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

KyussB

:rolleyes: I need to add a new step '0' to my list of Climate Denialist propaganda tactics.

Yes the word 'right' (highlighted in bold because it's the secret sign of a Communist conspiracy!), 'mobilizing' - because every army in the world mobilizing fighters for war is secretly a dirty commie army - and resources...?...a term used by economists everywhere, so they must all secretly be COMMUNISTS!

Yea well done.

KyussB

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuZ24VBrbO4

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

]You're spinning a conspiracy theory equating strong government spending with Communism and a command economy.

You might want to pay attention to the Irish economy, the two big players are the multinational sector which is mostly based on productivity and tax efficiency and the public sector (health, education and welfare), the indigenous private sector is mostly small business, sole traders and contractors whose activity revolves around serving the employees of the public and MNC sectors. The Irish government does not have resources of its own, it can't print it's own money so there are only two ways to raise funds - taxation or borrowing. As the water protests showed the government is skirting the limits of what it can extract in taxation from the population and at artificially low interest rates who will buy the bonds? Ther is a reason the private funds are in property that's where they earn the yields to pay the pensioners.

And in this situation you are going to mobilise the workers and resources to build your utopia?

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

(1) Ah yes, 'manifesto', '5 year plan' - more conspiracy theories alluding to Communism :rolleyes:When you post that type of dog-whistling bollocks, you make it clear to all posters that your aim is not to debate - it is to divide the debate along ideological grounds, and bring it down to the lowest standard: Communist vs Capitalist bullshit - the standard right-wing way to block debate.What I've posted directly relates to prioritizing an effort at getting emissions pushing climate change resolved, by 2030 - i.e. exactly the thing Greta is pushing public attention for, which people are claiming is not possible.(2) You don't think it's possible to mobilize such a labour force to begin with - even before considering what they would do - yet with the right changes in politics and economic policy (the actual thing I'm focusing on...),
that government is capable of hiring labour and commanding resources to do whatever that labour/resources allow, and at a enormous scale - you disagree with this in principle even before getting to the discussion of what can be worked on.The debate over the actual capability of mobilizing workers and resources at that scale comes first - before the debate on what to put them to work on.

(1) You're the one who has detailed a centralised economy. So ...

By your own words you describe exactly your own commentary.

(2) I made no such response. If you think I have provide proof

So either answer the question you have now been asked multiple times and inexplicably refuse to answer or simply stop ranting about something you clearly have no idea about ...

- what exactly will the huge amounts of mobilized lanour be doing?

Atlantic Dawn

Does she have 'a difference' as Joe Duffy would call it?

https://twitter.com/DVATW/status/1167122679989776384

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

You might want to pay attention to the Irish economy, the two big players are the multinational sector which is mostly based on productivity and tax efficiency and the public sector (health, education and welfare), the indigenous private sector is mostly small business, sole traders and contractors whose activity revolves around serving the employees of the public and MNC sectors. The Irish government does not have resources of its own, it can't print it's own money so there are only two ways to raise funds - taxation or borrowing. As the water protests showed the government is skirting the limits of what it can extract in taxation from the population and at artificially low interest rates who will buy the bonds? Ther is a reason the private funds are in property that's where they earn the yields to pay the pensioners.

And in this situation you are going to mobilise the workers and resources to build your utopia?

Well we've gotten past the Communism stuff, that's a start.

If we want to arrest climate changing emissions by 2030, then we can't rely on the private sector alone - because it has already failed to act fast enough, at a big enough scale - so you must supplement this with government funded/directed effort (arguably much of the effort needed, R&D on an enormous scale for one, can not be successfully funded on a for-profit basis).

This has to be a worldwide effort (lets restrict this to being EU-wide, since it better fits this discussion) - and this means the EU acting as a whole. You are correct that Ireland on its own can not act at the necessary scale, with government able to command enough labour/resources, to arrest emissions by 2030 - and you are correct that the reason for this is the EU and the Euro - the rules biasing towards balanced budgets and austerity, and the Euro being centralized without also having a central fiscal power with proportional spending powers as a national government would have.

