OT=Climate alarm is a bigger threat than climate change says Bjorn Lomborg

Hardly. Bjorn Lomborg was the author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" which was published 19 years ago in 2001. The book was rubbished at the time and subsequently by the scientific community on account of its use of deliberately misleading data and the fact it was mainly opinion masquerading as fact. In the ensuing 19 years Lomberg has been scratching a living wherever he could including the odd newspaper article commissioned by editors with short memories

"Many of us on here" being a small group of embittered old farts, all Brexit supporters, who from the evidence of their posts on here at least have spent their entire lives firing blanks; and so have no children or grandchildren to worry about.

Ideally these would all be ideal Covid fodder were it not for the fact that perhaps not surprisingly, they all appear to live deep in the country and as far away from any human contact as possible

michael adams

...

What an extraordinary post. So hate-filled. It's sad that there are people about who can post such stuff.

Bill

There's no "hate" involved. The above is a straightforward statement of fact. Or at least purported fact, and the conclusions that can be drawn from them.

The possibility that you may find them unwelcome is unfortunate but that doesn't render them false.

So which of tha above purported facts do you wish to dispute ?

"There's a small group of embittered old farts"

So do you wish to deny that it's (1) a small group, (2) that it consists of old farts i.e men over 60, and that its (3) "embittered" a fact demonstrated most readily in its attitude towards Greta Thunberg, a 17 year old schoolgirl,

"all Brexit supporters"

(4) Do you wish to deny that insofar as their posts on this Group are concerned all the moast rabid climate deniers on this group are also Brexit supporters ?

On the evidence of their posts on this group can you provide specific examples of any of the most prominent climare deniers on this group ever mentioning their children or their grandchildren ?

"Ideally these would all be ideal Covid fodder were it not for the fact that perhaps not surprisingly, they all appear to live deep in the country and as far away from any human contact as possible"

(6) Leaving aside their place of residence are you seriously suggesting that old men should be kept alive indefinitely, at whatever cost even if this is at the expense of future generations admittedly mainly or exclusively consisting of other people's children ?

michael adams

...

And here's one I wrote earlier

There's no "hate" involved. The above is a straightforward statement of fact. Or at least purported fact, and the conclusions that can be drawn from them.

The possibility that you may find them unwelcome is unfortunate but that doesn't render them false.

So which of the above purported facts do you wish to dispute ?

"There's a small group of embittered old farts"

So do you wish to deny that it's (1) a small group, (2) that it consists of old farts i.e men over 60, and that its (3) "embittered" a fact demonstrated most readily in its attitude towards Greta Thunberg, a 17 year old schoolgirl,

"all Brexit supporters"

(4) Do you wish to deny that insofar as their posts on this Group are concerned all the most rabid climate deniers on this group are also Brexit supporters ?

On the evidence of their posts on this group can you provide specific examples of any of the most prominent climate deniers on this group ever mentioning their children or their grandchildren ?

"Ideally these would all be ideal Covid fodder were it not for the fact that perhaps not surprisingly, they all appear to live deep in the country and as far away from any human contact as possible"

(6) Leaving aside their place of residence are you seriously suggesting that old men should be kept alive indefinitely, at whatever cost even if this is at the expense of future generations admittedly mainly or exclusively consisting of other people's children ?

michael adams

...

Hardly. And far from being embittered, I find it astonishing that young people of today, aren't revolting far more than they are.

Basically when you compare the opportunities we older generations have had, in terms of free education, lifetime careers, regular salaries, affordable housing, and hope for the future basically, compared with the s*it they have to put up with, and have to look forward to today, there really is no comparison.

More Brexshit I just came across

"Jacob Rees-Mogg says the benefits of leaving the EU may not be felt for 50 years – and he’s not the only Eurosceptic asking the people of Britain to wait patiently "

michael adams

...

Yeah, we had to scrimp & save to get anything, now they get it heaped upon them. No comparison indeed.

Salaries now v then? The western world is far wealthier than it was decades ago.

But one thing doesn't change: the amount of rubbish people talk.

NT

I'll put you down as "embittered" then.

