Greta Thunberg (Continued...)

Tell me how

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Australian senator claims 'eco-terrorists' caused bushfires

Uh-oh...

The Liberal Conservatives?

The party of the PM Scott Morrison, who defended the use of coal as the country burns around him. Fair and balanced, they are neither.

gozunda

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.

If you mean the poster has hoisted himself on a petard of his own making - then you are not far wrong lol

What is still going on is the use of bull**** alarmism such ad references to 'human extinction and other rubbish. Quite hilarious how some seem to really get off on that stuff. But hey it takes all sorts eh?

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Cool.

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

FYP

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

If you mean the poster has hoisted himself on a petard of his own making - then you are not far wrong lol

What is still going on is the use of bull**** alarmism such ad references to 'human extinction and other rubbish. Quite hilarious how some seem to really get off on that stuff. But hey it takes all sorts eh?

I'm just glad you have finally started to see sense even if it was immensely painful watching you get there.

Greta would be happier with such a transition than some of the numerous awards she has won.
Right now I'm waiting with baited breath for ForestFire to announce his agreement that science needs to be supported in leading the way towards action.

ForestFire

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm just glad you have finally started to see sense even if it was immensely painful watching you get there.

Greta would be happier with such a transition than some of the numerous awards she has won.
Right now I'm waiting with baited breath for ForestFire to announce his agreement that science needs to be supported in leading the way towards action.

At least you got one work correct in the post above....Because your recent replies on this thread have been a series of baiting, attacker any poster not "on your side", Spelling/Typo corrections and putting words in peoples mouths to provoke reactions....

Telll Me How quotes
"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.

"What's the deal with not using capital letters?"

"His name is Snoopsheep!!!!"

Just because you are right that science is correct, dose not mean every other opinion you have is also correct.....and to be honest is not even true, as science has been very wrong in the past, but it is the best we have to go on at any moment, until new science comes...

hetuzozaho

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Australian senator claims 'eco-terrorists' caused bushfires

Uh-oh...

Do we know Greta's whereabouts during this fires? Haha

Although Federer was mentioned a few pages back and we know he was over there... Coincidence??

Tell me how

ForestFire wrote: »

At least you got one work correct in the post above....Because your recent replies on this thread have been a series of baiting, attacker any poster not "on your side", Spelling/Typo corrections and putting words in peoples mouths to provoke reactions....

Telll Me How quotes
"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.

"What's the deal with not using capital letters?"

"His name is Snoopsheep!!!!"

Just because you are right that science is correct, dose not mean every other opinion you have is also correct.....and to be honest is not even true, as science has been very wrong in the past, but it is the best we have to go on at any moment, until new science comes...

Halle...f*ckin...lujah

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm just glad you have finally started to see sense even if it was immensely painful watching you get there.Greta would be happier with such a transition than some of the numerous awards she has won. Right now I'm waiting with baited breath for ForestFire to announce his agreement that science needs to be supported in leading the way towards action.

What is indeed painful is that you have no absolutely questions for those purporting to support the IPCCs data yet who continuously undermine same by attempting to set their own 'acceptable' (wtms) limits?

No constructive criticism at all but simply the same old devotion to greta et als alarmism?

Things really are getting stranger by the minute

Next you will he telling us you are 'denier'

Forest fire is not wrong about your comments btw.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

What is indeed painful is that you have no absolutely questions for those purporting to support the IPCCs data yet who continuously undermine same by attempting to set their own 'acceptable' (wtms) limits?

No constructive criticism at all but simply the same old devotion to greta et als alarmism?

Things really are getting stranger by the minute

Next you will he telling me you are 'denier' ...

You seem to have forgotten the 10,400 odd posts that have gone before.

You had your chance in participating in constructive criticism but you were focused on accusations of child welfare, glory hunting and the carbon emission equivalence of sailing to the US.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

You seem to have forgotten the 10,400 odd posts that have gone before. You had your chance in participating in constructive criticism but you were focused on accusations of child welfare, glory hunting and the carbon emission equivalence of sailing to the US.

You see that's you throwing generalised ****e there again. You just cant help it. Yes posters have discussed the topic of the thread. Something you have continuously tried to stop. Ive spent the last numererous comments trying to determine why KyussB is apparently standing in contradiction to the IPCC. Something you ignore and amazingly have failed to criticise.

Your prize winning array of posts to date are exactly as forestfire describes them. I would add one descriptor to that list -- puerile. Its probably why many other posters simply dont believe your posts are even genuine tbh.

I'm sure you will come back with another cracker like the above ...

