The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Greta Thunberg and Andrew Bolt: two sides of the same coin > Comments

Greta Thunberg and Andrew Bolt: two sides of the same coin : Comments

By Eric Claus, published 25/10/2019

The first technique is the complete rejection of the idea that their opponents might have anything meaningful to say.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
' Food prices have gone up 80% in the last 20 years.Of course, there is no reason for Andrew to mention any of that, since that doesn't help him sell his business-as-usual world view.'

come on Eric even a dumbo like me can see your cherry picking (the very thing you accuse Bolt of). Sure you quote 80% increase in costs of food over the last 20years but increase in wages the last 20 Years? I doubt you would want them published. Also power prices are massively above 80% higher due to the gw religion and massive renewable subsidies. If you want to stand up for proper science then practice it yourself without your narrative.
Posted by runner, Friday, 25 October 2019 4:48:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,

Greta Thunberg's screeching and snarling, according to you, is acceptable and nobody should point out her deficiencies. Apparently you believe she's perfectly entitled to be deficient and nobody should draw attention to it.

Her UN address - posturing on a foundation of hypocrisy - was entirely fact-free. That is how one may and should judge her: are her rants based on verifiable facts? No. Does she rely upon any facts to support her positions? No. As always with the global warming Left, Greta has nothing to offer: no facts, no solutions, no insights. As usual with the Left, her only demand is "somebody should do something", which is no solution at all.

So here are some facts: water vapour is 4.0 per cent of the atmosphere by volume; carbon dioxide is 0.04 per cent of the atmosphere by volume. Of that 0.04 percent, three per cent is produced by humans (= 0.00012 per cent by volume - global warming potential (GWP) = 1). Various trace gases have GWPs ranging from 25 (methane) to 22,800 (sulfur hexafluoride).

So I shall personally nominate you for a Nobel Prize for Physics if you can explain to us all how that 0.00012 of human-produced carbon dioxide overwhelms the impact of all other atmospheric gases and causes global warming.

Now, tell us again why we should take Greta Thunberg seriously.

BTW, Foxy, I don't "hate" you: I simply think your arguments are as vacuous as Greta's.
Posted by calwest, Friday, 25 October 2019 5:02:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey runner,

For your information -

The Australian of the Year award is unique in that
it's sponsored by a national government and commands
broad public support. Which Australian do you so
strongly object to and why?

The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded in 1994 jointly
to Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin
for their efforts to create peace in the Middle
East. Which one of these men do you again object
to and why?
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 25 October 2019 5:09:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
calwest,

Greta Thunberg has been personally attacked by
many in a variety of ways. She does not pretend
to be an expert at 16. She is simply asking for
action on climate change and she's not vacuous
as you claim. She sticks to what she knows and
presents scientific reports as required on
what action needs to be taken. She does not suggest
what they should do - that's not her area of expertise.
She points to the scientific evidence and does not
allow her objectors and their slurs to get to her or
make an impact on her.

I'm pleased that you stated you don't hate me. I would have been
very surprised if you did. I don't know you and you certainly
don't know me.

The art of reasoned, intelligent argument is a skill not
easily acquired. Arguments are something we all confront
at some time - best to remember no one likes or supports
an abusive, illogical, or weak debater. We need to argue at
a mature intelligent level, not an emotional one. Although
this may not be easy for a 16 year old girl. Try hard as she
might.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 25 October 2019 5:36:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy, handicapped children should always be shielded from dissension
like global warming. The way she has been exposed is very likely to
make a long term influence on her behaviour.
She just did not need that exposure. Her parents were very ill advised
to allow all this to happen to her. It may take a long time to repair
the effect as she is now in puberty.

The Svenmark theory now seems to have explained the cycles that the
earth has experienced for the last 3000 years. There was a warm period
in the -1000BC century from what I read recently. So that makes five
warm periods of which we are aware including the current one.
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 25 October 2019 9:40:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,

You are an idiot.
Posted by calwest, Friday, 25 October 2019 10:13:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy