialist' at anyone who doesnt cheer their outbursts;

id say that poster has the least possible credibility in accusing any other poster in this thread of politicising the issue

What credibility do you hold?

SaintLeibowitz

SaintLeibowitz wrote: »

What credibility do you hold?

i hold exactly the same amount of credibility as any other poster here in terms of throwing around accusations of "politicisation"- that is; none, unless it be in setting out my position/argument and pointing out the flaws apparent to me in the arguments of those taking opposing views.

ive made my attack on kyussb's point, and their weakness in doing so given their own exhibited traits evident time and again in this thread.

now, let's perform the next logical step in this intervention- what credibility do *you* hold?

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

Afaik the general thing on boards is to discuss the post not attack the posters. But hey ...

But christ almighty - not back on the feking Koch conspiracy / oil oligarchs ****e again! I swear this thread is like a bad trip on acid or something. And absolutely sfa to do with 'greta'

Though to be fair - It's quite simple to blow this crap sky high - just ask what's the title of the thread and watch utter confusion reign for at least half a dozen pages or so

Basically, you want discussion of climate change up to and including the contributions of certain climate change deniers and of their supposedly authoritative positions, to be 'on topic' - yet a step further into the reputations and discreditability of those deniers, and their funders, is suddenly 'off topic'.

You don't decide what's on topic or off topic. Those that do decide, view it as on topic - which makes sense, as this is a broad discussion on climate change issues, including the scientists, the faux 'scientists'/'experts', and their funders.

KyussB

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Wow. There's really nothing to say about that. I think it's clear for all to see that you're probably a chemtrail activist by the style of the reply.

It's a bit odd how the denialist crowd go the "accuse the other side first, of what you're guilty of..." route all the time.

It doesn't help, you know - it just backfires, like so:
You actually visibly have a lot in common with the chemtrail activists - as a chemtrail activist would regularly cite cranks who are in denial of science, to push their views - and this is precisely what you do on a regular basis, with e.g. people like Ray Bates previously.

Same with others paintaing use of the word 'denial' as being religious: It is the position of those denying science - i.e. refusing to accept and contradicting overwhelming scientific consensus and evidence - who are basing their views entirely upon beliefs - beliefs which are so fanatical and rabid, and in contradiction of reality/science/evidence, that they are bordering on religious.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Basically, you want discussion of climate change up to and including the contributions of certain climate change deniers and of their supposedly authoritative positions, to be 'on topic' - yet a step further into the reputations and discreditability of those deniers, and their funders, is suddenly 'off topic'.You don't decide what's on topic or off topic. Those that do decide, view it as on topic - which makes sense, as this is a broad discussion on climate change issues, including the scientists, the faux 'scientists'/'experts', and their funders.

Whose that - greta and the magic pixies? :P

Nope but sorry wrong again there. Seriously though - it would be great of we could get away from more of the usual crap and get back on topic. But hey there we are ...

KyussB

Deleted User wrote: »

instance or withdraw, please. I'd take an apology while you were at it.

yours and tell me how's tactics of "everyone who disagrees with me is X" is disgraceful and has been far too indulged in this thread.

Here you go - indirectly defending the Koch's:

Deleted User wrote: »

if the guardian could only be linked (however tenuously) to the koch bros then id say the content of the article wouldnt have mattered all of a sudden.

funny things, standards.

Are you willing to answer the question? Does funding from propagandists/oil-oligarchs like the Koch's, make a supposed 'scientist'/'expert's reputation and position denying climate change, discreditable?


I'll note that both this poster and gozunda have dodged that question, like I predicted.

If there's anyone, on any 'side', who can't even acknowledge that funding from propagandists/oil-oligarchs like the Koch's is discreditable - then they simply have no interest in science, only in politics.

thats a disgracefully poor and lazy attempt at a link to my defending the kochs or denying climate change

it clearly does nothing of the sort

will you withdraw the remark? or will your refusal to do so stand as further evidence of your wild ranting style against anyone who isnt particularly interested in your off-topic ravings?

SafeSurfer

KyussB wrote: »

Basically, you want discussion of climate change up to and including the contributions of certain climate change deniers and of their supposedly authoritative positions, to be 'on topic' - yet a step further into the reputations and discreditability of those deniers, and their funders, is suddenly 'off topic'.

You don't decide what's on topic or off topic. Those that do decide, view it as on topic - which makes sense, as this is a broad discussion on climate change issues, including the scientists, the faux 'scientists'/'experts', and their funders.

Why continue to label people as “climate change deniers” when they have not denied climate change?

gozunda

SaintLeibowitz wrote: »

What credibility do you hold?

Before asking others perhaps you would like to clarify "what credibility do you hold"?

SaintLeibowitz

[Deleted User] wrote: »

i hold exactly the same amount of credibility as any other poster here in terms of throwing around accusations of "politicisation"- that is; none, unless it be in setting out my position/argument and pointing out the flaws apparent to me in the arguments of those taking opposing views.

ive made my attack on kyussb's point, and their weakness in doing so given their own exhibited traits evident time and again in this thread.

now, let's perform the next logical step in this intervention- what credibility do *you* hold?

Not all opinions are equal snoop. By that I mean I've read your posts, they aren't enlightening in any fashion and you seem to have an issue with education, Science and the scientific method. Your not alone with those grips on this thread. Your just one of many who think they can dismiss things they don't understand(i suppose its easier that way). It's OK to be ignorant, it isn't OK to proclaim ignorance over experts.



So again 'what credibility do you hold'

No need to answer.. I answered for you.

SafeSurfer

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Why continue to label people as “climate change deniers” when they have not denied climate change?

sher look- why did the spanish inquisition accuse the disobedient of devil worship?

same answer, same tactics.