Those are the political and macroeconoic problems that need solving, before anything meaningful can be done (meaningful being: at a scale big enough to make a difference within a short time span, i.e. a decade) about climate changing emissions.

The solutions for the political/macro issues are all known, but need greater public awareness and political pressure to make them happen: The EU needs to reform its rules with new treaties, to end the budget-balancing/austerity bias, and the EU either needs to create a central debt-issuing power (so all countries have the same low interest rate), or a central fiscal government proportional to national governments (i.e EU nation), or it needs to allow the reintroduction of (parallel to the Euro most likely) national currencies.

On top of all that (the above is the 'fixing the EU macroeconomy' set of solutions), you need a European Green New Deal - but the latter can only come after the former.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

(1) You're the one who has detailed a centralised economy. So ...

By your own words you describe exactly your own commentary.

(2) I made no such response. If you think I have provide proof

So either answer the question you have now been asked multiple times and inexplicably refuse to answer or simply stop ranting about something you clearly have no idea about ...

- what exactly will the huge amounts of mobilized lanour be doing?

1: That is more conspiracy-theory nonsense regarding Communism. You can't seem to imagine anything involving greater government spending and activity in the economy, than the present day, as being anything other than Communism...

2: It's a binary thing - eiher you think it's possible, or it's not - so state it clearly, yes or no: Do you think it's possible for governments (with the right political/economic changes, like I describe in the post just prior to this) to mobilize labour/resources, at a scale large enough to e.g. wage an existential war? (with the effort being put into work fighting climate change instead)

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

This is the 'manifesto', the '5 step plan' you're referring to:

No it's this one- you didnt number the last 2 but no matter

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111095511&postcount=1688

Not only are you spouting conspiracy theories regarding Communism - you're referring to my outline of the propaganda tactics of climate change denialism, as a 'manifesto' of sorts...

Nope - not even one "conspiracy theory" But yes It is a manifesto

A  manifesto is a published declaration of the intentions, motives, or views of the issuer, be it an individual, group, political party or government. ... It often is political or artistic in nature, but may present an individual's life stance. 

"KyussB wrote:

I'm persistently trying to elevate this debate to step '5' there - which means stepping past all of the propaganda tactics in step 1-4.

You are persistently repeating vague ideas with no detail nor backup.

And so back to the question. See above.

KyussB wrote: »

1: That is more conspiracy-theory nonsense regarding Communism. You can't seem to imagine anything involving greater government spending and activity in the economy, than the present day, as being anything other than Communism...

Nope. None of that. It is exactly as described where you detailed a centralised economy and collectivised labour etc.

KyussB wrote: »

2: It's a binary thing - eiher you think it's possible, or it's not - so state it clearly, yes or no: Do you think it's possible for governments (with the right political/economic changes, like I describe in the post just prior to this) to mobilize labour/resources, at a scale large enough to e.g. wage an existential war? (with the effort being put into work fighting climate change instead)

Pppfffff. "wage an existential war" lol

Indeed it is a binary thing - either you answer the question or you dont and describe in detail what exactly will your "massive mobilisation of labour" be doing. (sic)

Now stop dancing around the ballroom and please provide an answer or get out.

fat zombie

imgur.com/a/nfCcmot
Feel sorry for the kid , being used by adults

fat zombie

gozunda wrote: »

Tbh - it looks like she's is not coping too well with the pressure this whole thing is puting on her. I feel very sad that the paucity of responsible adults in her life means that she is being exposed to this continiluing type of ****e. I sincerely do hope she comes away from this ok

She is a child, should be enjoying her summer holidays , playing with her friends.
Alas the Left is bereft of compassion, only seeks victory for their warped ideology and does not care about the human damage.
See Communist USSR & China, the horrors far exceed Nazi Germany

recedite

fat zombie wrote: »

imgur.com/a/nfCcmot
Feel sorry for the kid , being used by adults

That's funny, but in reality I think she just has a Swedish face.

