Twitching & Birdwatching6 mins ago
Can Someone Tell These Brats......
86 Answers
https:/ /www.bb c.co.uk /newsro und/647 18547
....that anything Austria does makes zero difference to world emissions. Why do they not target the countries that can make a difference?
....that anything Austria does makes zero difference to world emissions. Why do they not target the countries that can make a difference?
Answers
//if global average surface temperatures reach 4 degrees of warming above pre-industrial levels then huge parts of the earth will be unfit for human habitation (though some areas will likely become habitable) and agriculture on the scale that we understand it will be impossible...//
If this is true (and I've some doubts that it is, but won't argue) then people will have to move and agriculture as we understand it will have to change to agriculture as we don't understand it. Because one thing is for sure - mankind has no more chance of controlling global average surface temperatures than it has of preventing the tides ebb and flow. Attempts have been ongoing in earnest for around forty years and have spectacularly failed, despite vast sums being expended. Average global temperatures are now about 0.8 degrees C above the 20th Century average. As a result of these failed efforts, European economies have suffered from energy insecurity and vast sums of what is essentially worthless money have been printed and used to pay citizens' energy bills. This will only worsen as it is not possible or sustainable to produce enough energy from so-called "renewables" (which include about 14m tons annually of mature timber, freshly felled on the other side of the Atlantic, processed and shipped to be burnt in Yorkshire).
This is a ludicrous state of affairs which is costing huge sums for no substantial benefit. Governments need to wise up and accept that the climate cannot be controlled. Producing "league tables" such as the one cited above, is simply window dressing. To believe otherwise is delusional - with far more damaging consequences than if they were to accept the truth.
If this is true (and I've some doubts that it is, but won't argue) then people will have to move and agriculture as we understand it will have to change to agriculture as we don't understand it. Because one thing is for sure - mankind has no more chance of controlling global average surface temperatures than it has of preventing the tides ebb and flow. Attempts have been ongoing in earnest for around forty years and have spectacularly failed, despite vast sums being expended. Average global temperatures are now about 0.8 degrees C above the 20th Century average. As a result of these failed efforts, European economies have suffered from energy insecurity and vast sums of what is essentially worthless money have been printed and used to pay citizens' energy bills. This will only worsen as it is not possible or sustainable to produce enough energy from so-called "renewables" (which include about 14m tons annually of mature timber, freshly felled on the other side of the Atlantic, processed and shipped to be burnt in Yorkshire).
This is a ludicrous state of affairs which is costing huge sums for no substantial benefit. Governments need to wise up and accept that the climate cannot be controlled. Producing "league tables" such as the one cited above, is simply window dressing. To believe otherwise is delusional - with far more damaging consequences than if they were to accept the truth.
"then people will have to move and agriculture as we understand it will have to change to agriculture as we don't understand it."
right but we were talking about which would be economically worse.... climate change or doing nothing about climate change... i think we can agree that billions of people fleeing uninhabitable zones and fighting over food will be worse than carbon credits or controlling emissions... which I agree will probably cause short term economic pain
the scenario i describe is one of the higher warming ones and is indeed preventable... if you understand what the greenhouse effect is then you understand how humans can and do affect global average surface temperatures... your opposition appears to be ideological rather than empirical
right but we were talking about which would be economically worse.... climate change or doing nothing about climate change... i think we can agree that billions of people fleeing uninhabitable zones and fighting over food will be worse than carbon credits or controlling emissions... which I agree will probably cause short term economic pain
the scenario i describe is one of the higher warming ones and is indeed preventable... if you understand what the greenhouse effect is then you understand how humans can and do affect global average surface temperatures... your opposition appears to be ideological rather than empirical
In continually feeding this unachievable nonsense to our children, together with the encouragement of 'woke' ideas, we are instilling paranoia.
The latest 'initiative' comes from Morrison's Supermarkets, who in order to help save the planet are switching heating off and lights down at certain times, leaving customers in their shops in gloom, and one woman using their toilets in complete darkness. Seriously, what good will this do? And what happened to Health & Safety?
https:/ /www.th esun.co .uk/mon ey/2145 3642/he ad-torc h-groce ries-fr eezing- morriso ns/
The latest 'initiative' comes from Morrison's Supermarkets, who in order to help save the planet are switching heating off and lights down at certain times, leaving customers in their shops in gloom, and one woman using their toilets in complete darkness. Seriously, what good will this do? And what happened to Health & Safety?
https:/
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.