I found the clip believable. I'm not willing to argue with those who don't. The World has committed to Solar, Wind, Wave and Geothermal, with the guilt trips imposed by Financiers, Banks, Politicians, Anarchists and such. To the extent of us all rushing inexorably to the point of no return.
Wanda said
01:22 PM Dec 3, 2021
Here we go again,
Seriously, do you people have nothing better to do?
Over to you Mike, must be your turn next!!
Ian
norto said
01:27 PM Dec 3, 2021
One mans view of Americas possible future, not that it will worry him he has a net worth of $950 million
But the fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves. And its more than just $50 for a pound of beef or a $1,000 monthly electricity bill. This mid winter nightmare gets worse, much worse.
On your drive to the gas station, you detour to avoid a group of protestors/looters, who are burning tires in the middle of the road. You don't want to get stopped by them. They will pull you from your car and beat you to death right in the street.
And then, when you see the prices at the pumps, you may want to murder someone, too. You paid just $39 for a gallon of regular the week before. Now, it is $45.
And then, there's no gas at all.
Well, what would you expect?
The worlds leading governments embarked on a Great Transition away from fossil fuel. At the United Nations COP26 Climate Change Conference in 2021, they aimed to cut the use of gas, coal, and oil in half by 2035.
It would cost US$150 trillion, said US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen.
But all the major nations were already running huge deficits. The only way they could fund the transition along with their marvelous social infrastructure programs was by printing money.
Cold War on fossil fuels
Thus did the great nations light a stick of dynamite at both ends.
It was fossil fuel that made it possible to feed, clothe, and house eight billion people.
There were fewer than two billion people on the planet in 1900. Solar energy, sequestered in oil, gas, and coal, made it possible to quadruple the population.
But take away the fossil fuel, and what would those extra six billion people eat? Where would they live? How would they keep warm?
And pay for this transition with fake money? Even in 2021, the inflation rate in the US was running at 6%. Wasn't it obvious that printing more money would make it worse?
The policymakers said they would replace oil, gas, and coal, with solar, wind, and geothermal energy. But in 2021, renewables only represented, effectively, about 5% of the worlds total energy supplies even after four decades of investment and development.
And tractors didn't run on solar power or windmills; they ran on gasoline, which had gotten scarce.
And where was the mystery in that?
When governments turned off traditional energy sources while subsidising and bankrolling green energy with trillions in newly printed money they set in motion supply-side disruptions that proved well fatal.
Regards,
Bill Bonner,
-- Edited by norto on Friday 3rd of December 2021 01:30:21 PM
Mike Harding said
02:53 PM Dec 3, 2021
Wanda wrote:
Here we go again, Seriously, do you people have nothing better to do? Over to you Mike, must be your turn next!! Ian
Wanda: your failing is that you suffer from a certainty that you know what is right.
Wanda said
03:56 PM Dec 3, 2021
Mike Harding wrote:
Wanda wrote:
Here we go again, Seriously, do you people have nothing better to do? Over to you Mike, must be your turn next!! Ian
Wanda: your failing is that you suffer from a certainty that you know what is right.
NEXT
ps: thanks for not disappointing me Mike.
-- Edited by Wanda on Friday 3rd of December 2021 04:01:00 PM
Rob Driver said
04:45 PM Dec 3, 2021
Make sure you blokes leave a spot in case someone turns a light on.
peter67 said
06:16 PM Dec 3, 2021
That vid was an eyeopener.
dorian said
08:06 AM Dec 4, 2021
Can we rely on "an Informative Presentation" from a fake "university"? I think not.
PragerU, short for Prager University, is an American 501(c)nonprofitmedia company that creates videos on various political, economic, and sociological topics from an American conservative viewpoint. The organization was co-founded by Allen Estrin and talk show host and writer Dennis Prager in 2009.The organization relies on tax-deductible donations, and much of its early funding came from billionaires Dan and Farris Wilks.
