Global warming fact or fiction? Has it effected when you use your stove?

[Billhook]

14 minutes ago, the village idiot said:

You would still need all countries working together.

 

In the present climate we are moving in the opposite direction.

 

 

Just as Peterson said

[the village idiot]

8 minutes ago, Billhook said:

Just as Peterson said

Kind of, yes.

 

I am a fan of most of what Peterson puts out (with a couple of notable exceptions).

 

I agree with Trigger though that the particular rant you posted wasn't one of his best.

[trigger_andy]

1 hour ago, Billhook said:

I have said it before, but the elephant in the room is overpopulation.  Think of the carbon footprint of each individual and you realise that 8 billion people is unsustainable and it needs to be reduced to about 2 billion.

The only way I can think of doing it without a war or dictatorship, is to put an infertility drug into manufactured sugar.  This may solve two problems at once.

I quite agree. The number of humans on earth is simply not sustainable. We do need to reduce numbers and it can be done without the bleeding hearts getting their panties in a bunch. 

 

 

[openspaceman]

5 minutes ago, trigger_andy said:

We do need to reduce numbers and it can be done without the bleeding hearts getting their panties in a bunch. 

Yes we are all naive to the smallpox virus now  and I'm sure some despot has some in the fridge somewhere, Would 30% mortality do the job? Or were you wanting something a bit more selective?

[trigger_andy]

1 hour ago, the village idiot said:

This is why we need to be forced to do things differently by law. There is very little political will for this though and we are not likely to elect anybody with it. We are a bit stuck.

Being forced to do things just means more tax, so Im obviously against that. The companies that are causing the problems need punished. They are the ones polluting the earth, they are the ones wrapping peeled Oranges in plastic. They are the ones releasing toxic waste into our rivers. Stop them and we're making progress. 

 

But allowing them to carry on and taxing us for using their products wont work. 

 

1 hour ago, the village idiot said:

The only way out is for all countries to take the necessary economic hits simultaneously, keeping a relatively level playing field. With richer countries helping out the poorer ones as required.

Never ever gonna happen. Surely you see that?

 

1 hour ago, the village idiot said:

We were making some promising progress with this very rare scenario until Trump pulled the USA out of the Paris Climate Accord, stating that action on climate change was "bad for business"

Of course Trump pulled out. China, India etc where just laughing into everyones faces. They are polluting just as badly as before but paying lip service to the world. There was no promising progress and even if someone was delusional to believe there was surely the other countries can just carry on pretending to save the planet? 

 

1 hour ago, the village idiot said:

 

This was an act of monumental nationalistic selfishness, and paved the way for other nations to pull out too

Its just common sense. Untill the likes of China, India and all the other countries that are causing insane amounts of pollution are forced to curb it then nothing will change. America is forced to play on 1st world terms whilst China gets to play dumb on 3rd world terms. All the while decimating the US economy. If you wanna be pissed off get pissed at the right countries.

[trigger_andy]

4 minutes ago, openspaceman said:

Yes we are all naive to the smallpox virus now  and I'm sure some despot has some in the fridge somewhere, Would 30% mortality do the job? Or were you wanting something a bit more selective?

Are your panties in a bunch? It sounds like they're in a bunch. 

[Mull]

I quite agree. The number of humans on earth is simply not sustainable. We do need to reduce numbers and it can be done without the bleeding hearts getting their panties in a bunch. 
 
 

Interesting, which humans should go first? The one in a mud hut farming with animals and no machinery or the one drilling oil with a couple of homes and five cars? Wonder what the actual carbon footprint of each is?
Just curious really as we sit on our tablets/phones etc preaching the “truth”.?

[trigger_andy]

Interesting, which humans should go first? The one in a mud hut farming with animals and no machinery or the one drilling oil with a couple of homes and five cars? Wonder what the actual carbon footprint of each is?
Just curious really as we sit on our tablets/phones etc preaching the “truth”.?

Damn, caught another one! This is too easy! ?.

It’s so funny to see folk jumping to the wildest of conclusions. I literally said the population needs reducing but in a way the bleeding hearts won’t get their panties in a bunch. Yet you imagine the worst then get your panties all bunched up. It’s hilarious.

[Mull]

Damn, caught another one! This is too easy! ?.

It’s so funny to see folk jumping to the wildest of conclusions. I literally said the population needs reducing but in a way the bleeding hearts won’t get their panties in a bunch. Yet you imagine the worst then get your panties all bunched up. It’s hilarious.

There you go again, “panties in a bunch” working with yanks so long you can’t think for yourself no more?

[trigger_andy]

There you go again, “panties in a bunch” working with yanks so long you can’t think for yourself no more?

My my, you’re just full of assumptions tonight.


“working with yanks so long you can’t think for yourself no more?”


Aside from the double negative that’s quite the American colloquialism you’ve got going on there.