Greta Thunberg (Continued...)

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

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

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

you were asked immediately after this post whether it is your contention that the statement or sentiments expressed by DHR are representative of a significant proportion of the thread.

that seems to be the very clear contention.

is that your contention?

do you think you can back up such a contention?

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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?

the above followed on.

its a statement about the post referenced above, which please god you'll be clarifying for us as i type.

would you grossly misrepresent any of the arguments or positions taken in this thread in order to compare then to the DHR statement?

would you want to do so?

it looks very much as if you've done so. maybe you'll clear that up.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

the above followed on.

its a statement about the post referenced above, which please god you'll be clarifying for us as i type.

would you grossly misrepresent any of the arguments or positions taken in this thread in order to compare then to the DHR statement?

would you want to do so?

it looks very much as if you've done so. maybe you'll clear that up.

Yes. I think a lot of the posters on this thread, including yourself are not so far removed from the statements of Danny Healy-Rae.

Many here are motivated, in my opinion, by a self focused motivation to avoid engaging in the topic in terms of meaningful action.

You, no doubt, think I am wrong? I don't care.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

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

Tell me how wrote: »

Yes. I think a lot of the posters on this thread, including yourself are not so far removed from the statements of Danny Healy-Rae.Many here are motivated, in my opinion, by a self focused motivation to avoid engaging in the topic in terms of meaningful action. You, no doubt, think I am wrong? I don't care.

More of the same eh? It was a fairly straightforward reply - perhaps you simply did not understand it. KyuusB didn't ask 'one' question btw. He has persisted in asking a multitude of fairly daft hypothetical questions. I'm not the only poster to point this out btw - but no matter.

As to the above comments to snoopsheep a yours tend to follow much the same direction - with everyone you dont agree with being disparaged. You really should learn not to believe in your own perceptions and you should definitely not trust the perception of those who agree with you - much like nodding dogs. We know from behavioural psychology that people love to see things that aren’t really there, and love to egg each other on in those misperceptions. We’re funny creatures. I'll leave you with it.

KyussB

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?

Nothing you've said invalidates the general set of questions, about what level of global temperature rise you would consider unacceptable.

You've been asked about acceptance of the IPCC temperature levels, of temperature levels going beyond the IPCC levels, of temperature levels that would lead to human extinction even (the last asked, just to try and present an absurd situation to determine some kind of limit from you, since any reasonable person would agree that that would be unacceptable...).

Even ElGrande finally answered the question - with an argument which expressed that even human extinction is up for debate and not viewed as unacceptable...

I mean, multiple people have answered that question so far - they obviously thought it was valid enough to answer - you're on your own in claiming it's 'invalid' - and it's obvious to anyone reading that you're making up very poor excuses for evading.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Nothing you've said invalidates the general set of questions, about what level of global temperature rise you would consider unacceptable.You've been asked about acceptance of the IPCC temperature levels, of temperature levels going beyond the IPCC levels, of temperature levels that would lead to human extinction even (the last asked, just to try and present an absurd situation to determine some kind of limit from you, since any reasonable person* would agree that that would be unacceptable...

Incorrect. Not only one who pointed the obvious problems with your constantly repeated multiple questions. That stands.

Two things - your use of hyperbole and language. Your overuse of qualifiers such as 'acceptable' - acceptable to you or some mythical 'reasonable person'* who agrees with you? I may not believe it is wrong for anyone to take a dump in the middle of the floor - but believing something being 'acceptable' to you or me is irrelevant.

*That in case you are unaware is a fallacy.
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (ie an "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many o people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so"

Btw you only brought in the IPCC (see comment on your multiple questions above) when I asked you to clarify as to why you did not agree with the IPCC as per your previous comments on 'human extiction' etc. So again why have you indicated you do not believe them and want others to speculate instead?

Secondly - on the issue on 'human's extinction - which you asked another poster (not me btw) - It is notable that the IPCC have not made any claims with regard to human extinction as a result of climate change.

"no credible scientific body has ever said climate change threatens the collapse of civilization much less the extinction of the human species"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/

http://theconversation.com/will-climate-change-cause-humans-to-go-extinct-117691

And yet again have again avoided answering the pertinent questions as to why you apparently dont agree with the IPCC and why you believe existing greenhouse gas emissions management systems are 'fraudulent accounting tricks'. Answers on both those issues are certainly overdue.

