OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[hineyrulz]

Distraction to the argument

Well that’s one thing I am, a distraction to all.

 

[Gronk]

I never called you a name.

Yep. You called me a fanatic.

I simply stated that if you wanted to talk swerves you need look no further than what you did. Perhaps you dislike being challenged?

Bullcrap

You can't "but climate change" either. The truth, as always, is a combination of things. You are incredibly dismissive of that fact on a consistent basis. Your refusal to even acknowledge large polluters is a fantastic example of it.

Nope. Since when have I ever said anything like that ? My position has always been that it's a global effort and it will take a hell of a lot of leaning on countries by way of both political and economical pressure to achieve a global 2 point reduction. How is that ignoring big polluters ?

 

[Gronk]

Sure. But will there be a graph? I want to see a pie chart.

I'd just settle for a pie.

 

[hindy111]

I'd just settle for a pie.

That's it. After work I am starting a PIE thread.
Your favourite Pie

 

[Soren Lorenson]

Sure. But will there be a graph? I want to see a pie chart.

I want to unsee Gary's portrait of Jackie Lambie from last night. But curiously, I keep scrolling back to look at it.

 

[Gronk]

That's it. After work I am starting a PIE thread.
Your favourite Pie

You'll have to moderate anyone who says cream pie.

 

[Bazal]

Yep. You called me a fanatic.

Bullcrap

Nope. Since when have I ever said anything like that ? My position has always been that it's a global effort and it will take a hell of a lot of leaning on countries by way of both political and economical pressure to achieve a global 2 point reduction. How is that ignoring big polluters ?

Perhaps you need a thicker skin? You certainly act like a climate change fanatic and if you can't see the massive swerve you made that only reinforces the point. You're blind to it

And of course you do. Any time anyone mentions China you dismiss it offhand. You even did it in the post I quoted with your "but China" comments.

 

[Gronk]

Perhaps you need a thicker skin? You certainly act like a climate change fanatic and if you can't see the massive swerve you made that only reinforces the point. You're blind to it

And of course you do. Any time anyone mentions China you dismiss it offhand. You even did it in the post I quoted with your "but China" comments.

More bullcrap. Anyone who uses the "but China" excuse uses it solely as a distraction. "But China so let's do nothing" is a deniers safe house. But "China and it's going to be a long haul but we need to show leadership and put pressure on them, India and USA together with emerging economies" is the pragmatic and sensible approach I want to see.

 

[hineyrulz]

Gronky polluting yet another thread, oh the irony!!!

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I never called you a name. Nor did I get overly sarcastic.

I simply stated that if you wanted to talk swerves you need look no further than what you did. Perhaps you dislike being challenged?

You can't "but climate change" either. The truth, as always, is a combination of things. You are incredibly dismissive of that fact on a consistent basis. Your refusal to even acknowledge large polluters is a fantastic example of it.

So, as I said, just as bad as the full blown deniers.

For Gronk the only thing that matters is a carbon tax. He wants people with less money than him to have less electricity. Anything else - China, arsonists, oceanic phenomena - is a distraction from his view of who should and shouldn't get to consume fossil fuels.

 

[Gronk]

For Gronk the only thing that matters is a carbon tax. He wants people with less money than him to have less electricity. Anything else - China, arsonists, oceanic phenomena - is a distraction from his view of who should and shouldn't get to consume fossil fuels.

Lies !

 

[Bazal]

More bullcrap. Anyone who uses the "but China" excuse uses it solely as a distraction. "But China so let's do nothing" is a deniers safe house. But "China and it's going to be a long haul but we need to show leadership and put pressure on them, India and USA together with emerging economies" is the pragmatic and sensible approach I want to see.

Except when I brought up China a while ago, as a person who understands that climate change is happening and we should do something, you immediately dismissed it as "but China".

So try again. And if you'd like a hint, it isn't bullcrap just because it's uncomfortable.

 

[Gronk]

Except when I brought up China a while ago, as a person who understands that climate change is happening and we should do something, you immediately dismissed it as "but China".

So try again. And if you'd like a hint, it isn't bullcrap just because it's uncomfortable.

Nope.

 

[hineyrulz]

For Gronk the only thing that matters is a carbon tax. He wants people with less money than him to have less electricity. Anything else - China, arsonists, oceanic phenomena - is a distraction from his view of who should and shouldn't get to consume fossil fuels.

How is taxing merkins who can’t afford it going to change the weather???

 

[Bazal]

Nope.

Are you seriously all for an idea whereby a large country (say China, all denier cliches aside) that pollutes dozens of times more than Australia, but makes an effort, will be all sweet while one that still creates a fraction of the damage will be barred or tariffed

I’m sorry, the but India, but China argument is past it’s use by date

https://forums.leagueunlimited.com/threads/non-footy-chat-thread-ii.451149/page-1638#post-13930044

Yep.

 

[Gronk]

https://forums.leagueunlimited.com/threads/non-footy-chat-thread-ii.451149/page-1638#post-13930044

Yep.

No, I've explained my position on the but china BS. Nothing has changed. There is no gotcha moment. Go hassle someone else.

Anyone who uses the "but China" excuse uses it solely as a distraction. "But China so let's do nothing" is a deniers safe house. But "China and it's going to be a long haul but we need to show leadership and put pressure on them, India and USA together with emerging economies" is the pragmatic and sensible approach I want to see.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

That's it. After work I am starting a PIE thread.
Your favourite Pie

Pies are forbidden by my religion. I find your post offensive.

 

[Bazal]

No, I've explained my position on the but china BS. Nothing has changed. There is no gotcha moment. Go hassle someone else.

So "but China" only means "but China" when you say it means "but China" and if you say "but China" it might not mean "but China".

Lol. And you give Pou and HJ shit. You literally said "but China" in the quote, don't shift the goalposts.

You are constantly dismissive of political views that don't match your own.

 

[Gronk]

So "but China" only means "but China" when you say it means "but China" and if you say "but China" it might not mean "but China".

Lol. And you give Pou and HJ shit. You literally said "but China" in the quote, don't shift the goalposts.

You are constantly dismissive of political views that don't match your own.

This is getting weird. Go eat something, you're hangry.

 

[Bazal]

This is getting weird. Go eat something, you're hangry.

It's funny as Gary's third ball, is what it is.