Search results

Not at all. As usual you've twisted things to fit the fantasy world you live in. We've been through this one before on another thread, if you'll recall. That's where you had to go so far as to unilaterally re-define the meaning of the word "environmental" to exclude anything that had an...

I know you have to pretend that conservatives don't care about the environment, but that's the kind of BS you have to promote to support your political position. Conservatives are not at all anti environment, they're just opposed to the political initiatives that use phoney environmental causes...

Yes I've heard that. But the larger questions still is, how do we reduce emissions by 80% worldwide? It's been said that for Canada it would be equivalent to eliminating all transportation, agriculture, manufacturing and industry. People say use solar panels. Sure, no emissions when they...

I'll assume that by "quit polluting" you mean reduce CO2 emissions by 80% world wide. Try by doing what?

If you'd read just a little farther you would have seen the following: Feel free to suggest any method by which governments, corporations, organizations and individuals can achieve that goal. referring to the previously mentioned goal of reducing emissions by 80%

Not quite. The purpose of this thread was to show what the real results of fighting climate change are, and also to give alarmists such as yourself a chance to demonstrate how emissions could actually be cut, even though I'm fairly certain no-one will be able to. I would be very impressed if...

So you're saying it's impossible? I think so too, but not for the same reason, although I agree you have a point.

Uh, Anna, leaving aside the question of whether it's polluting, the question is how to reduce emissions by 80%. How to quit polluting is the question.

A solution to global warming caused by our CO2 emissions. Isn't that obvious? For the purposes of this thread we're assuming that the warming is caused by human emissions and reducing them will stop the warming and even cool the planet, just like the alarmists say it will.

You always avoid the question, don't you?

No I didn't think you had any solution.

The environment is relevant. Climate change is relevant only so far as what will have to be done to adapt to changing conditions. But I doubt that's what James means.

Oh puleeeze! :lol: Call it what you want, but I've heard an awful lot about the dangers of global warming from the alarmists and nothing effective about what to do. Bjorn Lomborg has the right idea for a believer. Those trillions of dollars being spent will not have a measurable effect so...

You just about got that 100% right. Thus far none of the actions taken to abate the supposed problem will work, and as you suggest, the biggest effect is the transfer of wealth, and a burden on the economies of those countries attempting their miniscule efforts. But you and a lot of other...

Nonsense. We're being told that something must be done or else. OK, so what should be done? You don't need everyone on board to tell me that.

You're right Slim, Californias problems come from their leftist vision of governance and regulations, of which the global warming initiatives are just the latest hammer blow to their economy, just when they really can't afford it. California: Harbinger of National Doom? | Columns |...

California leads the way in the US. So how's it working out for them? Capitol Weekly: California?s green jobs mirage: Experimenting with global warning regulations

We're told global warming is a serious problem caused by our CO2 emissions, that action must be taken immediately to reduce our emissions by 80%, and that we have 10 years. (Mind you, we've been told that for more than 20 years now, making it the longest decade in the history of time.) So how...

Peer reviewed you say? Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere I can point you to a few hundred more if you like.

DDT is not toxic, and its banning resulted in tens of millions of needless deaths. Yeah, like you'd work for nothing!:roll: CO2 was listed as a pollutant for political reasons, and only political reasons. Climate has always changed, always will. Severe weather is more likely to come from...