- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,438
It's a perversion and desperate lie from a classic "blamer".as is the west is being screwed by its own grand principles while the planet is being slaughtered by the developing/emerging nations
That is the inconvenient truth
Only if you deny the science, which shows that livestock contributions to warming are possibly underestimated.Stopping meat is an heresy
It's a perversion and desperate lie from a classic "blamer".
When I was posting on climate change around 15 years ago the average Australian was responsible for around 20 times the amount of CO2 as a person in India. Now it's a bit under 10 times the amount.
By your reckoning we are doing a really good thing if we can again prevent these nations from developing while we bask in our comparative luxury.
The world's 2 most populous nations are also making massive investments in renewable energy.
Unless I've missed something then I see no reason to be banning anyone?
To everyone else goodbye farewell and best of luck. To those who wish me ill, get nicked
Link me to the list of names of all these academics and their specialties who are so well qualified to comment on CC please? Also would you show where they have given their support for the climate change theory.I yet again ask the question ? Are you somehow more intelligent than 200 Nobel Prize winners and 24,000 PHD's ?
If someone tries presenting the flat earth theory ... or NASA non moon landing theory time and time again, I did take the time to read some of this persons thread and posts, and well .... 26 years chronic fatigue and dementia aka dyslexia in an adult ...
If someone tries presenting the flat earth theory ... or NASA non moon landing theory time and time again, I did take the time to read some of this persons thread and posts, and well .... 26 years chronic fatigue and dementia aka dyslexia in an adult ...
Please link to any comments I have made even in passing about these two subjects you mention above. Although I think you may have mentioned it on a thread with faked pictures, not interested in hunting for it at the moment.
Maybe because back then, like now, I post in other forums as well.I don't remember you talking about this back then on Incredible Charts forum Rob!
Just another link to a stupid article that ignores the reality of per capita contributions being greatest in the developed world.
Maybe because back then, like now, I post in other forums as well.
Just another link to a stupid article that ignores the reality of per capita contributions being greatest in the developed world.
The level of ignorance of the author to was displayed many times. In terms of data, rather than show changes in CO2 contributions since the Paris accord, it showed the change since 1990 - that's unforgivable.
But what was never mentioned was the fact that both India and China are still in the process of industrialising, so they are far from mature economies.
India's population is 4 times greater than the USA but emits half as much CO2. Meanwhile China's per capita CO2 emissions are still not at US levels, but China is adding significantly more renewable energy in gross terms than the USA.
Science does not care if there is a change in long term climate.The climate is changing - fact - there has never been a world without climate change.
All science has "uncertainty." In this case the certainty that this is beyond doubt is 99%. Maybe you can recalculate your idea of when something is a problem?Easy for me to see climate change as a problem in the sense that problems are matters that involve doubt and uncertainty.
Perhaps you should consider using science to guide you.When I view climate change, using the definition of a problem as an issue that requires a solution, i stumble a little.
If that is your idea of a serious question, then you should post in a forum on comedy.Serious question, is the world a better place or a worse place, in 2019, for no longer having the Woolly Mammoth? or is it just a different place?
A person thinking rationally would ask if they helped leave the planet a better place for the next generation, and that this iteration ran continuously........ and in the same context, would the world be a better place, or a worse place, in 5,000 years if humans no longer existed? or would it just be a different place?
In terms of data, rather than show changes in CO2 contributions since the Paris accord, it showed the change since 1990 - that's unforgivable.
But what was never mentioned was the fact that both India and China are still in the process of industrialising, so they are far from mature economies.
I take heart in the continual improvements in renewable energy. When a state like Texas is taking it up with gusto you know everyone will eventually, even backward countries like Australia.Which says to me there is a lot worse to come from those countries. They won't be touchy feely about the environment, they will just want energy in massive quantities to feed their industries. Solar and wind won't cut it for them.
On the contrary. China is the global leader in most forms of renewables in terms of investment dollars and capacity build. India is making massive investments in renewables, considering their lack of wealth.Which says to me there is a lot worse to come from those countries. They won't be touchy feely about the environment, they will just want energy in massive quantities to feed their industries. Solar and wind won't cut it for them.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?