Greta’s very corporate children’s crusade - Page 25 - 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

#15053601
jimjam wrote:Greta Thunberg, the teen activist from Sweden who has urged immediate action to address a global climate crisis, was named Time magazine’s person of the year for 2019 on Wednesday. She is the youngest person to have ever received the accolade.

Unfortunately, Time has a record of picking PotYs who later become embarrassing, like Hitler, Stalin, Khomeini and Nixon. The exploitation of this deluded, emotionally abused child for political gain is despicable.
#15053608
Truth To Power wrote:Unfortunately, Time has a record of picking PotYs who later become embarrassing, like Hitler, Stalin, Khomeini and Nixon.


Time’s Person of the Year is not meant to be an honour. It is about how newsworthy the person is, not their moral fiber. Bin Laden was suggested after the 9/11 attacks, for example.

The exploitation of this deluded, emotionally abused child for political gain is despicable.


I am of the opinion that describing her as a deluded and emotionally abused person, in order to achieve political gain by deflecting from her message, is despicable.
#15053611
Pants-of-dog wrote:Time’s Person of the Year is not meant to be an honour. It is about how newsworthy the person is, not their moral fiber. Bin Laden was suggested after the 9/11 attacks, for example.


Lizzo has been one of the most newsworthy people this year, mostly because she uses her uncouth personality and disgusting obese body to assault the sensibilities of the public.

Image

If it's just about newsworthiness, I was thinking that it would be more appropriate for Lizzo to be made person of the year since the news and just about everything about Greta is 99% manufactured.

Just as I was about to write that here, it popped up in my news feed that Time had indeed made Lizzo entertainer of the year. :lol:

In fact, I think the point of the media pushing all these weird and offensive people everywhere in their magazines, vides and news programs is to insult and troll the public, and these characters just go along with it because they have been made to believe that they are morally superior or somehow better than everyone else.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I am of the opinion that describing her as a deluded and emotionally abused person, in order to achieve political gain by deflecting from her message, is despicable.


Image

Image

It might seem despicable, but you can tell quite a bit about body language. In these photos she looks deranged, sad and strung out. She clearly doesn't want to be there. I wonder if her communist handlers are giving her methamphetamines in order to perform in front of the public.
#15053623
A single snap can give a very different impression than the reality of the moment.

I suspect these pictures are more about her Asperger's making her feel tense when surrounded by a crowd than any use of drugs. She seems much more relaxed in controlled interview settings and when given more space.
#15053704
Pants-of-dog wrote:Time’s Person of the Year is not meant to be an honour. It is about how newsworthy the person is, not their moral fiber. Bin Laden was suggested after the 9/11 attacks, for example.

But there is nothing newsworthy about Greta Thunberg. She is nothing but a manufactured media object no more newsworthy than any other deluded and emotionally abused child throwing a camera-ready temper tantrum.
I am of the opinion that describing her as a deluded and emotionally abused person, in order to achieve political gain by deflecting from her message, is despicable.

I haven't deflected from her "message," which is absurd and delusional, as every passing hour, day, week, month, year and decade of higher CO2 unaccompanied by any discernible global warming crisis or emergency caused by CO2 from fossil fuel use proves. The accuracy of my description of her is self-evident every time she appears on camera. Lying to children that something they can see for themselves is completely benign will kill them before they reach adulthood just to terrify them for political gain is despicable beyond the power of the English language to express.
#15053713
Truth To Power wrote:But there is nothing newsworthy about Greta Thunberg. She is nothing but a manufactured media object no more newsworthy than any other deluded and emotionally abused child throwing a camera-ready temper tantrum.

I haven't deflected from her "message," which is absurd and delusional, as every passing hour, day, week, month, year and decade of higher CO2 unaccompanied by any discernible global warming crisis or emergency caused by CO2 from fossil fuel use proves. The accuracy of my description of her is self-evident every time she appears on camera. Lying to children that something they can see for themselves is completely benign will kill them before they reach adulthood just to terrify them for political gain is despicable beyond the power of the English language to express.


This is yet another post where you ignore her message and just focus on your insulting beliefs about her.

Truth To Power wrote:Yes, well, people who say there is no debate or that the climate debate is over merely prove they want to prevent the scientific search for truth from proving them wrong.


If you wish to provide scientific support for your position, or wish to show how science proves Thunberg wrong, feel free.
#15053714
JohnRawls wrote:As I said several times. It is not that it is not doable but that it will hurt a lot. First of all, 18 trillion is a low ball because it will only cover one side of things like producing all electricity by nuclear lets say. But it won't cover other aspects like infrastructure and so on.


