Does it not seem logical to use massive resources to tackle the things that are clearly killing people in huge numbers right now? I’ve mentioned cancer and heart disease. What about malaria? Why are we so concerned about so called climate change? China and India have the good sense to continue their road to economic success and obviously don’t give a shit about ecology.
Here’s another question: If the US ceased to exist tomorrow it’s former emissions would be more than eclipsed by the rising economies in Asia and Africa. It’s happening right now even including the US. Who would you blame then?

 

Future generations will likely scratch their heads at all this concern about man made climate change. They will look back fifty years from now and wonder why this was ever a worry. The third world wants to live as well as Sweden and Greta thumbs her nose at her own privilege.

This climate thing will go the way of Malthusian alarmism. To me it’s the hypochondria of the first world which is overindulged and has too much time on it’s hands.

 

@thinskin
Since we are both in Amsterdam let’s meet up and talk about this in person. I’m free right now. PM me. Unless you’re afraid.

 

A significant part of the UK fossil fuel subsidies identified by the commission is the 5% rate of VAT on domestic gas and electricity, cut from the standard 20%. The UK government did not dispute the data but denied that it provided any subsidies for fossil fuels under its own definition and that of the International Energy Agency. (ibid)

“We do not subsidise fossil fuels,” a government spokeswoman said. “We’re firmly committed to tackling climate change by using renewables, storage, interconnectors, new nuclear and more to deliver a secure and dynamic energy market at the least possible cost for consumers.”

Shelagh Whitley, also at ODI, was dismissive of the UK government’s claim to provide no fossil fuel subsidies. “They are lying,” she said. “It’s absurd. They are playing games and continuing to prop up a centuries old energy system.”

She said the WTO definition of subsidies, accepted by the UK and 163 other nations, includes “government revenue that is otherwise due, foregone or not collected” such as reduced tax rates. Other countries, such as Germany and Italy, call such tax breaks subsidies, she said and noted the UK also gave tax breaks for oil and gas operators in the North Sea. Whitley said that rather than arguing about definitions, the UK should use its tax system to accelerate the transition to clean energy. (ibid)

Rebecca Long-Bailey, Labour’s shadow business and energy secretary, said: “The balance of the UK’s energy subsidies are all wrong. Denmark and Germany won big by investing early-on in what is now a hugely profitable offshore wind industry. The UK must not miss out on the opportunity to lead the world on the next generation of renewables, and support should be geared towards these technologies of the future.”

Craig Bennett, the Friends of the Earth CEO, said: “Spiralling climate change is going to cost people and our economy huge sums of money, through the damage, disruption and instability it causes. So it’s astonishing that the UK government is still throwing taxpayers’ money at some of the world’s largest oil and gas companies. Ministers must switch funding to rapidly boost energy efficiency and renewables.”

 

Last thoughts:
Go ahead and follow Greta and shut down the engine of the world. 7 billion mouths to feed and it can’t be done with pre industrial technology. Those lives lost will be on your bloody hands, not mine.

 

In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin for "argument to absurdity"), apagogical arguments, negation introduction or the appeal to extremes, is a form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction.[1][2] It can be used to disprove a statement by showing that it would inevitably lead to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion,[3] or to prove a statement by showing that if it were false, then the result would be absurd or impossible.

 

Should I be afraid?

What is the difference between combatting views here and in person?

Do you want to box, fuck or drink because I see nothing else that we cannot do here!

Are you going to scare me with your size tens?

Are you trying to scare me Mr Smith?

Thinskin

 

Is Greta short for Gretel,.. as in Hansel and Gretel? She'll get tired of all this, soon as she discovers boys at 18

 

And stay out of the left lane!

 

maybe caves but no fires. Creates C02. No exercising either. Exhalation releases CO2. Perhaps we can live along hot springs.

I guess we can’t have carnivorous pets either. No meat for you Spot and Fluffy. See what you can kill and eat in the neighborhood. Maybe that would work.

The fact is that people are going to continue driving whatever car they want and eating whatever they like and flying wherever they want.

As people in the third world get on this road to success they will do the same.

The onus will be on industry if these climate nuts create more and more legislation that they refuse to believe will cost jobs.

When the economy spirals into a recession or worse and they start losing their jobs I wonder how important Mother Earth will be to them.

 

A lesson not learned by your cowardly, (ex)Spy (Mrs Sacoolas) who killed a young man 'coz she was driving on the WRONG side of the road in UK.
Not only that but she and her husband jumped on the 1st plane back to US/A to escape justice.
Murdering COWARDS.

 

Yankee gun deaths have nothing to do with this but it was worth trying a distraction.

 

This thread is incomplete without this graphic:

 

Climate change is America’s fault under Trump but not under Obama but under Bush and not under Clinton.

China has nothing to do with it even being the biggest emitter.

Ok I think I got it.

 

@BigSuzyB
I have.
But more importantly I’ve seen people like AOC say we have maybe 12 years left. That’s panic.

 

By the way I’m still here and I will continue to speak my truth plainly and bravely!

 

Thunberg addressed the criticism she has received online saying:
"It's quite hilarious when the only thing people can do is mock you, or talk about your appearance or personality, as it means they have no argument or nothing else to say."[103]