Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)
Discussion
El stovey said:
Exactly and it’s because these conspiracy theorists are all about stopping marxist plots and the liberal elite etc and trying to undermine experts and the scientific consensus by constantly trying to throw stones from the sidelines at genuine scientists and scientific institutions.
The win is anywhere that climate science (marxist plots) are wrong, it doesn’t matter whether AGW is worse or better than expected. What matters is creating doubt.
Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, said the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.The win is anywhere that climate science (marxist plots) are wrong, it doesn’t matter whether AGW is worse or better than expected. What matters is creating doubt.
Who needs to create doubt when that came straight from the horse's mouth?
Diderot said:
El stovey said:
Esceptico said:
Randy Winkman said:
turbobloke said:
Don't trust the IPCC mob, believe Oreskes and Stern instead (etc) 
Potayto. Potarto. Same taste.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/10/2...
So climate change really is happening and might even be worse than previously suggested by scientists? Thanks for showing us that TB. Potayto. Potarto. Same taste.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/10/2...
The win is anywhere that climate science (marxist plots) are wrong, it doesn’t matter whether AGW is worse or better than expected. What matters is creating doubt.
It’s exactly like the debate about smoking causing cancer decades ago and often exactly the same people like the heartland institute funding it via advocacy blogs and groups like WUWT and the GWPF etc that get quoted by ‘sceptics’ constantly on here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute
“In the 1990s, Heartland worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question serious cancer risks to secondhand smoke, and to lobby against government public-health regulations.[4] Starting in 2008, Heartland has organized conferences to question the scientific consensus on climate change.[4]:334[15]”
ttery and not acknowledging the issue with his inane and unscientific and alarmist proclamations. Undeterred, the pilot who has issues with altitude (worrying), then turns to w
kypedia once more to justify his lack of engagement with any debate. His stock response to any discussion consists of these tropes delivered in a mildly hysterical manner: conspiracy theories; consensus; the world’s scientific institutions; all the scientists and all the King’s men; deniers; NASA. (Rearrange to suit). It’s as if he’s some kind of BOT that exists merely to trot out Skeptical Science footsoldier briefings. Naturally, if Stovey is a human, he’s only ever looked at their ‘basic’ explanations, not their ‘intermediate’ pages. What does one need to do to get a black belt in warmism these days from Skeptical science? Does one graduate by trotting out verbatim all they instruct you to?
For info on denier organisations like Heartland and GWPF and many others, their funding, their talking heads, fake experts etc I would recommend desmogblog:
https://www.desmogblog.com/
HTH
Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 25th February 09:54
mybrainhurts said:
El stovey said:
Exactly and it’s because these conspiracy theorists are all about stopping marxist plots and the liberal elite etc and trying to undermine experts and the scientific consensus by constantly trying to throw stones from the sidelines at genuine scientists and scientific institutions.
The win is anywhere that climate science (marxist plots) are wrong, it doesn’t matter whether AGW is worse or better than expected. What matters is creating doubt.
Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, said the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.The win is anywhere that climate science (marxist plots) are wrong, it doesn’t matter whether AGW is worse or better than expected. What matters is creating doubt.
Who needs to create doubt when that came straight from the horse's mouth?
kerplunk said:
mybrainhurts said:
El stovey said:
Exactly and it’s because these conspiracy theorists are all about stopping marxist plots and the liberal elite etc and trying to undermine experts and the scientific consensus by constantly trying to throw stones from the sidelines at genuine scientists and scientific institutions.
The win is anywhere that climate science (marxist plots) are wrong, it doesn’t matter whether AGW is worse or better than expected. What matters is creating doubt.
Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, said the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.The win is anywhere that climate science (marxist plots) are wrong, it doesn’t matter whether AGW is worse or better than expected. What matters is creating doubt.
Who needs to create doubt when that came straight from the horse's mouth?
