[News] Greta 1 v 0 Tate

[Swansman]

I understand what you’re saying. What I asked you is where is your proof? You’ve provided theory and opinion

1. Neubauer and the whole German Green-sphere surrounding Greta = gets funded by ONE (who gets funds from Open Society)
2. Open Society Foundation = run by George Soros
3. George Soros = investor in coal & a variety of energy companies (also 'green' ones)

As for public pressure on governments to stop dealing with dirty coal, we can take this example:
1. NGO climate organisations & lobby columnists saying that American companies (particularly not with some level of public ownership) should deal with coal
2. Obama says "booo!" to coal, creating what the coal industry called "the war on coal"
3. Value of coal companies go down
4. George Soros spends money in coal companies such as Peabody and Arch Coal
5. Coal is good again. Value increases.

Similar thing happened to Swedish state-owned Vattenfall where a bunch of lobby columnists and NGOs protested against Vattenfall running coal mines in Germany.
"Uh no we gotta save the world", the Swedish govt said, "...because that'd look good." They sold the coal to some non-transparent investment company in Czech Republic. Soros involved? No idea, but regardless he's not the only billionaire understanding the trick of creating public pressure on reducing public ownership in something that will still be needed in the foreseeable future.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Yes, which is just what I said.

To explain it again:

There are state-owned energy companies running coal mines in various places of the world, and there are privately owned coal mines in various places.

Some of those who privately own coal companies might do like this: create and/or fund some NGO that says "stop the coal mines!", public pressure will be created and governments are then likely to say "our energy companies are shouldn't be dealing/creating dirty coal".

This results
1. Shut down coal mines. Unfortunately they will still have to import it (from private companies) now when they can mine it themselves.
2. Sell coal mines. Governments doesn't want the moral issue of producing coal... but if they can get some good money for letting someone else do it, nice. But they'll be in a shite position to negotiate, so of course would have to offload their coal plants cheaply.

Meaning that the blokes who both own coal mines and fund anti-coal mine organisations can now either export their dirty coal to Germany for a lot of money, and/or they can buy cheap coal mines from for example German state-owned energy companies.

So yeah - the backlash is very much intended.

I don’t know about the specifics you are describing but I can tell you that coal production is directly correlated with total power demand. Coal output has risen this year not because of the reasons you describe but because it cannot be sated from other sources. For the environment it really doesn’t matter whether the supply is state or private owned. Gas supply problems are the issue as is technology. For instance our power stations were using gas recently even when there was sufficient renewable supply because we haven’t yet reached a point where renewables alone are able to reliably keep the grid running. As to coal, it’s long term decline is still in place.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I'm betting she wasn't.

I was working as a brickies labourer at 15 onwards every school holidays.

I don't think our little Swedish hand puppet has done a hard days work of physical labour in her life.

We're not talking about some poor under privileged kid here, her parents are well off so let's not pretend she was doing it tough in her teens.

I haven't done a hard day's labour as a brickie's mate either. I did have a brain which enabled me to join the forces as a morse radio operator, and then a skill for administration which gave me 25 years working for an electricity company and then in the Civil Service.
Do you really expect a teenage girl to be a brickie's labourer, you foolish man.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

I understand what you’re saying. What I asked you is where is your proof? You’ve provided theory and opinion

He doesn’t do proof.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

And I joined the arm forces at 16 .. maybe we should have both worked a bit f***ing harder when we were at school.

By your logic my son is wasting his time on his physical chemistry PhD as he’s a lazy git because he’s only using his brain rather than his brawn.

you sound very, very bitter.

I just looked up physical chemistry. Wow. Or to be fair, wow to the few bits I understood

You must be a very proud father.

 

[Swansman]

He doesn’t do proof.

No one does any proof. I'm the only one where people give a shit about whether there's a complete list of sources etc though. If you read this thread, that far-right wanker (Andy Tate or whatever his name is) is presumed to be guilty but I don't see anyone asking for proof to back that up.

 

[Justice]

He’s not bright enough to be a plumber.

How hard can it be to stick two bits of pipe together?

 

[BN41Albion]

We as a society have made enormous advances in such attitudes. Unfortunately pornography and dating apps are rewiring young brains at a rapid pace. What you used to do at break and lunchtime bears no resemblance to what goes on in schoolyards at the moment. I am talking about safeguarding and its effect on how people treat each other whereas you and others are talking about tolerance. Two different conversations.

Can't argue with that to be fair - good point

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

No one does any proof. I'm the only one where people give a shit about whether there's a complete list of sources etc though. If you read this thread, that far-right wanker (Andy Tate or whatever his name is) is presumed to be guilty but I don't see anyone asking for proof to back that up.

a quick visit to any of the main stream news outlets will give you all the Andy ‘wanker’ Tate info that you need.

You spout bollocks in the misguided belief that once you have uttered said fact then it’s suddenly the truth. You also have a habit of presenting weird and wonderful bollocks as proof, it’s entertaining but that’s about it.

 

[BN9 BHA]

How hard can it be to stick two bits of pipe together?

It’s taken you almost 24 hours to think of that comeback

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

I just looked up physical chemistry. Wow. Or to be fair, wow to the few bits I understood

You must be a very proud father.

I am indeed and also very confused. To be honest he could make up any old bollocks under the guise of phys chemistry and I would be none the wiser.

 

[BadFish]

No one does any proof. I'm the only one where people give a shit about whether there's a complete list of sources etc though. If you read this thread, that far-right wanker (Andy Tate or whatever his name is) is presumed to be guilty but I don't see anyone asking for proof to back that up.

I can't speak for others on here but the difference here is that you are posting a theory that requires evidence to back it up if you require me to take it seriously.