Edit: Just to clarify your as usual inaccurate allegations. I have not once referred to gretas 'welfare' or to "glory hunting" and as far as I know the carbon emissions of greta et als trip to the US were the whole raison d'etre of her voyage. But hey dont let me stop the usual bs comments.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

You see that's you throwing ****e there again. You just cant help it. Yes posters have discussed the topic of the thread. Something you have continuously tried to stop. Ive spent the last numererous comments trying to determine why KyussB is apparently standing in contradiction to the IPCC. Something you ignore and amazingly have failed to criticise.

Your prize winning array of posts to date are exactly as forestfire describes them. I would add one descriptor to that list -- puerile. Its probably why many other posters simply dont believe your posts are even genuine tbh.

I'm sure you will come back with another cracker like the above ...

Things are getting stranger by the minute.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Lol

Things are getting more and more bizarre.

:pac:

But hey, that is where we are.

I'll leave you to it.

Any of the above ring a bell? And you have the audacity to call others puerile.

ForestFire

Tell me how wrote: »

Halle...f*ckin...lujah

Ha ha.... ignoring most of the post again I see...


Not sure why your so excited as I have never said anything different to this.

What I have issues with, is the repeated doomsday and false reporting and the idea of carbon Taxing the average person with no plans... Except brand new shiny teslas for the rich.

Tell me how

ForestFire wrote: »

Ha ha.... ignoring most of the post again I see...

You accuse me of the following.

because your recent replies on this thread have been a series of baiting, attacker any poster not "on your side", Spelling/Typo corrections and putting words in peoples mouths to provoke reactions....

And then you have a problem when I ignore it?

Pick a lane ForestFire.

Like with your comment on 'carbon taxing the average person with no plans'. That is something which one of the other people with a problem with Greta's message keeps repeating and here you are suggesting it is being argued for. Nobody promoting positive action has said we should do that.

If there was an award for building strawmen, I can think of several who I would nominate. (I probably shouldn't say that, because you'll think I am attacking you, but then, you seem to want that so I don't know what to do).

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Any of the above ring a bell? And you have the audacity to call others puerile.

Nope. And yet again you ignore the post and engage in an personal attack as above. I said your comments are puerile. But you know that already.

This is the problem with any discussion with you - you resort to such attacks when you are unable to put together either a humourous reply or even a proper argument just as forest fire highlighted.

A cracker again alright. Thanks for proving that point btw

hetuzozaho

Get a room guys

Tell me how

Glad to be finally clicking unfollow on this thread.

Thankfully, at this stage, those that were so fervent in their protest early on are now advocating for science to be listened to :eek:. It was never fun to engage, now, there is no need. Result.

(Although, with the frequency and speed which arguments have shifted previously, maybe this is wishful thinking
No doubt it will be interesting reading when Greta's documentary comes out on the BBC.)

Toodles!

ForestFire

Tell me how wrote: »

You accuse me of the following.


And then you have a problem when I ignore it?

Pick a lane ForestFire.

Like with your comment on 'carbon taxing the average person with no plans'. That is something which one of the other people with a problem with Greta's message keeps repeating and here you are suggesting it is being argued for. Nobody promoting positive action has said we should do that.

If there was an award for building strawmen, I can think of several who I would nominate. (I probably shouldn't say that, because you'll think I am attacking you, but then, you seem to want that so I don't know what to do).

I simple want you to debate the content of the post without making assumptions about how other posters think as individuals, like you post claiming any greata critics are like those lads from kerry, or when I state I never had an issue with the science but everything else you say....

1)Cool, so to confirm you agree... Ignorning all issue I did point out)
2)... waiting with baited breath for ForestFire to announce his agreement......
3)fck ING halalua..... as if you've somehow converted me.......

notobtuse

International Energy Agency: "The United States saw the largest decline in energy-related CO2 emissions in 2019 on a country basis...US emissions are now down almost 1 Gt from their peak in the year 2000, the largest absolute decline by any country"


Perhaps Time magazine should have named Donald Trump 'Person Of The Year' rather than some ignorant and misguided kid.

hetuzozaho

notobtuse wrote: »

Perhaps Time magazine should have named Donald Trump 'Person Of The Year'

This thread can get a bit crazy at times... but thankfully it's not that crazy!

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Glad to be finally clicking unfollow on this thread. Thankfully, at this stage, those that were so fervent in their protest early on are now advocating for science to be listened to :eek:. It was never fun to engage, now, there is no need. Result.(Although, with the frequency and speed which arguments have shifted previously, maybe this is wishful thinking No doubt it will be interesting reading when Greta's documentary comes out on the BBC.).Toodles!

