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

Akrasia

Micky 32 wrote: »

Give it a rest, I know this is aimed at me too but i’ll just clarify something for you. I DON’T care about alarmism or climate change. So i couldn’t be arsed even trying to come up with any single or multiple argument whether there is one or not because i don’t care. I’m just a skeptic that doesn’t believe that climate change is mostly down to humans especially when there are natural factors and history to consider and not to mention the scientist predictions in the past that never happened. I don’t believe in God either but that’s for another thread. BTW regarding Tell Me Now’s comment of Jesus Wept earlier in the thread, no he didn’t because he never existed.

But to yourself and others like “tell me now” delight i’ll soon will be unfollowing this thread and i’ll enjoy what’s left of my life the best possible way i can :-)

Until climate action proves that it won’t affect peoples standard of living or the economy there won’t be much support worldwide for it. I think the recent summit in Madrid is begining to show that picture.

Your position that you don’t care about climate change and are only posting in this thread to mock a 16 year old girl isn’t one you should be so proud of

Akrasia

gozunda wrote: »

Yup I pointed out you had no credible sources to back up your claims. That stands.

Hehe i see you believe because a politician is pushing a party political agenda in his bid to get reelected - that somehow makes his website as a source somehow credible lol! Pull the other one.

Hitler used Mein Kampf to promote his ideas and was widely known to be one of the main sources promoting National Socislism - I still wouldnt use that a credible source either.

As I said if it was an undergraduate essay - it would be sent back to do it again. Simply put a repetitious argument with no credible sources has simply failed to convince me of otherwise tbh. *shrug*

To paraphrase merely stating that the GND was backed up, does not mean it was backed up. And leaving aside our political friend - Backing yourself up by repetition doesn't count either I'm afraid. But hey that's about it. I leave you at it

The EU announced a swathe of sweeping reforms 2 days ago to get the EU to net carbon neutral within 30 years

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/11/european-green-deal-will-change-economy-to-solve-climate-crisis-says-eu

But I suppose they’re a pile of Pooh too....

gozunda

Akrasia wrote: »

The EU announced a swathe of sweeping reforms 2 days ago to get the EU to net carbon neutral within 30 years
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/11/european-green-deal-will-change-economy-to-solve-climate-crisis-says-eu
But I suppose they’re a pile of Pooh too....

Well yes indeed. According to the main proponent of the idea in this thread - it is ...

KyussB wrote: »

I don't agree with the structure of the European Green Deal - it's nothing like the GND, it's pitiful ...

Micky 32

Akrasia wrote: »

Your position that you don’t care about climate change and are only posting in this thread to mock a 16 year old girl isn’t one you should be so proud of

Maybe you should look up mocking in the dictionary? Once again because i don’t agree with Greta and exposed the hypocrisy and her threats it means i’m mocking her.. Give over. Stop using my lack of care of climate change against me as an attack on a 16 year old.

gozunda

Tuisceanch wrote: »

https://cmandchaos.wordpress.com/2018/06/25/winnie-the-pooh-and-climate-change/

Cute story. Yours no? Though for sure some of the other writings on that blog whilst interesting reading are - how can I put this - somewhat extreme left of centre. I wonder did the writer apply to Disney for permission to use the character of Winnie The Pooh? I wouldn't like to get sued over Pooh tbh

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

What does this mean? I mean, what context do you think you are using it?
And why do you feel the need to keep repeating it irrespective of the points being made to you.

The rest of the post is wrong as well, but it's Saturday night here and I just couldn't be ar&ed getting in to it. Particularly when someone is already explaining it to you and you refuse to listen.

its a fairly well understood term in irish conversation

youre in the states, you said, was it?

KyussB

KyussB wrote: »

Again, merely stating that the GND was not backed up, does not mean it was not backed up - it was vociferously backed up and elaborated on in detail - and the only argument posters had against it was ideological.

you dont need further invite to start into it again, but you are all over a few threads spouting on about how money isnt real and government borrowing is free.

heres a thought: even people who agree with the idea of a GND type capital offensive against climate change would find this a totally lunatic angle of argument

Micky 32

[Deleted User] wrote: »

its a fairly well understood term in irish conversation

youre in the states, you said, was it?

He might be more used to terms such as “suck it up”.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

Yup I pointed out you had no credible sources to back up your claims. That stands.

Hehe i see you believe because a politician is pushing a party political agenda in his bid to get reelected - that somehow makes his website as a source somehow credible lol! Pull the other one.

Hitler used Mein Kampf to promote his ideas and was widely known to be one of the main sources promoting National Socialism - I still wouldnt use that as a credible source either.