Despite the name, PragerU is not an academic institution and does not hold classes, does not grant certifications or diplomas, and is not accredited by any recognized body. PragerU is frequently criticized for presenting misleading or factually incorrect content in its videos, particularly those that downplay climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, and racism, as well as those that oppose immigration.
Wanda said
09:11 AM Dec 4, 2021
dorian wrote:
Can we rely on "an Informative Presentation" from a fake "university"? I think not.
PragerU, short for Prager University, is an American 501(c)nonprofitmedia company that creates videos on various political, economic, and sociological topics from an American conservative viewpoint. The organization was co-founded by Allen Estrin and talk show host and writer Dennis Prager in 2009.The organization relies on tax-deductible donations, and much of its early funding came from billionaires Dan and Farris Wilks.
Despite the name, PragerU is not an academic institution and does not hold classes, does not grant certifications or diplomas, and is not accredited by any recognized body. PragerU is frequently criticized for presenting misleading or factually incorrect content in its videos, particularly those that downplay climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, and racism, as well as those that oppose immigration.
Why do "people" post this crap?
(the original post)
-- Edited by Wanda on Saturday 4th of December 2021 09:12:15 AM
-- Edited by Wanda on Saturday 4th of December 2021 09:12:56 AM
TheHeaths said
09:30 AM Dec 4, 2021
Unfortunately I found the video little more than the normal extreme bias, supposed information, propaganda that one expects when information is put forward by any side, of any argument, at any time. Even the use of the name Unobtainium in this example was just an extreme click bait to the presentation.
Things presented in this video, as an argument against using renewable energy, can equally be applied to existing fossil fuel sources and their production. Big mines, expensive infrastructure, located in hostile countries, large creation of waste, use of non union labour and non generation of income for America are NOT renewable energy issues alone. None of what was presented was worth considering as a reason for not exploring the use of alternate sources of energy.
A couple of things that I did think was an interesting quote was the that we have a virtually inexhaustible supply of fossil fuels according to the video producers! I would like to see the facts backing that up, and then the huge use of resources to build electric cars completely ignoring the massive use of resources to build ICE cars.
The quoting of numbers without any form of backup or citing of where they are from is typical of most extreme sides of ANY side of this argument. As we all know, statistics can be made to say what either side wants, and can be quoted without source for impact. In fact 85.7% of all statistics are made up!
So, I would be ignoring this information if I was attempting to build a balanced, logical understanding of the renewable/non renewable, climate change debate. Unfortunately, the quoting of extreme proof by both sides of this argument turn me away from both of their positions.
-- Edited by TheHeaths on Saturday 4th of December 2021 09:35:23 AM
Rob Driver said
09:45 AM Dec 4, 2021
Wanda wrote:
dorian wrote:
Can we rely on "an Informative Presentation" from a fake "university"? I think not.
PragerU, short for Prager University, is an American 501(c)nonprofitmedia company that creates videos on various political, economic, and sociological topics from an American conservative viewpoint. The organization was co-founded by Allen Estrin and talk show host and writer Dennis Prager in 2009.The organization relies on tax-deductible donations, and much of its early funding came from billionaires Dan and Farris Wilks.
Despite the name, PragerU is not an academic institution and does not hold classes, does not grant certifications or diplomas, and is not accredited by any recognized body. PragerU is frequently criticized for presenting misleading or factually incorrect content in its videos, particularly those that downplay climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, and racism, as well as those that oppose immigration.
Why do "people" post this crap?
(the original post)
-- Edited by Wanda on Saturday 4th of December 2021 09:12:15 AM
-- Edited by Wanda on Saturday 4th of December 2021 09:12:56 AM
Hi Wanda,
Debunking the debunkers is what it is about. It doesnt add a lot to genuine debate but it makes entertaining reading for some.
No matter what monetary or scientific facts are put up, there will always be someone will jump to the challenge to debunk the facts presented, and vica verca in a lot of instances.
The easiest way that those who need to feel all warm and fuzzy about the money they drop into the bottomless pit to save the planet in ten years, is to discredit the presenter and the sources of the facts.