Nope - more imaginations there I'm afraid. As above the same posters are saying exactly what they said previously. So no there is no 'result' for you or for anyone. That said this remains a varied discussion and a good thing too.

But perhaps just now you may have a slightly better understanding of the problems of alarmism with regards to climate change and the damage that can do? Anyway

Toodles and remember dont let the bedbugs bite ...

hetuzozaho

hetuzozaho wrote: »

This thread can get a bit crazy at times... but thankfully it's not that crazy!

agreed!

but ive an awful suspicion.....he was their person of the year a few years back?

not motivated to check tbpfh, too depressing

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

agreed!

but ive an awful suspicion.....he was their person of the year a few years back?

not motivated to check tbpfh, too depressing

Yeah trump 2016, greta 2019 ...

hetuzozaho

[Deleted User] wrote: »

agreed!

but ive an awful suspicion.....he was their person of the year a few years back?

not motivated to check tbpfh, too depressing

Ah I know... Its not always for positive reasons, e.g Hitler, felt notobtuse meant trump for positive reasons was all.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

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.

Positing a hypothetical limit which leads to human extinction, which I explicitly say is deliberately exaggerated in order to find a universally agreeable upper limit, doesn't conflict with agreeing with the IPCC's projections - I never said the discussion should only include what the IPCC says.

Do you agree with the IPCC's boundaries or not?

KyussB

ForestFire wrote: »

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?"

You did answer the question though - you said human extinction would be unacceptable.

No other poster critical of Greta, has met that bar yet. The only other poster to explicitly answer, has said he doesn't view human extinction as unacceptable.

Fair enough, perhaps you were not agreeing with the IPCC's 3-5 degree limits being unacceptable - but lets try to raise the bar further then: Would you view 20 degree temperature rise as unacceptable? (feel free to lower that down, to a number that you think is reasonable to say would be unacceptable)

When we're talking extreme numbers like that, it only takes a small bit of critical thought - not a degree in climate science - to be able to answer, and gradually bring the upper-limit on what's unacceptable, down.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Positing a hypothetical limit which leads to human extinction, which I explicitly say is deliberately exaggerated in order to find a universally agreeable upper limit, doesn't conflict with agreeing with the IPCC's projections - I never said the discussion should only include what the IPCC says. Do you agree with the IPCC's boundaries or not?

I see you still refuse to address both questions I have repeatedly asked. Btw nice turn around and attempt at gaslighting btw - that is the question here and here re the IPCC I first asked you. So your turn to answer.

1. Do you accept the latest IPCC report a
findings on climate change bounderies and their recommendations? If not why?

2. Why do you believe existing ghg emission management systems are "fraudulent accounting tricks"

My reply re. To your actual question directed at me - re. 'hypothetical human extinction" upper limit scenario which seems to be your personal raison d'etre remains unchanged btw.

hetuzozaho

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Ah I know... Its not always for positive reasons, e.g Hitler, felt notobtuse meant trump for positive reasons was all.

i think we can all step back from the pizzazz of a deeply entrenched and longrunning tedious argument in order agree on "**** that"

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

I see you still refuse to address both questions I have repeatedly asked. Btw nice turn around and attempt at gaslighting btw - that is the question here and here re the IPCC I first asked you. So your turn to answer.

1. Do you accept the latest IPCC report a
findings on climate change bounderies and their recommendations? If not why?

2. Why do you believe existing ghg emission management systems are "fraudulent accounting tricks"

My reply re. To your actual question directed at me - re. 'hypothetical human extinction" upper limit scenario which seems to be your personal raison d'etre remains unchanged btw.

I already said yesterday that I agree with the IPCC's boundaries. Do you agree with the IPCC's boundaries?

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

I already said yesterday that I agree with the IPCC's boundaries. Do you agree with the IPCC's boundaries?

Why would anyone agree to arbitrary boundaries that have no basis in science or nature?


An autopsy of the climate policy debate’s corpse

'Costly Blow in the Air': Swedes Think Climate Policy Worst Waste of Taxpayers' Money in 2019 - Poll

Physics Professor: CO2’s 0.5°C Impact After Rising To 700 ppm Is So Negligible It’s ‘Effectively Unmeasurable’


Arctic Sea Ice Sees “Dramatic Recovery And Expansion”… Northern Europe January Cooling 30 Years!

KyussB

The IPCC and their boundaries, represents the consensus among climate scientists and their science - so your statement is wrong.

Why do you care about the IPCC's projections anyway, when you view human extinction as an acceptable outcome of climate change? That would render the science irrelevant, to you - so why don't you just argue that it's irrelvant...