As I said if it was an undergraduate essay - it would be sent back to do it again. Simply put a repetitious argument with no credible sources has simply failed to convince me of otherwise tbh. *shrug*

To paraphrase merely stating that the GND was backed up, does not mean it was backed up. And leaving aside our political friend - Backing yourself up by repetition doesn't count either I'm afraid. But hey that's about it. I leave you at it

Ah so Bernie Sanders is as discreditable as Hitler now, I see.... :rolleyes: Anything to back up your claim that Sanders is not credible?

How about any of these people who back the Green New Deal?

Naomi Klein

• Al Gore, 45th Vice President of the United States, Former United States Senator from Tennessee, Former U.S Representative from Tennessee's 6th congressional district and 4th congressional district environmentalist, filmmaker[3]
• Joe Biden, 47th Vice President of the United States, Former United States Senator from Delaware and seeking the nomination in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries.[84]

• Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel laureate in economics, Professor at Columbia University, and chief economist of the Roosevelt Institute.[85]
• Jill Stein, former Green party presidential candidate in 2012 and 2016[4]
• Howie Hawkins, Green party co-founder and first American political candidate to run on the promise of a Green New Deal[27]
• Jagmeet Singh, Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada endorsed a Canadian Green New Deal[86]
• Ban Ki-moon, former UN Secretary-General[87]
• Mike Gravel, former U.S. Senator from Alaska and candidate in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries[88]
• Paul Krugman, Nobel laureate in economics, Professor at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, and a columnist for The New York Times.[89]
• Bill Maher, comedian, political commentator, and television host[90]
• Bria Vinaite recorded a "Green New Deal" video for Vogue Magazine in 2018[33]
• Marianne Williamson, candidate in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries[91]
• Andrew Yang, candidate in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries[92]

15 US Senators.
~100 US Representatives.
4 US Governors and 3 Mayors.

• The Climate Mobilization, which advocates a "World War II-scale economic mobilization to restore a safe climate."
• The Democracy in Europe Movement 2025 (DieM25), a pan-European political activist group of over 100.000 members for progressive EU and global economics policy, founded by Yanis Varoufakis[159]
• The European Green Party and The Greens–European Free Alliance campaigned on the Green New Deal in the 2009 European Parliament election and maintain an ongoing European "Green New Deal" campaign
• The Global Greens support a Global Green New Deal.[160]
• Green Party of the United States has endorsed the Green New Deal in its party platform.[161]
• The Heinrich Böll Foundation published proposals for a Green New Deal in Germany, the European Union, as well as North America,[162] Israel,[163] and Ukraine.[164]
• The League of Conservation Voters is an American advocacy group for environmental issues[165]
• The New Economics Foundation and The Green New Deal Group (United Kingdom)[166]
• openDemocracy[167]
• Sierra Club Living Economy Program[42]
• The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, who developed the Low Carbon Green Growth Roadmap for Asia and the Pacific
• The United Nations Environment Programme launched a Green Economy Initiative known as the "Global Green New Deal".[168]
• The Global Marshall Plan Initiative advocates for a sustainable global economy[169]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal#Supporters

Predictably, this will be met with hasty goalpost shifting and gozunda's signature 'pooh pooh'ing.

KyussB

Deleted User wrote: »

you dont need further invite to start into it again, but you are all over a few threads spouting on about how money isnt real and government borrowing is free.

heres a thought: even people who agree with the idea of a GND type capital offensive against climate change would find this a totally lunatic angle of argument

I've never said either of those things - quote me direcly, don't paraphase, thanks.

Tuisceanch

gozunda wrote: »

Cute story. Yours no? Though for sure some of the other writings on that blog whilst interesting reading are - how can I put this - somewhat extreme left of centre. I wonder did the writer apply to Disney for permission to use the character of Winnie The Pooh? I wouldn't like to get sued over Pooh tbh

What short story are you talking about? The link is to a blog discussing a presentation the blogger had attended. I'm neither the blogger or the guy who gave the presentation, if that's what you're asking? I haven't read any of the other blog posts, but if there is a short story about Winnie Pooh, I'd be interested if you could link it. I'm not an expert on copyright issues, so I could only offer an opinion, but I'd need to read the short story first however, I can't think of any reason why you couldn't write an allegory based on Winnie the Pooh. Since I haven't read any of the other blog posts I don't know if they represent a political bias and to be honest I don't know what to you extreme left of center entails. I'd kind of be of the opinion that extreme left and extreme right are pretty much the same thing.

