Greta the Teenage Climate Puppet Goes Full Marxist

Post Reply New Topic

Delingpole is a well-known climate change denier and conspiracy theory nut. That alone should invalidate anything he says. He is not a credible source for anything.

Last edited by AlanMooresBeard on 05 Dec 2019, 5:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

This post wins the thread.

Good point. The right here is just showing their victim complex.

People can discuss flat earth, hollow earth, climate change denial or whatever as long as they don't try to "win disciples" on here, and that's not likely.

I'm sure very few members would take this Delingpole guy seriously, and today's the first time I ever heard of him.

Ohhhh. So other people cared about human rights then they manipulated this very clever yet easily fooled girl into the dangerous belief that humans rights are a good thing. That makes all the difference. Thank you for clearing up that misunderstanding.Well certainly. I mean, she's only 16 years old so it's quite impossible she could think for herself. It's a good thing that smart people like us can't possibly be fooled or manipulated by anyone.And she's in no position to appreciate the complexity of climate change so she shouldn't draw any conclusions by herself. Yet if she takes advice from any climate scientists that means she's being manipulated so she must draw all conclusions by herself.This is the only point in which we disagree. Anyone can be cynical. Most people are cynical. Why does cynicism appeal to so many people? Because it seems like a mark of maturity, of sophistication, like you've seen everything and know better. Or because putting something down feels like pushing yourself up.And that's the most important thing. No one should speak in favour of human or animal rights unless they're as qualified as you.

The power of suggestion can cause people to notice and believe all kinds of things.

I was being told how much the weather had changed where I live when I moved here. How much sunnier and drier it is.

And that was true the first year I lived here due to a weather phoenomonon called El Nino. Every year since then it's gotten steadly rainier and colder. Like how it's always been known to be.

But I'll bet anything those who have been convinced the world is coming to an end, would sware that the weather has changed dramatically for the worse. Talk about how hot and dry it is. Even though their lawn is green 10 1/2 months out of the year without them having to water it.

Let's not forget the 13 year old who went before the UN making a Greta type speech, who's now old enough to be Greta's mother.

Also, what exactly is the conspiracy here? The quote is from her own prohejct homepage.

There are two schools of framing. One from big oil that says there is absolutely no such thing as climate change. The other is from the left that basically says the world is rapidly coming to an end unless a global leftist Marxist regime is formed asap.

a. We are always 30 years away from achieving controlled nuclear fusion and a complete break from fossil fuels.

b. We are always 10 years away from a global extinction event involving climate change due to fossil fuels.

: : We are doomed.

I have had this discussion decades ago, and haven't changed my position.

Whilst credibility of the source is an important consideration,
It is fallacious to assume that a "bad person" is incapable of telling the truth.

So, from my position, your argument in its basic form is:
I don't like the guy so *everything* he says is kaka.
You, on the other hand, might say:
Everything he says is kaka, so I don't like the guy.
Even "Stormfront" has been known to spread a little truth amongst the misleading propaganda, from time to time.

The best way out of this is to actually prove that what has been said here, is doodoo.
In other words: "Play the ball and not the man."
Ad hominem (attacks) diminish the strength of an argument.
Can you prove that what he is saying is false in this specific instance?
If not, your argument has, let us say, "limitations".
This principle works both ways, btw.

Just look at what the little marxist warlord has done now!

I am enjoying the irony here.
At first, you appeared to be a political moderate.
Now you have raised your "True Colours".
Exquisite.

I strongly suspect you will find this hard to believe,
But I am interested in determining the Truth rather than servicing a political agenda.
I am interested in a rational consideration of the climate change issue rather than using an emotive framework that distorts reality.

I won't go into the psychology here except to say that when people become emotional, their ability to maintain an objective mindset becomes more difficult.

If we maintain an objective attitude, it will be more helpful than employing sanctimony, self-righteousness, and virtue-signalling.
Also,
If we limit our presumptions and focus on clarification, there will be less misunderstanding.

I won't go into the psychology here except to say that people have a tendency to project their mindset onto others.
I won't go into the psychology here except to say that people have a tendency to jump to conclusions about other people's motivation.

You say: "you are ignorant and buy into the BS framing that wants to downplay human responsibility of the climate."
For the sake of clarity I will ask the question:
What degree of human activity is responsible for the climate change we are experiencing now?

Now that that is out of the way let me focus on your presumption that I am incapable of forming my own independent *opinion* in regards to "Climate Change".

Where have I given the impression I lack an inherent reasoning ability which allows me to think for myself?
Is there any indication that I lack critical thinking skills?
And what possible motivation would I possess that would incentivize my distorting the truth?

While I am inherently an emotional person,
I am not ruled by emotional needs.
I value reason over emotionalism,
And I value the Truth over political partisanship.

