Climate Alarmist Calls For Burning Down Skeptics’ Homes
- Thread starter skookumchuck
- Start date
Not really. The government can make investments in the auto sector to speed up the process of mass market appeal as well as the durability and function of the technology itself. It is very difficult, for instance, for the average person to be able to afford an electric car even if they did want to help out.
Now we're getting off onto a whole other tangent.... the green marketing campaign, convincing people that they can shop their way to a healthy environment is proof that propoganda can work even on the educated. Throw away your things and buy new things, that will fix the environment good. LOL!!
People aren't willing to give things up, end of story. The people who are loud about the environment don't live any differently than those who could care less.
No, I'm just talking about technology that would actually benefit the auto sector and the environment. The rate of consumption and demand depends on the market.
The other method is to reduce emissions.
Cars are the leading issue when it comes to domestic personal energy use? 77% of YOUR energy use is to survive winter and keep clean so you don't spread disease. If you want to live in a unheated tent with no hot water, crack on it bub.
Funny, I remember you being told the same thing, after doing exactly what Karrie's talking about. ;-)
It's reality. Light bulbs and electric cars aren't going to make things any better when staying warm and clean are what CDNs use the vast majority of their energy for. Food is number 2.
I just picked an example.
I think I said this already, didn't I?
Oh yes, I did.
I imagine you would. You wouldn't want to be the caricature of what Karrie's talking about.
They have a word for that eh.
Sadly... MANY are content to yell and scream about the government not forcing change and are just as content to live like everyone else.
And you my friend I am sorry to say are one of those people.
I realize I can't stop you from behaving like a troll. IMO, the other forum users here did you a favor when they proved your opening post referenced deliberately manipulative BS. Instead of being angry, you should be grateful. If you are going to debate a subject you better trust your sources... I suggest you take that source off your favorites list and find better sources to back up your viewpoint.
or Continue posting manipulative BS. But you'll just get slammed over and over.
Which is where government regulation comes in. We need to factor climate change and other impacts on the environment into the equation. Tax bad technology to subsidize good technology. Pay life cycle costs on everything, not just production, but also disposal... up front. People should be able to make a living collecting garbage. People will change if the less expensive option is the most environmentally friendly option. Yes these changes would lower our standard of living somewhat. But we can always increase taxes on the wealthy and cut taxes on the poor in compensation. We can compensate the wealthy by making Canada safe clean and friendly... a place they'd want to live and pay taxes...
There see? Problem solved.
Spin it however you want.
I'm just talking about existing policy within the constructs of the system that has been set up. The science is pretty firm, so there is no dispute about that - it's just a matter of how to propose solutions in terms of policy.
And I'm not even yelling or screaming at anyone here, but if you guys really want me to be the witch, go for it, lol
Why not? It seems ok for you to do so...
And who should foot the bill?
You may not be yelling of screaming, but you use all sorts of terminology to openly or covertly insinuate that anyone that doesn't swallow the koolaid, exactly as you have, is out to lunch. My fave is "Astroturfer". You seem fond of that insult.
Your lockstep ideological rhetoric, and preaching, while you consume and waste, worse than those you condemn and insult, makes you one helluva hypocrite.
Last edited:
It reminds me years ago seeing a Green Peace activist on TV, being filmed in front of his big log cabin and his SUV sitting in front of his house defending the use of gas-guzzling boats to harass ships at sea; and to think I use a bicycle or walk to work whenever I can.
It also reminds me of the PETA member trying to get me, a vegan, to join PETA while she herself liked McDonald's.
I could go on, but the hypocricy abounds in these movements.
Last edited:
There seems to be a bit of hypocrisy in all types of movements, but yea, PETA is pretty scary.
I'll think that you'll find that the majority of the responses to you don't really involve, or require, any spin.
The existing policy is based on faulty theories and in some cases, outright frauds... Which leads to 'the science'; fact is, as every day goes by, the notion that AGW has any real impact (when compared to natural forces) is eroding further and further.