I get the wink because the image was inspired about the poo comments and yes it was bait! I kind of guessed you wouldn't bite immediately but rather wander up casually feigning nonchalance. Just a bit of fun and useful for character development in stories.

Akrasia

Micky 32 wrote: »

Maybe you should look up mocking in the dictionary? Once again because i don’t agree with Greta and exposed the hypocrisy and her threats it means i’m mocking her.. Give over. Stop using my lack of care of climate change against me as an attack on a 16 year old.

You’re posting in a climate change thread, a topic you say you don’t care about, the only other thing this thread is about is a bunch of grown men vilifying and mocking a teenager for daring to put herself in the public eye on an issue she clearly believes strongly in

Akrasia

[Deleted User] wrote: »

you dont need further invite to start into it again, but you are all over a few threads spouting on about how money isnt real and government borrowing is free.

heres a thought: even people who agree with the idea of a GND type capital offensive against climate change would find this a totally lunatic angle of argument

Governments should borrow based on the future strength of the economy. If current borrowing wither reduces future costs or boosts future income, then it is justified. Borrowing now to stop climate change is totally justified on both counts

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Ah so Bernie Sanders is as discreditable as Hitler now, I see.... :rolleyes: Anything to back up your claim that Sanders is not credible?...

Predictably, this will be met with hasty goalpost shifting and gozunda's signature 'pooh pooh'ing.

Tldr:

I dont really care if the Pope and the Abominable Snow man support your personal visions of this green new deal - it's irrelevant as they are not credible sources either. Repeat- none of your long list of whoever's makes for a credible source. Its really not that hard to understand is it?

And yes hilariously you claimed Bernie Sanders party political website as a credible source!. Thats not much better or different than using Hitlers political manifesto to support national socialism. Sorry if that is difficult to understand lol.

It remains you have no credible sources to back up whatever you are pushing. Pity thou some cannot apply logic in discussion and simply revert to throwing ****e (pooh?) out of the pram.

KyussB

Do you think Bernie Sanders webbsite doesn't represent Bernie Sandere or something? Or is there something about Sanders himself, that is meant to be discreditable? So Sanders himself is meant to be equally as credible/discreditable as Hitler, right? How, exactly?

You view Nobel Laureate's Josepth Stiglitz and Paul Krugman as not credible? Former UN General Secretary Ban ki-moon? There are a lot of people on that list...

What everyone in the thread can see as not credible, is your substance-less 'pooh pooh'ing of the Green New Deal. Rakes of very credible, well credentialed, influential people support the Green New Deal - versus some guy on an internet forum who thinks its a "pile of poo".

gozunda

Tuisceanch wrote: »

What short story are you talking about? The link is to a blog discussing a presentation the blogger had attended. I'm neither the blogger or the guy who gave the presentation, if that's what you're asking? I haven't read any of the other blog posts, but if there is a short story about Winnie Pooh, I'd be interested if you could link it. I'm not an expert on copyright issues, so I could only offer an opinion, but I'd need to read the short story first however, I can't think of any reason why you couldn't write an allegory based on Winnie the Pooh. Since I haven't read any of the other blog posts I don't know if they represent a political bias and to be honest I don't know what to you extreme left of center entails. I'd kind of be of the opinion that extreme left and extreme right are pretty much the same thing.
I get the wink because the image was inspired about the poo comments and yes it was bait! I kind of guessed you wouldn't bite immediately but rather wander up casually feigning nonchalance. Just a bit of fun and useful for character development in stories.

Lol. You bored? So you didn't link to a blog reimagining an alternative storyline of the children's pooh and his friends original stories no? No worries. Btw I'm normally a fairly polite poster (or nearly!) and reckon if someone replies to something (whether its relevant is another thing!) will respond. So did so. That's it really

But interesting you'd to be claiming baiting posters here hehe - I'd imagined you did. But no worries. And no offence taken. After all a tongue its simply a tongue in cheek discussion

Tell me how

[Deleted User] wrote: »

its a fairly well understood term in irish conversation

youre in the states, you said, was it?

At present. But 40 years in ireland vs 1 in the states is hardly enough time for its use to have changed since I left.

Its use makes sense when used after explaining something and surmising that the current status is surprising to everyone.