Regarding my ignorance:
I have been fence-sitting on this issue for years while gathering information on the subject for years.
I have valid reasons for coming to a conclusion.
I really don't think you are in a position to question my insight simply because we have differing opinions.

You are making assumptions about me that are simply incorrect.
Very naughty.

I have never claimed to be a moderate, I am super on the Left. What I suspect is that through some of my posts is that I appeared to be too moderate by willing to turn against someone of the "scary left" of suspect credentials, and this goes against what you think people on the Left are. That all your sources say that people on the Left are always unreasonable and reactionary.



If that is all true, then why are you buying into the framing that is clearly set by biased sources are active truths, while ignoring it? You may think or even tell yourself that you have just been a truth seeker, but I have seen you several times just start a thread by linking an article to a conservative source while repeating their headline or summary. It is almost like you are afraid of giving your own opinion at first, before showing that you totally buy into how that conservative article frames world issues.

Given everything, I don't think you understand why the sources you read do the topics they do, like why Andrew Bolt would be so excited to discredit Aboriginal scholars, or try and paint Greta here as brainwashed Marxist. Why even you want so much to believe the conservative framing of nostalgia and no shame for the past. And yet you parrot these conservative articles and talking points while saying that you are a truth seeker, implying that they are the truth as you also think the ABC is comparatively lies because it is more on the Left than what you usually consume.

I think that the biggest mistakes that scientists of past may have made was trying too hard to create immediate scare for the cause of global climate change, using the term global warming, that they had to exaggerate threats so people would do something. People didn't really change that much, and then you had idiots say it is cold in places to try and prove it is not getting hotter, when that was not how the climate would act. But it has been impacted, and things are already happening, with it just being so subtle that most of the changes are not being noticed, but the coral bleaching I already mentioned.

I usually tend to hate making assumptions on people, but a lot of what you are saying just sounds like the sort of beliefs of older people like my mother. First it is that there is no problem and natural. After pointing that there is evidence of a problem it is that it is not humans fault. After pointing out that the majority of scientists say it is, ignoring the people hired by fossil fuel companies to muddy water (99 to 1), it turns into being the fault of people in the past, and why should people now have to pay for their mistakes. I think you really want to believe that nothing is wrong, so you buy into articles like this that paint those calling a crisis as being something scary like a "Marxist". Like it has been described as anything but people trying to destroy society.

I would have to talk to you more before being able to understand your other beliefs, but so far you have come across as a little more closed off than you think you are, while claiming impartiality. I certainly don't want to criticise you for liking what you do, but I wonder if you might even understand why now days people might find older cartoons of Pepe le Pew as uncomfortable. That the character is kind of reminiscent of certain toxic behaviors of portraying sexual harassment by a male character as just funny, and not an exercise thinking one is being charitable and open, while blind to the truth.

I can only make assumptions, but say that if you were personally impacted by a lot of conservative positions, like say the LGBT groups, you would see how toxic a lot of it is to just let slide and instantly believe. The likes where conservative groups were saying in the Australian gay marriage referendum that it would lead to bestiality and kids in schools to be taught gay sex. The conservative prime minister at the time acting like an open minded middle of the road person on such issues, while dragging out any change, taking advice from religious groups, and that it was worth being middle of the road between LGBT people are dirty perverts and letting people do what they want.

Right now the Prime Minister wants to abolish the amount of public sector departments, including the fusion of Department of Environment with the Department of Agriculture, like the department that is meant to protect the environment should be the same one as the one trying to make money off of it. Just recently he criticised protestors for better environment as selfish, and is trying to push some sort of system to force banks and other businesses to help fund coal mining practices, something more of these companies reacted to market demand of a cleaner footprint. Essentially removing the power of the people to make decisions in the market, speaking through your dollar.

I spent months here in Queensland having to put up with Clive Palmer's ridiculous manipulative ads of trying to scaremonger about foreigners such as a Chinese invasion, and other garbage, where he is clearly just mine owner that wanted to get into government to allow himself to make more money. Things like ads that could be up to 30 minute interviews of him spewing garbage, either not really saying anything at all, or manipulative Right wing talking points that could otherwise make it look like the discourse has shifted to the Right, where the Left is now radical, and what was the Right is now middle of the road. And I think people actually bought that, not that he got much votes, but he scared people in the centre away from Labour that would actually give a damn, and into Liberal that are now trying to enact a whole bunch of programs that will try and promote mining and the current energy sector, over the fact that we have been getting impacted by climate change in worsening conditions. The PM even cut funding for fire services, and now we have had the worst fire season in years, being more expensive as a result.

If you are going to say that I am suddenly showing my colours by being unreasonable rather than what you think as reasonable of being a political moderate, I think you are the one mistaken. That being reasonable means being sceptical of Leftwing causes, and ignoring the biases of framing by Rightwing sources.