Greta’s very corporate children’s crusade - Page 14 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15038089
Pants-of-dog wrote:We have already discussed this many times.

So you will again not be providing any evidence for your claim. Check.
Since all the ideas flow logically from one to another, there is no non sequitur.

They do not follow logically.
While I did not mention non-anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases, their presence does not contradict the causal chain I described.

So now you even claim only greenhouse gases affect climate?? Please provide evidence for that claim.
I claimed that through international agreements, we were able to significantly reduce ozone depleting gases and avoid major climate problems.

But that is incorrect. There was no significant effect of ozone on climate, and never would have been.
The international agreement to which I referred is the Montreal Protocol cited.

It was effective. Ozone depleting gases were significantly reduced because of this.

The hole in the ozone layer is healing.

So you can't provide any evidence of an effect on climate. Thought not.
#15038116
Godstud wrote:3000 deities and you think you've got the right one? :lol: Oh, the arrogance!

No thanks. I'll pass on fairy tales.

I don't know how you come up with 3000 deities, but it was easy for me to find the right one by reading the Holy Bible.
Praise the Lord
#15038184
Truth To Power wrote:So you will again not be providing any evidence for your claim. Check.

They do not follow logically.

So now you even claim only greenhouse gases affect climate?? Please provide evidence for that claim.

But that is incorrect. There was no significant effect of ozone on climate, and never would have been.

So you can't provide any evidence of an effect on climate. Thought not.


viewtopic.php?f=38&t=176235&p=15017068&hilit=Kiribati#p15017068

That link is from the last time you asked me for the exact same evidence.

So, that provides the evidence for the Kiribati claim.

You have yet to show how anything was a non-sequitur, so I will ignore that.

You now seem to have misunderstood my claim about the causal chain between greenhouse gas production and sea level rise. Again, the presence of natural causes of global warming does not contradict the causal chain I described.

Finally, the fact that there was no significant effect on climate was part of my claim. The whole point of the international effort was to avoid such an effect.
#15038397
Pants-of-dog wrote:https://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=176235&p=15017068&hilit=Kiribati#p15017068

That link is from the last time you asked me for the exact same evidence.

Which you pretended to provide but did not provide, and won't be providing now. Check.
So, that provides the evidence for the Kiribati claim.

Nope. Your non sequiturs do not improve with age, sorry.
You have yet to show how anything was a non-sequitur, so I will ignore that.

? Anything but a logical sequence is a non sequitur. As you have not demonstrated a logical sequence, your statement is a non sequitur.
You now seem to have misunderstood my claim about the causal chain between greenhouse gas production and sea level rise. Again, the presence of natural causes of global warming does not contradict the causal chain I described.

Yes, actually, it does.
Finally, the fact that there was no significant effect on climate was part of my claim.

That is the same "logic" as whistling to keep tigers away: "There are no tigers around here." "See? It's working."
The whole point of the international effort was to avoid such an effect.

No, it most certainly was not. The point was to prevent UV radiation from reaching the earth's surface. There was no intended effect on climate, as should be obvious even to you, and the thinning ozone layer could never have had any effect on climate.
#15038519
Truth To Power wrote:Which you pretended to provide but did not provide, and won't be providing now. Check.

Nope. Your non sequiturs do not improve with age, sorry.

? Anything but a logical sequence is a non sequitur. As you have not demonstrated a logical sequence, your statement is a non sequitur.

Yes, actually, it does.

That is the same "logic" as whistling to keep tigers away: "There are no tigers around here." "See? It's working."

No, it most certainly was not. The point was to prevent UV radiation from reaching the earth's surface. There was no intended effect on climate, as should be obvious even to you, and the thinning ozone layer could never have had any effect on climate.


If anyone else wants to see the evidence, just folllow the link I gave previously. It will link to the last time TTP adked me this, abd has a link, the relevant text quoted, and the exact phrases that support the claim are bolded.

