Greta Thunberg (Continued...)

hetuzozaho

gozunda wrote: »

Haha We must be reading different article so.



If you dont like that article - plenty of other online articles cover the same story.

Same article. The article that links Greta because she retweeted 350 org.
I have a read another couple of articles too which mention the retweeting.

Not sure what your winking at? You seem to have some issue with me discussing this with you?

gozunda

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Same article. The article that links Greta because she retweeted 350 org.I have a read another couple of articles too which mention the retweeting.
Not sure what your winking at? You seem to have some issue with me discussing this with you?

Nope. Lol. Much the same as your own use of Emojis no? But yeah winks are generally friendly

 Winking Face
A yellow face with a slight smile shown winking, usually its left eye. May signal a joke, flirtation, hidden meaning, or general positivity. Tone varies, including playful, affectionate, suggestive, or ironic.

I'll go for Ironic and a grin

hetuzozaho

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. Lol. Much the same as your own use of Emojis no? But yeah winks are generally friendly


I'll go for Ironic and a grin

Grand I'll leave you to it

hetuzozaho

Some of the people weighing in behind Federer on Twitter now should really take his advice on board.

gozunda

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Some of the people weighing in behind Federer on Twitter now should really take his advice on board.

Not on Twitter so couldn't comment tbh. But reckon Federer's advice is good for all....

hetuzozaho

gozunda wrote: »

Not on Twitter so couldn't comment tbh.

Some of it's pretty embarrassing so prob better off!

Thargor

Thargor wrote: »

"Attacking others bad" claims middle aged keyboard warrior who spends months posting thousands of attacks on a child on the internet because her activism offends him.

is this an attack?

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

You really have to stop making up what you believe other people have said...

You said

And I said

Its part of 'your' discussion' and makes no sense whatsoever. As stated the temperature limits have already been set out by the IPCC. Coming up with some daft hypothetical scenario for people to make up their own imaginary figures or even to see who wins the peeing competition is at best puerile tbh.

Any thoughts on the questions viz. "Ghg emissions management systems and "fraudulent accounting tricks' and why you dont accept the IPCC recommendations etc?

Do you agree that passing the IPCC's temperature limits is unacceptable, or not? (e.g. their 5°C temperature limit)

Is there any level of temperature increase from climate change, that you view as unacceptable?

They're pretty simple questions - they're necessary for determining whether you think any level of climate change requires prevention, and if so, what level of climate change. People can see that you're not giving intelligible reasons for evading.

Tell me how

Having been involved with this thread, this sounds very familiar.

https://twitter.com/VirginMediaNews/status/1226565190549942272

Who needs science eh?

thats a familiar statement on this thread?

gosh, sounds to me as if you'd really be grossly misrepresenting the thrust of any argument you didnt agree with if you were to make any such claim.

you....you wouldnt want to do that now, would you?

CtevenSrowder

Tell me how wrote: »

Having been involved with this thread, this sounds very familiar.

https://twitter.com/VirginMediaNews/status/1226565190549942272

Who needs science eh?

Ah yes because if you are not a huge Greta fan you are just a ranting and raving lunatic like Danny Healy-Rae.

05eaftqbrs9jlh

KyussB wrote: »

Projections of any kind don't matter when you view human extinction as acceptable.

People have adjusted to a certain expectation of loss because we've been drip-fed the data from other, more "weather disaster"-y parts of the world; increasingly white and English-speaking parts of the world. As the Elbow lyric goes "It's easy to ignore until they're knocking at the door of your homes". They came for the Indonesians, and I did not speak out, because I'm in Ireland where there's no typhoons. Then they came for the Aussies and I did not speak out, because I'm not living in that tinderbox. Then Ireland was submerged by the rising tides, and I thought that I was lucky I had avoided extinction for so long.

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

To hell with the planet and the fellas that say we must save the planet and forget about the people! I'm not one of those people. I make no apologies to anyone, anywhere for that!

