[Pants-of-dog]

My children will despise me for not panicking like an imbecile and begging technocrats to tax the shit out of me? I don't think so, I think future generations will be grateful to everyone who worked to keep the technocrats and their imbecile hordes in check.

Why would future generations support the neoliberals and free marketeers who are conspiring to keep us using fossil fuels despite the observed drawbacks?

[SolarCross]

Why would future generations support the neoliberals and free marketeers who are conspiring to keep us using fossil fuels despite the observed drawbacks?

Every energy source has drawbacks but fossil fuels remain popular because they have rather stronger advantages than disadvantages. Future technologies might alter the calculus on that but future generations will be making the same kind of calculations that the current generations do: what gives the best bang for the buck.

[Pants-of-dog]

Every energy source has drawbacks but fossil fuels remain popular because they have rather stronger advantages than disadvantages. Future technologies might alter the calculus on that but future generations will be making the same kind of calculations that the current generations do: what gives the best bang for the buck.

Other than the ease of transporting chemical energy sources, it is almost certainly not true that fossil fuels are so much more advantageous that future generations will prefer that we had stayed with them. Unless cancer and rising sea levels are an advantage.

But you are free to provide evidence for this claim.

[SolarCross]

Other than the ease of transporting chemical energy sources, it is almost certainly not true that fossil fuels are so much more advantageous that future generations will prefer that we had stayed with them. Unless cancer and rising sea levels are an advantage.

But you are free to provide evidence for this claim.

They are the most portable. They have very good energy density. They don't cause cancer with proper handling, most people are able to avoid ingesting gasoline. The sea level thing is a myth. Unless nuclear technology advances to the point where nuclear power plants can be miniaturised to the scale of a car engine or electrical batteries can be improved to the point where their energy densities approach that of petroleum or coal then future generations will be using hydrocarbons with the same enthusiasm as current generations. More so because none of them will be deceived about the carbon hoax by then.

[Pants-of-dog]

They are the most portable.

Yes, i said that. Thanks for agreeing.

They have very good energy density. They don't cause cancer with proper handling, most people are able to avoid ingesting gasoline.

No, most people breathe in automobile exhaust every single day.

So, this is the first factual error you have made.

The sea level thing is a myth.

That makes two factual errors by you.

Unless nuclear technology advances to the point where nuclear power plants can be miniaturised to the scale of a car engine or electrical batteries can be improved to the point where their energy densities approach that of petroleum or coal then future generations will be using hydrocarbons with the same enthusiasm as current generations. More so because none of them will be deceived about the carbon hoax by then.

I have no problem with spreading nuclear technology across the globe.

Are you comfortable with Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, etc, having nuclear power?

[SolarCross]

Yes, i said that. Thanks for agreeing.
No, most people breathe in automobile exhaust every single day.

So, this is the first factual error you have made.

Inhaling is different from ingesting. No one gets cancer from breathing in carbon dioxide (it would be bad news indeed if it did because carbon dioxide is the same thing we breath out). Fine particles might cause irritation of sensitive tissues, that is an issue with coal and diesel exhaust which is sooty rather than gassy, but that isn't cancer. If you had said higher risk of COPD rather than cancer you would at least be being plausibly factual.

That makes two factual errors by you.

An examination of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels concurrent with global temperture levels over long time scales reveal that there is no correlation at all between tempertures and carbon dioxide levels AND that current carbon dioxide levels are extremely low. Those are the hard facts.

I have no problem with spreading nuclear technology across the globe.

Well that is one thing we agree on, but it remains that nuclear technology is not particularly miniturisable at this time. The smallest portable generators still weigh in at several tons, small enough to be practical in 1000 ton warship or submersible but too big for a personal transportation device. Plus of course nuclear tech has its own far more challenging hazards.

Are you comfortable with Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, etc, having nuclear power?

Sure, though I suspect they will be rather more prone to nuclear accidents than most countries, but that will be mostly a self-inflicted injury and not a great worry for me.

[Pants-of-dog]

Inhaling is different from ingesting. No one gets cancer from breathing in carbon dioxide (it would be bad news indeed if it did because carbon dioxide is the same thing we breath out). Fine particles might cause irritation of sensitive tissues, that is an issue with coal and diesel exhaust which is sooty rather than gassy, but that isn't cancer. If you had said higher risk of COPD rather than cancer you would at least be being plausibly factual.

https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/ehp.11293

So, you are factually wrong.