If you believe the money you pay and will be paying in the future will fix the Earths climate, then go right ahead.
If this is the case scroll on by,
If you dont like the original post and dont wish to reply constructively then scroll on by.
If you dont have an opinion or thought on the subject then the topic is not for you.
Presently the topic has had 227 views and 11 comments. If at the end of the day that number hasnt increased then those people have voted with their fingers
Have a nice day Wanda.
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Saturday 4th of December 2021 09:48:17 AM
Mike Harding said
09:50 AM Dec 4, 2021
TheHeaths wrote:
The quoting of numbers without any form of backup or citing of where they are from is typical of most extreme sides of ANY side of this argument.
Well said TheHeaths.
This is why I don't usually involve myself in climate change arguments; invariably the main debating points are around numbers, which may or may not be either true or accurate, but which certainly would involve me in four hours of research to prove either way, if they are indeed provable at all.
I suspect we all agree that we should put less crap into the atmosphere and less crap into the oceans - after that it's simply a discussion about how to do so whilst causing the least damage to our society and is, essentially, a financial discussion.
Apart from all that... I'm bored stiff by it all - let the new generation of oh so smart kidlets sort it out, they seem to know everything after all.
Edit: typo
-- Edited by Mike Harding on Saturday 4th of December 2021 09:51:36 AM
Rob Driver said
10:44 AM Dec 4, 2021
Dorian,
While you are quick to discredit the presenter in the link in the original post, you havent given any of us your personal run down as to how legitament (sp) are the qualifications of Greta Thunberg.
After all isnt she an actor who is doing a presentation on climate.
And you are slipping, you havent de bunked nortos post YET.
Some good points in the last couple of posts by MH and The Heaths.
One fact ( no we should not call it fact) for want of a better world, is that those who deny the quoted doom and gloom arent demanding that all Australians pay an extra tax, levy, fee, or penalty in the hope of supposedly fixing a problem which has yet to be PROVEN in a world where Australia has no control at all.
Australia and its people arent to blame, Australia would be seen in a better light that if at the next so called DOOM OF THE WORLD meeting, we inform those wanting our money, that Australia has planted X amount of trees per set period and to continue to do so will be Australias way of assisting with any perceived C02 levels in our atmosphere. We could do other things in addition to this but lets just keep it simple for now.
Money for development for new technology should come from those standing to make the profit, not those that are going to be potentially buying that product.
Having two bob each way is a safer bet but it is not addressing the problem that we are facing with demands of money from other countries.
In time I am absolutely positive that the worlds tech giants and others will come up with alternative fuels but I dont want my family to be paying our money to any unfounded or dubious source on the heresay of some 16 year old school girl whos statement and tears are prompted for effect.
Our government leaders should make decisions the way MOST Australians want us to go and not be influenced by a vocal minority as it exists presently.
One new tree per person per year in Australia would be 26 million trees per year. I am not a scientist but the effect of this could be calculated.
Wanda said
11:05 AM Dec 4, 2021
"Our government leaders should make decisions the way MOST Australians want us to go and not be influenced by a vocal minority as it exists presently."
I think your the minority RD
Rob Driver said
11:13 AM Dec 4, 2021
Wanda wrote:
I think your the minority RD
And you base that on what?
I hope you dont think that a group of unemployed miscreants on the steps of Parliament House represent the majority, nor do the complete idiots that decide to chain themselves to a railway line in NQ.
But if you are correct we are in big big trouble.
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Saturday 4th of December 2021 11:16:56 AM
Wanda said
11:23 AM Dec 4, 2021
Mate, I can't be bothered getting into a discussion with you.
I cringe every time I see a post from you and your buddy MH.
Your happy to put **** on a 16yr old who has the guts to get up and at least have a go, good on her and her generation.
They are going to have to fix what our generation has stuffed up or refuses to accept.
Bitter twisted old men, the sooner their gone the better off this world will be.
