Climate Change

Calinor said:
Peterson gives a harsh comment "too many people on the planet". It's worse than that. We've built a system that depends on there being continuous population growth
Click to expand...

Hi Calinor,

The way I see it, humanity will have nothing but benefits by lowering the world’s population.

Check out my post from last year titled “What are the benefits of a smaller population?” It’s dated October 22 2021 in the Foyer section.

Personally, I don’t think the world economy will suffer at all. As the labor force shrinks in wealthy nations we can outsource the jobs to impoverished nations. We can build the same amount of products by employing the poor nations and as they grow wealthier, the poor nations will grow into an expanding customer base for industries around the world.

Just look at what happened when Taiwan and Hong Kong grew from poor to rich. They buy a number of products from the world’s markets these days.
 
J Livermore said:
Hi Calinor,

The way I see it, humanity will have nothing but benefits by lowering the world’s population.

Check out my post from last year titled “What are the benefits of a smaller population?” It’s dated October 22 2021 in the Foyer section.

Personally, I don’t think the world economy will suffer at all. As the labor force shrinks in wealthy nations we can outsource the jobs to impoverished nations. We can build the same amount of products by employing the poor nations and as they grow wealthier, the poor nations will grow into an expanding customer base for industries around the world.

Just look at what happened when Taiwan and Hong Kong grew from poor to rich. They buy a number of products from the world’s markets these days.
Click to expand...
I had a look at your post and there are certainly some benefits.

One of the drawbacks is related to debt. If we have fewer births, then to pay back the debt in taxes means much higher taxes. Similarly the 'debt' of pensions that will need to be paid.

The current system kicks it down the road. We don't even pay off the debt, it gets larger and we just hope we have people who can service the interest and pay the pensions. Pensions are also pushed back in terms of when they start, because already we can't maintain them even with current population without more debt or higher taxes.

Also fewer people means fewer geniuses and entrepreneurs perhaps
 
Calinor said:
. . . The current system kicks it down the road. We don't even pay off the debt, it gets larger and we just hope we have people who can service the interest and pay the pensions. Pensions are also pushed back in terms of when they start, because already we can't maintain them even with current population without more debt or higher taxes. . .
Click to expand...
In other words Cal', the existing financial system is broken and no longer fit for purpose. The solution? Well, we need to 6uild 6ack 6etter of course! And that's where the whole WEF agenda kicks in, of which climate change and Net Zero by 2030 is one of the central pillars.

The article linked below may strike some as being far fetched or, even, straight out of the tin hat conspiracy theorists camp, but keep an open mind as, it at least provides an explanation or narrative - call it what you will - that is logical and makes some sort sense of all the madness. Enjoy . . .
Net Zero is a low-key way of killing us off
 
More climate change myths debunked.
Now, for those of you who can't stand Lawrence Fox - please focus on the message and, if it helps you keep an open mind, imagine the words are being uttered not by Fox but by your favourite celebrity or friend. Enjoy . . .

 
"We aren’t allowed the energy available from a century of gas beneath our feet here in Britain – because it’s not Green. But we’re paying top dollar for nine billion cubic litres – twice as much as last year’s order – of gas fracked out of the ground in the US."

More truth bombs from the indomitable and wonderfully articulate Neil Oliver. Enjoy . . .

 
CavaliereVerde said:
@timsk
Can you tell me who is the most reputable climate skeptik?
Click to expand...
There aren't any CV.
They're all highly disreputable low lifes like me who aren't to be listened to and are best ignored, silenced and cancelled. They're the sort of crazy nut jobs who think that injecting people with a novel medical product that's not fully tested probably isn't wise, along with putting convicted rapists in a women's prison and - the most egregious of all - believe that peace is preferable to war. Seriously, you really don't want to waste your time with extremists like that. So, I suggest you ignore the messenger(s) and, instead, look at the evidence and science that they cite, i.e. the message, and draw your own conclusions based on that.

I have a distinct sense of deja vu - as if I've written something similar somewhere else!
:D
Tim.
 
The problem with "evidence" and messages is that you can combine and correlate data in many ways to prove mostly everything.
This is the reason it is important to find a credible messanger.
I prefer to follow the logic of people like Bill Gates and Elon Musk, that despite being very different they both agree on the urgency to fight climate change.
These guys are walking the talk, they don't need an "alternative" position to attract followers.
 
Last edited:
CavaliereVerde said:
The problem with "evidence" and messages is that you can combine and correlate data in many ways to prove mostly everything.
This is the reason it is important to find a credible messanger.
I prefer to follow the logic of people like Bill Gates and Elon Musk, that despite being very different they both agree on the urgency to fight climate change.
These guys are walking the talk, they don't need an "alternative" position to attract followers.
Click to expand...
CV,
Bill Gates, you've got to be kidding!?
He makes money from climate change just as he made billions from the vaccines that aren't safe and aren't effective. IMO, he's the single most dangerous criminal - and I mean criminal - in the world.