gozunda

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

https://twitter.com/DVATW/status/1167122679989776384

Tbh - it looks like she's is not coping too well with the pressure this whole thing is puting on her. I feel very sad that the paucity of responsible adults in her life means that she is being exposed to this continuing type of ****e. I sincerely do hope she comes away from this ok :

is_that_so

KyussB wrote: »

I've already explained the political and macroeconomic problems that need to be resolved before it can take place - "To do what exctly" is asking what people should be put to work on to fight climate change - the latter I am not going to discuss with people who can't even acknolwedge the macroeconomic problems and their solutions, and the possibility of mobilizing people at a large scale, to be put to work on tasks involving fighting climate change.

There are thousands of different things that get discussed regularly, work that can be done, for fighting climate change - and if I get into the minutiae of discussing that, then that's the bigger issue of resolving the problems with macroeconomic practice, gone from discussion - so it pretty much means, that people have to acknowledge that there is no lack of useful work to do for fighting climate change, or to agree to put that concern to the side to hash out the bigger issue above first.

No matter how many ways you recycle your one and only post it doesn't change anything. That bolded bit sums up how little you know about these thousands of things. Lest you imagine you're being picked on, you're really not. You seem incapable of going from exhausting people with all of this dense waffle to actual actions to be explored. Any time you have been invited to produce even one, you repeat this or start attacking other posters.

is_that_so

KyussB wrote: »

It's quite simple: Either it is possible for governments to command resources and labour on the scale I describe, or it is not - that's all I'm interested in talking about.

It would be rather pointless to talk about specifics of what to apply that work effort to (apart from the general aim of efforts to combat carbon emissions), if you disagree that it is even possible to muster up that workforce in the first place - which seems to be the position you take, but which you're unwilling to state.

Command resources to do what? I've asked how, quite a few times, as have others and you've offered nothing.

Jimmy Garlic

is_that_so wrote: »

Command resources to do what? I've asked how, quite a few times, as have others and you've offered nothing.

Communist wet dream. Like something out of Chairman Maos little red book

Pa ElGrande

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Communist wet dream. Like something out of Chairman Maos little red book

https://twitter.com/GrrrGraphics/status/1167127261377548288

Pa ElGrande

UN flies in 5,000 people to Salt Lake to complain about fossil fuels

The UN brags that up to 4,000 people are likely to attend, representing more 300 nongovernmental organizations (read, environmental activist groups) and more than 80 countries. There is no compelling agenda, no compelling actions items, and no expected meaningful outcome from the conference. It is simply an opportunity for leftist global activists to get together and express outrage about economic freedom and the existential global climate disruption that is the greatest crisis humanity has ever faced – surpassing Genghis Khan, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, the Black Plague, smallpox, AIDS, and the threat of nuclear war combined.

Salt Lake City is an isolated, medium-sized city with little national or international media impact. Most people flying to Salt Lake City for the UN conference will have to make at least one or two connecting flights to get there, exacerbating their carbon footprint for the conference. Why didn’t the UN choose New York or Brussels for such a conference? Because, silly, UN bureaucrats get tired of New York and Brussels and want to go someplace really cool and fun for their events. Carbon footprint, shmarbon footprint.

source

Someone tell Greta and she can unleash her furious anger on them after all her efforts.

blinding

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

UN flies in 5,000 people to Salt Lake to complain about fossil fuels




Someone tell Greta and she can unleash her furious anger on them after all her efforts.

These mob are comic parody

KyussB

is_that_so wrote: »

No matter how many ways you recycle your one and only post it doesn't change anything. That bolded bit sums up how little you know about these thousands of things. Lest you imagine you're being picked on, you're really not. You seem incapable of going from exhausting people with all of this dense waffle to actual actions to be explored. Any time you have been invited to produce even one, you repeat this or start attacking other posters.