Likewise have a good day
Ian
Rob Driver said
11:32 AM Dec 4, 2021
Wanda wrote:
Mate, I can't be bothered getting into a discussion with you. I cringe every time I see a post from you and your buddy MH. Your happy to put **** on a 16yr old who has the guts to get up and at least have a go, good on her and her generation. They are going to have to fix what our generation has stuffed up or refuses to accept. Bitter twisted old men, the sooner their gone the better off this world will be. Likewise have a good day Ian
Thanks for your view.
Just to clear one thing up I didnt put anything on the 16 year old girl, both her and her producers and directors brought that on themselves but dont get your knickers in a twist, her statements have not been debunked in this topic as has others whose comments appear to be against at least, one forum commentators beliefs.
As I suggested, if you dont like me or any other contributor in any topic then dont sweat, just scroll on past the topic.
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Saturday 4th of December 2021 11:33:26 AM
There is a factory in Victoria that recycles batteries so another video statement debunked. And why would Mills produce such a video? Maybe because according to this URL:
Mills is financed by the fossil fuel industries with vast investments in fossil fuels. Conflict of interest? Definitely.
As I've said before, and it's getting tedious repeating myself, ask yourself the qualifications of the sources you provide? Are shock jocks, non climate scientists or people with fossil fuel investments or finances really going to give informed, unbiased opinions? No, but deniers keep on clutching at sources that support their beliefs.
dorian said
11:49 AM Dec 4, 2021
@Rob, as far as I can tell, Thunberg is merely an activist who is calling on governments to follow the recommendations of climate scientists. She is concerned about the world that the older generation will leave behind for her. Unlike you, she doesn't preach in Internet forums about Milankovitch cycles and other subjects which she knows nothing about. Therefore, her knowledge, or lack of knowledge, of the various factors influencing the global warming discussion is moot.
As for renewables, I can't see how they could completely replace traditional energy sources, but it's better than doing nothing. I'm hoping that nuclear fusion will be the saviour.
Rob Driver said
12:28 PM Dec 4, 2021
@Dorian, she sounds similar to the presenter in the video above only he is preaching to the educated and the wealthy and not the gullible and those easily lead.
Not once did he mention that we should send money to anyone.
G Thunberg wont mention Milankovitch because it does not suit her cause, but I do admit that her plea is based on emotion and not fact.
I just get so envious (not) of reports of my generations effort to destroy the world for our children yet it is G Thunberg s generation that is the most power hungry consumers the world has ever seen.
Try asking a child to turn out a light, turn off a TV, not have a phone, ride a bike, with very few exceptions they all know better.
According to climate fanatics the world will end in 10 years. Dont complain when to buy a tank full of fossil fuel it will cost you a great deal more than it does now and dont be surprised that if you plug your car into a source of renewable energy ( which is not actually renewable energy because we can not turn of power stations, remember the power hungry kids that are going to save the world) this renewable energy will be the new way for governments to collect yet another tax.
I think your observations are correct in that within a perceivable time frame we wont replace fossil fuels with renewables but it is criminal for any organisation to demand that we start to pay for this power hungry next generation.
Kerry Packer once said on the subject of tax:
*A government will be happy to introduce a new tax but, in doing so, they never repeal the old or existing one.*
As I have said in other posts,
Plant a Tree.
And I will add that after you have planted it, boast about it.
A government doesnt care less about planting trees to fix the planet, for one reason.
How do they Tax a Tree.?
The only fact about Climate Change that it is a business and the more people that it sucks in then the bigger will be the Cash Cow.
norto said
12:33 PM Dec 4, 2021
Follow the money and you will find the truth.
Rob Driver said
12:41 PM Dec 4, 2021
norto wrote:
Follow the money and you will find the truth.
It is so simple.
Wanda said
12:49 PM Dec 4, 2021
Rob Driver wrote:
Wanda wrote:
Mate, I can't be bothered getting into a discussion with you. I cringe every time I see a post from you and your buddy MH. Your happy to put **** on a 16yr old who has the guts to get up and at least have a go, good on her and her generation. They are going to have to fix what our generation has stuffed up or refuses to accept. Bitter twisted old men, the sooner their gone the better off this world will be. Likewise have a good day Ian
Thanks for your view.