Next !

michael adams

...

Who?

In the Unprecedented Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Global Heating Emergency Alarm system, only the future is certain. The past is constantly being revised.

I think we all know who the 'embittered' one is here.

"We" ?

You mean yourself and the small number* of posters who you claim to represent, who all get yourselves into such a state, whenever a seventeen year old schoolgirl succeeds in getting herself any media attention ?

If you must know, I find the whole situation rather hilarious myself.

And even if Greta steps down so as to resume her studies, I'm sure there are plenty of equally annoying schoolchildren waiting in the wings, to get up your collective noses.

michael adams

...

michael adams snipped-for-privacy@ukonline.co.uk> posted

You did. You specifically asked the question on this thread, "Do you wish to deny that insofar as their posts on this Group are concerned all the most rabid climate deniers on this group are also Brexit supporters [&] have spent their entire lives firing blanks; and so have no children or grandchildren to worry about."

Now you've had your answer, you wish you hadn't asked the question, because it made you look silly.

Indeed. steering clear of kids, not being taken in by EU bullshit goes hand in hand with not being taken in by climate bullshit.

There are intelligent people who can think, and there are socialists.

There are 10 kinds of people: those who understand binary, and those who do not. Oh, and those who understand Gray code.

#Paul

No I haven't. Two of the questions I asked were as follows

(4) Do you wish to deny that insofar as their posts on this Group are concerned all the moast rabid climate deniers on this group are also Brexit supporters ?

On the evidence of their posts on this group can you provide specific examples of any of the most prominent climare deniers on this group ever mentioning their children or their grandchildren ?

I asked for specific examples of posts on this group made ny climate denying Brexit supporting old farts which mentioned their children or granchildren.

I asked (6) questions in all. I even numbered them so as to stop the likes of you from getting confused. As Richard chose not to answer any of them - as he didn't reference any previous posts of his own I have no idea whether he is a climate denying Brexit supporting embittered old fart or not. Have I ?

So whether he has children or grandchildren or not, ot his age for that matter is of no interest to me whatsoever in this context. Whereas for some unaccountable reason, Richard seemed to think it was. Similarly the irrelevance of my own age.

Clearly English comprehension and basic reasoning ability aren't exactly among your strong points; as you've clearly neither understood the meaning and purpose any of the six numbered questions I asked, nor recognised the fact that Richard hadn't answered a single one of them.

In recognition of this fact which I must admit I'd previously overlooked perhaps I should add a new category - so make that "bewildered", embittered, climate denying, brexit supporting, old farts who've been firing blanks their whole lives.

michael adams

...

• another one. And it seems to me that most of the posters here are far more aligned with Lomborg than Thunberg.

FFS it is barely worth responding but FWIW I'm a socialist remainer with quite a few children and grandchildren. And what bothers me is their impoverishment by the ill-considered and disproportionate knee-jerk reactions. It is, and always has been, Lomborg and his followers who argue for measured responses based on economics.

That's maybe one way of putting it.

In "The Skeptical Environmentalist"

Lomberg admits the reality of man made global warming

He also states

Lomborg points out that, given the amount of greenhouse gas reduction required to combat global warming, the current Kyoto protocol is grossly insufficient.

He also points out that

Moreover, he asserts that the cost of combating global warming would be disproportionately shouldered by developing countries. Lomborg proposes that since the Kyoto agreement limits economic activities, developing countries that suffer from pollution and poverty most, will be perpetually handicapped economically.

while at the same time

Lomborg proposes that the importance of global warming in terms of policy priority is low compared to other policy issues such as fighting poverty, disease and aiding poor countries, which has direct and more immediate impact both in terms of welfare and the environment.

So that basically he's saying that the carbon reductions proposed by Kyoto are insufficient to slow global warming; while at the same time claiming that developing countries should be allowed to continue economic growth even at the cost of increased carbon emissions, despite the fact that in so doing they'll possibly destroy the economy of the entire planet - apart from a few billionaire enclaves scattered around the world.

All quotes

michael adams

...

You are. And that should be Am, not Have.