Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pargat Perrer
    replied
    Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post


    Oh, I C, and that proves that CO2, which is .04% of the Earth's atmosphere, impacts a star 100 times larger than the Earth. Couldn't be the
    Sun that is the driver of climate change? nah....not according to Chesstalk's brainless troll.



    Maybe it would be good if you didn't think it was a good idea to subject yourself to 25,000 PPM of CO2 and then attempt to show how witty and clever
    your demented, hypoxic brain has become.

    Hmmm.... somebody is having a hissy fit!

    Whoever said CO2 levels on Earth are impacting the Sun? Not me, not anyone! Get a grip, man! Don't have a stroke!

    Maybe you DO have property in Dubai.... well, wherever you have property, you are surely paying much more for climate insurance than just a few years ago!

    Leave a comment:


  • Sid Belzberg
    replied
    Originally posted by Pargat Perrer View Post

    Nobel Economist Urges Taxing of Billionaires and Corporations to solve climate crisis:

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/othe...es/ar-BB1lNxe7

    Whether you (Sid) think it is "nonexistent" will not matter at all .... meanwhile Dubai is flooded in just 1 day like never before in recorded history ..... hope you didn't have any property there Sid ... although maybe it would be good if you did .....
    Originally posted by brain dead troll
    Meanwhile, Dubai is flooded in just one day like never before in recorded history
    Oh, I C, and that proves that CO2, which is .04% of the Earth's atmosphere, impacts a star 100 times larger than the Earth. Couldn't be the
    Sun that is the driver of climate change? nah....not according to Chesstalk's brainless troll.

    Originally posted by brain dead troll
    ] hope you didn't have any property there Sid ... although maybe it would be good if you did .....
    Maybe it would be good if you didn't think it was a good idea to subject yourself to 25,000 PPM of CO2 and then attempt to show how witty and clever
    your demented, hypoxic brain has become.
    Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Friday, 19th April, 2024, 12:17 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pargat Perrer
    replied
    Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post

    The problem is that the rationale for Carbon tax is for a nonexistent climate emergency, not pollution.
    Nobel Economist Urges Taxing of Billionaires and Corporations to solve climate crisis:

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/othe...es/ar-BB1lNxe7

    Whether you (Sid) think it is "nonexistent" will not matter at all .... meanwhile Dubai is flooded in just 1 day like never before in recorded history ..... hope you didn't have any property there Sid ... although maybe it would be good if you did .....

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Armstrong
    replied
    Reasons to be hopeful about the climate

    - according to Bill Weir, former CNN Journalist

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V2376LK8rM (4 1/2 min.)

    Bob A

    Leave a comment:


  • Sid Belzberg
    replied
    Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
    Hi Dilip:

    Agreeing in the sense that I am more understanding of your position now, and I imagine many here are.....it has been a very productive exchange. It has helped that we each feel the other is well-intentioned, though misguided.

    It is another thing entirely as to whether your "Theoretical Libertarianism" could ever be successfully implemented "at ground zero".

    IMHO, DM has more chance!

    So, given this thread, I think Pargat (I know he is not your favourite poster) has a good question:

    Major Greenhouse Gas Emitters [CO2, Methane, Nitrous Oxide] -

    It is argued that their criminal pollution causes damage/harm to humans, animals and the planet.

    1, How does the Natural Law analyze this "criminal charge"?
    2. Is the "Except in fair competition" exemption somehow applicable here?

    Bob A
    The problem is that the rationale for Carbon tax is for a nonexistent climate emergency, not pollution.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pargat Perrer
    replied
    Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
    Hi Dilip:

    It seems that you are setting up The Natural Law as overriding the will of the majority, when it "harms" the rights of the minority......am I right on this?

    If so, then it is acting like a Constitution, it seems to me.

    I think I now get your position on "majority rule", and how you "Improve" Democracy by an overriding Natural Law to guard against the excesses of the majority.

    Let me know if I am still missing something.

    Bob A

    Actually Bob A., the Natural Law as Dilip has defined it with the "fair competition" clause where fair means "NOT using any means that harms others" has this consequence:

    It must necessarily shut down any economic activity which utilizes fossil fuel sourced energy, until such time as that activity can use green energy. Green energy must be the ONLY energy we use worldwide, or at least in any nation state ruled by Natural Law Libertarianism.

    It isn't just the "excesses of the majority". It is everything we do that harms others that Natural Law must eliminate.

    I see in his reply that Dilip says .... "the 'carbon tax' is one of the things the Canadian government has gotten right, to compensate for whatever 'harm' the pollution may be causing..."

    The fact that he puts the word "harms" in single quotes means that he doesn't accept that fossil fuel pollution harms anything or anyone. Yet that is an absolute fact, that it does harm millions around the world, and I don't just mean climate change ... all kinds of lung and breathing disorders are caused by fossil fuel pollution.

    But at least Dilip is saying (in agreeing with the carbon tax) that something needs to be done about pollution ... the Natural Law would eliminate it altogether, wouldn't it Dilip? LOL



    Leave a comment:


  • Dilip Panjwani
    replied
    Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post

    Major Greenhouse Gas Emitters [CO2, Methane, Nitrous Oxide] -

    It is argued that their criminal pollution causes damage/harm to humans, animals and the planet.