Just to clear one thing up I didnt put anything on the 16 year old girl, both her and her producers and directors brought that on themselves but dont get your knickers in a twist, her statements have not been debunked in this topic as has others whose comments appear to be against at least, one forum commentators beliefs.
As I suggested, if you dont like me or any other contributor in any topic then dont sweat, just scroll on past the topic.
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Saturday 4th of December 2021 11:33:26 AM
Maybe you should read some of the garbage you write
and by the way,
If I wish to comment I will continue to do so, much like you do, so, if you don't like my comments, just scroll on by buddy!
have a good day
Wanda said
12:51 PM Dec 4, 2021
Rob Driver wrote:
Wanda wrote:
Mate, I can't be bothered getting into a discussion with you. I cringe every time I see a post from you and your buddy MH. Your happy to put **** on a 16yr old who has the guts to get up and at least have a go, good on her and her generation. They are going to have to fix what our generation has stuffed up or refuses to accept. Bitter twisted old men, the sooner their gone the better off this world will be. Likewise have a good day Ian
Thanks for your view.
Just to clear one thing up I didnt put anything on the 16 year old girl, both her and her producers and directors brought that on themselves but dont get your knickers in a twist, her statements have not been debunked in this topic as has others whose comments appear to be against at least, one forum commentators beliefs.
As I suggested, if you dont like me or any other contributor in any topic then dont sweat, just scroll on past the topic.
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Saturday 4th of December 2021 11:33:26 AM
Maybe you should read some of the garbage you write
and by the way,
If I wish to comment on a post I will continue to do so, much like you do, so, if you don't like my comments, just scroll on by buddy!
have a good day
Mike Harding said
01:15 PM Dec 4, 2021
Wanda wrote:
I cringe every time I see a post from you and your buddy MH.
Oh that is excellent! I must ensure I post more often.
dorian said
01:33 PM Dec 4, 2021
@Rob, I don't have any time for the "me, me, me, now, now, now" generation. I hope they get the world that they deserve.
Personally, I couldn't give a toss about the future of the planet. If it were up to me, I would push the Armageddon button right now. The human race isn't worth saving.
Santa said
01:59 PM Dec 4, 2021
dorian wrote:
@Rob, I don't have any time for the "me, me, me, now, now, now" generation. I hope they get the world that they deserve.
Personally, I couldn't give a toss about the future of the planet. If it were up to me, I would push the Armageddon button right now. The human race isn't worth saving.
Sounds like you've been reading Schopenhauer Dorian, he was another cheerful soul.
German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer was such an extreme pessimist that he thought we live in the worst of all possible worlds and happiness is an illusion. This is what makes it surprising that he wrote a best-selling book containing a self-help section. And yet he did. Although calling it self-help is somewhat misleading; the main aim of his advice was really reducing misery.
Yup, old Arthur was full of fun."
Mike Harding said
02:47 PM Dec 4, 2021
dorian wrote:
Personally, I couldn't give a toss about the future of the planet. If it were up to me, I would push the Armageddon button right now. The human race isn't worth saving.
Come on Dorian, cheer up!
Shall we argue about firearms? That'll buck you up :)
Buzz Lightbulb said
02:53 PM Dec 4, 2021
norto wrote:
Follow the money and you will find the truth.
Yes. People and organisations promoting climate denial are usually financed by the fossil fuel industries.
Grab yourselves a cup of your favourite beverage and take the time to watch this presentation.
https://youtu.be/RqppRC37OgI
Seriously, do you people have nothing better to do?
Over to you Mike, must be your turn next!!
Ian
One mans view of Americas possible future, not that it will worry him he has a net worth of $950 million
But the fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves. And its more than just $50 for a pound of beef or a $1,000 monthly electricity bill. This mid winter nightmare gets worse, much worse.