SaintLeibowitz

gozunda wrote: »

Before asking others perhaos you would like to clarify "what credibility do you hold"?

Perhaos... You rewriting the English language?

I'm Just going to copy your m.o and moan about words you use instead of the content.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Here you go - indirectly defending the Koch's:Are you willing to answer the question? Does funding from propagandists/oil-oligarchs like the Koch's, make a supposed 'scientist'/'expert's reputation and position denying climate change, discreditable?I'll note that both this poster and gozunda have dodged that question, like I predicted.If there's anyone, on any 'side', who can't even acknowledge that funding from propagandists/oil-oligarchs like the Koch's is discreditable - then they simply have no interest in science, only in politics.

No one is "dodging" that constant daft obsessive repetitive question. It is simply irrelevant to the discussion in hand. Though I would certainly agree the other obsession of the Green New Deal is certainly political.

Woodsie1

Seems none of the Greta arselickers can respond to any points without snidey little insults

SaintLeibowitz

SaintLeibowitz wrote: »

Not all opinions are equal snoop. By that I mean I've read your posts, they aren't enlightening in any fashion and you seem to have an issue with education, Science and the scientific method. Your not alone with those grips on this thread. Your just one of many who think they can dismiss things they don't understand(i suppose its easier that way). It's OK to be ignorant, it isn't OK to proclaim ignorance over experts.



So again 'what credibility do you hold'

No need to answer.. I answered for you.

again thats a little bit of point missing, isnt it

now thats understandable, ive read a few of your 30 odd posts too and youre clearly shooting with a shotgun and not a rifle. a stylistic choice, nothing wrong with that!

now, i set out very clearly where- on the specific point, and it's important, isnt it, to be specific?- that kyussb of any poster in this thread has no credibility to bandy about accusations of politicisation.

and i set out in the same post the rationale

and while you might think it is incumbent on me, having made such comment, to therefore somehow prove my own credibility in making incessant accusations against other posters in this thread of 'politicisation' id point out that

a) it isn't, really.

b) im not making such incessant accusations, am i?

so while its nice to get yr uh ""feedback"" on what your projections of my views on education, the scientific method and all that might be, and your review of my general performance in the thread- welcome to the thread, btw- its well look its of little interest to me that you would feel compelled to do so.

the point stands.

SaintLeibowitz

Woodsie1 wrote: »

Seems none of the Greta arselickers can respond to any points without snidey little insults

So it's only OK for you to make snide remarks?

gozunda

SaintLeibowitz wrote: »

Perhaos... You rewriting the English language. I'm Just going to copy your m.o and moan about words you use instead of the content.

I do apologise for the dodgey keyboard lol. The rest of that - too sad even for the current low standards but no worries ...

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

No one is "dodging" that constant daft obseesive repetitive question. It is simply irrelevant to thd discussion in hand. Though I would certainly agree the other obsession of the Green New Deal is certainly political. Funny that....

This thread is 7k posts in, no thread sticks literally to the subject of the title after so long and your insistence at times that people do so is evidence of your discomfort on certain subjects.

The Green New Deal is political? the deal authored by political representatives? Shocking revelation that.

The conversation on the environment and measures to protect it will continue to be political because it will require legislation in order to make any meaningful effort.

KyussB

Deleted User wrote: »

thats a disgracefully poor and lazy attempt at a link to my defending the kochs or denying climate change

it clearly does nothing of the sort

will you withdraw the remark? or will your refusal to do so stand as further evidence of your wild ranting style against anyone who isnt particularly interested in your off-topic ravings?

You backslap this post and this post and many more, that make light of the Koch's being discreditable - you make light of it in the post I previously quoted and in this post:

Deleted User wrote: »

no, no- the guardian is Koch propaganda and you sir are a propagandist!

Your request for an apology is disingenuous bollocks - you are a liar, with the proof above.

Woodsie1

SaintLeibowitz wrote: »

So it's only OK for you to make snide remarks?

Im not making points with scientific evidence,only to be dismissed by bull**** insults.
By all means make snidey remarks at me but posters like Gaoth and Gozunda deserve a bit more than stupid little potshots.

KyussB

KyussB wrote: »

You backslap this post and this post and many more, that make light of the Koch's being discreditable - you make light of it in the post I previously quoted and in this post:


Your request for an apology is disingenuous bollocks - you are a liar, with the proof above.

your accusation- unless you deny making it- is as follows:

Quote: KyussB
Reminder that these two posters regularly defend/back-up sources linked to Koch funding (some of the most notorious propagandists on the planet)


and when pressed to substantiate, you come back to me with one quote and a few 'thanks' of posts that serve as zings of your own obsession with mentioning the kochs at every single opportunity?

your obsession with the kochs is amusing and nonsensical.

you are entirely misguided in mistaking my amusement at that obsession with support for the kochs or any of their activities.

but it is 100% consistent with your scattershot argument approach throughout the thread

it stands as completely clear to anyone that you cannot back up your accusation, and will not withdraw it.

ooof. poor poor form id call it.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

This thread is 7k posts in, no thread sticks literally to the subject of the title after so long and your insistence at times that people do so is evidence of your discomfort on certain subjects. The Green New Deal is political? the deal authored by political representatives? Shocking revelation that.The conversation on the environment and measures to protect it will continue to be political because it will require legislation in order to make any meaningful effort.

Sometimes a bit of reality helps when the train has not only derailed but gone over the viaduct and amounts to a trainwreck of gargantuan proportions.

Indeed the GND is political. Strange that some don't seem to appreciate that whilst at the same accusing others of making politicised commentary. It appears indeed that the same seem simply have no interest in science, only in politics. Odd no?