Without said evidence, this is going to get filed under unfounded conspiracy theory.

The concerning part is that you don't see the need to back this up with some evidence.

 

[pastafarian]

And your evidence for that is....?

Illuminati innit

 

[Guinness Boy]

1. Neubauer and the whole German Green-sphere surrounding Greta = gets funded by ONE (who gets funds from Open Society)
2. Open Society Foundation = run by George Soros
3. George Soros = investor in coal & a variety of energy companies (also 'green' ones)

As for public pressure on governments to stop dealing with dirty coal, we can take this example:
1. NGO climate organisations & lobby columnists saying that American companies (particularly not with some level of public ownership) should deal with coal
2. Obama says "booo!" to coal, creating what the coal industry called "the war on coal"
3. Value of coal companies go down
4. George Soros spends money in coal companies such as Peabody and Arch Coal
5. Coal is good again. Value increases.

Similar thing happened to Swedish state-owned Vattenfall where a bunch of lobby columnists and NGOs protested against Vattenfall running coal mines in Germany.
"Uh no we gotta save the world", the Swedish govt said, "...because that'd look good." They sold the coal to some non-transparent investment company in Czech Republic. Soros involved? No idea, but regardless he's not the only billionaire understanding the trick of creating public pressure on reducing public ownership in something that will still be needed in the foreseeable future.

See, it's your first point one where it all falls down. I can't see you've provided any evidence at all for Neubauer being exclusively funded by ONE and that's because the German Green Party, which I'm sure you'd agree form part of the "Green-sphere" are very well funded from numerous different sources, including a big donation from a software developer who felt guilty about making crypto money.

German Greens receive more large donations than Angela Merkel’s party

Environmental party given highest one-off sum in its history by Dutch tech entrepreneur

www.theguardian.com

And, without your first point making sense the whole thing doesn't much. Frankly, to state that Thunberg is dodgy because someone who ran with her school strike and Friday ideas in Germany may be partly and indirectly funded by George Soros requires the same sort of mental gymnastics as someone claiming Saudi Arabia are the best team in the world because they beat the World Champions in a group game, something I'm sure you'd laugh at.

It just reads like another rant against the rich, Jewish liberal who is the bogeyman for every conspiracy theorist and European far right nationalist. Conspiracy theorists seem not to like billionaires giving money away (see also Gates, B) and play this as a bad thing. Odd thing being, of course, not a one of you was on it when the money was being made. I can't imagine there's much writing from the early 90s saying "you know what, watch this Microsoft guy, in a couple of decades he'll probably be saving African children from preventable diseases".

 

[nicko31]

Last week it was Clarkson, this week Hartley Sewer.

Guess what, it’s the Murdoch press again. Such a corrosive effect on public life in this country

 

[Wozza]

Insecure about what

I dislike both, Tate much more so but it doesn’t blind me to the fact all she did by replying with that was give him the attention he wanted by posting what he did. And it wasn’t even half funny, it’s the kind of thing someone in early secondary school would find funny

Oh well, I guess Greta is going to have to learn to live with the fact that The Wizard and Andrew Tate didn't find the retort funny.

At least 3.8m other people did.

 

[Peacehaven Wild Kids]

Do you really expect a teenage girl to be a brickie's labourer, you foolish man.

it does sound like a hod thing to say


#GetsCoat

 

[Swansman]

See, it's your first point one where it all falls down. I can't see you've provided any evidence at all for Neubauer being exclusively funded by ONE and that's because the German Green Party, which I'm sure you'd agree form part of the "Green-sphere" are very well funded from numerous different sources, including a big donation from a software developer who felt guilty about making crypto money.

German Greens receive more large donations than Angela Merkel’s party

Environmental party given highest one-off sum in its history by Dutch tech entrepreneur

www.theguardian.com

And, without your first point making sense the whole thing doesn't much. Frankly, to state that Thunberg is dodgy because someone who ran with her school strike and Friday ideas in Germany may be partly and indirectly funded by George Soros requires the same sort of mental gymnastics as someone claiming Saudi Arabia are the best team in the world because they beat the World Champions in a group game, something I'm sure you'd laugh at.

It just reads like another rant against the rich, Jewish liberal who is the bogeyman for every conspiracy theorist and European far right nationalist. Conspiracy theorists seem not to like billionaires giving money away (see also Gates, B) and play this as a bad thing. Odd thing being, of course, not a one of you was on it when the money was being made. I can't imagine there's much writing from the early 90s saying "you know what, watch this Microsoft guy, in a couple of decades he'll probably be saving African children from preventable diseases".

Very easy to be a billionaire today.

Spend some $30m on a rent-a-mob "liberal organisation" supposedly against ie fossil fuels and then you can spend $100m+ on fossil fuels and still be some kind of hero.

Or Bill Gates, run a charity organisation allegedly putting some money into saving African children and then you can impoverish the entire continent through stealing their natural resources to cheaply make components for your very profitable computer company.

No wonder wealth & power distribution is like it is when people just sheepishly buy into these cheap PR moves.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Very easy to be a billionaire today.

Spend some $30m on a rent-a-mob "liberal organisation" supposedly against ie fossil fuels and then you can spend $100m+ on fossil fuels and still be some kind of hero.

Or Bill Gates, run a charity organisation allegedly putting some money into saving African children and then you can impoverish the entire continent through stealing their natural resources to cheaply make components for your very profitable computer company.

No wonder wealth & power distribution is like it is when people just sheepishly buy into these cheap PR moves.

So still not proof. Ok then.

 

[Swansman]

So still not proof. Ok then.

You're right, I have no proof of Luisa Neubauer getting paid to work for ONE. I have no proof of on any Brighton player getting paid to work for Brighton either.
It is just fairly logical assumptions.