KyussB

Who the fuck thinks human extinction is acceptable? It's obviously hyperbolic, to try and set an upper temperature limit that should be universally agreeable, as being unacceptable to pass.

Are you actually serious in saying, that assuming human extinction is unacceptable, is a fallacious statement?

Looks like you're forcing us to start with something even more basic - forget temperature changes and climate change for a minute: Is human extinction unacceptable, in your view?

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Who the fuck thinks human extinction is acceptable? It's obviously hyperbolic, to try and set an upper temperature limit that should be universally agreeable, as being unacceptable to pass.Are you actually serious in saying, that assuming human extinction is unacceptable, is a fallacious statement?
Looks like you're forcing us to start with something even more basic - forget temperature changes and climate change for a minute: Is human extinction unacceptable, in your view?

So why the 'fuk' are you asking such a daft question? And yes it remains irrelevant to the discussion. But well done you've just successfully answered your own question. And no the IPCC do not have a position on 'human extiction' btw.

Didn't understand about the use of fallacy? Do read again - Your use of the 'reasonable person' is otherwise known is "Argumentum ad populum" and is fallacious.

Now all that's cleared up - please stop evading the issue and answer the two questions asked of you in the previous comment.

KyussB

Stating "human extinction is considered unacceptable" is only 'argument ad populum' if you subscribe to a worldview or moral philosophy, which views it as acceptable, or otherwise views that statement as up for debate and thus as unsettled.

If you don't subscribe to such a vastly-diverging/minority moral philosophy, then there is no reason for you to use 'argument ad populum' to refuse accepting the assumption of 'human extinction = unacceptable' in the first place.

It's completely relevant to the discussion. It ties directly into a line of questioning about climate change. Your desperate use of various 'outs' from answering a simple question, has required further breaking up and simplification of the question - to (futilely it seems) try and find out what any of your views are, about anything relevant to the original unsimplified question.

So, breaking it down again into even more basic form: Do you think the statement "human extinction is considered unacceptable" should be considered a settled issue, or one which requires further debate?

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Yes. I think a lot of the posters on this thread, including yourself are not so far removed from the statements of Danny Healy-Rae.

Many here are motivated, in my opinion, by a self focused motivation to avoid engaging in the topic in terms of meaningful action.

You, no doubt, think I am wrong? I don't care.

thanks for the clarification!

that's so obviously a ridiculous statement that spells out exactly how desperate you are to battle windmills on behalf of greta.

youll say anything about anyone as long as it leaves you the purest person in the thread.

a green voter who wants taxes raised to fund green infrastructure is the same as danny healy rae.

and the thread is full of the likes of danny healy rae.

because they dont cheerlead a girl you like.

transparently nonsense.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

More of the same eh? It was a fairly straightforward reply - perhaps you simply did not understand it. KyuusB didn't ask 'one' question btw. He has persisted in asking a multitude of fairly daft hypothetical questions. I'm not the only poster to point this out btw - but no matter.

As to the above comments to snoopsheep a yours tend to follow much the same direction - with everyone you dont agree with being disparaged. You really should learn not to believe in your own perceptions and you should definitely not trust the perception of those who agree with you - much like nodding dogs. We know from behavioural psychology that people love to see things that aren’t really there, and love to egg each other on in those misperceptions. We’re funny creatures. I'll leave you with it.

There is one ever so significant factor which you are choosing to ignore.

The scientists who have published work and contributed to white papers and policy documents which has led me to forming an opinion.

Your supporting argument? Doesn't seem to extend beyond more of the same posters on this thread. And you talk about nodding dogs? Sure. I know what you mean.

Tell me how

[Deleted User] wrote: »

thanks for the clarification!

that's so obviously a ridiculous statement that spells out exactly how desperate you are to battle windmills on behalf of greta.

youll say anything about anyone as long as it leaves you the purest person in the thread.

a green voter who wants taxes raised to fund green infrastructure is the same as danny healy rae.

and the thread is full of the likes of danny healy rae.

because they dont cheerlead a girl you like.

transparently nonsense.

