Greta Thunberg (Continued...)

hetuzozaho

notobtuse wrote: »

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words... Sometimes it's worth even more than that.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_t6s85UwAAxtvh.jpg

A picture of words can paint a....

20Cent

notobtuse wrote: »

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words... Sometimes it's worth even more than that.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_t6s85UwAAxtvh.jpg

The writer of Dilbert is a trump supporting alt right loon type.

Pa ElGrande

20Cent wrote: »

The writer of Dilbert is a trump supporting alt right loon type.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME7pxqlP0_8

nthclare

Any one following an unhinged teenager and enabling her to be undermining adults might as well be in a real life version of the children of the corn scenario.

Oh how the people can be deceived and unlimited in their ignorance.

A classy modern version of the emperors new clothes im observing.

The kids not firing on all cylinders and needs help.

Pa ElGrande

nthclare wrote: »

Any one following an unhinged teenager and enabling her to be undermining adults might as well be in a real life version of the children of the corn scenario.

Oh how the people can be deceived and unlimited in their ignorance.

A classy modern version of the emperors new clothes im observing.

The kids not firing on all cylinders and needs help.

She is by definition a special needs person who has been captured by decades of "dangerous climate" propaganda and in her fragile state has come to see exhibit many traits associated with a hostage attempting to please her captors aka Stockholm syndrome. She is shamelessly exploited and used to manipulate our children. Why would she need to trademark her name, would she know that? or would her parents commercial interests necessitate that?

There is nothing we can do about Greta, however, we can guide our own children away from the catastrophic future portrayed by the insidious climate cabal interests. The world is not going to end in decade, the UN and their acolytes have pulled that scam once too often. The world is generally a better place than when most of us were born, I don't see a reason why this progress can't continue whatever the bumps on the road in future are.

nthclare

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

She is by definition a special needs person who has been captured by decades of "dangerous climate" propaganda and in her fragile state has come to see exhibit many traits associated with a hostage attempting to please her captors aka Stockholm syndrome. She is shamelessly exploited and used to manipulate our children. Why would she need to trademark her name, would she know that? or would her parents commercial interests necessitate that?

There is nothing we can do about Greta, however, we can guide our own children away from the catastrophic future portrayed by the insidious climate cabal interests. The world is not going to end in decade, the UN and their acolytes have pulled that scam once too often. The world is generally a better place than when most of us were born, I don't see a reason why this progress can't continue whatever the bumps on the road in future are.

You're absolutely right by all accounts.

Chicken Licken and The Emperors new clothes all rolled into one is what the naive are living through right now.

Metaphorically speaking, people who are asleep and lack spacial awareness within their minds and their perception of reality are being told they're woke.

The spin doctors are actually telling us they can tax us all to make our world a better place.

If it takes as long to fix something as it did to break it then it'll be a job well done.

The world changes and mother nature adapts, no doubt humans are particularly sh1t at the moment at looking after the planet.

Supposedly all this pollution started during the industrial revolution, so if we had that time forward humanity could make a great change.

As far as Gretta is concerned she's more to be pitied than anything.
And those people using her as a pawn are worse.
She's very much like your typical far left, emotionally impulsive confused and not willing to be a responsible grown up.

Thelonious Monk

so this unfettered capitalism model of consuming and polluting everything can just keep going on and all will be ok? You don't have to be a scientist to see this isn't looking good.

Pa ElGrande

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

so this unfettered capitalism model of consuming and polluting everything can just keep going on and all will be ok? You don't have to be a scientist to see this isn't looking good.

Are you aware we live in a welfare state that absolutely depends on consumption to provide for it's dependents? Are you aware that we are part of a technocratic economic bloc that endorses negative interest rates in order to discourage saving and encourage more consumption? What about the growing debt? we are borrowing from the future to pay for consumption today we need to produce to service that debt? Why do we produce unless we can consume?

On a practical level without savings there is no future production and we are reduced to subsistence living. The last time this economic model was dominant on this island there were ~8 million people living here and your history book outlines what happened. There was very little industry in Ireland and very little capital, eventually our ancestors figured it out and migrated to where the capital was.

