General / Off-Topic Recycle or Die! (the elite environmental thread)

No, I simply avoid wasting my time reading things that are blatantly wrong.
I could say the same about the rubbish the crisis team post, without reference, or I could look at the points they are making and create a more informed view on both sides of the debate. Unlike the self confessed "denier" thinking they already know everything there is to know because the religious cult buddies said so.

I don't like wasting time either, but if I'm going to argue a point raised in a link, it's best to click the link first.
 
I could say the same about the rubbish the crisis team post, without reference, or I could look at the points they are making and create a more informed view on both sides of the debate. Unlike the self confessed "denier" thinking they already know everything there is to know because the religious cult buddies said so.

I don't like wasting time either, but if I'm going to argue a point raised in a link, it's best to click the link first.
Religious cult buddies? That's some good crack-pot you're smoking my friend.
 
Religious cult buddies? That's some good crack-pot you're smoking my friend.
Ok, let's try this again, and I'm going to re-link the same video for you below, assuming you'll ignore it...

In the one camp we appear to have a bunch of people that believe the climate crisis mantra, and with their limited binary thinking have decided that ALL climate change is bad and that it's ALL the fault of the stupid humans that disagree, so they run around shrieking, scaring the children and gluing their hands to things.

In the other camp we have people that for the most part agree on almost every point raised by the crisis actors except one: Humans are probably causing SOME of the warming, but they're willing to admit they, and nobody else really knows exactly how much, and they'd like to examine the data for more information.

One camp exalts "settled consensus" dogma and refuses to budge (see denial), the other is still curious.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uma-w6caJhY&feature=emb_logo
 
26 years before Greta Thunberg, a teenager already warned heads of state on global warming.

Severn Cullis-Suzuki was just 12 years old when she went to the UN Earth Summit in 1992.

 
Ok, let's try this again, and I'm going to re-link the same video for you below, assuming you'll ignore it...

In the one camp we appear to have a bunch of people that believe the climate crisis mantra, and with their limited binary thinking have decided that ALL climate change is bad and that it's ALL the fault of the stupid humans that disagree, so they run around shrieking, scaring the children and gluing their hands to things.

In the other camp we have people that for the most part agree on almost every point raised by the crisis actors except one: Humans are probably causing SOME of the warming, but they're willing to admit they, and nobody else really knows exactly how much, and they'd like to examine the data for more information.

One camp exalts "settled consensus" dogma and refuses to budge (see denial), the other is still curious.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uma-w6caJhY&feature=emb_logo
Still yet to see why they are a religious cult.
 
The forces at play managed to kill the climate change thread, after it was active for > one month and >90 pages. The usual suspects will succeed to kill this thread too.

I came late to the debate, and was engaged quickly by the Trolls and Astroturfers, I blocked them via ignore, two days later I was banned by a standardized text message for posting a link to research from nature dot com and for mentioning Adorno in context. How risible is that really?

Remember, this is the way they operate, their goal is to have discussion and debate on climate change repressed wherever they can come across it. That's all I have to say.
 
Right, so you admit you polarised heavily to one side of the argument and refuse to consider alternatives.
I think most of that comes from those that might be called AGW Deniers though? In fact that is 100% my experience as shown in this very thread (and the other) and any others one cares to look into.

The science (rational proven method) has been telling us for decades that AGW is real and we need to do something about it.

Those that deny AGW is real have very little evidence to back that opinion, but focus LOTS (all?) of their attention on 'conspiracy of world scientists' or straw-man using some science that ultimately is either taken out of context or is only partially true or does not stand up to the level of scientific scrutiny that the science telling us AGW is real has gone through.

Who behaves 'cultish' like? Those that follow a rational scientific deductive process that we built the modern world using, or those that have to resort to ludicrous conspiracies (i love a 'good' 'real' conspiracy myself, but the one AGW deniers employ are very thin and kind of embarrassing!) and insults ('woke', 'snowflake', etc) to fail to get others to agree with them?

I'd take a good hard look in the mirror and decide which describes your conduct the most here?

We have real actual proof that the big oil companies have been creating cover stories and fake news after their own (real) scientific research into AGW proved it was going to happen from using the product they relied on for their power and influence. It's one of the main reasons Exxon-Mobile are in court at this moment. This is 'real', (like the science behind AGW being real is real!) and the widely accepted version. Rationality is showing us that AGW is a real concern and we are creating these problems, and the sensible people are understanding this (in the face of the misinformation and fake-science) and slowly moving in the right direction despite the large concerted efforts of those in the Oil industry to slow all that process down.

This thread (and the other) are like 90% full of actual scientific information and about 10% full of the 'waste of time fantasy' stuff you like to 'contribute'. That is a good real world reflection on the AGW 'debate'. The debate has actually long been over (for the rational minds that don't want to create a terrible world for those that follow them), and now it is about carrying on the pressure (against the fake news and false conspiracies) to ensure those in governance actually do something before it is too late.

