Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

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

  • Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post

    I am open to explanations that I have yet to find anyone that can answer, including hard-core climate scientists.
    A youtube video of a student with a mellifluous voice does not cut it.
    No Sid, I do not believe you are open to explanations, data, opinions, evidence, that are contrary to your viewpoint.
    I can't see debating you to be in any way productive. It would be a complete waste of my time.

    Bob A. has invited everyone to post articles, videos, opinions, on both sides.
    That is what I am doing. I am happy to leave it to the audience to draw their own conclusions.

    So here is another interesting video from CBC. Enjoy.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOYL...%3ATheNational

    Again, I have no interest ion debating you, refuting your arguments, or responding to your insults.
    Have a nice day.


    Comment


    • Originally posted by Bob Gillanders View Post

      No Sid, I do not believe you are open to explanations, data, opinions, evidence, that are contrary to your viewpoint.
      I can't see debating you to be in any way productive. It would be a complete waste of my time.

      Bob A. has invited everyone to post articles, videos, opinions, on both sides.
      That is what I am doing. I am happy to leave it to the audience to draw their own conclusions.

      So here is another interesting video from CBC. Enjoy.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOYL...%3ATheNational

      Again, I have no interest ion debating you, refuting your arguments, or responding to your insults.
      Have a nice day.

      I listened to the video. It is quite an eye-opener to see the CBC actually promoting censorship of opposing views under the guise of "misinformation." Of course, you said that opposing views should be banned in. this thread. Well, Bob, no wonder you don't want to debate me but instead censor me. Please take your fascist approach elsewhere. If you don't like free speech protected under the charter of rights, then move to North Korea or China! Oh wait I forgot that Trudeau has already sold out this country to the CCP.
      Throughout history, evil has never lasted, and I am optimistic this unconstitutional approach won't in Canada either.
      Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Tuesday, 14th March, 2023, 11:35 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post

        I listened to the video. It is quite an eye-opener to see the CBC actually promoting censorship of opposing views under the guise of "misinformation." Of course, you said that opposing views should be banned in. this thread. Well, Bob, no wonder you don't want to debate me but instead censor me. Please take your fascist approach elsewhere. If you don't like free speech protected under the charter of rights, then move to North Korea or China! Oh wait I forgot that Trudeau has already sold out this country to the CCP.
        Throughout history, evil has never lasted, and I am optimistic this unconstitutional approach won't in Canada either.
        Blah, blah, blah! Quite a few "straw men" in here! You post like you are a tad unhinged....are you?
        Fred Harvey

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fred Harvey View Post

          Blah, blah, blah! Quite a few "straw men" in here! You post like you are a tad unhinged....are you?
          You post like you are a pro-censorship fascist asshole, are you?
          Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Thursday, 16th March, 2023, 08:57 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
            Negative Anthropogenic Climate Change (NACC)

            Non-Green Energy

            Americas - State of Alaska, USA

            "Biden Expected to Move Ahead on a Major Oil Project in Alaska

            The decision would allow an enormous $8 billion drilling project in the largest expanse of pristine wilderness in the United States."

            https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/10/c...d396a4debfd6ce

            ~ Bob A (T-S/P)
            Hey Bob,
            If you still believe in democracy:
            https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64967513

            Comment


            • As some of you know, I live part-time in a rural agricultural area. For many reasons, control mechanisms used by farmers have been cut back (Agricultural and livestock), usually due to health danger or pollution or climate change and biodiversity issues. In the Southern Georgian Bay Region, the powers that be have put in place reasonable alternatives for the farmers, though they are usually not quite as effective as the banned practices.

              It seems that in the Netherlands, there is being offered no reasonable alternative. The government plan, to which it is sticking, is to slash nitrogen emissions. It is clearly proven that they are harmful to biodiversity. The government answer is to dramatically reduce livestock numbers and buy out thousands of farms. I am unsure if there is also as part of this plan, banning of any currently-used fertilizer.