Don't fall into the Maltusian trap it's a very dark place that leads to mass slaughter as seen in the El Paso and ChristChurch killings where the perpetrators also used environmentalism in their manifestos to justify their actions.

Eric Cartman

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

so this unfettered capitalism model of consuming and polluting everything can just keep going on and all will be ok? You don't have to be a scientist to see this isn't looking good.

But no solutions are proposed, tax people and overthrow capitalism are not solutions. We need carrot, not more stick with these solutions.

Climate change is real but the amount of people who preach socialism and greta's associations with those who only propose and anti-capitalist model for solutions makes me think 'here we go again' reason 201 why we "need a revolution immediately".

Pa ElGrande

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

She is by definition a person who has been captured by decades of "dangerous climate" propaganda and in her fragile state has come to see exhibit many traits associated with a hostage attempting to please her captors aka . She is shamelessly exploited and used to manipulate our children. Why would she need to , would she know that? or would her parents commercial interests necessitate that?

There is nothing we can do about Greta, however, we can guide our own children away from the catastrophic future portrayed by the insidious climate cabal interests. The world is not going to end in decade, the UN and their acolytes have pulled that scam once too often. The world is generally a better place than when most of us were born, I don't see a reason why this progress can't continue whatever the bumps on the road in future are.

Autism is a spectrum, some people have more difficulties and needs. Others don't. It just means sometimes a person needs different educational help, physical or emotional supports. Seems more like your using this as a pretty poor attack on her rather than the point she's trying to make. Climate change is very real, it will negatively impact generations to come.

Eric Cartman

20Cent wrote: »

The writer of Dilbert is a trump supporting alt right loon type.

Do you have any of that or did you just throw 3 darts at your bingo wall of "things people must be because i don't like what they said / drew"

Pa ElGrande

Deleted User wrote: »

Autism is a spectrum, some people have more difficulties and needs. Others don't. It just means sometimes a person needs different educational help, physical or emotional supports. Seems more like your using this as a pretty poor attack on her rather than the point she's trying to make. Climate change is very real, it will negatively impact generations to come.

No. When Children Protest, Adults Should Tell them the Truth. Based on the mothers book the family has externalised their internal problems via climate change. Greta is projecting her distress onto the rest of the world.

As the most resourceful species on the planet, humans already live across a wide range of climate zones, we can adapt to change. We have done in past climate cycles and we will continue to do so. Climate is just an average of weather patterns over a 30 year period and for the period of the alleged human induced warming since the 19th century, human welfare has in general improved with no evidence that weather is becoming any more extreme than previous cycles all the way back to the last ice age.

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Are you aware we live in a welfare state that absolutely depends on consumption to provide for it's dependents? Are you aware that we are part of a technocratic economic bloc that endorses negative interest rates in order to discourage saving and encourage more consumption? What about the growing debt? we are borrowing from the future to pay for consumption today we need to produce to service that debt? Why do we produce unless we can consume?

On a practical level without savings there is no future production and we are reduced to subsistence living. The last time this economic model was dominant on this island there were ~8 million people living here and your history book outlines what happened. There was very little industry in Ireland and very little capital, eventually our ancestors figured it out and migrated to where the capital was.

Don't fall into the Maltusian trap it's a very dark place that leads to mass slaughter as seen in the El Paso and ChristChurch killings where the perpetrators also used environmentalism in their manifestos to justify their actions.

Sidestepping the climate denial bollocks for a minute: Investments lead to Savings, not the other way around. Why? Because when banks loan out money (Investments), money is created and put into deposits (Savings).

Libertarians and gold bugs have fuck-all knowledge of macroeconomics.

KyussB

Eric Cartman wrote: »

But no solutions are proposed, tax people and overthrow capitalism are not solutions. We need carrot, not more stick with these solutions.