[quote=Diderot
Undeterred, the pilot who has issues with altitude (worrying), then turns to wkypedia once more to justify his lack of engagement with any debate. His stock response to any discussion consists of these tropes delivered in a mildly hysterical manner: conspiracy theories; consensus; the world’s scientific institutions; all the scientists and all the King’s men; deniers; NASA. (Rearrange to suit). It’s as if he’s some kind of BOT that exists merely to trot out Skeptical Science footsoldier briefings. Naturally, if Stovey is a human, he’s only ever looked at their ‘basic’ explanations, not their ‘intermediate’ pages.
[/quote
You forgot he runs out of arguments, resorts to derogatory personal remarks and innuendo.
Undeterred, the pilot who has issues with altitude (worrying), then turns to w
kypedia once more to justify his lack of engagement with any debate. His stock response to any discussion consists of these tropes delivered in a mildly hysterical manner: conspiracy theories; consensus; the world’s scientific institutions; all the scientists and all the King’s men; deniers; NASA. (Rearrange to suit). It’s as if he’s some kind of BOT that exists merely to trot out Skeptical Science footsoldier briefings. Naturally, if Stovey is a human, he’s only ever looked at their ‘basic’ explanations, not their ‘intermediate’ pages. [/quote
You forgot he runs out of arguments, resorts to derogatory personal remarks and innuendo.
robinessex said:
[quote=Diderot
Undeterred, the pilot who has issues with altitude (worrying), then turns to wkypedia once more to justify his lack of engagement with any debate. His stock response to any discussion consists of these tropes delivered in a mildly hysterical manner: conspiracy theories; consensus; the world’s scientific institutions; all the scientists and all the King’s men; deniers; NASA. (Rearrange to suit). It’s as if he’s some kind of BOT that exists merely to trot out Skeptical Science footsoldier briefings. Naturally, if Stovey is a human, he’s only ever looked at their ‘basic’ explanations, not their ‘intermediate’ pages.
[/quote
You forgot he runs out of arguments, resorts to derogatory personal remarks and innuendo.
You do realise that you’re badly quoting someone who constantly makes personal remarks about me and my job (you’re both really into it for some reason) and making them yourself also? Undeterred, the pilot who has issues with altitude (worrying), then turns to w
kypedia once more to justify his lack of engagement with any debate. His stock response to any discussion consists of these tropes delivered in a mildly hysterical manner: conspiracy theories; consensus; the world’s scientific institutions; all the scientists and all the King’s men; deniers; NASA. (Rearrange to suit). It’s as if he’s some kind of BOT that exists merely to trot out Skeptical Science footsoldier briefings. Naturally, if Stovey is a human, he’s only ever looked at their ‘basic’ explanations, not their ‘intermediate’ pages. [/quote
You forgot he runs out of arguments, resorts to derogatory personal remarks and innuendo.
Probably not.
Unsurprising lack of self awareness from two people who think they’re right and the scientific community are wrong but you both have no evidence whatsoever and you’re arguing your case on a car forum.
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
[quote=Diderot
Undeterred, the pilot who has issues with altitude (worrying), then turns to wkypedia once more to justify his lack of engagement with any debate. His stock response to any discussion consists of these tropes delivered in a mildly hysterical manner: conspiracy theories; consensus; the world’s scientific institutions; all the scientists and all the King’s men; deniers; NASA. (Rearrange to suit). It’s as if he’s some kind of BOT that exists merely to trot out Skeptical Science footsoldier briefings. Naturally, if Stovey is a human, he’s only ever looked at their ‘basic’ explanations, not their ‘intermediate’ pages.
[/quote
You forgot he runs out of arguments, resorts to derogatory personal remarks and innuendo.