              I agree that this is not the general transition phase we see with a lot of negative climate change restrictions being brought in. It is basically an attack on "farming" as a major green-house gas source.

              This is quite dubious from my knowledge of the sources for the non-porous atmospheric canopy that has been slowly enveloping the Earth for some years now.

              It seems that the argument that livestock production is a very inefficient way to feed the planet (As opposed to Veganism), and a climate change problem, has not been raised that much yet. On the other hand, there is regular distress at good farmland being put to other uses (Like highways).

              It does seem to me that there needs to be some restraint imposed, but it seems that there is no Phase-in plan for farmers who wish to continue farming.

              ~ Bob A (T-S/P)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post

                It does seem to me that there needs to be some restraint imposed
                ~ Bob A (T-S/P)
                Wow, Bob!
                First take away the farmers' animals, forcing everybody to become a vegan, and then take away their fertilizers, starving the vegans... Is that what you are suggesting?

                Comment


                • Hi Dilip:

                  When you put it that way.............

                  1. I don't think we should be taking any farmland out of production.
                  2. I don't think we should be clear cutting forests for animal farming.
                  3. There should be incentives to farm organically because cash crop farming is both more efficient, and more productive per person, and has less negative impact on the climate.
                  4. There are "natural green fertilization" systems that are almost as good as the problematic chemical fertilizers. In the transition, a hybrid regime is necessary to give the farmers time to change over (Farmers are resistant to any type of oversight or cramp on their freedom, in my limited view at ground zero - generous to a fault, but quite ornery when unhappy).

                  Better?

                  Bob A

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
                    Hi Dilip:

                    When you put it that way.............

                    1. I don't think we should be taking any farmland out of production.
                    2. I don't think we should be clear cutting forests for animal farming.
                    3. There should be incentives to farm organically because cash crop farming is both more efficient, and more productive per person, and has less negative impact on the climate.
                    4. There are "natural green fertilization" systems that are almost as good as the problematic chemical fertilizers. In the transition, a hybrid regime is necessary to give the farmers time to change over (Farmers are resistant to any type of oversight or cramp on their freedom, in my limited view at ground zero - generous to a fault, but quite ornery when unhappy).

                    Better?

                    Bob A
                    Yes, certainly better. The best would be that if there is definite evidence that the farmers are currently polluting the environment, an appropriately corresponding pollution penalty can be applied on that, and they may on their own accord switch to less polluting resources... that would be the Libertarian way of governing...

                    Comment


                    • The problem with Libertarian dynamics is that the fine must be sufficient to make the activity no longer lucrative..........people don't change, usually, to do the right thing at the expense of their profiteering. So if the fine is sufficiently hefty, the target will scream "oppression; loss of freedom", just as under general legal regimes.

                      Bob A

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post

                        So if the fine is sufficiently hefty, the target will scream "oppression; loss of freedom", just as under general legal regimes.

                        Bob A
                        Of course they will and they should! Why should the penalty be anything more than proportional to the crime, especially when we are dealing with something like pollution? You do not want oppression and loss of freedom under the guise of justice, do you?
                        Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Sunday, 19th March, 2023, 01:20 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani View Post

                          Why should the penalty be anything more than proportional to the the crime, especially when we are dealing with something like pollution? You do not want oppression and loss of freedom under the guise of justice, do you?
                          I am still trying to understand the concepts in the Libertarian philosophy. Your last post, greatly concerns me, but if you will indulge me a hypothetical question.
                          Let's say the USA elects a Libertarian government, and they adopt a Libertarian philosophy of limited government and no regulation, as it would limit the freedom of business to operate as they see fit. But of course, the Libertarian policy of no aggression etc would settle grevances.

                          Now let's say there is a train derailment, like that of East Palestine, Ohio.
                          What happens?