If I am focusing on the simple possibility of governments wielding the political/economic power to mobilize workers at a large scale in the first place - and if posters disagree that that is even possible, even before discussing the work that would be done in fighting climate change - why would I let those posters control what is discussed, so that the macroeconomic/political problems I am focusing on, never get discussed?

It's a fairly clear example of trying to exclude those bigger problems from discussion.

You and the other posters know, that it is not necessary to talk about what work would be done, in order to debate the possibility of governments mobilizing workers like that in the first place - you insist upon discussing that, to prevent discussion of what I am actually focusing on.

It even devolves into rabid conspiracy theories involving Communism - it's mental.

jackboy

KyussB wrote: »

You and the other posters know, that it is not necessary to talk about what work would be done, in order to debate the possibility of governments mobilizing workers like that in the first place - you insist upon discussing that, to prevent discussion of what I am actually focusing on.

That is not logical. To debate the possibility of governments mass mobilizing labour of course we would need to first know what tasks they would be doing. The possibility is highly dependent on the tasks.

KyussB

jackboy wrote: »

That is not logical. To debate the possibility of governments mass mobilizing labour of course we would need to first know what tasks they would be doing. The possibility is highly dependent on the tasks.

The tasks are limited to the resources available, and the abilities of the workers - within those constraints, there is no need to discuss the work done first - leaving us free to discuss the possibility of even mobilizing workers like this in the first place.

jackboy

KyussB wrote: »

The tasks are limited to the resources available, and the abilities of the workers - within those constraints, there is no need to discuss the work done first - leaving us free to discuss the possibility of even mobilizing workers like this in the first place.

I don’t agree.

Jimmy Garlic

KyussB wrote: »

If I am focusing on the simple possibility of governments wielding the political/economic power to mobilize workers at a large scale in the first place - and if posters disagree that that is even possible, even before discussing the work that would be done - why would I let those posters control what is discussed, so that the macroeconomic/political problems I am focusing on, never get discussed?

It's a fairly clear example of trying to exclude those bigger problems from discussion.

You and the other posters know, that it is not necessary to talk about what work would be done, in order to debate the possibility of governments mobilizing workers like that in the first place - you insist upon discussing that, to prevent discussion of what I am actually focusing on.

It even devolves into rabid conspiracy theories involving Communism - it's mental.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck. The so called environmental movement is jam packed full of Marxists hiding behind a thin veil of environmentalism. Will your mobilised workers march up O'Connell street with spades over their shoulders comrade? What would all these mobilised workers be doing as a matter of interest? Will you be one of these press ganged workers or would you prefer to be giving them orders?

KyussB

jackboy wrote: »

I don’t agree.

Well then provide an argument as to why you disagree - otherwise there is no argument, for why I shouldn't put that part of the discussion aside.

jackboy

KyussB wrote: »

Well then provide an argument as to why you disagree - otherwise there is no argument, for why I shouldn't put that part of the discussion aside.

I don’t know how to debate the possibility of governments mass mobilizing labour to carry out some mysterious phantom unknown tasks. Maybe others could have such a debate but I wouldn’t even know where to start.

KyussB

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck. The so called environmental movement is jam packed full of Marxists hiding behind a thin veil of environmentalism. Will your mobilised workers march up O'Connell street with spades over their shoulders comrade? What would all these mobilised workers be doing as a matter of interest? Will you be one of these press ganged workers or would you prefer to be giving them orders?

Yea nice how simply saying "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck" is an argument all on its own, completely removing any need to actually argue and prove those comparisons yourself :rolleyes:

When you force the climate change debate to its core/crux issue - reforming macroeconomic practice, so that it becomes possible to mount a proper fight to climate change - it really brings out the bat****, rabid conspiracy theories regarding Communism.

That it brings out that much partisan indignant howling, to try and shut down debate - shows just how effective the macroeconomic arguments are on climate change.

blinding

Since the industrial revolution , Technology is King / Queen / Everything

If climate change exists then the only thing that could possibly have an affect on it would be technology . Only technology could possibly have the affects needed to affect climate change .