If the actual facts could say AGW was not real, that is where i'd be putting my hat. That is not the case so i can not support a 'theory' that can't even prove itself properly.

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

Now some 'environmental' stuff as this thread covers the recycle stuff too:

'Sperm whale dies with 100kg 'litter ball' in its stomach':


'Toxic chemical cocktail' passed to baby porpoises:


So we have to keep fighting against all the non AGW mess we tend to make in our ultimately self-destructive modern life styles, plastics are a huge problem across the food chain and we will see the negative effects in our lives (if we are not already?). And the same for the toxic chemicals we drain into the sea's, we are mammals too and every child born today (from anywhere in the world) carries toxic contamination they would not have 100 years ago. Important things to think on.
 
EDIT:

Ok i saw you all managed to close the other thread (permantly it says). So well done the usual crowd for getting that result, your obvious attempts clearly go under the radar of the Forum Moderators here (every time).

I nearly decided to go into the process of contacting Frontier to deal with this better (if i was the Mod i would simply warn individual posters that are obviously trolling and ban them from posting in those threads as they are aiming to get them closed).

Then i decided it was a waste of my time. I put a lot of time and effort into these threads. 'Recycle or Die!' was a message from the Elite games, it was there for a reason.

Anyway good luck with the thread i have others to focus on where the moderation does not get it consistantly (mostly) wrong Thanks for the Fish! :)

I understand these threads are not 'easy' to deal with. But whom pushes 'off topic' the most is like night and day. And just to be clear, i'm saying if you wish to close this thread permantly like the other one, you have my blessing. Good day.
 
Last edited:
I'd take a good hard look in the mirror and decide which describes your conduct the most here?
You might like to go back to the post you linked and take a good hard look at what I actually said in the rest of the conversation in between. I see lots of NEWS posts from the BBC, or the Guardian, which is at best a journalists interpretation of something they didn't understand, if they even bothered to check the source.

I don't see many scientific papers being linked or scientists at conferences presenting their own research.
 
The global environmental hazard potential coming from products created (microplastics et al.) and Raw materials extracted is known since long, and currently there is an international trend that was described as "Greening of Machiavelli", with regulatory framworks and negotiations with stake holders insufficient to establish meaningful change.

I like to describe it with the analogy of slapping a bit of paint over a wall that is saturated with black mold. Looks good on the surface for a very short while, but...

Not long ago there was a push to privatize water in Europe, and it is far from over yet. It is rather astounding, first you have groups with vested interests polluting soil and water, then it reaches a serious stage where the pollution attaches significant cost to the state, and before you know it, the same vested interest groups are at the table as bidders in the game to privatise the water they polluted before themselves.

P.S.

I fully endorse what Zak said.


I too think that the handful of people acting destructively were easily identified, it was blatantly obvious, "Persistent Infringement", but I also have no time to write letters to Frontier, but if Moderators wish to get another angle on this, I am happy to spend half on hour on skype with you. Just PM me in case you wish to consider another perspective on how to handle obvious Astroturf / Troll distortions.

Long game non-blatant trolling might be harder for moderators to identify and act upon. The relentless challenging of validity of science is but one example, but it is usually combined with a patronizing arrogance and sowing seeds one pain in the butt. The Climate thread is full of textbook examples.


 
Last edited:
Ok, let's try this again, and I'm going to re-link the same video for you below, assuming you'll ignore it...

In the one camp we appear to have a bunch of people that believe the climate crisis mantra, and with their limited binary thinking have decided that ALL climate change is bad and that it's ALL the fault of the stupid humans that disagree, so they run around shrieking, scaring the children and gluing their hands to things.

In the other camp we have people that for the most part agree on almost every point raised by the crisis actors except one: Humans are probably causing SOME of the warming, but they're willing to admit they, and nobody else really knows exactly how much, and they'd like to examine the data for more information.

One camp exalts "settled consensus" dogma and refuses to budge (see denial), the other is still curious.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uma-w6caJhY&feature=emb_logo
You have to learn about source criticism 666. You are using a video from The Heartland Institute. It says so under the video if you go to Youtube.

1575369291225.png


Next you should go 🤔 "I wonder who those people are?"

Try and google them, and read the Wikipedia article about them. It says:

"In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans.[3][4]:233–34[5] Since the 2000s, the Heartland Institute has been a leading promoter of climate change denial.[6][7] It rejects the scientific consensus on climate change,[8] and says that policies to fight it would be damaging to the economy.[9] "

Now THIS should tickle your conspiracy alarm, or whatever it is that keeps you going. Could it possibly be, that the institute is in it for the money? That they were in it for the money back when you could still spread misinformation about "healthy cigarettes" etc? That once it became too obvious that cigarettes are NOT healthy, and that they are deadly, maybe the Heartland had to find a new group of imbeciles they could manipulate and went 🤔 "Who could that possibly be? Now let's see. Those stubborn deniers seem an easy target".

morris_33.jpg
 
Top Bottom