Climate change is real but the amount of people who preach socialism and greta's associations with those who only propose and anti-capitalist model for solutions makes me think 'here we go again' reason 201 why we "need a revolution immediately".

It's simply a lie that no solutions are presented. What you mean is: No solutions that are palatable to you are presented.

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

No. When Children Protest, Adults Should Tell them the Truth. Based on the mothers book the family has externalised their internal problems via climate change. Greta is projecting her distress onto the rest of the world.

As the most resourceful species on the planet, humans already live across a wide range of climate zones, we can adapt to change. We have done in past climate cycles and we will continue to do so. Climate is just an average of weather patterns over a 30 year period and for the period of the alleged human induced warming since the 19th century, human welfare has in general improved with no evidence that weather is becoming any more extreme than previous cycles all the way back to the last ice age.

Except the consensus ammong climate scientists disagrees with you, and they are ringing alarm bells.

Lets not forget as well: You view any outcome from climate change, up to and including human extinction, as not being an unacceptable outcome - so that in itself automatically puts all of your arguments as being from a suspect agenda, where practically any outcome from climate change is considered acceptable.

Eric Cartman

KyussB wrote: »

It's simply a lie that no solutions are presented. What you mean is: No solutions that are palatable to you are presented.

no solutions that don't disproportionately screw over middle class western europeans were presented. Its basically 'let the people who already do the financial heavy lifting do even more of it'

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

Sidestepping the climate denial bollocks for a minute: Investments lead to Savings, not the other way around. Why? Because when banks loan out money (Investments), money is created and put into deposits (Savings).

Libertarians and gold bugs have fuck-all knowledge of macroeconomics.

To have savings someone needs to produce more than they consume. Money is just a proxy we use to assign a market value to things like savings. Investments in productive capital can lead to more savings, while mal-investments destroy savings which is what happened during the construction boom and bust cycle we went through in the late twentieth and early 21st century.

What you are doing is confusing debt with savings. The Irish banks would not have crashed in 2008 if the debt they issued was backed up by savings, once the problem was discovered bank runs started and they collapsed leading to the debt being transferred to taxpayers and the payments serviced by the productive parts of the Irish economy. Essentially schemes like NAMA are a claim on our future productivity and our savings are reduced as a consequence.

KyussB

Eric Cartman wrote: »

no solutions that don't disproportionately screw over middle class western europeans were presented. Its basically 'let the people who already do the financial heavy lifting do even more of it'

So you're shifting the goalposts now, from "no solutions have been presented" to "no solutions that don't tax a fuckload have been presented".

The latter is also a lie. The major solutions that have been presented, don't depend upon funding through massively increased taxes.

Eric Cartman

KyussB wrote: »

So you're shifting the goalposts now, from "no solutions have been presented" to "no solutions that don't tax a fuckload have been presented".

The latter is also a lie. The major solutions that have been presented, don't depend upon funding through massively increased taxes.

taxing isnt a solution, its just piling money into something , greta and the lot have more interest in how to pay for something but not quite sure what the something is.

I havent shifted the goalposts, taxes worldwide are too high, we have to present solutions in a tax neutral manor be it 0.1% or 99% any taxation increase is unacceptable.

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

To have savings someone needs to produce more than they consume. Money is just a proxy we use to assign a market value to things like savings. Investments in productive capital can lead to more savings, while mal-investments destroy savings which is what happened during the construction boom and bust cycle we went through in the late twentieth and early 21st century.

What you are doing is confusing debt with savings. The Irish banks would not have crashed in 2008 if the debt they issued was backed up by savings, once the problem was discovered bank runs started and they collapsed leading to the debt being transferred to taxpayers and the payments serviced by the productive parts of the Irish economy. Essentially schemes like NAMA are a claim on our future productivity and our savings are reduced as a consequence.

Money is not just a proxy i.e. is not just a veil over barter. You don't understand macroeconomics.

Investments lead to Savings, by definition. Debt leads to Investments, leads to Savings - by definition.

Banks balance sheets are not backed up by reserves/savings - because the central bank will never refuse to shore up reserves - they are backed up by collateral requirements.

