Fires in Australia

You seem to be substituting yourself for "the world". And just because your online information ecosystem feeds you 'hysteria' to feed this meaningless little outrage-cycle, it doesn't mean it's what everyone else spends all their time on.

It is incredibly easy to get credible, engaging information on the topic if you were so inclined.

Are you talking to me? I'm not a climate change denier. Tell me how is a shepherd inclined to obtain scientific information (Not TYT or CNN hysteria) about climate change?

Who are you talking about exactly?

The doomsday crazies who use more natural resources than the other 80% of the population.
 
Are you talking to me? I'm not a climate change denier.

I didn't say you are... I'm saying your information eco-system feeds you outrage-bait curated by a coterie of grifters and ideologues that you relish in, and you seem to think that 'the world' sees and focuses on the same things.

But in reality it isn't representative or remotely relevant to the actual issue.

Moosedrool said:
Tell me how is a shepherd inclined to obtain scientific information (Not TYT or CNN hysteria) about climate change?


Moosedrool said:
The doomsday crazies who use more natural resources than the other 80% of the population.

So... a random vague generalisation about people that supposedly propose something you don't like, but can't show me. Cool story.
 
Last edited:
I didn't say you are... I'm saying your information eco-system feeds you outrage-bait curated by a coterie of grifters and ideologues that you relish in, and you seem to think that 'the world' sees and focuses on the same things.

But in reality it isn't representative or remotely relevant to the actual issue.

You are under the self entitled impression people (the dumbasses who aren't you) don't realise youtubers who call out repeated crazy behaviour are doing it for an income. It's more entertainment than anything else. The fact is it's easy to blame anyone for absorbing content you consider being "wrong". But much of this content isn't fallacies which is why you resort to using the terminology grifter.

The biggest grifters are your Trevor Noah's and John Oliver's. They can't get enough of a single person.

So... a random vague generalisation about people that supposedly propose something you don't like, but can't show me. Cool story.

Is this how you request evidence?





Building pressure to reduce UK emissions to net zero sooner than 2050 – the current government target – and pushing for a carbon tax are key campaign areas.


It also urges the government to consider introducing a carbon tax, increasing the prices of carbon-intensive products and activities.

I can't believe you asked for evidence that thousands of crazies are calling for a carbon tax. It's an attempt to deflect because you know it's accurate but didn't fit inside your claims.

And the generalisation of the 80% thing...



I highly doubt the poorest 20% have the time and funding to go protest on the streets, create hundreds of vlogs and virtue signal their way instead of trying feed themselves.
 
Did they anger the gods?


200120122203-02-australia-hailstorm-large-169.jpeg
 
Australians blame their politicians for everything that goes wrong:

Peripheral news, but NZ has been blanketed by smoke:
The Prime Minister of Australia is a prick. While his country is o0n fire he went on holiday to Hawaii.
This is the reason he was berated.
 
Is this how you request evidence?

I asked before and you didn't produce anything, so not sure what else I was supposed to conclude?

Moosedrool said:









I can't believe you asked for evidence that thousands of crazies are calling for a carbon tax. It's an attempt to deflect because you know it's accurate but didn't fit inside your claims.

I didn't say no one is advocating a carbon tax, I was asking who is claiming the following:

"they expect a carbon tax to solve all the problems"

^ these are your words. A carbon tax to solve all problems.

It took me 5 seconds to find information that those people you highlight advocate for a lot of things beside carbon taxes.


The BBC and Guardian links contain a lot more than just carbon taxes, too...

Your dismissal as everyone who advocates for it as "crazies" noted, though. :)
 
I asked before and you didn't produce anything, so not sure what else I was supposed to conclude?



I didn't say no one is advocating a carbon tax, I was asking who is claiming the following:

"they expect a carbon tax to solve all the problems"

^ these are your words. A carbon tax to solve all problems.

It took me 5 seconds to find information that those people you highlight advocate for a lot of things beside carbon taxes.


The BBC and Guardian links contain a lot more than just carbon taxes, too...

Your dismissal as everyone who advocates for it as "crazies" noted, though. :)

Are you serious?

A literal interpretation of a hyperbole. You know it's to emphasise the effort towards pushing a carbon tax.
 
If the Aussies didn't plant so many bluegum trees all the time there wouldn't be so many bushfires
 
Are you serious?

A literal interpretation of a hyperbole. You know it's to emphasise the effort towards pushing a carbon tax.

How was I supposed to know it's hyperbole? Given how many deniers there still are, and for how many people who very reluctantly came around to thinking we should maybe do something, carbon taxes are usually the go-to, with nothing more proposed.

But what's your further point - that anyone proposing to do anything about it is one of the "crazies", or who doesn't fall in that (pretty big) bucket in your estimation?
 
Grass trees already blooming in the wake of the Australian wildfires...

 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X