On your drive to the gas station, you detour to avoid a group of protestors/looters, who are burning tires in the middle of the road. You don't want to get stopped by them. They will pull you from your car and beat you to death right in the street.
And then, when you see the prices at the pumps, you may want to murder someone, too. You paid just $39 for a gallon of regular the week before. Now, it is $45.
And then, there's no gas at all.
Well, what would you expect?
The worlds leading governments embarked on a Great Transition away from fossil fuel. At the United Nations COP26 Climate Change Conference in 2021, they aimed to cut the use of gas, coal, and oil in half by 2035.
It would cost US$150 trillion, said US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen.
But all the major nations were already running huge deficits. The only way they could fund the transition along with their marvelous social infrastructure programs was by printing money.
Cold War on fossil fuels
Thus did the great nations light a stick of dynamite at both ends.
It was fossil fuel that made it possible to feed, clothe, and house eight billion people.
There were fewer than two billion people on the planet in 1900. Solar energy, sequestered in oil, gas, and coal, made it possible to quadruple the population.
But take away the fossil fuel, and what would those extra six billion people eat? Where would they live? How would they keep warm?
And pay for this transition with fake money? Even in 2021, the inflation rate in the US was running at 6%. Wasn't it obvious that printing more money would make it worse?
The policymakers said they would replace oil, gas, and coal, with solar, wind, and geothermal energy. But in 2021, renewables only represented, effectively, about 5% of the worlds total energy supplies even after four decades of investment and development.
And tractors didn't run on solar power or windmills; they ran on gasoline, which had gotten scarce.
And where was the mystery in that?
When governments turned off traditional energy sources while subsidising and bankrolling green energy with trillions in newly printed money they set in motion supply-side disruptions that proved well fatal.
Regards,
Bill Bonner,
-- Edited by norto on Friday 3rd of December 2021 01:30:21 PM
Wanda: your failing is that you suffer from a certainty that you know what is right.
NEXT
ps: thanks for not disappointing me Mike.
-- Edited by Wanda on Friday 3rd of December 2021 04:01:00 PM
Make sure you blokes leave a spot in case someone turns a light on.
Can we rely on "an Informative Presentation" from a fake "university"? I think not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PragerU
PragerU, short for Prager University, is an American 501(c) nonprofit media company that creates videos on various political, economic, and sociological topics from an American conservative viewpoint. The organization was co-founded by Allen Estrin and talk show host and writer Dennis Prager in 2009. The organization relies on tax-deductible donations, and much of its early funding came from billionaires Dan and Farris Wilks.
Despite the name, PragerU is not an academic institution and does not hold classes, does not grant certifications or diplomas, and is not accredited by any recognized body. PragerU is frequently criticized for presenting misleading or factually incorrect content in its videos, particularly those that downplay climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, and racism, as well as those that oppose immigration.
Why do "people" post this crap?
(the original post)
-- Edited by Wanda on Saturday 4th of December 2021 09:12:15 AM
-- Edited by Wanda on Saturday 4th of December 2021 09:12:56 AM
Unfortunately I found the video little more than the normal extreme bias, supposed information, propaganda that one expects when information is put forward by any side, of any argument, at any time. Even the use of the name Unobtainium in this example was just an extreme click bait to the presentation.
Things presented in this video, as an argument against using renewable energy, can equally be applied to existing fossil fuel sources and their production. Big mines, expensive infrastructure, located in hostile countries, large creation of waste, use of non union labour and non generation of income for America are NOT renewable energy issues alone. None of what was presented was worth considering as a reason for not exploring the use of alternate sources of energy.
A couple of things that I did think was an interesting quote was the that we have a virtually inexhaustible supply of fossil fuels according to the video producers! I would like to see the facts backing that up, and then the huge use of resources to build electric cars completely ignoring the massive use of resources to build ICE cars.
The quoting of numbers without any form of backup or citing of where they are from is typical of most extreme sides of ANY side of this argument. As we all know, statistics can be made to say what either side wants, and can be quoted without source for impact. In fact 85.7% of all statistics are made up!