If 18 trillion will "hurt a lot", then doing nothing will hurt a lot more.

Even if we pretend that its 18 trillion. That is almost 1 trillion per year. Which is 25% of US budget. There is no way you can convince to give that money away for no clear profit right now. This is not WW2. There is no overwhelming support for the green movement. If you take 25% of US budget per year then the military, healthcare, education etc will suffer. It is not like its a choice between good and bad. Its a choice between investing money in one thing or the other.


It is about 4% of GDP, according to Pollin.

Also, it is not a trillion per year. It is half that. It is 2019 now. Pollin says we can it by 2050 or 2060. 2055-2019=36. 36 years. $18 trillion over 36 years is not a trillion per year.

So, it is about 500 billion a year, or less than the defense budget. It is also less than the amount of money the US spent on subsidising fossil fuels directly and indirectly in 2015.
#15053748
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is yet another post where you ignore her message and just focus on your insulting beliefs about her.

Her message is absurd, delusional nonsense with no basis in actual physical events.
If you wish to provide scientific support for your position, or wish to show how science proves Thunberg wrong, feel free.

Look out your window. Is it any warmer than it was in the 1930s? Go to the oldest seaport you can find. Have any of the structures been inundated?
#15053754
Pants-of-dog wrote:If 18 trillion will "hurt a lot", then doing nothing will hurt a lot more.



It is about 4% of GDP, according to Pollin.

Also, it is not a trillion per year. It is half that. It is 2019 now. Pollin says we can it by 2050 or 2060. 2055-2019=36. 36 years. $18 trillion over 36 years is not a trillion per year.

So, it is about 500 billion a year, or less than the defense budget. It is also less than the amount of money the US spent on subsidising fossil fuels directly and indirectly in 2015.


You probably didn't read other pages. I am not arguing against fighting global warming. I am arguing against introducing drastic actions and change to solve the situation by 2030. A long lasting policy will hurt a lot less and spread between now and 2050 is much more realistic. 2050 is probably minimal point that it can be done. So some countries can be accepted to do it by 2060-2070.
#15053760
Truth To Power wrote:Her message is absurd, delusional nonsense with no basis in actual physical events.

Look out your window. Is it any warmer than it was in the 1930s? Go to the oldest seaport you can find. Have any of the structures been inundated?


I see the total lack of evidence is the usual.
#15053762
JohnRawls wrote:You probably didn't read other pages. I am not arguing against fighting global warming. I am arguing against introducing drastic actions and change to solve the situation by 2030. A long lasting policy will hurt a lot less and spread between now and 2050 is much more realistic. 2050 is probably minimal point that it can be done. So some countries can be accepted to do it by 2060-2070.


I was addressing your previous errors, which were not addressed in the subsequent exchange.

Rather than pick at math details, I would simply point out that it makes sense to address climate change when the costs to do nothing are larger than the costs to do something.

How much do you think it will cost if we do nothing?
#15053787
Pants-of-dog wrote:I was addressing your previous errors, which were not addressed in the subsequent exchange.

Rather than pick at math details, I would simply point out that it makes sense to address climate change when the costs to do nothing are larger than the costs to do something.

How much do you think it will cost if we do nothing?


I really have no answer to this. In a sense that if we do nothing and let things continue as is then we will probably end up as carbon neutral anyways just a lot longer period of time. How much damage will be done by then? That I have no idea how to calculate so I will just call it "large". On the other hand, I do not think that it will be unrepairable or catastrophic as some say right now.
#15053793
JohnRawls wrote:I really have no answer to this. In a sense that if we do nothing and let things continue as is then we will probably end up as carbon neutral anyways just a lot longer period of time.


That is not what I asked.

I asked how much money will it cost if we do nothing.

How much damage will be done by then? That I have no idea how to calculate so I will just call it "large".


I am not asking you to randomly give adjectives based on your unfounded speculation.

How much will it cost in dollars to do nothing?

On the other hand, I do not think that it will be unrepairable or catastrophic as some say right now.


Nor do I care about your opinion of what some people might or might not be saying.

If you want, you can figure out how much it would cost the USA to do nothing about it.

Then we could compare it with the 18 trillion price tag of solving it.
  • 1
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 29

@JohnRawls asked: Well the HK head and most kn[…]

Trump literally had no coherent policy may be bes[…]

Update! Update! US refusal to extradite suspe[…]

I genuinely believe that Donald Trump is against […]