OT: An Appeal by everyone's favourite eco-loon, Greta Thunbe

[Phil Allison]

e at locatabb...@gmail.com wrote:

-------------------------------

Greta's stuff is so intellectually empty that anyone with functional
critical thinking skills can see it for what it is. She demonstrates
only her naivete & interest in carving herself a career. She is an
actor with ability in one role type only. I wish her well as much
as anyone, but her green arguments are not worth a thing.

** Over the past 15 or so years I have worked as a volunteer helper at various elections - local, state and federal campaigns.

You can learn a lot about people and voting, very fast in that job.

I also do scrutineering during the initial vote count.

Australia has experienced a massive Green party invasion in that time - bit like an invasion from Mars in my opinion. Pun intended.

They bring no regular policies, just the usual Green agenda of politically correct nonsense. Gay rights, AGW and ending mining and coal power for example.

Their candidates and voters really stand out - nearly all are aging hippies and loony lefties. You can sopt a Green voter cos they never take a "how to vote" card for any other party - so indicating their vote to all immediately.

Where I live, most of the males ride bicycles, have beards and wear back paks - regardless of age. Females often sport tattoos and die their hair with bright colours.

The other candidates and their teams have grown despise them - a few are really aggressive and threaten or pick fights with any conservative opponent.

They rarely win seats, but with our preferential system keep the left side of politics in government in many places. Which means they have a strangle hold over them, policy wise, in exchange for directing preferences their way.

Anecdote:

I once had a well dressed woman approach me outside a polling station on a sunny Saturday morning and present her 12 year old daughter - wearing make up and dressed like she was on her way to a party.

She asked me to explain the difference between the major parties; Liberal, Labor and The Greens - to the girl.

Put on the spot, with no time to think, I came up with this and spoke to the kid.

" It's all about money, Liberals want to help people make money and help those with money to keep it.

Labor wants to spend money, mostly money they have not got.

While the Greens want to spend money that does not exist. "

The young lady gave me the blankest look and mum took her away in silence.

Ouch ....



..... Phil

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 11:28:42 AM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, 6 November 2019 01:35:27 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 05 Nov 2019 12:48:09 -0800, tabbypurr wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 November 2019 04:35:47 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:

She's not remotely crazy, and her address to the UN wasn't any kind of
rant.

Lol. Says it all.

Haha! One nutcase vouches for another nutcase's sanity. If only Bill
could see himself and his daft pronouncements as others do. :-D

He'd be a lot quieter that's for sure

I have no trouble working out what you and Cursitor Doom have mind. You've got very small and remarkably empty minds.

I don't expect to change them - there's not much there to change.

I do go to the trouble of pointing that you two congratulate yourselves on being the same kind of gullible idiot, which does indicate a certain shared weakness of judgement.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 11:21:27 AM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, 6 November 2019 01:28:37 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 7:36:17 AM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Monday, 4 November 2019 13:48:53 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:

Here's text of Greta Thurnberg's speech to the UN

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/23/763452863/transcript-greta-thunbergs-speech-at-the-u-n-climate-action-summit

Let's see Phil Alliosn or NT produce a line by line analysis that picks out any deviation from scientific orthodoxy.

Lol, someone else can waste their time on her rubbish if they want. And Bill's predictable ensuing bs.

She is clearly manipulated by the greenwash movement, but it's just as much a chance for her to make a career out of it. It's not one sided.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change isn't any kind of greenwash movement. The point she was making was

immaterial

NT doesn't want to think about it. He does seem to have an aversion to thinking.

NT is blind to any of that.

No, it's just immaterial. It's based on too much foolish nonsense to spend time on.

NT doesn't understand any of it, and comforts himself with the delusion that it isn't worth understanding.

People will soon tire of her current antics, but if wise she will learn & transition to a more fact (or at least plausible claim) based approach.. Whether she has the sense & sanity to do that is open to question.

NT lacks the sense and sanity to notice that her approach is based on very well established facts.

Well, that's a good demo of the gross deficiency of your critical thinking skills.

NT clearly doesn't understand what's involved in critical thinking, and has never posted anything that suggests that he has even come close to it.

An unwillingness to discuss any specific point is the very antithesis of critical thinking, which is designed to cut through vague generalities - which are NT's stock in trade - to identifiable and falsifiable propositions.