Also, please note that TTP has not shown how the causal chain (from pollution to sea level rise) is a non sequitur.

Finally, TTP is not disagreeing that there was a problen with ozone depletion and that it was caused by humans, and there was a successful international campaign to get rid of ozone depleting gases. His criticism is that ozone depletion is not strictly a climate issue. Sure, TTP. If that is your only criticism, then we agree on all the important points
#15038619
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, that young lady is secretly out to take over the world. :lol:

I'm glad someone else has seen it too, PoD. Do you know who that young lady reminds me of? Yes, that's right. Wednesday Addams....



:eek:
#15038656
It must be conceded, whatever your opinion of her, that she is brave to be doing what she does at her age.

But again, she's too young. Being a public personality is not something she may want to be as she gets more mature and decides what she wants to do with her life. 16 year olds don't know what they want to do with their lives.
#15038661
@Political Interest Some 16 year olds are wiser than 75 year olds.

Protecting the world we live in should be the goal of everyone, and we shouldn't have to rely on 16 year olds to inspire us to be better.
#15038672
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, that young lady is secretly out to take over the world. :lol:


We've already established that Greta is just a front for a big well organized, well funded machine controlled by billionaires and globalist power elites but Greta herself is probably of a kind with the babbitts and the churchmarms who demand conformity and obedience to orthodoxy from everyone. Her kind is indestructible, they're always working their mischief in the world and if you let them run amok they always take society straight into madness.
#15038676
Pants-of-dog wrote:If anyone else wants to see the evidence, just folllow the link I gave previously. It will link to the last time TTP adked me this, abd has a link, the relevant text quoted, and the exact phrases that support the claim are bolded.

The bolded phrases do not support your claim. That is just another non sequitur from you.
Also, please note that TTP has not shown how the causal chain (from pollution to sea level rise) is a non sequitur.

The non sequitur is your claim that rising sea level at one island implies a similar rise everywhere, that increasing sea level must be due to increasing temperature, and that increasing temperature must be due to CO2. You have established none of those connections logically or empirically, so your "argument" is a non sequitur fallacy.
Finally, TTP is not disagreeing that there was a problen with ozone depletion and that it was caused by humans,

I haven't taken a position on that because it is irrelevant to the fact that you were completely wrong about the reason for the international action and were using it as a red herring.
and there was a successful international campaign to get rid of ozone depleting gases. His criticism is that ozone depletion is not strictly a climate issue.

It's not a climate issue at all, in any way, even though you falsely claimed it was.
Sure, TTP. If that is your only criticism, then we agree on all the important points

It's not my only criticism, it's just a somewhat tangential error on your part to go with all your substantive errors.
#15038678
Godstud wrote:@Political Interest Some 16 year olds are wiser than 75 year olds.

Protecting the world we live in should be the goal of everyone, and we shouldn't have to rely on 16 year olds to inspire us to be better.


The real question is why more people in their 20s aren't like this. Or even people in their 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s etc.

I agree, a 16 year old can be wiser. But for her own good it's probably not suitable for someone as young as her to be involved in this level of activism.
#15038680
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, if you want to make a claim, then it is your job to support it. It is not my job to refind a link, read it, find the information that you feel supports it, quote it, show how it relates to your argument, and then start analysing it critically. Quote the relevant text. Again, your claim is that SJWs are trying to get rich off her.

If you are interested in the evidence, you'd read the link I provided.

Pants-of-dog wrote:But there is no cult. There is just a repeated use of a metaphor that you associate with religion.

Just assume my response is also an assertion repeating my previous claims.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Probkems have materialiased, and the system is ignoring the problems.

We are doing all right.
#15038682
The Pacific nation of Tuvalu—long seen as a prime candidate to disappear as climate change forces up sea levels—is actually growing in size, new research shows.

A University of Auckland study examined changes in the geography of Tuvalu's nine atolls and 101 reef islands between 1971 and 2014, using aerial photographs and satellite imagery.

