News36 mins ago
Can Someone Tell These Brats......
86 Answers
https:/
....that anything Austria does makes zero difference to world emissions. Why do they not target the countries that can make a difference?
....that anything Austria does makes zero difference to world emissions. Why do they not target the countries that can make a difference?
Answers
//...right but we were talking about which would be economically worse.... climate change or doing nothing about climate change...//
But that is not the choice because it's quite evident that little or nothing can be done to prevent climate change. It's been tried and global temperatures are still on the up. That's not ideological, it's fact:
https:/
"Earth’s temperature has risen by an average of 0.14° Fahrenheit (0.08° Celsius) per decade since 1880, or about 2° F in total.
The rate of warming since 1981 is more than twice as fast: 0.32° F (0.18° C) per decade."
The last sentence is telling: that's the period when the greatest efforts have been made to tackle the climate; and that's the period when the greatest increase has occurred. Couple this with the fact that most of the largest polluters have no intention of making any substantial changes anyway and it is obvious that the idea of controlling the climate is pure fantasy.
People need to be told the truth and not peddled with nonsense. More importantly governments need to react to the truth and not rely on some Utopian ideal that has absolutely no chance of bearing fruit. Adapting to climate change will be every bit as difficult as trying to combat it - more so for people who live in places where life may become unsustainable in the long term. But the difference is that it stands a far greater chance of producing a successful outcome.
But that is not the choice because it's quite evident that little or nothing can be done to prevent climate change. It's been tried and global temperatures are still on the up. That's not ideological, it's fact:
https:/
"Earth’s temperature has risen by an average of 0.14° Fahrenheit (0.08° Celsius) per decade since 1880, or about 2° F in total.
The rate of warming since 1981 is more than twice as fast: 0.32° F (0.18° C) per decade."
The last sentence is telling: that's the period when the greatest efforts have been made to tackle the climate; and that's the period when the greatest increase has occurred. Couple this with the fact that most of the largest polluters have no intention of making any substantial changes anyway and it is obvious that the idea of controlling the climate is pure fantasy.
People need to be told the truth and not peddled with nonsense. More importantly governments need to react to the truth and not rely on some Utopian ideal that has absolutely no chance of bearing fruit. Adapting to climate change will be every bit as difficult as trying to combat it - more so for people who live in places where life may become unsustainable in the long term. But the difference is that it stands a far greater chance of producing a successful outcome.
10cs: "They're brats because TTT doesn't agree with them. In the same way that Frank Doberman disagrees about things. " - not true, I share their concerns, I just think they target the wrong things and will achieve nothing but token changes with massive disruption. They need to learn the subject rather than listening to woke idiots and manipulators. They should sign up for science degrees so they can find ways we can deal with the issues rather than fiddling round the edges. They'll get my respect when they are gluing their Aprils to the roads outside one of the 200 coal power stations they are building in China annually.
judge: "The last sentence is telling: that's the period when the greatest efforts have been made to tackle the climate; and that's the period when the greatest increase has occurred. Couple this with the fact that most of the largest polluters have no intention of making any substantial changes anyway and it is obvious that the idea of controlling the climate is pure fantasy.
" - why is that paragraph so unintelligible to those above judge? to me it's pur common sense.
" - why is that paragraph so unintelligible to those above judge? to me it's pur common sense.
nobody is suggesting "controlling" the climate but it is illiterate to claim that humans cannot or do not influence it... as such yes man-made climate change can at least be mitigated and the more work we do now the less trouble we'll be in later
unfortunately we've not been doing the work... or at least powerful people and their apologists have not
unfortunately we've not been doing the work... or at least powerful people and their apologists have not
do you know who Salacious Crumb is toratoratora? he's that little rodent creature that sits on jabba the hutt's shoulder and eats his table scraps and giggles whenever jabba says anything
https:/
appears to be your spirit animal!
https:/
appears to be your spirit animal!
untitled; "nobody is suggesting "controlling" the climate but it is illiterate to claim that humans cannot or do not influence it." - a microscopic amount, maybe, but not enough without the big emmitters, why is that so difficult for you to comprehend? It's like fixing a cracked roof tile when there is 10 foot hole in another part of the roof.
untitled:"i am not sure what you are asking me " - I'm asking how anyone could possibly not see this point, especially the last sentence:
"........ that's the period when the greatest efforts have been made to tackle the climate; and that's the period when the greatest increase has occurred. Couple this with the fact that most of the largest polluters have no intention of making any substantial changes anyway and it is obvious that the idea of controlling the climate is pure fantasy. "
I'm not saying we should not do what we can but lets stop these hysterical disruptions in the places that are already doing loads and even if they eliminated emissions entirely would make zero difference.
"........ that's the period when the greatest efforts have been made to tackle the climate; and that's the period when the greatest increase has occurred. Couple this with the fact that most of the largest polluters have no intention of making any substantial changes anyway and it is obvious that the idea of controlling the climate is pure fantasy. "
I'm not saying we should not do what we can but lets stop these hysterical disruptions in the places that are already doing loads and even if they eliminated emissions entirely would make zero difference.
our "greatest efforts" compare to zero efforts in the period before and include decades of obfuscation by companies like exxon and the new judges of the world...
and as with so many of your master's assertions it isn't true that the large emitters have "no intention" of changing... there are political battles ongoing in all three of them that climate activists do participate in... in some places they get arrested or killed for it.
if we fail in the big emitters then the small guys like us will just have to band together and do as much as they can collectively... there isn't really an alternative where we do nothing because as climate conditions gets worse it will just force us to make huge changes anyway...
and as with so many of your master's assertions it isn't true that the large emitters have "no intention" of changing... there are political battles ongoing in all three of them that climate activists do participate in... in some places they get arrested or killed for it.