The fact that Cursitor Doom - another gullible idiot - likes to claim that he too can do critical thinking points up the fact that people who like the sound of their own voice are prepared to make all kinds of fatuous claims to competence in areas where they don't have even the beginnings of a clue.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 1:13:46 PM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, 6 November 2019 02:07:03 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 7:41:40 AM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 November 2019 00:15:18 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 10:10:59 AM UTC+11, Phil Allison wrote:

While she is a sick kid, public sympathy goes her way.

She may have Aspberger's syndrome, but she doesn't look - or act - like any kind of sick kid. The public image I've seen is remarkably self-possessed.

Her whole act is a demonstration of her mental health issues.

Getting to address the UN is fairly clear evidence that she doesn't have any mental health issues worth worrying about.

lol

Mental health issues worth worrying about make it difficult to live a normal life. Getting on a sailing boat, sailing across the Atlantic and addressing the UN are rather more stressful than normal life. Greta may have problems, but it is clear that she can cope with them.

You, on the other hand ...

ICBA to read the rest.

I suspect NT means that he can't be bothered to read the rest. This makes sense.

Yep. I don't mind writing some stuff up to a point, but not gonna waste time on a lot of the junk you come out with.

So much easier to write it off as junk than it would be to learn enough to realise that it wasn't.

This isn't entirely fair to NT. He's obviously intellectually defective, so learning enough to have an intelligent opinion isn't an option for him.

He seems equally incapable of learning that trying to pose as somebody who knows what he is talking about isn't a viable option for him either.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 12:29:12 PM UTC+11, Phil Allison wrote:

e at locatabb...@gmail.com wrote:

-------------------------------


Greta's stuff is so intellectually empty that anyone with functional
critical thinking skills can see it for what it is. She demonstrates
only her naivete & interest in carving herself a career. She is an
actor with ability in one role type only. I wish her well as much
as anyone, but her green arguments are not worth a thing.

<snip>

Australia has experienced a massive Green party invasion in that time - bit like an invasion from Mars in my opinion. Pun intended.

They bring no regular policies, just the usual Green agenda of politically correct nonsense. Gay rights, AGW and ending mining and coal power for example.

Sadly for Phil's reputation, the fact that the Greens have adopted an issue doesn't automatically mean that the issue they have adopted is nonsense.

Gay rights do make sense.

Anthropogenic global warming is a fact, and we do need to slow it down as fast as we can.

I don't think that even Greens want to end mining in general.

They do want to cut back coal mining and coal burning to slow down anthropogenic global warming. The fact that some very rich people got rich by digging up coal and make lots of money out of keeping on doing it means that quite few right wing politicians have been bribed to let them keep on doing it.

Their candidates and voters really stand out - nearly all are aging hippies and loony lefties. You can spot a Green voter cos they never take a "how to vote" card for any other party - so indicating their vote to all immediately.

Where I live, most of the males ride bicycles, have beards and wear back paks - regardless of age. Females often sport tattoos and die their hair with bright colours.

So what?

> The other candidates and their teams have grown despise them - a few are really aggressive and threaten or pick fights with any conservative opponent.

Mental health care in the community.

> They rarely win seats, but with our preferential system keep the left side of politics in government in many places. Which means they have a strangle hold over them, policy wise, in exchange for directing preferences their way.

It's called politics, and representing the whole population, as opposed to those rich enough to pay effective bribes.

<snipped Phil's revelation about his political ideas. I'd suspected that he was that simple minded. Rupert Murdoch has a lot to answer for.>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Wednesday, 6 November 2019 02:07:03 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 7:41:40 AM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 November 2019 00:15:18 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 10:10:59 AM UTC+11, Phil Allison wrote:

While she is a sick kid, public sympathy goes her way.

She may have Aspberger's syndrome, but she doesn't look - or act - like any kind of sick kid. The public image I've seen is remarkably self-possessed.

Her whole act is a demonstration of her mental health issues.

Getting to address the UN is fairly clear evidence that she doesn't have any mental health issues worth worrying about.

lol

ICBA to read the rest.

I suspect NT means that he can't be bothered to read the rest. This makes sense.

Yep. I don't mind writing some stuff upto a point, but not gonna waste time on a lot of the junk you come out with.