You do realise that you’re badly quoting someone who constantly makes personal remarks about me and my job (you’re both really into it for some reason) and making them yourself also? Undeterred, the pilot who has issues with altitude (worrying), then turns to w
kypedia once more to justify his lack of engagement with any debate. His stock response to any discussion consists of these tropes delivered in a mildly hysterical manner: conspiracy theories; consensus; the world’s scientific institutions; all the scientists and all the King’s men; deniers; NASA. (Rearrange to suit). It’s as if he’s some kind of BOT that exists merely to trot out Skeptical Science footsoldier briefings. Naturally, if Stovey is a human, he’s only ever looked at their ‘basic’ explanations, not their ‘intermediate’ pages. [/quote
You forgot he runs out of arguments, resorts to derogatory personal remarks and innuendo.
Probably not.
Unsurprising lack of self awareness from two people who think they’re right and the scientific community are wrong but you both have no evidence whatsoever and you’re arguing your case on a car forum.
Randy Winkman said:
kerplunk said:
mybrainhurts said:
El stovey said:
Exactly and it’s because these conspiracy theorists are all about stopping marxist plots and the liberal elite etc and trying to undermine experts and the scientific consensus by constantly trying to throw stones from the sidelines at genuine scientists and scientific institutions.
The win is anywhere that climate science (marxist plots) are wrong, it doesn’t matter whether AGW is worse or better than expected. What matters is creating doubt.
Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, said the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.The win is anywhere that climate science (marxist plots) are wrong, it doesn’t matter whether AGW is worse or better than expected. What matters is creating doubt.
Who needs to create doubt when that came straight from the horse's mouth?
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/clim...
kerplunk said:
Randy Winkman said:
kerplunk said:
mybrainhurts said:
El stovey said:
Exactly and it’s because these conspiracy theorists are all about stopping marxist plots and the liberal elite etc and trying to undermine experts and the scientific consensus by constantly trying to throw stones from the sidelines at genuine scientists and scientific institutions.
The win is anywhere that climate science (marxist plots) are wrong, it doesn’t matter whether AGW is worse or better than expected. What matters is creating doubt.
Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, said the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.The win is anywhere that climate science (marxist plots) are wrong, it doesn’t matter whether AGW is worse or better than expected. What matters is creating doubt.
Who needs to create doubt when that came straight from the horse's mouth?
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/clim...
The United Nations has rejected climate alarmism as a global security issue - thanks to Russia (with India, and to a lesser degree China, alongside). Boris pushed his green ace, but Putin pushed back and trumped it with a veto.
https://www.politico.eu/article/un-security-counci...
Link said:
Moscow’s stance left the Security Council’s UK presidency stabbing at a broken panic button.
Russia, how dare they. UN IPCC will be at boiling point, far more feverish than previously thought.https://www.politico.eu/article/un-security-counci...
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Randy Winkman said:
kerplunk said:
mybrainhurts said:
El stovey said:
Exactly and it’s because these conspiracy theorists are all about stopping marxist plots and the liberal elite etc and trying to undermine experts and the scientific consensus by constantly trying to throw stones from the sidelines at genuine scientists and scientific institutions.
The win is anywhere that climate science (marxist plots) are wrong, it doesn’t matter whether AGW is worse or better than expected. What matters is creating doubt.
Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, said the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.The win is anywhere that climate science (marxist plots) are wrong, it doesn’t matter whether AGW is worse or better than expected. What matters is creating doubt.
Who needs to create doubt when that came straight from the horse's mouth?
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/clim...
Anyway I don't agree that the end result is the same regardless of how it's couched - that's just you being a naughty scaremongerer. However, I don't doubt that the measures by international treaty etc will always whiff of world socialism to some but that's just the way it is.
Does free market capitalism have an answer to AGW that doesn't have that whiff or are they mutually incompatible aims would you say?
Answers other than just denying the problem exists I mean.
In some places people discuss whether a straightforward carbon tax would be better - tax it and let the market sort it out. Better than bureaucratically top heavy cap and trade schemes they say. Such discussions don't occur on this thread because it's perpetually stuck on the bottom step of denialism and conspiracy ideation.
Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 25th February 18:02
turbobloke said:
The United Nations has rejected climate alarmism as a global security issue - thanks to Russia (with India, and to a lesser degree China, alongside). Boris pushed his green ace, but Putin pushed back and trumped it with a veto.
https://www.politico.eu/article/un-security-counci...
No mention of this on the Beebs website. How weirdLink said:
Moscow’s stance left the Security Council’s UK presidency stabbing at a broken panic button.
Russia, how dare they. UN IPCC will be at boiling point, far more feverish than previously thought.https://www.politico.eu/article/un-security-counci...
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Randy Winkman said:
kerplunk said:
mybrainhurts said:
El stovey said:
Exactly and it’s because these conspiracy theorists are all about stopping marxist plots and the liberal elite etc and trying to undermine experts and the scientific consensus by constantly trying to throw stones from the sidelines at genuine scientists and scientific institutions.
The win is anywhere that climate science (marxist plots) are wrong, it doesn’t matter whether AGW is worse or better than expected. What matters is creating doubt.
Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, said the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.The win is anywhere that climate science (marxist plots) are wrong, it doesn’t matter whether AGW is worse or better than expected. What matters is creating doubt.
Who needs to create doubt when that came straight from the horse's mouth?
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/clim...
Anyway I don't agree that the end result is the same regardless of how it's couched - that's just you being a naughty scaremongerer. However, I don't doubt that the measures by international treaty etc will always whiff of world socialism to some but that's just the way it is.
Does free market capitalism have an answer to AGW that doesn't have that whiff or are they mutually incompatible aims would you say?
Answers other than just denying the problem exists I mean.
In some places people discuss whether a straightforward carbon tax would be better - tax it and let the market sort it out. Better than bureaucratically top heavy cap and trade schemes they say. Such discussions don't occur on this thread because it's perpetually stuck on the bottom step of denialism and conspiracy ideation.
Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 25th February 18:02
You see one of the issues with the US websites is that they always filter this debate through the prism of left and right; I don't see this in the same way. As we know in the UK there are politicians on the left who are sceptical of the CAGW hypothesis, just as there are those on the right who are alarmist. And US politics is polarised in a way that ours isn't yet (thankfully)
As for a Carbon Tax that's simply a money grabbing scheme, a-tax-the-air-we-breathe (out). Not necessary by any stretch f anyone's imagination apart from those in Whitehall wanting to milk the tax payer for even more of their money.
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Randy Winkman said:
kerplunk said:
mybrainhurts said:
El stovey said:
Exactly and it’s because these conspiracy theorists are all about stopping marxist plots and the liberal elite etc and trying to undermine experts and the scientific consensus by constantly trying to throw stones from the sidelines at genuine scientists and scientific institutions.
The win is anywhere that climate science (marxist plots) are wrong, it doesn’t matter whether AGW is worse or better than expected. What matters is creating doubt.
Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, said the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.The win is anywhere that climate science (marxist plots) are wrong, it doesn’t matter whether AGW is worse or better than expected. What matters is creating doubt.
Who needs to create doubt when that came straight from the horse's mouth?
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/clim...
Anyway I don't agree that the end result is the same regardless of how it's couched - that's just you being a naughty scaremongerer. However, I don't doubt that the measures by international treaty etc will always whiff of world socialism to some but that's just the way it is.
Does free market capitalism have an answer to AGW that doesn't have that whiff or are they mutually incompatible aims would you say?
Answers other than just denying the problem exists I mean.
In some places people discuss whether a straightforward carbon tax would be better - tax it and let the market sort it out. Better than bureaucratically top heavy cap and trade schemes they say. Such discussions don't occur on this thread because it's perpetually stuck on the bottom step of denialism and conspiracy ideation.
Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 25th February 18:02
You see one of the issues with the US websites is that they always filter this debate through the prism of left and right; I don't see this in the same way. As we know in the UK there are politicians on the left who are sceptical of the CAGW hypothesis, just as there are those on the right who are alarmist. And US politics is polarised in a way that ours isn't yet (thankfully)
As for a Carbon Tax that's simply a money grabbing scheme, a-tax-the-air-we-breathe (out). Not necessary by any stretch f anyone's imagination apart from those in Whitehall wanting to milk the tax payer for even more of their money.
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Randy Winkman said:
kerplunk said:
mybrainhurts said:
El stovey said:
Exactly and it’s because these conspiracy theorists are all about stopping marxist plots and the liberal elite etc and trying to undermine experts and the scientific consensus by constantly trying to throw stones from the sidelines at genuine scientists and scientific institutions.
The win is anywhere that climate science (marxist plots) are wrong, it doesn’t matter whether AGW is worse or better than expected. What matters is creating doubt.
Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, said the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.The win is anywhere that climate science (marxist plots) are wrong, it doesn’t matter whether AGW is worse or better than expected. What matters is creating doubt.
Who needs to create doubt when that came straight from the horse's mouth?
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/clim...
Anyway I don't agree that the end result is the same regardless of how it's couched - that's just you being a naughty scaremongerer. However, I don't doubt that the measures by international treaty etc will always whiff of world socialism to some but that's just the way it is.
Does free market capitalism have an answer to AGW that doesn't have that whiff or are they mutually incompatible aims would you say?
Answers other than just denying the problem exists I mean.
In some places people discuss whether a straightforward carbon tax would be better - tax it and let the market sort it out. Better than bureaucratically top heavy cap and trade schemes they say. Such discussions don't occur on this thread because it's perpetually stuck on the bottom step of denialism and conspiracy ideation.
Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 25th February 18:02
You see one of the issues with the US websites is that they always filter this debate through the prism of left and right; I don't see this in the same way. As we know in the UK there are politicians on the left who are sceptical of the CAGW hypothesis, just as there are those on the right who are alarmist. And US politics is polarised in a way that ours isn't yet (thankfully)
As for a Carbon Tax that's simply a money grabbing scheme, a-tax-the-air-we-breathe (out). Not necessary by any stretch f anyone's imagination apart from those in Whitehall wanting to milk the tax payer for even more of their money.
On the ‘banned banned’ lightbulb comment, I’ll just point out that Philips as a company has done extraordinarily well out of the whole game of charades.
Diderot said:
I note you haven’t commented on anything else but the tax question. Tax is a blunt instrument, its revenue isn’t hypothecated, and tends to be spent on stuff that has little to do with where it was harvested from.
On the ‘banned banned’ lightbulb comment, I’ll just point out that Philips as a company has done extraordinarily well out of the whole game of charades.
The problem with burning fossil fuels is that the cost to the person burning them is only the cost of extraction and delivery. However the pollution caused by burning them imposes a cost on third parties - as CO2 hangs about in the atmosphere for millennia then the cost to society is potentially much higher than the initial cost to the consumer. In economics it is known as an externality and often viewed as a failure of free markets. Second problem is that the cost to society of the carbon released depends upon total CO2 in the atmosphere.On the ‘banned banned’ lightbulb comment, I’ll just point out that Philips as a company has done extraordinarily well out of the whole game of charades.
Carbon taxes are a way of making the original consumer bear the total cost of burning fossil fuels. The aim is not primarily to raise taxes but to change behaviour using free market capitalism because high carbon taxes should result in a switch to renewable energy as well as moves to save energy. It is a way of using market economics to achieve a positive change - much like high taxes on smoking has led to a massive drop in the number of people smoking. As with smoking, using taxes probably not enough in itself.
No government has had the balls to introduce a proper carbon tax yet.
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Randy Winkman said:
kerplunk said:
mybrainhurts said:
El stovey said:
Exactly and it’s because these conspiracy theorists are all about stopping marxist plots and the liberal elite etc and trying to undermine experts and the scientific consensus by constantly trying to throw stones from the sidelines at genuine scientists and scientific institutions.