It found eight of the atolls and almost three-quarters of the islands grew during the study period, lifting Tuvalu's total land area by 2.9 percent, even though sea levels in the country rose at twice the global average.

Co-author Paul Kench said the research, published Friday in the journal Nature Communications, challenged the assumption that low-lying island nations would be swamped as the sea rose.

"We tend to think of Pacific atolls as static landforms that will simply be inundated as sea levels rise, but there is growing evidence these islands are geologically dynamic and are constantly changing," he said.

"The study findings may seem counter-intuitive, given that (the) sea level has been rising in the region over the past half century, but the dominant mode of change over that time on Tuvalu has been expansion, not erosion."

It found factors such as wave patterns and sediment dumped by storms could offset the erosion caused by rising water levels.

The Auckland team says climate change remains one of the major threats to low-lying island nations.

But it argues the study should prompt a rethink on how such countries respond to the problem.

Rather than accepting their homes are doomed and looking to migrate to countries such as Australia and New Zealand, the researchers say they should start planning for a long-term future.

"On the basis of this research we project a markedly different trajectory for Tuvalu's islands over the next century than is commonly envisaged," Kench said.

"While we recognise that habitability rests on a number of factors, loss of land is unlikely to be a factor in forcing depopulation of Tuvalu."


https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-n ... igger.html
#15038689
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:If you are interested in the evidence, you'd read the link I provided.


If you are not interested in providing evidence from this website, I suggest not making the claims.

Just assume my response is also an assertion repeating my previous claims.


Your complete lack of evidence for calling her and her supporters a doomsday cult is noted.

I shall assume that this was simply an ad hominem.

K wrote:We are doing all right.


Ignoring the problems does not magically make the probkems associated with climate change go away.

Do you believe that humans are causing climate change?

————————-

@Sivad

No one agreed with your conspiracy theories.

Also, whether or not it is growing in size does not change whether or not it is becoming uninhabitable, which is what I actually claimed.

——————————

@Truth To Power

People can read for themselves whether or not I supported my arguments.

——————-
#15038698
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you are not interested in providing evidence from this website, I suggest not making the claims.

I don't think it's too much to ask for you to lift a finger and tap or click on a link, but it's obviously up to you. If you were interested you'd have done this when I posted the link, so it's reasonable to assume that you are not.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Your complete lack of evidence for calling her and her supporters a doomsday cult is noted. I shall assume that this was simply an ad hominem.

Where is the ad hominem? If you wish to understand my reasoning, you'll have to go back and read my post in this thread. In the absence of your engagement with my posts, I'll just mirror you in making the same assertions repeatedly.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Ignoring the problems does not magically make the probkems associated with climate change go away.

Nobody is ignoring anything.
#15038700
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I don't think it's too much to ask for you to lift a finger and tap or click on a link, but it's obviously up to you. If you were interested you'd have done this when I posted the link, so it's reasonable to assume that you are not.


And yet, all i am asking you to do is click on the link, select the relevant text, copy paste, and click on a couple buttons.

I am not here to do your work for you.

You are not interested in supporting your argument.

We are done with this.

Where is the ad hominem? If you wish to understand my reasoning, you'll have to go back and read my post in this thread. In the absence of your engagement with my posts, I'll just mirror you in making the same assertions repeatedly.


I assume you are calling them a doomsday cult because of its pejorative implications, and thereby ridiculing he messengers instead of addressing their message,

Nobody is ignoring anything.


https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource ... ge-impacts

Those are some examples of the negative impacts of climate change that we are already experiencing.

Those are the problems that are caused by climate change and the current system is not fixing them.
  • 1
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 21

What can we say. Populist leaders do a shit job. […]

The Next UK PM everybody...

New Survation poll results are out. https://twit[…]

Basically, to keep people like you from getting u[…]

AOC is a rock star...

Both. While they appeal to slightly different cr[…]