[Pants-of-dog]

@Kaiserschmarrn

I did read the OP.

It was a long opinion piece that simply made veiled and vague accusations. This is why I described it as a long ad hominem instead of an argument.

And when I requested a clarification as to what the argument is, no one could answer that.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I did read the OP. It was a long opinion piece that simply made veiled and vague accusations. This is why I described it as a long ad hominem instead of an argument. And when I requested a clarification as to what the argument is, no one could answer that.

You are welcome to your opinion on the OP, and nobody owes you an answer to your questions. Now, if you still think this thread doesn't belong in the on topic forums please take it to the basement and make your case (I'm not going to decide, as it is my thread). Otherwise, feel free to ignore it if you consider it below your standards.

:moron: How often am I planning to reveal that Brexit Party billionaires, Breitbart far rightist backers, british-american tobacco and other big corporate players are criticising a 16 year old for rallying against the likes of Strump and big biz?

OK, I'm crowning you the official hero of this thread for your investigative skills in exposing something that wasn't secret. Hopefully that's enough ego stroking for you to move on.

[Pants-of-dog]

You are welcome to your opinion on the OP, and nobody owes you an answer to your questions. Now, if you still think this thread doesn't belong in the on topic forums please take it to the basement and make your case (I'm not going to decide, as it is my thread). Otherwise, feel free to ignore it if you consider it below your standards.

Sure.

Now, if merely having corporate actors involved makes the movement somehow suspect, this would mean that the vast majority if human activity at this time is also suspect.

[jimjam]

Next: Trump's very corporate fossil fuel crusade. Campaign contributions 2019 :

Koch Industries $7,070,000
Chevron Corp $5,210,000
Exxon Mobil $5,160,000
Royal Dutch Shell $3,710,000
American Petroleum Institute $3,500,000
ConocoPhillips $3,170,000
Occidental Petroleum $2,929,405
BP $2,650,000
Marathon Petroleum $2,110,000
American Fuel & Petrochem Manufacturers $1,605,357
Phillips 66 $1,570,000
Noble Energy $1,300,000
PDVSA $1,000,000
Enbridge Inc $980,000

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Sure.

Thank you.

Now, if merely having corporate actors involved makes the movement somehow suspect, this would mean that the vast majority if human activity at this time is also suspect.

It's a long standing left wing tradition to ask who benefits, so I'm not sure why people on the left have such an issue with looking into it.

[Presvias]

"OK, I'm crowning you the official hero of this thread for your investigative skills in exposing something that wasn't secret."

No but it wasn't exactly well publicised and required some rooting around didn't it?

Got you there, I think.

But hey...you just keep defending large corporations and billionaires and denigrating 16 year old girls..

[Pants-of-dog]

Thank you.

It's a long standing left wing tradition to ask who benefits, so I'm not sure why people on the left have such an issue with looking into it.

Since no one ever said they had a problem with anyone looking into who profits, this is an odd criticism.

But the implied argument from you guys is that the mere fact that anyone is profiting makes the whole concept of global warming questionable.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Since no one ever said they had a problem with anyone looking into who profits, this is an odd criticism.

Well, there are quite a few posts in this thread which regard looking into the corporate actors as being mean to Greta Thunberg, so I wouldn't say nobody has a problem with this.

But the implied argument from you guys is that the mere fact that anyone is profiting makes the whole concept of global warming questionable.

I can't speak for others, but my view is that it is one piece of the puzzle of this young doomsday prophet's astronomical rise to prominence.

No but it wasn't exactly well publicised and required some rooting around didn't it? Got you there, I think.

The only thing you have exposed in this thread is your penchant for self-congratulatory posts.

[Pants-of-dog]

I can't speak for others, but my view is that it is one piece of the puzzle of this young doomsday prophet's astronomical rise to prominence.

Are you saying that the corporate sponsorship is one of the reasons why she is in the media now?

If so, does this say anything about the global warming movement in general?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Are you saying that the corporate sponsorship is one of the reasons why she is in the media now?

Yes, but not only the media attention. She's making the rounds at the highest level, meeting heads of state, etc.

There are at least two more I think. One is the "climate justice" activist side and the other the human predisposition for falling for cults.

If so, does this say anything about the global warming movement in general?

We should be skeptical of her particular apocalyptic global warming brand that demands an insane amount of funds be diverted to her cause.

[Sivad]

Since no one ever said they had a problem with anyone looking into who profits, this is an odd criticism.

Are you joking? You instantly go into obtuse denial mode whenever it's even suggested that the CAGW narrative is a little too convenient to the agenda of powerful interests. You start calling people conspiracy theorists for just acknowledging the plain reality. There is no tactic that's too lame or dishonest that you won't resort to in order to shut down that line of thinking.

But the implied argument from you guys is that the mere fact that anyone is profiting makes the whole concept of global warming questionable.

you owe me a new irony meter. All you ever hear from alarmists is how every skeptical criticism of alarmist orthodoxy is invalid because big oil fundage.

[jimjam]

With prices for renewable energy like wind and solar falling faster than even the most optimistic projections, the reasoning behind backing new oil and gas exploration has started to wear thin. “You can sense there was angst in the room,” said Jules Kortenhorst, the chief executive of the energy think tank Rocky Mountain Institute, who attended a Sunday cocktail party for the executives. “I think they are struggling to reconcile in their minds what that means for their industry.”

Oil companies aren’t facing only questioning from protesters. Investors are pressing them to transition more quickly to renewables, and some are divesting from oil and gas altogether.

Fossil fuel companies face lawsuits seeking billions of dollars in compensation for the damage caused by climate change. Even the Pope has weighed in, warning oil executives that energy use should not “destroy civilization.” The recent attack on Saudi Arabia’s largest oil refinery has underscored the vulnerability of oil and gas to geopolitical shocks.

Increasing competition from renewables , which have a predictable marginal cost: zero, is growing. They also have zero emissions and rising public demand for them, and will soon be buttressed by their own competitive battery storage capacity.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, but not only the media attention. She's making the rounds at the highest level, meeting heads of state, etc.

There are at least two more I think. One is the "climate justice" activist side and the other the human predisposition for falling for cults.

And what is the problem with any of this?

Except for the cults bit, which seems like one of those weird pejorative things you believe about progressives and is not really an argument. We can ignore that.

We should be skeptical of her particular apocalyptic global warming brand that demands an insane amount of funds be diverted to her cause.

Even if we assume that she is being used by corporations who seek to benefit from the transition away from fossil fuels, and that these corporations are responsible for her newfound popularity, how is this different from lobbyists courting politicians or pundits?

It is still capitalism. It is still one of these mutually beneficial arrangements where the corporations get money, the kid and her parents get fame, and the world gets a little but not significantly closer to reducing emissions.

By the way, how do you define “an insane” amount of money?

[AFAIK]

I'm fully in favour of nationalising utility companies and having the gov't provide electricity as a public good. I'm sure all the right wingers in this thread will share my position given their dismay at the thought of someone profiting from the supply of green energy.

[Hindsite]

I think it's a very smart move but also a very cynical ploy to put a teenager with Asperger's into this position.

Perhaps she is just putting into action some of the acting skills she picked up from her actor father. Now if she would sing a little opera, she could also make her mother proud.
HalleluYah

[Kaiserschmarrn]

And what is the problem with any of this? Except for the cults bit, which seems like one of those weird pejorative things you believe about progressives and is not really an argument. We can ignore that.

Even if we assume that she is being used by corporations who seek to benefit from the transition away from fossil fuels, and that these corporations are responsible for her newfound popularity, how is this different from lobbyists courting politicians or pundits?

It is still capitalism. It is still one of these mutually beneficial arrangements where the corporations get money, the kid and her parents get fame, and the world gets a little but not significantly closer to reducing emissions.

I do have a problem when prophesies of an imminent apocalypse brought to us by a teenager are legitimised at the highest political level. It's fine if you guys want to pretend this is business as usual, but the extent of irrationality, reach and support is unprecedented in my lifetime.

By the way, how do you define “an insane” amount of money?

Not affordable without a substantial reduction in living standards in the west.

I'm fully in favour of nationalising utility companies and having the gov't provide electricity as a public good. I'm sure all the right wingers in this thread will share my position given their dismay at the thought of someone profiting from the supply of green energy.

It's a common left wing fallacy to assume that pointing out a problem means we must want to abolish something, probably because that's the usual left wing solution.

[colliric]

Is she trying to send coded messages about Child Abuse?

Why are they clapping and cheering? She's clearly addressing the audience directly....

Kid, your parents are the ones robbing you of childhood. These sickos in front of you are clapping and celebrating while you call them directly robbers of your childhood.

[blackjack21]

https://youtu.be/TMrtLsQbaok

Is she trying to send coded messages about Child Abuse?

Why are they clapping and cheering? She's clearly addressing the audience directly....

Kid, your parents are the ones robbing you of childhood. These sickos in front of you are clapping and celebrating while you call them directly robbers of your childhood.

C'mon colliric. Embrace policies that will destroy your standard of living and your way of life. Do it! Do it for the children!

[Sivad]

https://youtu.be/TMrtLsQbaok

I never actually listened to a Greta polemic, it's like some PR slick watched Hunger Games one too many times or something.

[Sivad]

The PR slicks even gave Greta the same hair braid as the hunger games girl:





You people sure do lap up some lame ass propaganda.