The win is anywhere that climate science (marxist plots) are wrong, it doesn’t matter whether AGW is worse or better than expected. What matters is creating doubt.
Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, said the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.The win is anywhere that climate science (marxist plots) are wrong, it doesn’t matter whether AGW is worse or better than expected. What matters is creating doubt.
Who needs to create doubt when that came straight from the horse's mouth?
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/clim...
Anyway I don't agree that the end result is the same regardless of how it's couched - that's just you being a naughty scaremongerer. However, I don't doubt that the measures by international treaty etc will always whiff of world socialism to some but that's just the way it is.
Does free market capitalism have an answer to AGW that doesn't have that whiff or are they mutually incompatible aims would you say?
Answers other than just denying the problem exists I mean.
In some places people discuss whether a straightforward carbon tax would be better - tax it and let the market sort it out. Better than bureaucratically top heavy cap and trade schemes they say. Such discussions don't occur on this thread because it's perpetually stuck on the bottom step of denialism and conspiracy ideation.
Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 25th February 18:02
You see one of the issues with the US websites is that they always filter this debate through the prism of left and right; I don't see this in the same way. As we know in the UK there are politicians on the left who are sceptical of the CAGW hypothesis, just as there are those on the right who are alarmist. And US politics is polarised in a way that ours isn't yet (thankfully)
As for a Carbon Tax that's simply a money grabbing scheme, a-tax-the-air-we-breathe (out). Not necessary by any stretch f anyone's imagination apart from those in Whitehall wanting to milk the tax payer for even more of their money.
"Destroy capitalism" clearly didn't come straight from the horses mouth as was claimed. Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Randy Winkman said:
kerplunk said:
mybrainhurts said:
El stovey said:
Exactly and it’s because these conspiracy theorists are all about stopping marxist plots and the liberal elite etc and trying to undermine experts and the scientific consensus by constantly trying to throw stones from the sidelines at genuine scientists and scientific institutions.
The win is anywhere that climate science (marxist plots) are wrong, it doesn’t matter whether AGW is worse or better than expected. What matters is creating doubt.
Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, said the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.The win is anywhere that climate science (marxist plots) are wrong, it doesn’t matter whether AGW is worse or better than expected. What matters is creating doubt.
Who needs to create doubt when that came straight from the horse's mouth?
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/clim...
Anyway I don't agree that the end result is the same regardless of how it's couched - that's just you being a naughty scaremongerer. However, I don't doubt that the measures by international treaty etc will always whiff of world socialism to some but that's just the way it is.
Does free market capitalism have an answer to AGW that doesn't have that whiff or are they mutually incompatible aims would you say?
Answers other than just denying the problem exists I mean.
In some places people discuss whether a straightforward carbon tax would be better - tax it and let the market sort it out. Better than bureaucratically top heavy cap and trade schemes they say. Such discussions don't occur on this thread because it's perpetually stuck on the bottom step of denialism and conspiracy ideation.
Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 25th February 18:02
You see one of the issues with the US websites is that they always filter this debate through the prism of left and right; I don't see this in the same way. As we know in the UK there are politicians on the left who are sceptical of the CAGW hypothesis, just as there are those on the right who are alarmist. And US politics is polarised in a way that ours isn't yet (thankfully)
As for a Carbon Tax that's simply a money grabbing scheme, a-tax-the-air-we-breathe (out). Not necessary by any stretch f anyone's imagination apart from those in Whitehall wanting to milk the tax payer for even more of their money.
On the ‘banned banned’ lightbulb comment, I’ll just point out that Philips as a company has done extraordinarily well out of the whole game of charades.
Edited by kerplunk on Friday 26th February 08:40
Amazon rainforest plots sold via Facebook Marketplace ads
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56168844
Parts of Brazil's Amazon rainforest are being illegally sold on Facebook, the BBC has discovered.
The protected areas include national forests and land reserved for indigenous peoples.
Some of the plots listed via Facebook's classified ads service are as large as 1,000 football pitches.