What's the deal with not using capital letters?

(I hope you dont feel I'm 'attacking' you. I'm asking a question.)

Theres nothing else in your post I feel the need to comment on.

CtevenSrowder

Tell me how wrote: »

Yes. I think a lot of the posters on this thread, including yourself are not so far removed from the statements of Danny Healy-Rae.

Many here are motivated, in my opinion, by a self focused motivation to avoid engaging in the topic in terms of meaningful action.

You, no doubt, think I am wrong? I don't care.

No, you are wrong. Smoopsheep along with myself voted greens, and I was happy they picked up as many seats as they did. Gozunda liked our posts signalling he isn't some green hater either. You just want to build up a bogeyman in your head to fight against and to feel morally superior.

Tell me how

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No, you are wrong. Smoopsheep along with myself voted greens, and I was happy they picked up as many seats as they did. Gozunda liked our posts signalling he isn't some green hater either. You just want to build up a bogeyman in your head to fight against and to feel morally superior.

His name is Snoopsheep!!!!

notobtuse

I read this Thunberg kid is getting her own BBC show. Will it be called “Great Exploitations?”

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

What's the deal with not using capital letters?

(I hope you dont feel I'm 'attacking' you. I'm asking a question.)

Theres nothing else in your post I feel the need to comment on.

quality

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

...
So, breaking it down again into even more basic form: Do you think the statement "human extinction is considered unacceptable" should be considered a settled issue, or one which requires further debate?

You have already answered that question in your previous comment where you highlighted the ridiculousness of your own proposition .

KyussB wrote:

Who the **** thinks human extinction is acceptable?

So why still asking that daft question?

If you reckon it needs further debate - debate away - I'm not stopping you.

Now all that's cleared up - please stop evading the issue and answer the two questions asked previously. Thanks.

CtevenSrowder

notobtuse wrote: »

I read this Thunberg kid is getting her own BBC show. Will it be called “Great Exploitations?”

Please God just let it feature actual climate scientists!

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

You have already answered that question in your previous comment where you highlighted the ridiculousness of your own proposition .



So why still asking that daft question?

If you reckon it needs further debate - debate away - I'm not stopping you.

Now all that's cleared up - please stop evading the issue and answer the two questions asked previously. Thanks.

When I'm asking for your view, that means I can't answer the question for you - only you can answer the question, because it's asking abour your view...

Do you agree then, that - in your view - human extinction is unacceptable?

mandrake04

notobtuse wrote: »

I read this Thunberg kid is getting her own BBC show. Will it be called “Great Exploitations?”

Maybe it’s a spin-off of the Addams Family.... I do find her rather creepy.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

When I'm asking for your view, that means I can't answer the question for you - only you can answer the question, because it's asking abour your view...

Do you agree then, that - in your view - human extinction is unacceptable?

Btw I have now asked many times to answer the two questions I have asked and you clearly have not answered

1. Why do you believe existing ghg emission management systems are 'fraudulent accounting tricks'?

2. Why do you not accept the IPCCs own findings with regard to temperature change?

Why are you ignoring these questions? Afraid it will show up as what some have accused others of being a 'denier' perhaps?

As to the other - Missed the point again? As you have already said 'who the fuk thinks human extinction is acceptable" and stated the stupidity of that argument. And yet here you are badgering a number of other posters about this ridiculous scenario and something that the IPCC have not referred to, has nothing to do with climate change or even greta! And thats "my view"

Where someone asks a question - and that question makes no sense then no there is no valid answer. So I'll leave you to your own ramblings thanks all the same.

KyussB

If the question makes no sense, then why were multiple other posters perfectly able to answer it...

We're trying to establish boundaries, for what level of climate change you view as acceptable vs unacceptable - you seem utterly determined not to express any kind of a hint, on what boundaries you'd view as unacceptable to pass, nor even if you have any boundaries at all...

Is there any kind of boundary/limit to climate change, that you view as unacceptable to pass? (if there isn't - then this is something posters aught to know, before they debate with you)

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

If the question makes no sense, then why were multiple other posters perfectly able to answer it...We're trying to establish boundaries, for what level of climate change you view as acceptable vs unacceptable - you seem utterly determined not to express any kind of a hint, on what boundaries you'd view as unacceptable to pass, nor even if you have any boundaries at all...