Not when one person uses it all the time out of context to try to defend just their position. That's why I asked for the context in which it was being used. And didn't get it. Unsurprisingly.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Do you think Bernie Sanders webbsite doesn't represent Bernie Sandere or something? Or is there something about Sanders himself, that is meant to be discreditable? So Sanders himself is meant to be equally as credible/discreditable as Hitler, right? How, exactly?You view Nobel Laureate's Josepth Stiglitz and Paul Krugman as not credible? Former UN General Secretary Ban ki-moon? There are a lot of people on that list...
What everyone in the thread can see as not credible, is your substance-less 'pooh pooh'ing of the Green New Deal. Rakes of very credible, well credentialed, influential people support the Green New Deal - versus some guy on an internet forum who thinks its a "pile of poo".

Still dont understand that a politicians party political website does not a credible source make or are you still having difficulties with that?

Ok to repeat It's a party political website. And as stated its irrelevant if the Pope and the abominable Snowman love the green new deal - it's still irrelevant.

And yup loads of posters here have already stated that the GND as ranted about in this thread is a pile of poohh or wtte.

Capiche?

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

its simply a tongue in cheek discussion

Unsurprising, you are now doubling down on this when you previously went across several angles trying to undermine Gretas efforts.

And the fact that it doesn't seem to bother you that you are the only one treating the thread as such, is even more telling.

You've got nothing.

Tuisceanch

gozunda wrote: »

Lol. You bored? So you didn't link to a blog reimagining an alternative storyline of the children's pooh and his friends original stories no? No worries. Btw I'm normally a fairly polite poster (or nearly!) and reckon if someone replies to something (whether its relevant is another thing!) will respond. So did so. That's it really

But interesting you'd to be claiming baiting posters here hehe - I'd imagined you did. But no worries. And no offence taken. After all a tongue its simply a tongue in cheek discussion

There is a link in the blog but it's broken and I think it was linking to the original story anyway because at first I thought it was talking about a short story. In fact the blog is about a presentation where the presenter uses each character and interprets their responses in relation to climate change so I don't think it's that he is 'reimagining an alternative storyline' ..can't state categorically as I've never read the original.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Unsurprising, you are now doubling down on this when you previously went across several angles trying to undermine Gretas efforts.And the fact that it doesn't seem to bother you that you are the only one treating the thread as such, is even more telling.You've got nothing.

"Doubling down" ???"Gretas efforts" :pac:

You must have missed this the last time you tried the same crack

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112015718&postcount=7906

So no need to ever get it wrong again!

Plenty of humour here - you've must have missed that too

Reviews and Books Galore

I don't really feel anything positive or negative towards Greta as she's a bit of a proxy tbh* , but it is a bit of a bummer that everybody's effort on lowering their emission, so on so forth, will be written in the history books as 'Greta's achievement.'





*Did you know her mother had to become a full time mother to save the climate? :rolleyes:

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

"Doubling down" ???"Gretas efforts" :pac:

You must have missed this the last time you tried the same crack

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112015718&postcount=7906

So no need to ever get it wrong again!

Plenty of humour here - you've must have missed that too

Swing and a miss.

What looks like PM messages between you and someone else is hardly proof of what the thread is is it? And a single post from someone who was then banned for posting what might be deemed 'humorous videos' (at least in their head) further undermines your argument.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Swing and a miss.What looks like PM messages between you and someone else is hardly proof of what the thread is is it? And a single post from someone who was then banned for posting what might be deemed 'humorous videos' (at least in their head) further undermines your argument.

PM message??? Nope. Incorrect and wrong again! You're barking now. Yup the Original Posters who started a humourous thread. And you obviously dont like that. The thread title for your attention:

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

The only thing that undermines that is yourself. But there we go!

I love your rather strange and repetitive use of language btw - from card playing -' doubling down' to golf 'swing and a miss' lol. And you're complaining of others! It really is too funny. Thanks for the laugh ...

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

PM message??? Nope. Incorrect and wrong again! You're barking now. Yup the Original Posters who started a humourous thread. And you obviously dont like. The thread title for your attention:

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

The only thing that undermines that is yourself. But there we go!

I love your rather strange and repetitive use of language btw - from card playing -' doubling down' to golf 'swing and a miss' lol. And you're complaining of others! It really is too funny. Thanks for the laugh ...

Well, that post you linked is not from the thread is it?

On humour. There can be humorous points made within a serious discussion. That's welcome and to be expected. But, it is frustrating to see you try to paint this thread as a YLYL type thread when it is obvious with 8,000+ posts that it is not such a thread. I know you are doing it to deflect from your lack of objective argument, but it is annoying nonetheless.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

Still dont understand that a politicians party political website does not a credible source make or are you still having difficulties with that?

Ok to repeat It's a party political website. And as stated its irrelevant if the Pope and the abominable Snowman love the green new deal - it's still irrelevant.