He actually destroyed my brain when he said that. It just imploded.

gozunda

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Ah yes because if you are not a huge Greta fan you are just a ranting and raving lunatic like Danny Healy-Rae.

Lol. That seems to be the usual wet dream for sure. I think we also to give a shout out to the attack dogs of climate alarmism - defending our greta from the forces of evil :pac:

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

thats a familiar statement on this thread?

gosh, sounds to me as if you'd really be grossly misrepresenting the thrust of any argument you didnt agree with if you were to make any such claim.

you....you wouldnt want to do that now, would you?

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Ah yes because if you are not a huge Greta fan you are just a ranting and raving lunatic like Danny Healy-Rae.

I'm glad you called him the ranting raving lunatic.

If I had done that I'd probably have been reported. Again.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm glad you called him the ranting raving lunatic.

If I had done that I'd probably have been reported. Again.

proving, once again, that you cant see any difference between commenting on public figures and ad-hom against a poster on a boards thread.

had you a response to my post? or did you quote in error?

congratulations to the greens on a great performance so far in the election.

hopefully they get to play a role in government, they are an important voice when balanced against the other democratically mandated voices put forward to run the country.

CtevenSrowder

Deleted User wrote: »

congratulations to the greens on a great performance so far in the election.

hopefully they get to play a role in government, they are an important voice when balanced against the other democratically mandated voices put forward to run the country.

Which is why I put them at number 3. Important that they can keep in the ear of the majority party, though I'd never want them playing a major role either as some of their policies go a little too far.

they were high on my own ballot, obviously.

anyone who cannot separate their thoughts on greta vs a genuine concern for the environment, well, youd worry about a person like that wouldnt you?

20Cent

Tell me how wrote: »

Having been involved with this thread, this sounds very familiar.

https://twitter.com/VirginMediaNews/status/1226565190549942272

Who needs science eh?

The road back home for Healy Rae was blocked due to flooding lol

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

proving, once again, that you cant see any difference between commenting on public figures and ad-hom against a poster on a boards thread.

had you a response to my post? or did you quote in error?

Did you want to ask a cogent question or is it just more of the same rhetoric?

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Did you want to ask a cogent question or is it just more of the same rhetoric?

i have asked three questions of you in the past few posts.

everyone sees your answers

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

i have asked three questions of you in the past few posts.

everyone sees your answers

Still waiting for a cogent question snoopsheep.

And one which is not of the rhetorical sort.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Do you agree that passing the IPCC's temperature limits is unacceptable, or not? (e.g. their 5°C temperature limit)

Is there any level of temperature increase from climate change, that you view as unacceptable? They're pretty simple questions ...

Again as previously pointed such questions regarding cherry picked figures being 'acceptable or not acceptable' make no sense especially when the same questions change everytime a poster points out that does not hold up to scrutiny

Heres some of the previous variations on the above

KyussB wrote:

I have asked if you view a temperature increase that would probably lead to human extinction, e.g. 38°C, as unacceptable?

KyussB wrote:

At what temperature increase, do you view human-caused climate change as unacceptable? 1.5°C? 5°C? Or even IPCC-unprojected levels of 10°C? 20°C? 30°C?

a human-driven temperature change that leads to human extinction, is unacceptable?

As a previous poster pointed out these are not 'simple' questions

You have not asked a simple question but a hypothetical one ..

I have also pointed out that the IPCC have already set out the projected limits for a range of climate change temperature increase scenarios More importantly it's not a competition to see who can come up with the highest mark on the wall. The figures are already out there.

You have still failed to answer any of the questions I have asked which you brought up previously in the discussion and which remain relevant viz. Why you believe existing ghg emission systems are "Fraudelent Account Tricks " and why you appear not to accept the IPCCs figures which you have quoted

So rather than chopping and changing and evading - this time you could answer my questions. They're pretty simple tbh .

