Michael Hardner Posted April 11 Report Share Posted April 11 3 minutes ago, CdnFox said: Well a judge ruled that he did so that's good enough i'd say But sure - deny the truth while you talk about facts. Always entertaining . https://abcnews.go.com/US/TenWays/story?id=3719791&page=1 I don't think I denied it. But I didn't know about this ruling... Nine significant errors. There you go. You won, yet again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suds Posted April 11 Report Share Posted April 11 3 hours ago, Venandi said: I think the cost will be way higher than people think, that's why I always ask what are you willing to give up? It seems like a reasonable question since that will represent 70% of the expected effort. From a global perspective a reasonable question would ask.... where should a threshold for world population be set so that climate change was effectively dealt with and that minimal acceptable living standards could be attained by all in a world of finite resources? But they don't really care about world population do they? Or at least it's not very high on their priority list. It tends to make one believe that redistribution of wealth is their main concern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 11 Report Share Posted April 11 4 minutes ago, suds said: 1. ...where should a threshold for world population be set so that climate change was effectively dealt with and that minimal acceptable living standards could be attained by all in a world of finite resources? 2. But they don't really care about world population do they? Or at least it's not very high on their priority list. It tends to make one believe that redistribution of wealth is their main concern. 1. How would such a thing ever be enforced ? You want to stop people from having kids, a lot more imposing than asking them to use an electric car. And nobody cares about minimal living standards, in reality. Finite resources don't mean finite growth. If you find a shortcut to your customer's location you have theoretically increased productivity, ie. "grown". 2. Population growth is slowing. They should be more concerned about population shrinkage. Redistribution of wealth ? I don't think that's true either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suds Posted April 11 Report Share Posted April 11 18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: 1. How would such a thing ever be enforced ? You want to stop people from having kids, a lot more imposing than asking them to use an electric car. And nobody cares about minimal living standards, in reality. Finite resources don't mean finite growth. If you find a shortcut to your customer's location you have theoretically increased productivity, ie. "grown". 2. Population growth is slowing. They should be more concerned about population shrinkage. Redistribution of wealth ? I don't think that's true either. Ok have it your way then. Meanwhile, that little chart of world greenhouse gas emissions keeps marching up and up with no end in sight. And that little chart is the only thing we should be concerned about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 11 Report Share Posted April 11 1 minute ago, suds said: Meanwhile, that little chart of world greenhouse gas emissions keeps marching up and up with no end in sight. And that little chart is the only thing we should be concerned about. Not the "only" thing but yes I concur with your main pt here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herbie Posted April 11 Report Share Posted April 11 Oh it's scare crap so we can keep our thumbs up our asses for another generation. Like we pretty much did after Al Gore tried to get thing moving. It came from the UN and we don't "like" the UN so we can do squat. China as something to do with Canadian efforts to reduce Canadian CO2 emissions, so let's steer all conversation to China Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herbie Posted April 11 Report Share Posted April 11 6 hours ago, I am Groot said: According to you and the other climate alarmists renewable energy is now CHEAPER than fossil fuel energy! No laggard, according to a wallet. People who want to see action on climate change are not alarmists. Those that don't think we need to are f*cking dinosaurs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted April 11 Report Share Posted April 11 20 minutes ago, herbie said: Oh it's scare crap so we can keep our thumbs up our asses for another generation. No, apperently we'll be dead in two years. So - sounds like problem solved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted April 11 Report Share Posted April 11 3 hours ago, herbie said: No laggard, according to a wallet. People who want to see action on climate change are not alarmists. Those that don't think we need to are f*cking dinosaurs. What's that mean in English? Are renewables cheaper than fossil fuels or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.