So, I would be ignoring this information if I was attempting to build a balanced, logical understanding of the renewable/non renewable, climate change debate. Unfortunately, the quoting of extreme proof by both sides of this argument turn me away from both of their positions.
-- Edited by TheHeaths on Saturday 4th of December 2021 09:35:23 AM
Hi Wanda,
Debunking the debunkers is what it is about. It doesnt add a lot to genuine debate but it makes entertaining reading for some.
No matter what monetary or scientific facts are put up, there will always be someone will jump to the challenge to debunk the facts presented, and vica verca in a lot of instances.
The easiest way that those who need to feel all warm and fuzzy about the money they drop into the bottomless pit to save the planet in ten years, is to discredit the presenter and the sources of the facts.
If you believe the money you pay and will be paying in the future will fix the Earths climate, then go right ahead.
If this is the case scroll on by,
If you dont like the original post and dont wish to reply constructively then scroll on by.
If you dont have an opinion or thought on the subject then the topic is not for you.
Presently the topic has had 227 views and 11 comments. If at the end of the day that number hasnt increased then those people have voted with their fingers
Have a nice day Wanda.
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Saturday 4th of December 2021 09:48:17 AM
Well said TheHeaths.
This is why I don't usually involve myself in climate change arguments; invariably the main debating points are around numbers, which may or may not be either true or accurate, but which certainly would involve me in four hours of research to prove either way, if they are indeed provable at all.
I suspect we all agree that we should put less crap into the atmosphere and less crap into the oceans - after that it's simply a discussion about how to do so whilst causing the least damage to our society and is, essentially, a financial discussion.
Apart from all that... I'm bored stiff by it all - let the new generation of oh so smart kidlets sort it out, they seem to know everything after all.
Edit: typo
-- Edited by Mike Harding on Saturday 4th of December 2021 09:51:36 AM
While you are quick to discredit the presenter in the link in the original post, you havent given any of us your personal run down as to how legitament (sp) are the qualifications of Greta Thunberg.
After all isnt she an actor who is doing a presentation on climate.
And you are slipping, you havent de bunked nortos post YET.
Some good points in the last couple of posts by MH and The Heaths.
One fact ( no we should not call it fact) for want of a better world, is that those who deny the quoted doom and gloom arent demanding that all Australians pay an extra tax, levy, fee, or penalty in the hope of supposedly fixing a problem which has yet to be PROVEN in a world where Australia has no control at all.
Australia and its people arent to blame, Australia would be seen in a better light that if at the next so called DOOM OF THE WORLD meeting, we inform those wanting our money, that Australia has planted X amount of trees per set period and to continue to do so will be Australias way of assisting with any perceived C02 levels in our atmosphere. We could do other things in addition to this but lets just keep it simple for now.
Money for development for new technology should come from those standing to make the profit, not those that are going to be potentially buying that product.
Having two bob each way is a safer bet but it is not addressing the problem that we are facing with demands of money from other countries.
In time I am absolutely positive that the worlds tech giants and others will come up with alternative fuels but I dont want my family to be paying our money to any unfounded or dubious source on the heresay of some 16 year old school girl whos statement and tears are prompted for effect.
Our government leaders should make decisions the way MOST Australians want us to go and not be influenced by a vocal minority as it exists presently.
One new tree per person per year in Australia would be 26 million trees per year. I am not a scientist but the effect of this could be calculated.
I think your the minority RD
And you base that on what?
I hope you dont think that a group of unemployed miscreants on the steps of Parliament House represent the majority, nor do the complete idiots that decide to chain themselves to a railway line in NQ.
But if you are correct we are in big big trouble.
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Saturday 4th of December 2021 11:16:56 AM
I cringe every time I see a post from you and your buddy MH.
Your happy to put **** on a 16yr old who has the guts to get up and at least have a go, good on her and her generation.
They are going to have to fix what our generation has stuffed up or refuses to accept.
Bitter twisted old men, the sooner their gone the better off this world will be.