NT

 

On Thursday, 7 November 2019 00:54:11 UTC, Phil Allison wrote:

tabby wrote:

Win is a true expert at electronics.

** That facetious - or not?

no.

FYI:

Win failed hopelessly here with simple questions common about issues
with audio amplifiers.

Every expert fails hopelessly in some areas, but in expert in some.


snip

> " Man's gotta know his - limitations... "

Precisely. Win does well when he sticks to electronics. Politics?


NT

 

On Thursday, 7 November 2019 01:28:48 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:

> I have no trouble working out what you and Cursitor Doom have mind.

confirmation of the mind reading delusion.

 

On Wednesday, 6 November 2019 03:16:30 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 12:35:27 PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 05 Nov 2019 12:48:09 -0800, tabbypurr wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 November 2019 04:35:47 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:

She's not remotely crazy, and her address to the UN wasn't any kind of
rant.

Lol. Says it all.

Haha! One nutcase vouches for another nutcase's sanity. If only Bill
could see himself and his daft pronouncements as others do. :-D

It's not difficult to understand where people as dim and gullible as Cursitor Doom are coming from. I know exactly what he's thinking - or rather feeling, since organised thought seems to be quite beyond him.

Delusions of mind reading. Classic stuff.

 

[Phil Allison]

Bill Sloman wrote:

-------------------

Australia has experienced a massive Green party invasion in that time
- bit like an invasion from Mars in my opinion. Pun intended.

They bring no regular policies, just the usual Green agenda of
politically correct nonsense. Gay rights, AGW and ending mining
and coal power for example.

Gay rights do make sense.

** Yep - politically correct non sense.

Anthropogenic global warming is a fact,

** Just like it is hot in hell.

I don't think that even Greens want to end mining in general.

** It damages the environment and keeps the evil capitalist system going.

Very un Green

Where I live, most of the males ride bicycles, have beards and wear
back paks - regardless of age. Females often sport tattoos and die
their hair with bright colours.

So what?

** They like to play "virtue signalling" by labelling themselves.

I suppose it gives fair waring to strangers and so they can recognise each other. Nazis wore uniforms for the same reason.

The other candidates and their teams have grown despise them - a few are really aggressive and threaten or pick fights with any conservative opponent.

Mental health care in the community.

** Green party loonies are way beyond all help.

They rarely win seats, but with our preferential system keep the left side of politics in government in many places. Which means they have a strangle hold over them, policy wise, in exchange for directing preferences their way.

It's called politics,

** I know what it is called, the Green party they would have no say without such black mail.

BTW I posted noting about my politics.

Just an amusing story of life on the campaign trail.



..... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

----------------------------
Phil Allison wrote:

tabby wrote:

Win is a true expert at electronics.

** That facetious - or not?

no.

** Crikey ....

FYI:

Win failed hopelessly here with simple questions common about issues
with audio amplifiers.

Every expert fails hopelessly in some areas,

** Then he is not what you claimed.

" Man's gotta know his - limitations... "

Precisely. Win does well when he sticks to electronics.

** Audio amplifiers are "electronics" - simple stuff to.

Win is nasty, smug shit.

So no surprise you feel the need praise him.

Like honour among thieves.



...... Phil

 

[whit3rd]

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 10:11:41 PM UTC-8, Phil Allison wrote:

whit3rd wrote:

On global warming, we have knowledge of both the causes and data verifying > the effects.

** But not AGW - as I have posted every time.

That's not logical. Explain what the "not AGW" phrase means,
so that it can be tested against data or supported/debunked by theory.

Until you do that, it's a mantra, with only mystical significance despite repetition.

 

[whit3rd]

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 9:01:36 PM UTC-8, Phil Allison wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

Gay rights do make sense.

** Yep - politically correct non sense.

Human rights isn't 'nonsense'. It's an important principle.

Anthropogenic global warming is a fact,

** Just like it is hot in hell.

No, there's no data about hell, no coherent theory; one consequence, is the
well-known proof that there 'can be no hottest part of hell' (because
any engineer/physicist will exploit temperature difference, to make a
comfortable refrigerated area). If we really DID understand
hell, that 'proof' would likely not be credible.

On global warming, we have knowledge of both the causes and data verifying the effects.