                          We have citizens suffering physical harm, possibly deaths, certainly medical expenses. The toxic pollution causes possible long term suffering, shortening of life expectancy and quality of life. There would be economic harm, short term costs of displacement, and long term economic costs, such as lowering of home values. I was wondering what "proportional to the crime" justice we could expect from a Libertarian society?



                          Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Sunday, 19th March, 2023, 01:07 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Bob Gillanders View Post

                            I am still trying to understand the concepts in the Libertarian philosophy. Your last post, greatly concerns me, but if you will indulge me a hypothetical question.
                            Let's say the USA elects a Libertarian government, and they adopt a Libertarian philosophy of limited government and no regulation, as it would limit the freedom of business to operate as they see fit. But of course, the Libertarian policy of no aggression etc would settle grevances.

                            Now let's say there is a train derailment, like that of East Palestine, Ohio.
                            What happens?

                            One of the ways of dealing with 'unavoidable' mishaps (and these are very common in the practice of medicine), is that the victims have to be fully compensated by the individual/company performing the activity which leads to the mishap. It would certainly drive up the price of performing that activity, but so be it...

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Bob Gillanders
                              I am still trying to understand the concepts in the Libertarian philosophy. Your last post, greatly concerns me, but if you will indulge me a hypothetical question.
                              Let's say the USA elects a Libertarian government, and they adopt a Libertarian philosophy of limited government and no regulation, as it would limit the freedom of business to operate as they see fit. But of course, the Libertarian policy of no aggression etc would settle grevances.

                              Now let's say there is a train derailment, like that of East Palestine, Ohio.
                              What happens?


                              Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani View Post

                              One of the ways of dealing with 'unavoidable' mishaps (and these are very common in the practice of medicine), is that the victims have to be fully compensated by the individual/company performing the activity which leads to the mishap. It would certainly drive up the price of performing that activity, but so be it...

                              Does this mean that it is part of the Libertarian philosophy to not only cut regulations, but to also somehow SIMPLIFY legal judgements against parties? In other words, to avoid long trials and just point a finger and say "YOU are responsible, YOU pay!" and be done with it?

                              So in the case of a train derailment as bad as the one Bob G. described, let's say it's due to a train engineer falling asleep at the wheel, and the engineer claims he fell asleep because he was working overtime hours beyond what should be reasonably expected due to no regulations, and the Libertarian government will do what? Just avoid a trial and arbitrarily decide the rail company is at fault?

                              You say this will "drive up the price" of performing business activities and "so be it" .... LOL!!!! How about making many business activities GO AWAY COMPLETELY because the risk of being held at fault for "unavoidable mishaps" makes it too risky to even perform the activity? No insurance company will cover rail delivery of toxic chemicals if rail companies are going to be summarily convicted of being at fault for every "unavoidable mishap" in an environment where the rail companies have no regulations to restrict their business practices!

                              Such simplistic thinking .... which is so easily refutable because it just CANNOT work! Quite frankly, I find Libertarian philosophy the most laughable I have ever come across.

                              Comment


                              • Negative Anthropogenic Climate Change (Majority Position)

                                The UN just released a landmark climate-change report. Here’s the grim timeline it gives us

                                Our window of opportunity is continuing to close.........we are on a suicidal path.

                                https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...aign=bn_172348


                                Earth to Hit Critical Warming Threshold by Early 2030s, Climate Panel Says

                                A new U.N. report says it is still possible to hold global warming to relatively safe levels, but doing so will require global cooperation, billions of dollars and big changes.

                                https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/20/c...pcc-earth.html

                                A clear message from science
                                “There is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a livable and sustainable future for all (very high confidence).”
                                This is the most striking sentence in a 37-page summary, issued today, of the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It tells us what’s possible. It tells us the stakes.
                                https://messaging-custom-newsletters...d396a4debfd6ce

                                From my following of this issue for some years, it has been my position that the "tipping point of Nature" (We can no longer put things back the way they were) is about Jan. 1, 2031.

                                Bob A (T-S/P)
                                Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Monday, 20th March, 2023, 10:52 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X