Likewise have a good day
Ian
Thanks for your view.
Just to clear one thing up I didnt put anything on the 16 year old girl, both her and her producers and directors brought that on themselves but dont get your knickers in a twist, her statements have not been debunked in this topic as has others whose comments appear to be against at least, one forum commentators beliefs.
As I suggested, if you dont like me or any other contributor in any topic then dont sweat, just scroll on past the topic.
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Saturday 4th of December 2021 11:33:26 AM
Debunked in March 2021:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/03/is-there-a-shift-from-disbelieving-climate-change-to-attacking-renewables/
There is a factory in Victoria that recycles batteries so another video statement debunked. And why would Mills produce such a video? Maybe because according to this URL:
https://leahy.substack.com/p/a-perfect-storm-of-misinformation
Mills is financed by the fossil fuel industries with vast investments in fossil fuels. Conflict of interest? Definitely.
As I've said before, and it's getting tedious repeating myself, ask yourself the qualifications of the sources you provide? Are shock jocks, non climate scientists or people with fossil fuel investments or finances really going to give informed, unbiased opinions? No, but deniers keep on clutching at sources that support their beliefs.
As for renewables, I can't see how they could completely replace traditional energy sources, but it's better than doing nothing. I'm hoping that nuclear fusion will be the saviour.
Not once did he mention that we should send money to anyone.
G Thunberg wont mention Milankovitch because it does not suit her cause, but I do admit that her plea is based on emotion and not fact.
I just get so envious (not) of reports of my generations effort to destroy the world for our children yet it is G Thunberg s generation that is the most power hungry consumers the world has ever seen.
Try asking a child to turn out a light, turn off a TV, not have a phone, ride a bike, with very few exceptions they all know better.
According to climate fanatics the world will end in 10 years. Dont complain when to buy a tank full of fossil fuel it will cost you a great deal more than it does now and dont be surprised that if you plug your car into a source of renewable energy ( which is not actually renewable energy because we can not turn of power stations, remember the power hungry kids that are going to save the world) this renewable energy will be the new way for governments to collect yet another tax.
I think your observations are correct in that within a perceivable time frame we wont replace fossil fuels with renewables but it is criminal for any organisation to demand that we start to pay for this power hungry next generation.
Kerry Packer once said on the subject of tax:
*A government will be happy to introduce a new tax but, in doing so, they never repeal the old or existing one.*
As I have said in other posts,
Plant a Tree.
And I will add that after you have planted it, boast about it.
A government doesnt care less about planting trees to fix the planet, for one reason.
How do they Tax a Tree.?
The only fact about Climate Change that it is a business and the more people that it sucks in then the bigger will be the Cash Cow.
It is so simple.
Maybe you should read some of the garbage you write
and by the way,
If I wish to comment I will continue to do so, much like you do, so, if you don't like my comments, just scroll on by buddy!
have a good day
Maybe you should read some of the garbage you write
and by the way,
If I wish to comment on a post I will continue to do so, much like you do, so, if you don't like my comments, just scroll on by buddy!
have a good day
Oh that is excellent! I must ensure I post more often.
Personally, I couldn't give a toss about the future of the planet. If it were up to me, I would push the Armageddon button right now. The human race isn't worth saving.
Sounds like you've been reading Schopenhauer Dorian, he was another cheerful soul.
https://www.spring.org.uk/2008/01/schopenhauers-extreme-self-help-for.php
Schopenhauers Extreme Self-Help for Pessimists
The worst is yet to come. Schopenhauer
German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer was such an extreme pessimist that he thought we live in the worst of all possible worlds and happiness is an illusion. This is what makes it surprising that he wrote a best-selling book containing a self-help section. And yet he did. Although calling it self-help is somewhat misleading; the main aim of his advice was really reducing misery.
Yup, old Arthur was full of fun."
Come on Dorian, cheer up!
Shall we argue about firearms? That'll buck you up :)
Yes. People and organisations promoting climate denial are usually financed by the fossil fuel industries.