Your understanding of the relationship between Savings and Investments is precisely backwards.

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

Except the consensus ammong climate scientists disagrees with you, and they are ringing alarm bells.

The so called consensus is merely politics disguised as science. Science is done by evidence not consensus. The political consensus says the ice is melting, however the reality in nature is the scientists are stuck in the polar ice and the icebreaker can't get supplies to them because the ice is too thick.

KyussB

Eric Cartman wrote: »

taxing isnt a solution, its just piling money into something , greta and the lot have more interest in how to pay for something but not quite sure what the something is.

I havent shifted the goalposts, taxes worldwide are too high, we have to present solutions in a tax neutral manor be it 0.1% or 99% any taxation increase is unacceptable.

Read the sentence:
"The latter is also a lie. The major solutions that have been presented, don't depend upon funding through massively increased taxes."

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

The so called consensus is merely politics disguised as science. Science is done by evidence not consensus. The political consensus says the ice is melting, however the reality in nature is the scientists are stuck in the polar ice and the icebreaker can't get supplies to them because the ice is too thick.

You're wrong - propagandists funded by the oil industry try to portray a lack of political/scientific consensus - yet the climate scientists DO have a consensus, that climate change is real and requiring urgent action.

You have already reached the predefined conclusion, that any outcome for humans from climate change is 'not unacceptable' - so you are inherently arguing from a position, where you try to warp the discussion to fit your predefined conclusion.

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

You're wrong - propagandists funded by the oil industry try to portray a lack of political/scientific consensus - yet the climate scientists DO have a consensus, that climate change is real and requiring urgent action.

Your statement is not true and unsupported. Freeman Dyson recently died (RIP) and here is what he had to say on the consensus.


Climatologists are no Einsteins, says his successor

Freeman Dyson is a physicist who has been teaching at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton since Albert Einstein was there. When Einstein died in 1955, there was an opening for the title of "most brilliant physicist on the planet." Dyson has filled it.
<snip>
The problem, said Dyson, is that the consensus is based on those computer models. Computers are great for analyzing what happened in the past, he said, but not so good at figuring out what will happen in the future. But a lot of scientists have built their careers on them. Hence the hatred for dissenters.

"It was similar in the Soviet Union," he said. "Who could doubt Marxist economics was the future? Everything else was in the dustbin."

source

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

KyussB

Not a climate scientist.

There is an overwhelming consensus on human-caused climate change:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

Money is not just a proxy i.e. is not just a veil over barter. You don't understand macroeconomics.

Investments lead to Savings, by definition. Debt leads to Investments, leads to Savings - by definition.

Banks balance sheets are not backed up by reserves/savings - because the central bank will never refuse to shore up reserves - they are backed up by collateral requirements.

Your understanding of the relationship between Savings and Investments is precisely backwards.

You fail to distinguish between quality of investment which is what causes boom and bust cycles.

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

You fail to distinguish between quality of investment which is what causes boom and bust cycles.

Investments lead to Savings - by definition. You are arguing about the contribution of Investments to GDP - a different discussion.

jackboy

KyussB wrote: »

Not a climate scientist.

There is an overwhelming consensus on human-caused climate change:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

You say overwhelming, your link says strong.

Either way it is just an opinion, not science.

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

Not a climate scientist.

There is an overwhelming consensus on human-caused climate change:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

For his work as a scientist he was awarded the Lorentz Medal, Max Planck Medal, J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Prize, Harvey Prize and Enrico Fermi award. As a physicist he well placed and knowledgable enough to comment on and contribute to the science and cannot be dismissed so tritely.


Again consensus is politics and not science.

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

Investments lead to Savings - by definition. You are arguing about the contribution of Investments to GDP - a different discussion.

I am not.

We can thus conclude that savings is not about money as such but about final consumer goods that support various individuals that are engaged in various stages of production. It is not money that funds economic activity but the saved pool of final consumer goods. The existence of money only facilitates the flow of the real savings.

source