Fossil fuel exhaust has been linked with higher rates of lung cancer.

Long term examination of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels concurrent with global temperture levels reveal that there is no correlation at all between tempertures and carbon dioxide levels AND that current carbon dioxide levels are extremely low. Those are the hard facts.

No, you are wrong.

And this is why you refuse to provide evidence.

Well that is one thing we agree on, but it remains that nuclear technology is not particularly miniturisable at this time. The smallest portable generators still weigh in at several tons, small enough to be practical in 1000 ton warship or submersible but too big for a personal transportation device. Plus of course nuclear tech has its own far more challenging hazards.

Sure, though I suspect they will be rather more prone to nuclear accidents than most countries, but that will be mostly a self-inflicted injury and not a great worry for me.

I notice you have failed to support any of your points with evidence.

[B0ycey]

No one gets cancer from breathing in carbon dioxide (it would be bad news indeed if it did because carbon dioxide is the same thing we breath out).

Since when is car pollution just Carbon Dioxide? There is definately Carbon Monoxide and other sooty particles. Your logic would imply cigarettes couldn't cause cancer either.

[Zionist Nationalist]

You cant stop climate change its too late just deal with it (you can thank India and China for that)
and it wont be such a big disaster as the media is portraying it there are clear interests behind the climate change agenda
Im neutral on this subject but I think lowering dependence on crude oil is good so countries that built their economy around it (Russia,China,) will eat shit
I would include Venezuela on the list but the shit have already hit the fan there

[Hindsite]

@Hindsite, science bad?

Science good. Climate hysteria bad.

[Atlantis]

What a contrast!

Wanton violence and destruction by hate-filled yellow vests on the one side and peaceful student protests against climate change on the other side.

Yet warped people here find fault with the kids.

Paris: 40,000 climate protesters dodge riotous 'yellow vests'

[Hindsite]

What a contrast!

Wanton violence and destruction by hate-filled yellow vests on the one side and peaceful student protests against climate change on the other side.

Yet warped people here find fault with the kids. [/url]

As I previously pointed out the fault does not lie with the kids, but with the unscrupulous educators and so-called scientists that spread this doomsday climate crisis narrative to instill the crazy unreasonable fear into the kids.

[AFAIK]

@SolarCross hasn't even heard of dieselgate and thinks the only thing emitted when fossil fuels are burnt is carbon dioxide. Reading his posts is a waste of time.

[Sivad]

Technocrat: "OMFG the sky is literally falling with all the filthy life destroying carbon, quick give me all your money so I can save you!"

The IMF and the World Bank are pushing developing countries to use the revenue from carbon taxes to service their bankster debt.

The World Bank and International Monetary Fund are pressing governments to impose a price tag on planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions, using economic leverage and technical assistance that institutions like the United Nations cannot muster.

The I.M.F., often seen as the world’s lender of last resort, is also consulting and advising countries on how best to introduce carbon pricing, in part as a way for struggling nations to raise more revenue.

“We can’t make a loan conditional on carbon pricing, but for a country facing a large deficit, we could recommend that they use carbon pricing as a way to simultaneously meet their pledges in Paris and close their deficit,” said Ian Parry, principal environmental fiscal policy expert at the I.M.F.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/us/p ... d-imf.html

So the global technate wants to tax energy on people that are already starving for energy and funnel the revenue back to its own coffers.

[Sivad]

This is something I hadn't really considered before but this climate hoax is a good way to slow and control the growth and development of the third world. The global middle class that's beginning to emerge in the developing world is a big problem for the globalist oligarchs because not only does it put a strain on world resources but once people acquire enough wealth to not have to focus all of their energy on daily survival they begin to develop political awareness and class interests which makes it much more difficult to control and exploit them. If there was a way to put the brakes on that development and maintain the status quo for another century or so the globalist oligarchs would jump all over it...

The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.

The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.

The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as "the circle of commitment" – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week.

The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol's principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.

The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as "a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks".

A confidential analysis of the text by developing countries also seen by the Guardian shows deep unease over details of the text. In particular, it is understood to:

• Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;

• Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable";

• Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance;

• Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.

Developing countries that have seen the text are understood to be furious that it is being promoted by rich countries without their knowledge and without discussion in the negotiations.

"It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process," said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless.