Every idea, principle, concept that we can express, someone can fail to
hear. It's a matter of limited bandwidth, so to speak; what seems to
Phil to be nonsense, is just a message that exceeds his bandwidth.
If Greta's simple message doesn't get through, it's nonsense to Phil,
but that's not on her; he lacks the bandwidth.

If that's true, Phil will think a lot of things are nonsense. Check out my prediction!

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 4:01:36 PM UTC+11, Phil Allison wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

Australia has experienced a massive Green party invasion in that time
- bit like an invasion from Mars in my opinion. Pun intended.

They bring no regular policies, just the usual Green agenda of
politically correct nonsense. Gay rights, AGW and ending mining
and coal power for example.

Gay rights do make sense.

** Yep - politically correct non sense.

Two of my wife's ex-graduate students married their same sex partners on the Netherlands (where they happened to be living at the time).

It made perfect sense to them. The arguments against it are nonsense, but right wing politicians happen to like that kind of nonsense. It cost Tony Abbott his set in Warringah at the last election, and the bulk of the Australian electorate doesn't share his point of view, but right-wing lunatics seem to think that they will be turned into pillars of salt if they deviate.

Anthropogenic global warming is a fact,

** Just like it is hot in hell.

Not exactly. We haven't got any temperature sensors in hell.

I don't think that even Greens want to end mining in general.

** It damages the environment and keeps the evil capitalist system going.

It does damage the environment, to some extent - open-cast mining is lot worse than digging tunnels down the ore.

It keeps the evil socialist systems going in China so that extent it is politically neutral.

> Very un-Green.

For particular brands of Green. The Green Party isn't a centrally programmed monolith.

Where I live, most of the males ride bicycles, have beards and wear
back paks - regardless of age. Females often sport tattoos and die
their hair with bright colours.

So what?

** They like to play "virtue signalling" by labelling themselves.

And the people who run around wearing shirt and ties are doing something different?

> I suppose it gives fair warning to strangers and so they can recognise each other. Nazis wore uniforms for the same reason.

As do currency traders.

The other candidates and their teams have grown despise them - a few are really aggressive and threaten or pick fights with any conservative opponent.

Mental health care in the community.

** Green party loonies are way beyond all help.

So are Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton. There are some sane politicians around, but with supporters like you they are at a disadvantage.

They rarely win seats, but with our preferential system keep the left side of politics in government in many places. Which means they have a strangle hold over them, policy wise, in exchange for directing preferences their way.

It's called politics,

** I know what it is called, the Green party would have no say without such black mail.

Nor would the Country Party.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 3:28:08 PM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, 6 November 2019 03:16:30 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 12:35:27 PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 05 Nov 2019 12:48:09 -0800, tabbypurr wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 November 2019 04:35:47 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:

She's not remotely crazy, and her address to the UN wasn't any kind of
rant.

Lol. Says it all.

Haha! One nutcase vouches for another nutcase's sanity. If only Bill
could see himself and his daft pronouncements as others do. :-D

It's not difficult to understand where people as dim and gullible as Cursitor Doom are coming from. I know exactly what he's thinking - or rather feeling, since organised thought seems to be quite beyond him.

Delusions of mind reading. Classic stuff.

NT has the delusion that he has a mind to read. He's got an image that he wants to present, and that's easy to decode.

It's not as if there's any actual content to be read.

He gets very evasive if asked to supply that, and the most economical explanation is that there isn't any content there to be supplied.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Phil Allison]

whit3rd wrote:

---------------

Phil Allison wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

Gay rights do make sense.

** Yep - politically correct non sense.

Human rights isn't 'nonsense'.

** Crikey - that IS a context shift and a half.

Anthropogenic global warming is a fact,

** Just like it is hot in hell.

No, there's no data about hell,

** You sure ?

Most people are expected to wind up there.

Or is that me being too optimistic ?

one consequence, is the
well-known proof that there 'can be no hottest part of hell' (because
any engineer/physicist will exploit temperature difference, to make a
comfortable refrigerated area).

See:

http://www.jokes4us.com/peoplejokes/engineersjokes/godanddeviljoke.html

On global warming, we have knowledge of both the causes and data verifying > the effects.

** But not AGW - as I have posted every time.

Greenies are such incorrigible false arguers.

Must have all come from Mars.

...... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

Phil Allison wrote:

------------------

whit3rd wrote:

On global warming, we have knowledge of both the causes
and data verifying the effects.

** But not AGW - as I have posted every time.

That's not logical.

** It's fair comment.

Explain what the "not AGW" phrase means,

** It's more specific.

If it ain't AGW, reducing human CO2 production is pointless.

Heaps of other, larger sources exist.

Might be one or more of them.

Or none.


...... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

Bill Sloman wrote:

--------------------

Phil Allison wrote:

whit3rd wrote:

On global warming, we have knowledge of both the causes
and data verifying the effects.

** But not AGW - as I have posted every time.

That's not logical.

** It's fair comment.

It's an unsubstantiated opinion,

** It's fair comment on the Witless poster constantly changing the context.

AGW is not interchangeable with GW, the latter term assumes no particular cause.

Unsubstantiated opinion is your weapon of choice.

Plus posting gratuitous insults when you are not believed.

If it ain't AGW, reducing human CO2 production is pointless.

Heaps of other, larger sources exist.

Might be one or more of them.

Or none.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suess_effect



The extra CO2 in the atmosphere is all ours.

** Don't see those words in the link, anywhere.

Posting a link and pretending proof is there somewhere is a very old debating trick.

Me not silly enough to fall for that one.


...... Phil

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 5:48:31 PM UTC+11, Phil Allison wrote:

Phil Allison wrote:

whit3rd wrote:

On global warming, we have knowledge of both the causes
and data verifying the effects.

** But not AGW - as I have posted every time.

That's not logical.

** It's fair comment.

It's an unsubstantiated opinion, which happens to be wrong, not that you know enough to have an hope of learning why.

Explain what the "not AGW" phrase means,

** It's more specific.

If it ain't AGW, reducing human CO2 production is pointless.

Heaps of other, larger sources exist.

Might be one or more of them.

Or none.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suess_effect

The excess CO2 in the atmosphere is short of C-14. That relatively short-lived isotope of carbon (half-life 5730 years) is produced by cosmic rays hitting nitrogen atoms, and fossil carbon dug out of the ground after a few million years doesn't contain any at all.

The extra CO2 in the atmosphere is all ours. It's about half of what we've dumped in the atmosphere. The other half seems to have dissolved in the oceans, for the moment.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 10:19:54 PM UTC+11, Phil Allison wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

--------------------

Phil Allison wrote:

whit3rd wrote:

On global warming, we have knowledge of both the causes
and data verifying the effects.

** But not AGW - as I have posted every time.

That's not logical.

** It's fair comment.

It's an unsubstantiated opinion,

** It's fair comment on the Witless poster constantly changing the context.

AGW is not interchangeable with GW, the latter term assumes no particular cause.

Sadly for your intellectual reputation, global warming is clearly being cause by the increased CO2 level in the atmosphere (water vapour has an effect too, but it's a consequential effect, not a cause), and it's our CO2 that is doing it.

You can have any opinion you like, but should recognise that declining to accpet that the current gloabl warming is caused by us just labels you as a gullible twit.

> Unsubstantiated opinion is your weapon of choice.

Sadly, my opinion on global warming is extremely well substantiated. Yours looks be derived from gullible acceptance of denialist propaganda.

> Plus posting gratuitous insults when you are not believed.

There's nothing gratuitous about the insults offered to shills for the denialist
propaganda machine. You've earned every last one of them.

If it ain't AGW, reducing human CO2 production is pointless.

Heaps of other, larger sources exist.

Might be one or more of them.

Or none.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suess_effect

The excess CO2 in the atmosphere is short of C-14. That relatively short-lived isotope of carbon (half-life 5730 years) is produced by cosmic rays hitting nitrogen atoms, and fossil carbon dug out of the ground after a few million years doesn't contain any at all.

The extra CO2 in the atmosphere is all ours.

** Don't see those words in the link, anywhere.

That's why I spelled it for you below the link, in the chunk of text you snipped without marking the snip, and I've restored above.

> Posting a link and pretending proof is there somewhere is a very old debating trick.

But that wasn't what I did, even if you used text chopping to try to suggest that I had.

> Me not silly enough to fall for that one.

But you were silly enough to think that you could get away with text-chopping.

Even a Green Party politician would be able to spot that.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney