Climate Change Arguing

[Nuggs Bunny]

Crankitup I notice you've visited Bigfooty since I posted this #692. Since you've recently accused QuietB of being or behaving like a chicken #699, and having no testicles #689, I can only assume your standards of personal decorum have dropped to the point where you're able to resume hostilities and finish the argument regarding the ozone layer.

 

[Crankitup]

Crankitup I notice you've visited Bigfooty since I posted this #692. Since you've recently accused QuietB of being or behaving like a chicken #699, and having no testicles #689, I can only assume your standards of personal decorum have dropped to the point where you're able to resume hostilities and finish the argument regarding the ozone layer.

NoNuggetts Bunny Rabbit, I notice you've visited Bigfooty since I posted this #681 which I posted about 20 minutes after you posted this #679. Do you have no nuggets or are you just a scared little wabbit?

BTW, with regard to QuietB, maybe while you were away you missed this.

Sure - I’m chickening our. Post it

 

[QuietB]

View attachment 759370
Actually the word solar doesn't appear anywhere in the entirety of the document. As far as wind goes, this was the only mention

Seems pretty strict criteria to me.

Wind and solar probably both just fall under the umbrella of renewables, which wouldn't just be wind and solar. That term is used 9 times in the 15 page document. It's one of a multitude of climate change spending categories.

For someone who has argued so consistently in the past for renewables as the panacea, this just smells of sour grapes that your estimate of defense spending outstripping climate change spending by a factor of 100 was so far off base. Look on the bright side, at least you didn't lose any money on it. You chickened out at just the right time.

BTW this isn't some right wing group, this is the very leftist Cimate Policy Initiative, seen as the authority in this arena. They want spending on climate change to increase to $5 trillion. That would be very close to 2.75 times what the world currently spends on defense FFS.

View attachment 759370
Actually the word solar doesn't appear anywhere in the entirety of the document. As far as wind goes, this was the only mention

Seems pretty strict criteria to me.

Wind and solar probably both just fall under the umbrella of renewables, which wouldn't just be wind and solar. That term is used 9 times in the 15 page document. It's one of a multitude of climate change spending categories.

For someone who has argued so consistently in the past for renewables as the panacea, this just smells of sour grapes that your estimate of defense spending outstripping climate change spending by a factor of 100 was so far off base. Look on the bright side, at least you didn't lose any money on it. You chickened out at just the right time.

BTW this isn't some right wing group, this is the very leftist Cimate Policy Initiative, seen as the authority in this arena. They want spending on climate change to increase to $5 trillion. That would be very close to 2.75 times what the world currently spends on defense FFS.

So to win the bet you get to count all private sector energy investment in renewables as “climate change spending”?

This completely ignores that;

1/ investment in energy production will occur continuously and has always been highly diversefied

2/ in a lot of instances renewables are actually the most cost effective investment and as such the private sector is investing in them with little or no consideration for the environment - it is simply cheaper.

3/ since we are counting private investment I assume I get to do the same. There fore I can count all security, private defence, yada yada yada

The fact remains governments spend **** all on the environment compared to defence.

And when you add the entire budget spent on energy investment - most of which is private investment - you will still not reach the defence spending.

You can spin it however you like but the worlds commitment to the environment is pathetic.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

Well it's time to get over your discomfort.

Who's funding Thunberg? Haven't we been through this?

(a) I don't care, it makes no difference to her message, which is all she's interested in.

(b) I doubt a phenomenon like her needs a whole heap of "funding". Whether the media want to praise her or slam her, they can't get enough of her. They are beating a path to her door. What's to fund? I don't think you really understand how celebrity and fame work.

Anyway, all irrelevant. The world is going to hell in a handcart, someone is telling us the plain truth (if you don't like hearing it from Greta, there are plenty of old white males saying the same thing - not all old white males are reactionaries. Some of them are qualified scientists) - and people like you want to say 'HANG ON A MINUTE!! WHO'S FUNDING THIS??"

WHO CARES?

But you do care when it comes to who's funding the denialists don't you?

 

[Kwality]

Jeez, just get out there and do something.