"It proposes a green fund to be run by a board but the big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility [a partnership of 10 agencies including the World Bank and the UN Environment Programme] and not the UN. That would be a step backwards, and it tries to put constraints on developing countries when none were negotiated in earlier UN climate talks."

Few numbers or figures are included in the text because these would be filled in later by world leaders.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... anish-text

So this is all just the next phase of colonialism. There was the old school colonialism, the neoliberal colonialism, and now the globalists are transitioning to eco-colonialism. First it was Jesus, then it was markets, and now it's Mother Earth.

[B0ycey]

As I previously pointed out the fault does not lie with the kids, but with the unscrupulous educators and so-called scientists that spread this doomsday climate crisis narrative to instill the crazy unreasonable fear into the kids.

The fault doesn't lie with the ignorant but the oil shills who spread their lies in order to fool the ignorant into thinking there is no correlation with rising global tempertures, increased and stronger weather events, melting ice caps to an increase of CO2 in the air.

[Hindsite]

The fault doesn't lie with the ignorant but the oil shills who spread their lies in order to fool the ignorant into thinking there is no correlation with rising global tempertures, increased and stronger weather events, melting ice caps to an increase of CO2 in the air.

I am sure you must know all about it and people like me are just ignorant naysayers.

[skinster]

I like this song.
[0]=68.ARAzvt4GG2kRFz_yBx-8NGV9wTC_OCGIVy6EXipBECCftg8Sj0FvQ6So8hN-azuyFKbkuoyhk4V4wYzqYMyffYs2F2XPpvu-6AltyXFF8-zSXQ1GmU5i73J159HmuySEJwc-249zZn8wg6esktjLRGKlzyjdtjqZC3iajG8kzYsyE8omtnC0_8Mz2HHCVG6kOwP0la5Ns83bvprFkEX0e5I1oCT93jLMzt8lymW7hdmBrmCnSMqsB2yTuOJajb-sTy0cQA3rgTE5vgI-nCRNzZwoZcRnVCuzSEXZn3bnayKkATxe7y3-zSeUvVxAplXYPUPldPJBpTNon_B8Cojfj2JCGRRsG3E&__tn__=H-R

[Sivad]

WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord

Hidden behind the save-the-world rhetoric of the global climate change negotiations lies the mucky realpolitik: money and threats buy political support; spying and cyberwarfare are used to seek out leverage.

The US diplomatic cables reveal how the US seeks dirt on nations opposed to its approach to tackling global warming; how financial and other aid is used by countries to gain political backing; how distrust, broken promises and creative accounting dog negotiations; and how the US mounted a secret global diplomatic offensive to overwhelm opposition to the controversial "Copenhagen accord", the unofficial document that emerged from the ruins of the Copenhagen climate change summit in 2009.

Negotiating a climate treaty is a high-stakes game, not just because of the danger warming poses to civilisation but also because re-engineering the global economy to a low-carbon model will see the flow of billions of dollars redirected.

Seeking negotiating chips, the US state department sent a secret cable on 31 July 2009 seeking human intelligence from UN diplomats across a range of issues, including climate change. The request originated with the CIA. As well as countries' negotiating positions for Copenhagen, diplomats were asked to provide evidence of UN environmental "treaty circumvention" and deals between nations.

US determination to seek allies against its most powerful adversaries – the rising economic giants of Brazil, South Africa, India, China (Basic) – is set out in another cable from Brussels on 17 February reporting a meeting between the deputy national security adviser, Michael Froman, Hedegaard and other EU officials.

Froman said the EU needed to learn from Basic's skill at impeding US and EU initiatives and playing them off against each in order "to better handle third country obstructionism and avoid future train wrecks on climate

The US cut aid to Bolivia and Ecuador, citing opposition to the accord.

After the Copenhagen summit, further linking of finance and aid with political support appears. Dutch officials, initially rejecting US overtures to back the accord, make a startling statement on 25 January. According to a cable, the Dutch climate negotiator Sanne Kaasjager "has drafted messages for embassies in capitals receiving Dutch development assistance to solicit support [for the accord]. This is an unprecedented move for the Dutch government, which traditionally recoils at any suggestion to use aid money as political leverage."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ate-accord

So the globalists want to throttle emerging economic rivals with energy rationing. This has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with maintaining geopolitical hegemony.

[Pants-of-dog]

To me that reads like the USA is forcing everyone to do nothing about climate change. Which disproves your point.

If you continue reading, the impression is further supported.