if we fail in the big emitters then the small guys like us will just have to band together and do as much as they can collectively... there isn't really an alternative where we do nothing because as climate conditions gets worse it will just force us to make huge changes anyway...
untitled: "there isn't really an alternative where we do nothing because as climate conditions gets worse it will just force us to make huge changes anyway... " - no one is suggesting doing nothing. In the mid 19th century London was dying under the weight of it's own she ite. They didn't demand that people stop emitting waste, they came up with the worlds largest engineering project and put in a solution that worked until now. We should and do encourage reductions in fossil fuel usage but alongside that we should be investing in projects that approach the problem from a different perspective, eg DAC: https:/
//and include decades of obfuscation by companies like exxon and the new judges of the world...//
I’m not obfuscating at all. I’m simply stating a couple of basic facts: for forty years (or more) the world’s governments have told their people that if they stop burning things then the increase in global temperatures will slow. For forty years the citizens of many (though not all) countries have done as they were told (largely without any option). And for forty years temperatures have continued to rise. Their efforts have made no significant difference whatsoever.
Simply looking at this country (though with similar consequences evident in much of Europe) this forced change has seen the country’s energy security jeopardised to an alarming degree; it has seen individuals and businesses impoverished because of the cost of the energy they need and it has seen the government having to print huge sums of money to provide energy support.
As far as the big polluters go, there is little indication that they will comply with similar strategies. China burns more coal that the rest of the world put together. It shows no signs of reducing its consumption. On the contrary it is opening a new coal-fired power station about every ten days. The country has 250 GW of coal fired capacity in the pipeline to open. That is over 70% of all the world’s planned new capacity. Do you really think such a vast programme is going to be curtailed? China has made a woolly promise that its emissions will peak in 2030 and that it will become “carbon neutral” (i.e. will have mastered the required creative accounting techniques) by 2060. Though it admits that this “may not be possible”. Suggesting that lesser polluters must “set an example” does not hold water. We’ve set an example only to see the likes of China stick two fingers up and laugh. Meanwhile, this country has all but stopped burning coal and is dependent upon imported gas for 50% of its electricity production. It also imports about 7m tons of processed timber to be burnt in Yorkshire. Vast sums of money are leaving these shores every year to sustain this ridiculous strategy.
If the country’s “climate change” strategy was working I might see the point. But it plainly isn’t. Instead people are being fed with alarm and hysteria, being urged to “do something” when the something they are being asked to do will cost them dearly and achieve diddly squat. A far more balanced debate is necessary – one which does not involve frightening children and encouraging five year olds to take court action against their government. Most importantly a debate which might actually be beneficial instead of one which pre-determines that the same thing must be repeated over and over in the faint hope that different results are achieved.
I’m not obfuscating at all. I’m simply stating a couple of basic facts: for forty years (or more) the world’s governments have told their people that if they stop burning things then the increase in global temperatures will slow. For forty years the citizens of many (though not all) countries have done as they were told (largely without any option). And for forty years temperatures have continued to rise. Their efforts have made no significant difference whatsoever.
Simply looking at this country (though with similar consequences evident in much of Europe) this forced change has seen the country’s energy security jeopardised to an alarming degree; it has seen individuals and businesses impoverished because of the cost of the energy they need and it has seen the government having to print huge sums of money to provide energy support.
As far as the big polluters go, there is little indication that they will comply with similar strategies. China burns more coal that the rest of the world put together. It shows no signs of reducing its consumption. On the contrary it is opening a new coal-fired power station about every ten days. The country has 250 GW of coal fired capacity in the pipeline to open. That is over 70% of all the world’s planned new capacity. Do you really think such a vast programme is going to be curtailed? China has made a woolly promise that its emissions will peak in 2030 and that it will become “carbon neutral” (i.e. will have mastered the required creative accounting techniques) by 2060. Though it admits that this “may not be possible”. Suggesting that lesser polluters must “set an example” does not hold water. We’ve set an example only to see the likes of China stick two fingers up and laugh. Meanwhile, this country has all but stopped burning coal and is dependent upon imported gas for 50% of its electricity production. It also imports about 7m tons of processed timber to be burnt in Yorkshire. Vast sums of money are leaving these shores every year to sustain this ridiculous strategy.
If the country’s “climate change” strategy was working I might see the point. But it plainly isn’t. Instead people are being fed with alarm and hysteria, being urged to “do something” when the something they are being asked to do will cost them dearly and achieve diddly squat. A far more balanced debate is necessary – one which does not involve frightening children and encouraging five year olds to take court action against their government. Most importantly a debate which might actually be beneficial instead of one which pre-determines that the same thing must be repeated over and over in the faint hope that different results are achieved.
NJ @ 13.33:
".....and is dependent upon imported gas for 50% of its electricity production."
That is not true. Only 15% of electricity is generated using gas. People are being conned by the elctricity companies. But if the companies keep saying these things, then eventually people will believe them. Like climate change. It's natural. It can't be stopped. It's happened many times in the history of the planet. And the planet is still warming up as it emerges from the last ice age.
I know await the calls for me to resign from the flat earth society and face a trial for blasphemy. Hey ho! :o)
".....and is dependent upon imported gas for 50% of its electricity production."
That is not true. Only 15% of electricity is generated using gas. People are being conned by the elctricity companies. But if the companies keep saying these things, then eventually people will believe them. Like climate change. It's natural. It can't be stopped. It's happened many times in the history of the planet. And the planet is still warming up as it emerges from the last ice age.
I know await the calls for me to resign from the flat earth society and face a trial for blasphemy. Hey ho! :o)
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles47 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles94 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles127 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles186 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.