Happy to continue as is, I do care & taken positive steps, you?

 

[Crankitup]

So to win the bet

Win the bet? There was no bet. You chickened out remember?

you get to count all private sector energy investment in renewables as “climate change spending”?

Firstly, I gave you the most trustworthy leftist source on this issue. There were right-wing estimates of climate change spending that were much higher but I knew you wouldn't accept those. It seems you wont even accept a trusted leftist source who if anything is on the lower end of the spectrum when it comes to tallying up spending on climate change. This is because their agenda is that nowhere near enough is being done. They want 5 trillion spent on climate change every year remember? It hardly serves their interests to over-inflate what is being done currently does it?

Secondly, when you originally proposed your bet you wanted the comparison to include money not just spent on climate change, but the environment in general. To your benefit I dropped the general environmental causes spending component of your challenge. If we added the multitude of categories of spending that fit in there like combating waterway pollution, soil salinity and a hundred others, you'd look a lot more silly. I think I've been more than fair.

This completely ignores that;

1/ investment in energy production will occur continuously and has always been highly diversefied

2/ in a lot of instances renewables are actually the most cost effective investment and as such the private sector is investing in them with little or no consideration for the environment - it is simply cheaper.

Aided by government grants, tax concession and rebates most of which were brought in because of the climate change scare.

3/ since we are counting private investment I assume I get to do the same. There fore I can count all security, private defence, yada yada yada

Equating national defense spending with security guards & bouncers now?

The fact remains governments spend fu** all on the environment compared to defence.

The fact remains that the money spent on .....

the environment and climate change

does not outweigh

all the money spent on weapons and keeping brown people out

by a factor of 100

like you originally claimed. This is why you chickened out on your bet.

Checkmate!

Waiter ... the check please.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

NoNuggetts Bunny Rabbit, I notice you've visited Bigfooty since I posted this #681 which I posted about 20 minutes after you posted this #679. Do you have no nuggets or are you just a scared little wabbit?

BTW, with regard to QuietB, maybe while you were away you missed this.

I've stated several times that I have no intentions of giving you an apology. I see no need to repeat myself of this fact over and over again, despite that you want to go around in this loop ad nauseam. I am refusing to give you an apology because:

• If you are actually that offended by a "misrepresentation" on the internet then your skin is far too thin to be taking part in a forum discussion, much less a debate of any kind.
• Your own conduct in this thread has been far less than satisfactory for somebody who gets hung up on details such as "misrepresentations".

It is quite obvious you are not really after an apology, but after any form of concession on my part because you're unable to respond to my requests for evidence or clarification.

You can continue on this charade for as long as you like, but everybody knows the reason you aren't responding is because you simply can't. You're intentionally derailing this topic away from science and towards personal issues because you're unable to argue the former any further without conceding a point.

The fact that you're pressing QuietB for answers when you yourself are slinking away from something in the same thread is quite humorous. If I was in your position I certainly wouldn't be still posting on this thread.

 

[Crankitup]

I've stated several times that I have no intentions of giving you an apology. I see no need to repeat myself of this fact over and over again, despite that you want to go around in this loop ad nauseam.

Where in the following did you see me asking for an apology?

All you have to do is say that from now on you won't misrepresent what I've said or my position again and we're back on board. Too proud?

Or here?

Since you've confirmed you intend to keep on misrepresenting me and twisting my words, we're done. As I said, I suspect it's what you wanted all along. If you change your mind I'll be happy to pick up where we left off. If anyone else reading this wants to repose your questions to me I'll be happy to deal with them.

Which was my response to you saying

"Nah, I'm gonna keep replying to you in exactly the manner I have been doing all thread."

All I want is for you to say you won't lie and misrepresent from now on and I'm then prepared to invest the time into discussing things further with you. It's simple, if you're prepared to deal honestly I'm prepared to talk. I'm not prepared to waste time discussing the issue with someone who shows a lack of decent common courtesy by continually lying twisting and misrepresenting in the way you have.

Got it now? You don't have to keep repeating yourself that you're not going to apologise. I don't care.

It is quite obvious you are not really after an apology...

Then why do you keep telling me you're not going to since we're in agreement that I don't want one?