KyussB

These are very simple questions - a child could see that a temperature rise leading to human extinction would obviously be unacceptable by any sane standards - and you won't even say that that level of deliberately absurd temperature rise, woud be unacceptable.

You have no credible argument for refusing to give a global temperature increase level, which you would consider unacceptable. Something which posters aught to know, because if you would consider any level of temperature increase to be acceptable - or any level with extremely destructive effects to humans or civilization - then posters would want to reconsider debating with you.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

These are very simple questions - a child could see that a temperature rise leading to human extinction would obviously be unacceptable by any sane standards - and you won't even say that that level of deliberately absurd temperature rise, woud be unacceptable.You have no credible argument for refusing to give a global temperature increase level, which you would consider unacceptable. Something which posters aught to know, because if you would consider any level of temperature increase to be acceptable - or any level with extremely destructive effects to humans or civilization - then posters would want to reconsider debating with you.

Before answering any question - it is important to consider whether a question is valid.

It is a fact that none of those questions listed previously stand up to scrutiny. And other posters in this thread posters have already pointed that out

No reputable scientist or body has detailed any climate change scenario leading to "human extinction". Tbh that scenario is pure hyperbole and amounts to little more than alarmism.

So why the constant canvassing of perceptions of "correct" temperatures or otherwise? To do so is simply is to invite unqualified speculation. Changing the syntax of the question does not make such questions any more valid.

Therefore why persist in such pointless speculation? Is it to play witch finder general and pursue the outing of those you consider climate heretics or is it simply to push a party political agenda of the green new deal per previous posts?

But morde importantly why the refusal to answer questions asked regarding your own arguments?

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Before answering any question - it is important to consider whether a question is valid.

It is a fact that none of those questions listed previously stand up to scrutiny. And other posters in this thread posters have already pointed that out

No reputable scientist or body has detailed any climate change scenario leading to "human extinction". Tbh that scenario is pure hyperbole and amounts to little more than alarmism.

So why the constant canvassing of perceptions of "correct" temperatures or otherwise? To do so is simply is to invite unqualified speculation. Changing the syntax of the question does not make such questions any more valid.

Therefore why persist in such pointless speculation? Is it to play witch finder general and pursue the outing of those you consider climate heretics or is it simply to push a party political agenda of the green new deal per previous posts?

But morde importantly why the refusal to answer questions asked regarding your own arguments?

The gospel according to...

KyussB has asked you a very simple question. I will try to make it even simpler.

A rise in average global temperature has been recognized by renowned scientists to an increase in severe climatic events. The same scientists have suggested that such events will have a detrimental impact on human life in all areas of the planet with the impact being severe in many areas.

Do you think those scientists are wrong?

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

The gospel according to...

KyussB has asked you a very simple question. I will try to make it even simpler.

A rise in average global temperature has been recognized by renowned scientists to an increase in severe climatic events. The same scientists have suggested that such events will have a detrimental impact on human life in all areas of the planet with the impact being severe in many areas.

Do you think those scientists are wrong?

three questions asked, just the last few posts.

i dont think you should be fingerwagging anyone else until you answer a few questions yourself tbh.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

three questions asked, just the last few posts.

i dont think you should be fingerwagging anyone else until you answer a few questions yourself tbh.

Snoopsheep, you have yet to ask a straightforward question that can be answered.

I mean, is that what you want answered?

thats a familiar statement on this thread?

gosh, sounds to me as if you'd really be grossly misrepresenting the thrust of any argument you didnt agree with if you were to make any such claim.

you....you wouldnt want to do that now, would you?

I mean seriously.

yes

please answer the two questions there.

if you need them explained i can do that.

but i think avoiding them for several posts is bad form if that is why you wont answer them.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

yes

please answer the two questions there.

if you need them explained i can do that.

but i think avoiding them for several posts is bad form if that is why you wont answer them.

Yes.

Please explain them to me. Take your time, I want to be sure I understand you.