Climate Cultists

[Guest]

U.N. scores own goal.  Noble savages not sticking to the stereotype messes with their heads.

https://nationalpost.com/news/first-nations-chief-blasts-condescending-un-anti-racism-directive-that-called-for-pipeline-to-be-shut-down

Edited January 18, 2020 by bcsapper

[scribblet]

Heavy raining Brisbane is noe "climate change"

Brisbane 1893

 

[Michael Hardner]

Did you just post a picture of a flood to prove there's no climate change ?

[scribblet]

Flooding in Brisbane now has been attributed by some to global warming.

A flood in1893  Brisbane shows that flooding happened pre global warming.

[Michael Hardner]

Well, climate experts are generally quite circumspect, and don't tie individual events to climate change.

So to say that climate caused a particular event is pretty much impossible to prove.

Showing a picture of a flood in 1893 also doesn't prove anything.  If climate change had caused the flood, the existence of floods in the past aren't a factor as they could have been caused by something else.

[scribblet]

Of course  LOL

Meanwhile, 'climate change' is more and more of an excuse to impose taxes.    I refuse to eat plant based crap which isn't much better than dog food IMO.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51210622
People should cut the amount of beef, lamb and dairy produce they eat by a fifth to combat climate change, a report says.

It says public bodies should lead the way by offering plant-based options with all meals.

But it says if people don’t cut consumption willingly, taxes on meat and dairy might be needed.

Edited January 25, 2020 by scribblet

[Michael Hardner]

20% meat reduction doesn't sound that hard

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

20% meat reduction doesn't sound that hard

The hard part is getting everyone to do it.  I've cut my meat consumption by ~90% in the last couple of years, but it's like buying a Prius or planting a tree.  It doesn't make any difference unless everyone does it.

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

The hard part is getting everyone to do it.  

Of only we had some mechanism to encourage behaviour, like some kind of revenue neutral tax.

[scribblet]

Except the carbon tax and likely any other punitive taxes are not revenue neutral.  They do in fact impact low income people the hardest and are certainly causing hardship now for many, including farmers. 

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Of only we had some mechanism to encourage behaviour, like some kind of revenue neutral tax.

I meant everyone in the world.  Good luck with that tax.

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, scribblet said:

Except the carbon tax and likely any other punitive taxes are not revenue neutral.  They do in fact impact low income people the hardest and are certainly causing hardship now for many, including farmers. 

The claim is that they're revenue neutral.  But I don't necessarily believe that.  If you have a link about low-income people being hit by it, I'd like to read it.  

Farming is a business, so that's a different case to me.

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I meant everyone in the world.  Good luck with that tax.

Well, hey, are you ready to jump in for world government run by the UN ?  I thought not.  So let's do our part, then, and we will have the sleep of the just.

[Guest]

57 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, hey, are you ready to jump in for world government run by the UN ?  I thought not.  So let's do our part, then, and we will have the sleep of the just.

Blankets are not a panacea, so the UN wouldn't help.

Do your part, sleep the sleep, carry on with the climate change.  Just because it isn't going to stop AGW is no reason to not cut back on meat.  It's a healthy thing to do.  We all eat too much protein anyway.

[OftenWrong]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Just because it isn't going to stop AGW is no reason to not cut back on meat.  It's a healthy thing to do.  We all eat too much protein anyway.

And it makes for a helluva good night's rest. 

[scribblet]

The Department of Canadian Heritage is paying newsrooms to write climate change stories. Subsidies paid to publishers under a $50 million Local Journalism Initiative were intended for strictly local coverage of courts, councils and school boards “where there is nothing at the moment”, the department had claimed.

https://www.blacklocks.ca/govt-pays-for-climate-news/

[Michael Hardner]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/taxes/article-is-federal-carbon-pricing-really-revenue-neutral/

This article covers the Canadian case.  The revenue doesn't sit with the Federal Government but the provinces do get 10% so not really 'neutral' if you include the provincial coffers.  The feds don't keep the money though.

[CRABGRABBER]

It's too late to do anything about the climate. Just move away from the coast LMAO.