Facebook said it was "ready to work with local authorities", but indicated it would not take independent action of its own to halt the trade.
"Our commerce policies require buyers and sellers to comply with laws and regulations," the Californian tech firm added.
The leader of one of the indigenous communities affected has urged the tech firm to do more.
And campaigners have claimed the country's government is unwilling to halt the sales.
"The land invaders feel very empowered to the point that they are not ashamed of going on Facebook to make illegal land deals," said Ivaneide Bandeira, head of environmental NGO Kanindé........................
Fabricio Guimarães, who was filmed by a hidden camera.
"There's no risk of an inspection by state agents here," he said as he walked through a patch of rainforest he had burnt to the ground.
With the land illegally cleared and ready for farming, he had tripled his initial asking price to $35,000 (£25,000).
Fabricio is not a farmer. He has a steady middle-class job in a city, and views the rainforest as being an investment opportunity............continues
Now, how is Boris's UK tree planting project going ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56168844
Parts of Brazil's Amazon rainforest are being illegally sold on Facebook, the BBC has discovered.
The protected areas include national forests and land reserved for indigenous peoples.
Some of the plots listed via Facebook's classified ads service are as large as 1,000 football pitches.
Facebook said it was "ready to work with local authorities", but indicated it would not take independent action of its own to halt the trade.
"Our commerce policies require buyers and sellers to comply with laws and regulations," the Californian tech firm added.
The leader of one of the indigenous communities affected has urged the tech firm to do more.
And campaigners have claimed the country's government is unwilling to halt the sales.
"The land invaders feel very empowered to the point that they are not ashamed of going on Facebook to make illegal land deals," said Ivaneide Bandeira, head of environmental NGO Kanindé........................
Fabricio Guimarães, who was filmed by a hidden camera.
"There's no risk of an inspection by state agents here," he said as he walked through a patch of rainforest he had burnt to the ground.
With the land illegally cleared and ready for farming, he had tripled his initial asking price to $35,000 (£25,000).
Fabricio is not a farmer. He has a steady middle-class job in a city, and views the rainforest as being an investment opportunity............continues
Now, how is Boris's UK tree planting project going ?
Climate change: Carbon emission promises 'put Earth on red alert'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-562...
The world will heat by more than 1.5C unless nations produce tougher policies, a global stocktake has confirmed.
Governments must halve emissions by 2030 if they intend the Earth to stay within the 1.5C “safe” threshold.
But the latest set of national policies submitted to the UN shows emissions will merely be stabilised by 2030.
The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, called it a red alert for our planet. ....continues
Wow, red alert. Must be dam serious then, I'm waiting for the sirens to go off. Anyway, it's 'seems' as if we, the UK that is, are doing just about everything possible re reducing CO2, ( we're permitting a new coal mine to be dug in the face of scientific and international criticism, also building a high-speed rail link that won't be carbon neutral until the back end of the century, and have a £27bn roads programme, still a bit naughty then), while a huge majority of the rest of the planet are er, thinking about it. So that's all ok then.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-562...
The world will heat by more than 1.5C unless nations produce tougher policies, a global stocktake has confirmed.
Governments must halve emissions by 2030 if they intend the Earth to stay within the 1.5C “safe” threshold.
But the latest set of national policies submitted to the UN shows emissions will merely be stabilised by 2030.
The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, called it a red alert for our planet. ....continues
Wow, red alert. Must be dam serious then, I'm waiting for the sirens to go off. Anyway, it's 'seems' as if we, the UK that is, are doing just about everything possible re reducing CO2, ( we're permitting a new coal mine to be dug in the face of scientific and international criticism, also building a high-speed rail link that won't be carbon neutral until the back end of the century, and have a £27bn roads programme, still a bit naughty then), while a huge majority of the rest of the planet are er, thinking about it. So that's all ok then.
Edited by robinessex on Friday 26th February 17:22
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff