Climate talks fail

Post Reply New Topic

The source for the Guardian article:

Nope. No agenda or propaganda here.

How about Scientific American...good enough source for you?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... years-ago/

Which makes no difference anyway given the culpability of the fossil fuel industry in defending themselves against class action law suits by hiding evidence.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environm ... sachusetts

The US supreme court thinks they have something to hide

"The Guardian". <snicker>

25 or 30 years ago it might have been. Nowadays not so much.
Parroting activist propaganda from the likes of Naomi Oreske and InsideClimate News while citing 'consensus' does nothing for their credibility.


So some CAGW activists followed SOP and filed *yet another* lawsuit.
Why does that matter and WTF is calling attention to this one supposed to prove?


Do they really? Have any of the judges issued a statement... or are you just pulling stuff out of your backside again?

If CAGWs were all that serious they would boycott all fossil fuel use.

Which would make no difference. The real issue is that they knew burning fossil fuel would induce climate change 40 years ago (much like tobacco companies awareness of the health risks of smoking). No point wasting time on getting them to stop on their own volition because they won't.

The pressure should be on governments to enforce regulations to reduce C emissions. That's all the activists are asking.

In other words it's really all about attempting political reform.

Climate action is about governments regulating industry
1. Boost funding/tax incentives for clean energy
2. Put higher tarriffs and penalties for emissions
3. Prohibit the building of new coal powered power stations around the world

Progressive reformers want a lot more than just that regulated. The world coming to an end in a few years scenario is a good way of accomplishing it.

regulation is the first step

So..more taxes and regulations..to support yet another leeching bureaucracy..that would presumably be granted the unprecedented power to dictate global manufactoring, energy and economic policy. Happy unicorn farts for all and sundry if only the peasantry would just stop asking questions, do as 'we' say, cough up the cash and ignore that whole 'freedom' thingy. No surprises here.

Considering the magnitude of changes mentioned, a reasonably skeptical person might question why and/or if such changes are deemed necessary and rational.

Is there any verifiable evidence that supports the CAGW crisis narrative?

So far, the answer appears to be no. CAGW theory, the claimed justification for this scheme, seems to be suffering from a credibility problem at the moment.

Even in the event that steps 2 and 3 are too difficult at least invest in tax incentives for clean emissions technology.

Solar, wind, geothermal, Elon Musk's battery and even nuclear.

Poor uneducated people make up the majority of voters and they unfortunately fall for Trump's climate change denial and false claims that by voting for a rich billionaire will make them become as rich as Trump if they simply believe. Trump with his right wing media push Disney fairytales that tricks the majority of poor uneducated people into voting for him. The more education a person possesses the less likely they are going to fall for a right wing, megalomaniac and false claims of anyone can become rich by simply voting for him/her.

You can probably add how Trump and his family line their pockets at the expense of the rest of America. He happily accepts bribes (I mean donations) from the fossil fuel industry so nothing much is going to happen while he's holding the reigns of power