I prefer to follow those who have no vested interest in the position(s) they espouse and stand to gain absolutely nothing other than derision from the likes of you. Who in their right mind would want that? No one, obviously, which is an excellent reason to listen to them very carefully. Such people ooze credibility, honesty and integrity from every pore, something Bill Gates hasn't done since he stopped flogging iffy software.

If, as appears to be the case, you insist on only listening to people who are 'reputable' and have 'credibility' - then I strongly suggest you revise the criteria you use to judge who has - and does not have - such qualities. Clearly, whatever criteria you currently use is woefully inadequate and totally unfit for purpose! Bill Gates - jeeeeeeeeez!!!!
😲
Tim.
 
Last edited:
www.newsweek.com

Elon Musk v. Bill Gates: Everything They Have Said About Each Other

The two multi-billionaires have thrown shade at one another—gently and not so gently—over the years.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

headlineusa.com

Bill Gates Spent Millions on a Smear Campaign Against Elon Musk | Headline USA

(Molly Bruns, Headline USA) Recent research into Bill Gates’s charity found hundreds of millions of dollars being poured into a smear campaign targeting billionaire Elon Musk, Breitbart reported. Through public filings, the Foundation for Freedom Online followed the money trails of signatories...
headlineusa.com headlineusa.com
 
timsk said:
. . .He [Bill Gates] makes money from climate change just as he made billions from the vaccines that aren't safe and aren't effective. IMO, he's the single most dangerous criminal - and I mean criminal - in the world. . .
Click to expand...
For anyone who doesn't already know how Gates the computer salesman has made (another) fortune out of the pandemic, Russell Brand explains all in the video below. I accept that Brand isn't everyone's cup of tea, but he's only collating and presenting published facts (as opposed to his personal opinions) that are well known and available to anyone with the ability and willingness to engage in critical thinking to check out for themselves. Enjoy . . .

 
timsk said:
If, as appears to be the case, you insist on only listening to people who are 'reputable' and have 'credibility' - then I strongly suggest you revise the criteria you use to judge who has - and does not have - such qualities. Clearly, whatever criteria you currently use is woefully inadequate and totally unfit for purpose! Bill Gates - jeeeeeeeeez!!!!
Click to expand...
Unfortunatelly we have a total different concept of credible and reputable persons... 😐
I prefer to listen to people that is making stuff and solving problems instead to listening to people that spend their life complaining about govs or finding conspiracies behind every corner.
 
The problem with the subject of climate change is agenda's and vested interests.
So on this particular subject iv'e come to the conclusion that both sides are as bad as each other, which left me no alternative but to find my own practical solutions to the problem of the higher cost of energy and how to combat that.

So, with that in mind, i'm currently working in a small collaberation on a solar powered sand battery energy store at a domestic level. The idea being that excess power produced by a domestic solar array can be used to heat up a suitably sized sand battery/ thermal energy store, which can be called upon to release it's energy on demand in the form of hot water both for heating and general domestic usage etc.

I come at this subject purely from a practical standpoint. I have zero interest in building infrastructure that feeds back into the power network for little reward. They can go swivel. I'd rather waste energy in abundance than give them any of it.

So, apart from waffling on about it on this thread, what are YOU doing about it ?
 
CavaliereVerde said:
Unfortunatelly we have a total different concept of credible and reputable persons... 😐
Click to expand...
Indeed we do CV.
You regard a computer salesman and a car salesman, both of whom stand to make millions from the climate emergency myth, as being both credible and reputable. I, on the other hand, regard scientists and experts in the field as being both credible and reputable, as they have nothing to gain and much to lose by presenting facts that show beyond all reasonable doubt that There is no Climate Emergency.
 
counter_violent said:
iv'e come to the conclusion that both sides are as bad as each other
Click to expand...
There are bad guys on both sides as usual but the idea of making money burning fossil fuels is worse than making money and energy without burning fossil fuels.
I believe climate change is an emergency but even if it were not it is an opportunity to move to a better technology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Westward Group Alternative Energy Tokyo: No excuse for inaction on emissions
Replies
1
Views
1K
ABTrading
ABTrading
Stewenson133
12 Economic Bubbles That May Burst
Replies
18
Views
7K
SAINT
S
P
Providio's Futures Market Comentary for March 14, 2012
Replies
0
Views
2K
providiotrading
P
NVP
Property - the pitfalls and problems
Replies
1
Views
2K
Aforce1
A
Top