Is there any kind of boundary/limit to climate change, that you view as unacceptable to pass? (if there isn't - then this is something posters aught to know, before they debate with you)

Nope.

Answer the 2 relevant questions asked above - as you said 'posters' aught to know, before they debate with you. Why wont you address them?

Errata:
Who is 'we'? You mean you?

'Boundaries' are already established by the IPCC. Why do you not believe them?

It makes no sense - end of story. Multiple other posters (whom you've badgered also with this) have pointed out the above 'human extinction' is rubbish (including yourself). Now give it over.

KyussB

Then do you agree with the IPCC's boundaries? I never expressed disagreement with them.

How does having a boundary/limit to climate change, that would be considered unacceptable to pass, make no sense? You acknowledge yourself that the IPCC expresses such boundaries.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Then do you agree with the IPCC's boundaries? I never expressed disagreement with them.How does having a boundary/limit to climate change, that would be considered unacceptable to pass, make no sense? You acknowledge yourself that the IPCC expresses such boundaries.

First still haven't answered those two relevant questions or addressesd them? Why?

Errata: Nice fudge btw. You clearly don't accept the IPCCs boundaries - if as you claim you're "trying to establish boundaries" of your own. And as you well know and acknowledge "human extinction" is a ridiculous scenario and something that the IPCC have not referred to or to do with climate change boundaries.

So that's it. You've wasted enough posters time with that garbage.

Now your turn to answer these relevant questions.

1. Why do you believe existing ghg emission management systems are 'fraudulent accounting tricks'?

2. Why do you not accept the IPCCs own findings with regard to temperature change?

Dont bother replying if you are not going to address these questions.

ForestFire

KyussB wrote: »

If the question makes no sense, then why were multiple other posters perfectly able to answer it...

If you are counting me as one of the posters that answered this question, then the background is very relevant:-

Firstly you made an allegation about all posters critical of Greata would not answer the question, literally just after presenting the question. I think this is call setting the trap?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KyussB View Post
It's notable that not a single person on the side of the debate critical of Greta, will even express that human extinction as a result of human-driven climate change, would be 'unacceptable'.

My first reply was actually about how ridiculous the questions was as below, with a general reply and without any temperature value

"Seriously, you have made up a scenario that is not backed by any data ,and now assume what everyone thinks about it,.... my some magical means!

Yes human extinction caused by humans, due to any reason, is unacceptable."

My Second reply I actually started I could not answer the question and referred to tie IPCC

"I do not have the answer to this. But I believe the scientists believe somewhere between 3 to 5 degrees?"

Tell me how

I'm glad to see people are now demanding adherence to facts and figures published by scientists.

Well done Kyussb, you are quite the converter. Took some effort since the first thread started but finally there is signs people are paying attention to what is actually going on.

ForestFire

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm glad to see people are now demanding adherence to facts and figures published by scientists.

Well done Kyussb, you are quite the converter. Took some effort since the first thread started but finally there is signs people are paying attention to what is actually going on.

I do not know if who you are referring too, But I always demanded facts and data, but this is also applicable to Greata, the climate change movement, the media and public figures that have persistently used flase and misleading headlines for their coverage and reporting, but some posters here think that is acceptable as we are in a crisis!!

Fr_Dougal

Australian senator claims 'eco-terrorists' caused bushfires

Uh-oh...

An Australian senator has called on the nation's spies to investigate whether "eco-terrorists" were responsible for the country's unprecedented bushfire crisis.

Addressing the parliament yesterday, Concetta Fierravanti-Wells - a senior member of the ruling conservative Liberal party and former government minister - echoed online conspiracy theories to claim it "defies logic" that hundreds of bushfires could have started at the same time.

Tell me how

ForestFire wrote: »

I do not know if who you are referring too, But I always demanded facts and data, but this is also applicable to Greata, the climate change movement, the media and public figures that have persistently used flase and misleading headlines for their coverage and reporting, but some posters here think that is acceptable as we are in a crisis!!

Cool.

So, to confirm, you agree, we should get behind the science?