    1, How does the Natural Law analyze this "criminal charge"?
    2. Is the "Except in fair competition" exemption somehow applicable here?

    Bob A
    Hi Bob,
    As I have said before, the 'carbon tax' is one of the things the Canadian government has gotten right, to compensate for whatever 'harm' the pollution may be causing...

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Armstrong
    replied
    Hi Dilip:

    Agreeing in the sense that I am more understanding of your position now, and I imagine many here are.....it has been a very productive exchange. It has helped that we each feel the other is well-intentioned, though misguided.

    It is another thing entirely as to whether your "Theoretical Libertarianism" could ever be successfully implemented "at ground zero".

    IMHO, DM has more chance!

    So, given this thread, I think Pargat (I know he is not your favourite poster) has a good question:

    Major Greenhouse Gas Emitters [CO2, Methane, Nitrous Oxide] -

    It is argued that their criminal pollution causes damage/harm to humans, animals and the planet.

    1, How does the Natural Law analyze this "criminal charge"?
    2. Is the "Except in fair competition" exemption somehow applicable here?

    Bob A

    Leave a comment:


  • Dilip Panjwani
    replied
    Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
    Hi Dilip:

    It seems that you are setting up The Natural Law as overriding the will of the majority, when it "harms" the rights of the minority......am I right on this?

    If so, then it is acting like a Constitution, it seems to me.

    I think I now get your position on "majority rule", and how you "Improve" Democracy by an overriding Natural Law to guard against the excesses of the majority.

    Let me know if I am still missing something.

    Bob A
    I think we are starting to agree on some things!

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Armstrong
    replied
    Hi Dilip:

    It seems that you are setting up The Natural Law as overriding the will of the majority, when it "harms" the rights of the minority......am I right on this?

    If so, then it is acting like a Constitution, it seems to me.

    I think I now get your position on "majority rule", and how you "Improve" Democracy by an overriding Natural Law to guard against the excesses of the majority.

    Let me know if I am still missing something.

    Bob A

    Leave a comment:


  • Dilip Panjwani
    replied
    Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post

    If it is not "Democracy", then it is some version of "Authoritarian" rule.

    Bob A
    No, the 'democracy' of 50.1% trampling over the desires of 49.9% can be improved with enforcement of the Natural Law, with which 100% agree, and which gives the 'circles within circles' all the freedom to fulfil their wishes within the enforcement of the Natural Law...
    Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Thursday, 11th April, 2024, 07:49 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Armstrong
    replied
    The "Notwithstanding" Clause is, I believe, uniquely Canadian....it was a compromise forced on the federal government by the provinces to get the Charter of Rights and Freedoms passed.

    Normally, the Constitution of most countries will protect the rights of the lions (The Minority) against Majority Rule (Both the majority itself, and its government - The Wolves).

    Uniquely in Canada, a province can force this protection down to the provincial level, where it is somewhat vulnerable.

    The Canadian "Notwithstanding" Clause is no argument against "Democracy/One person-one vote/Rule by the Majority". And good luck on your very valid campaign to get rid of the "Notwithstanding" Clause......not going to happen......

    If it is not "Democracy", then it is some version of "Authoritarian" rule.

    Bob A
    Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Thursday, 11th April, 2024, 06:26 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dilip Panjwani
    replied
    Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
    I read Post # 1955 again - I got what I got, and have the same problem with your version of Libertarianism.

    You have a definite problem with rule by majority after a vote....seems it may stem from some belief that the majority are inferior, and cannot be trusted to govern.

    I'll move on..........

    Bob A
    So it is all right for the DM majority wolves to use the 'notwithstanding' clause to exterminate the lions, despite the courts saying it is unconstitutional? That is what today's democracy threatens us with, and hence there is a lot we can improve it by... Libertarianism with enforcement of the Natural Law is democracy in perfection!

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Armstrong
    replied
    The Greenhouse Gas "Egg Shell" Around Earth

    Trapping Heat in Earth's Soil, Oceans, Air & Atmosphere


    Click image for larger version

Name:	ClimateChange2.jpg
Views:	60
Size:	17.7 KB
ID:	233169


    "Three greenhouse gases, three all-time highs


    The extreme weather. The melting glaciers. The weirdly warm oceans. They’re all the product of global warming, which is being driven by the release of the three most important heat-trapping gases: carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.

    And according to a new study from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, emissions of those three greenhouse gases continued to surge last year to historic highs.

    Global average carbon dioxide concentrations jumped last year, “extending the highest sustained rate of CO2 increases” in NOAA’s 65 years of record-keeping. Methane and nitrous oxide levels also rose sharply last year. All this despite a wave of global policy measures and economic incentives designed to wean the world off fossil fuels.

    These weren’t just one-off anomalies. In each case, the rising emissions continued a long-term trend.

    https://messaging-custom-newsletters...d396a4debfd6ce

    Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Armstrong
    replied
    I read Post # 1955 again - I got what I got, and have the same problem with your version of Libertarianism.

    You have a definite problem with rule by majority after a vote....seems it may stem from some belief that the majority are inferior, and cannot be trusted to govern.

    I'll move on..........

    Bob A

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X