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

View attachment 759547

Where in the following did you see me asking for an apology?



Or here?



Which was my response to you saying

"Nah, I'm gonna keep replying to you in exactly the manner I have been doing all thread."

All I want is for you to say you won't lie and misrepresent from now on and I'm then prepared to invest the time into discussing things further with you. It's simple, if you're prepared to deal honestly I'm prepared to talk. I'm not prepared to waste time discussing the issue with someone who shows a lack of decent common courtesy by continually lying twisting and misrepresenting in the way you have.

Got it now? You don't have to keep repeating yourself that you're not going to apologise. I don't care.



View attachment 759548

Then why do you keep telling me you're not going to since we're in agreement that I don't want one?

If you don't care and don't want an apology why don't you just post the stuff you "fully intended to post" and stop derailing the thread with your bullshit?

 

[Crankitup]

If you don't care and don't want an apology why don't you just post the stuff you "fully intended to post" and stop derailing the thread with your bulls**t?

You can't help it can you? It's just the way you operate.

I say I don't care about receiving an apology for your lying and misrepresenting but I do care for you to at least state you won't henceforth and you twist that position into not caring in general and not wanting an apology.

When will you get it? I'm not going to waste time dealing with someone who can't operate in any other way. You're on ignore.

I'm certain this is what you wanted all along.

I don't have anyone else on ignore currently because I hate doing so but I'm just not prepared to waste any more time with a liar.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

You can't help it can you? It's just the way you operate.

I say I don't care about receiving an apology for your lying and misrepresenting but I do care for you to at least state you won't henceforth and you twist that position into not caring in general and not wanting an apology.

When will you get it? I'm not going to waste time dealing with someone who can't operate in any other way. You're on ignore. I don't have anyone else on ignore currently because I hate doing so but I'm just not prepared to waste any more time with a liar.

Well, that's sad.

I guess he just never really "fully intended to post" that stuff.

 

[JackOutback]

View attachment 759550

Where in the following did you see me asking for an apology?



Or here?



Which was my response to you saying

"Nah, I'm gonna keep replying to you in exactly the manner I have been doing all thread."

All I want is for you to say you won't lie and misrepresent from now on and I'm then prepared to invest the time into discussing things further with you. It's simple, if you're prepared to deal honestly I'm prepared to talk. I'm not prepared to waste time discussing the issue with someone who shows a lack of decent common courtesy by continually lying twisting and misrepresenting in the way you have.

Got it now? You don't have to keep repeating yourself that you're not going to apologise. I don't care.



View attachment 759548

Then why do you keep telling me you're not going to since we're in agreement that I don't want one?

All this time and effort posting, it would take less time to answer the questions. Pretty please?

 

[Crankitup]

All this time and effort posting, it would take less time to answer the questions. Pretty please?

Ask away.

 

[JackOutback]

Ask away.

Nuggs’s questions, please. He directed you where to find them.

 

[Crankitup]

Nuggs’s questions, please. He directed you where to find them.

You're so interested in having them answered, you re-pose them. I don't want to be accused of cherry picking or missing any. I have him on ignore remember?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

So it's not really climate change "arguing", is it?

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...1NxBiP9CK6Fu-O8nKo_65yYtE#yhiBukAYcJPDfIUC.01

 

[QuietB]

Win the bet? There was no bet. You chickened out remember?



Firstly, I gave you the most trustworthy leftist source on this issue. There were right-wing estimates of climate change spending that were much higher but I knew you wouldn't accept those. It seems you wont even accept a trusted leftist source who if anything is on the lower end of the spectrum when it comes to tallying up spending on climate change. This is because their agenda is that nowhere near enough is being done. They want 5 trillion spent on climate change every year remember? It hardly serves their interests to over-inflate what is being done currently does it?

Secondly, when you originally proposed your bet you wanted the comparison to include money not just spent on climate change, but the environment in general. To your benefit I dropped the general environmental causes spending component of your challenge. If we added the multitude of categories of spending that fit in there like combating waterway pollution, soil salinity and a hundred others, you'd look a lot more silly. I think I've been more than fair.