People ( some ) in the west will virtue signal and then go back to normal and the bigger hypocrites will do this in private jets , etc , etc .

If the effort that is going in to the climate change virtue signallers was going in to technology it would be far more useful than humouring these hypocrites .

KyussB

jackboy wrote: »

I don’t know how to debate the possibility of governments mass mobilizing labour to carry out some mysterious phantom unknown tasks. Maybe others could have such a debate but I wouldn’t even know where to start.

You don't need to debate the work done, to debate the political/economic possibility of mobilizing workers like that - once the work done, is restricted based on available resources and the workers abilities, that allows you to focus on the political/economic problems preventing government mobilization of workers at a large scale.

Do you see how it's impossible to debate the bigger political/macroeconomic issues, if I start discussing the thousands of different types of work that can be done?

If I started that debate with these posters, they would just declare all of the work impractical, and they would use macroeconomic arguments about funding to do that - and they would still insist that the macroeconomic/political issues can't be talked about, until the work is shown to be practical first - yet I need to have the macroeconomic discussion first, to show how it is easily practical with the right changes...

That's why I'm deliberately not delving into all of that.

KyussB

blinding wrote: »

Since the industrial revolution , Technology is King / Queen / Everything

If climate change exists then the only thing that could possibly have an affect on it would be technology . Only technology could possibly have the affects needed to affect climate change .

People ( some ) in the west will virtue signal and then go back to normal and the bigger hypocrites will do this in private jets , etc , etc .

If the effort that is going in to the climate change virtue signallers was going in to technology it would be far more useful than humouring these hypocrites .

I agree with you on the technology - and I think right now the technology is not being Researched & Developed at a big enough scale - it needs Manhatten Project style government efforts, worldwide.

ForestFire

KyussB wrote: »

If I am focusing on the simple possibility of governments wielding the political/economic power to mobilize workers at a large scale in the first place - and if posters disagree that that is even possible, even before discussing the work that would be done - why would I let those posters control what is discussed, so that the macroeconomic/political problems I am focusing on, never get discussed?

It's a fairly clear example of trying to exclude those bigger problems from discussion.

You and the other posters know, that it is not necessary to talk about what work would be done, in order to debate the possibility of governments mobilizing workers like that in the first place - you insist upon discussing that, to prevent discussion of what I am actually focusing on.

It even devolves into rabid conspiracy theories involving Communism - it's mental.

Seriously, stop hiding behind this grand plan and trying to avoid discussion and critic of it.

If I went I to work in the morning and told them I had a great new project that will double turnover, but I need 100 people to work on it and a 1 million budget , but gave No Further Details, until they approved the project first, and only then I would discuss it, I would be laughed at.

How are we supposed to know if governments and society will buy into this plan if we have no details about anything it entails, except its name.

We don't need every detail, just some examples of how it's going to work, what will be banned, what will be restricted and what will be replaced with something new.

Let's take beef/livestock farmers as an example, what will they being doing in this new era of society.

If you tell us they are switching over to tillage farming, and they are on their own after that, then no it won't work.

If you tell them, there income will be protected, grants for new machinery while they make the transition over a 5 year period, maybe...

If you tell them, they new job is 3 days a week planting tress, with 3 months holidays every year, then sure it will work.

Now all those people in the processing industry behind the scenes, will have something for them too, who's paying to retrofit meat factories to plant based production., and comsumers that need to switch to vegetarian, is this even healthy?

What are the plans for aviation? Reduce flights, restrict travel per year, upgrade to new power source?

Automotive might be a bit clearer as the industry in making a shift anyway to electric, but nobody knows how this will turn out, or if its even any better with current battery technology.

Are we going to allow a move to nuclear power?

Population control, in the form on incentives, maybe less welfare after the first 2 children?

It's not going to take that long to type a few examples, you typed enough to try and avoid it at this stage you could have given some details and see how the discussion progresses, rather than trying to predict it.