And yup loads of posters here have already stated that the GND as ranted about in this thread is a pile of poohh or wtte.

Capiche?

Yes it is a credible source - it represents Sanders views - and Sanders, being the main political proponent of the Green New Deal, is perhaps the most credible source out there.

You have Economic Nobel Laureates backing the GND and everything, and a list of well over a hundred prominent/credentialed/influential people backing it - and more...

This is just your usual tedious obstructionism.

Eric Cartman

KyussB wrote: »

Yes it is a credible source - it represents Sanders views - and Sanders, being the main political proponent of the Green New Deal, is perhaps the most credible source out there.

You have Economic Nobel Laureates backing the GND and everything, and a list of well over a hundred prominent/credentialed/influential people backing it - and more...

This is just your usual tedious obstructionism.

bernie sanders website is hardly going to give a balanced view or explain the caveats quickly . Your argument is like referencing heinekens website to explain the dangers of alcoholism.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Well, that post you linked is not from the thread is it?
On humour. There can be humorous points made within a serious discussion. That's welcome and to be expected. But, it is frustrating to see you try to paint this thread as a YLYL type thread when it is obvious with 8,000+ posts that it is not such a thread. I know you are doing it to deflect from your lack of objective argument, but it is annoying nonetheless.

How about searching if you are in any doubt. The comment author is detailed in that link btw. As for lack of objective argument - plenty have called you on that. And just because you dont like humour abour greta well fancy that ....;)

Bah humbug ..

KyussB

Eric Cartman wrote: »

bernie sanders website is hardly going to give a balanced view or explain the caveats quickly . Your argument is like referencing heinekens website to explain the dangers of alcoholism.

If you disagree with it and think there are caveats etc. - then please go ahead and explain them, I'll reply and try to clear that up. The only way to make Sanders proposal any less credible, is to show how it's supposed to be discreditable.

A politician promoting policy is nothing like a company putting out 'research' promoting their product - for a start, you're completely missing any kind of Conflict of Interest which is supposed to make it discreditable.

Ironically, the posters trying to portray Sanders as not credible, without even being able to show a Conflict of Interest - are largely the same posters that were earlier in the thread trying to pass off oil-industry funded climate denialism as 'credible'.

Very blatant case of double standards - and beyond, even: In their case, they want blatant/notorous oil industry Conflicts of Interest to be considered credible, when it suits their viewpoint - and want ridiculous restrictions on their opponents views, wanting them discarded as non-credible even when there is no Conflict of Interest (or even any argument at all, as to why the views would be discreditable).

Eric Cartman

KyussB wrote: »

If you disagree with it and think there are caveats etc. - then please go ahead and explain them, I'll reply and try to clear that up. The only way to make Sanders proposal any less credible, is to show how it's supposed to be discreditable.

A politician promoting policy is nothing like a company putting out 'research' promoting their product - for a start, you're completely missing any kind of Conflict of Interest which is supposed to make it discreditable.

Ironically, the posters trying to portray Sanders as not credible, without even being able to show a Conflict of Interest - are largely the same posters that were earlier in the thread trying to pass off oil-industry funded climate denialism as 'credible'.

Very blatant case of double standards - and beyond, even: In their case, they want blatant/notorous oil industry Conflicts of Interest to be considered credible, when it suits their viewpoint - and want ridiculous restrictions on their opponents views, wanting them discarded as non-credible even when there is no Conflict of Interest (or even any argument at all, as to why the views would be discreditable).

This plan will pay for itself over 15 years. Experts have scored the plan and its economic effects. We will pay for the massive investment we need to reverse the climate crisis by:
Making the fossil fuel industry pay for their pollution, through litigation, fees, and taxes, and eliminating federal fossil fuel subsidies.
Generating revenue from the wholesale of energy produced by the regional Power Marketing Authorities. Revenues will be collected from 2023-2035, and after 2035 electricity will be virtually free, aside from operations and maintenance costs.
Scaling back military spending on maintaining global oil dependence.
Collecting new income tax revenue from the 20 million new jobs created by the plan.
Reduced need for federal and state safety net spending due to the creation of millions of good-paying, unionized jobs.
Making the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share.

from his own website he plans to sue and tax the hilt out of fossil fuel companies
establish the government as an energy producer to force out private business
creating only union jobs and lining their pockets , increasing taxes on corporations. On top of his 10 billion dollar wealth transfer out of the hands of white people to minorities...

the man is a lunatic union shill who has openly said this will pit the government against private business in order to shut them down by force (litigation, taxation and state competition) , this is tyrannical.