Aided by government grants, tax concession and rebates most of which were brought in because of the climate change scare.


View attachment 759515

Equating national defense spending with security guards & bouncers now? View attachment 759538



The fact remains that the money spent on .....

does not outweigh





like you originally claimed. This is why you chickened out on your bet.

Checkmate!

Waiter ... the check please.

So what have you actually achieved here?

 

[Crankitup]

So what have you actually achieved here?

If any of us are coming to Bigfooty wanting to achieve anything much more than killing some time, we're in the wrong place.

 

[QuietB]

If any of us are coming to Bigfooty wanting to achieve anything much more than killing some time, we're in the wrong place.

But you are literally arguing about nothing.

As with all right wing positions you are just obfuscating for the sake of derailing everything.

And that is fine, I understand that is your method. But surely at some stage the whole thing comes crashing down if your position is simply to prevent anyone from doing anything ever?

 

[Crankitup]

But you are literally arguing about nothing.

No. I'm not literally arguing about nothing. If you'd like an argument about nothing let me know.

As with all right wing positions you are just obfuscating for the sake of derailing everything.

And that is fine, I understand that is your method. But surely at some stage the whole thing comes crashing down if your position is simply to prevent anyone from doing anything ever?

My position is not to do that at all. It would be too late anyway because as we've just been through, hundreds of billions of dollars are being thrown at the (non) issue already.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

So it's not really climate change "arguing", is it?

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...1NxBiP9CK6Fu-O8nKo_65yYtE#yhiBukAYcJPDfIUC.01

The funding side of it is irrelevant to me. Both sides are massively funded.

The thing that gets to me most out of the article is this.

"And yet, for some reason, the idea persists in some peoples' minds that climate change is up for debate"

Once again, this is not how science works!

In the real world of science, EVERYTHING is up for debate!

This is just another example of how the issue of Climate Change is about political interests and not science.

And, the debate is not about whether or not our climate changes. It is about what is really driving these changes and to what degree.

If you can't accept that, then it's pretty clear that your position is mostly political/ ideologically driven.

 

[JackOutback]

The funding side of it is irrelevant to me. Both sides are massively funded.

The thing that gets to me most out of the article is this.

"And yet, for some reason, the idea persists in some peoples' minds that climate change is up for debate"

Once again, this is not how science works!

In the real world of science, EVERYTHING is up for debate!

This is just another example of how the issue of Climate Change is about political interests and not science.

And, the debate is not about whether or not our climate changes. It is about what is really driving these changes and to what degree.

If you can't accept that, then it's pretty clear that your position is mostly political/ ideologically driven.

Science exists on the premise that everything is up for debate, but real world practicalities are that if something appears proved, we continue until someone can show otherwise. That’s why we don’t see ‘gravity deniers’ insisting that the science isn’t settled. Climate change and it’s negative co sequences have been proven unless and until a denier can prove otherwise, not simply obfuscate.

 

[Kwality]

IF its action we are after, its not blocking a street & beating your chest yelling 'look at me, I care', put your effort into China &/or India:

China’s new electricity plan is way more important than impeaching Donald Trump

China’s new energy policy decisions will affect the whole world. Climate activists should really be marching on Beijing if the news flow this year is any guide.

reneweconomy.com.au

 

[Better Loosen Up]

Science exists on the premise that everything is up for debate, but real world practicalities are that if something appears proved, we continue until someone can show otherwise. That’s why we don’t see ‘gravity deniers’ insisting that the science isn’t settled. Climate change and it’s negative co sequences have been proven unless and until a denier can prove otherwise, not simply obfuscate.

You didn't read my post properly!

Once again, I don't think there is any debate on whether or not Climate Change exists... of course it does.

The debate is about what is driving the change and to what extent. One side predicts an apocalypse, the other says any future change will be minimal.

 

[QuietB]

No. I'm not literally arguing about nothing. If you'd like an argument about nothing let me know.



My position is not to do that at all. It would be too late anyway because as we've just been through, hundreds of billions of dollars are being thrown at the (non) issue already.

No one has spent hundreds of billions of dollars. You are just spreading lies.