What Happens If Someone Tries A Discussion About "Ecology Versus Economy " ("Climate Change") Upon This Forum

It's not a distraction from the issue *at all*. Why do you think they keep proposing things that won't hurt them but will hurt lower income people? Because it isn't their life experience, and they don't even think of it. 

When they blocked the tube train last year, you could hear people on the footage saying that they would lose their jobs if the train was delayed. Some of these folk are on zero hours contracts and the like, so if they don't get to work, they don't get paid. It's easy for Rupert Depiffle-Smythe to take time off, when he has hundreds of thousands in the bank, not so easy for someone living on the breadline.

Beef for example contributes to green house gases in its most natural unprocessed form. The caws release so much methane from their digestive system, that it is on of significant contributors to green house problem,. Currently mostly rich people and nations eat beef. I understand scientists worry that if beef consumption were scaled to the developing countries, the methane emissions would become very problematic. Based on this there were voiced to stop eating meet all together, which I find reactionary.

Coming  back to my point about innovation, I saw in the news somebody working on capturing methane inside the cow. If this doesn't work, we might in a distant future be eating hydroponic lab grown meet :(

completely wrong

I agree

Exactly - "How Dare You" question St Greta,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTXdhTwO320

She's totally FAKE.

Disambiguating Cynosure said:

' People who actually grow food are not allowed to eat the food which they themselves grew due to Economy, which is food that people who are rich can purchase in excess but cannot grow in their own Environment. '

This is classic communism - the worker is exploited and his labour is stolen from him so the government can decide what portion he is allowed to have back.    It ALWAYS ends badly.

And never the twain shall meet.

Me again. Here is another fundament about My starting this Thread...

' People who actually grow food are not allowed to eat the food which they themselves grew due to Economy, which is food that people who are rich can purchase in excess but cannot grow in their own Environment. '

...Or maybe I should start another Thread, but this Thread relates to this fundament. It is another thing which is not really considered, just like Overpopulation and Radiation. (I am just seeking opinion or seeing if anyone else here understands this dichotomy... please do not post to much "hate", anyone...?)

Hi, to TinyExplorer and Aidie...

Tinyexplorer said:

Natural produce will become a luxury for the rich.

aidie said:

no one knows for sure 

...I keep Thanking everyone, but I really meant it. The thing is... this IS a thing which IS already - and loooong - been happening. "processed" food is very very cheap --- adding Levulose (Sugar), or Carbohydrates, or Pork poroducts if needing "meat". 

In the general sense, "PROCESSING" is CARBONIZING everything. It is a complicted thing - Chemistry - to begin to study, but it is totally worth the effort of learning about it.

How this relates to My agreeing with what You both say here, and My attempting this Thread, is -- YES the "rich" ARE allowed/can afford to eat what is basically not Carbonized. If You can afford "expensive" foods then then these will have a very different effect upon a body not used to eating them. In the very base sense, it is the same as trying an "exotic" food...

...But to add even more more confusion to this Thread... the more a food is processed, then the more it contributes towards the Economy/'climate change'...!

...I am reeealy suspecting that no-one upon here knows what I mean? (So much disparity, so little allowance...)

... Greetings to All especially to those whom have contributed to this Thread so far...! 

Thank You all, I have learnt much about the business, I shall try to recall all of it --- please do not get overly hostile or else this Thread may get deleted, yet I shall still try to remember and heed the knowledge presented within it...! Also I apologise if I have missed a reply and not voted it up. I am sort of glad of having begun this Thread; judging from the responses, it does indeed seem to have 'plugged a gap'...

The thing is... I have slightly altered the TITLE now, in attempt to focuss upon how I Myself see all of this "climate change" business. I shall/have added "Ecology Versus Economy", which is more towards how I see things. As this Thread is so far, I really truly mean the Thanks for the replies so far.

...It is difficult to keep track of all of the *factions* involved, but I see things from a more basic point-of-view, and so after all of that I attempt to bring in a bit of focus which may either provide perspective or not be understood... I Myself see it as linked to this entire debate yet also not know if anyone else does. (I could start a separate Thread, but am trying to keep it to this one here, to see if anyone else gets the connections or not.)

...Another post may follow. But again I *really truly mean* the Thank You to those who have posted so far! 

The UK data goes back to 1884... I accept the UK has better records than some other countries, but that's not to say there's no data other than NOAA.

Do you mean the UN Sustainable Development Goals? They've always looked quite reasonable to me. Which ones do you find problematic?

That was not my point.

The opinions about climate change are divided and there are powerful money lobbies on both sides of the divide.  It is not at all my intent to comment on the substance as it will only result in division, which is unnecessary on this forum. 

My point is we should not second ableist line of attack on Greta's autism as it diminishes us all and perpetuates damaging stereotypes. Autistic people do have their own opinions and autonomy of mind and body, acting freely for themselves. We are not puppets because of autism.

There is NO historic data from around the world and NOAA are faking the only data to justify global warming - and if you follow the money, it all leads back to Soros.        It's a multi-Trillion-dollar scam to install socialism / big government, high-taxation and a massive wealth-redistribution from the poor to the rich.     The people of The West are 'too free' and that can't be allowed.   

Look at UN Agenda 2030 and really read its contents - their plans for us are truly SCARY - but most people are in blissful ignorance while they watch Eastenders and BGT.

The UK met office data (https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/data/index) also shows a similar temperature pattern to the NOAA data over the past century.

For climate change to be a hoax, it would require the meteorological offices and climate scientist from countries all over the world to co-ordinate in "doctoring" their collected data. The amount of people that this would involve makes me doubt this could be faked. Getting governments to agree on anything is difficult enough at the best of times.

Greta is a total fake.    She was spotted by a US left-wing group and used in a coordinated push by media companies to sway the recent climate conferences.         It's classic "Won't someone think of the children?" rhetoric.

https://www.facebook.com/officialbenshapiro/videos/198955894574668/

Ben Shapiro spells it out.

Niemand said:

When Thunberg goes off message it is very obvious she is lost, and her handlers don't like that.

I don'y know whether climate activists use Greta;s autism as a shield, I am no sure what benefit they derive from it as she is on the receiving end of a lot of attacks specifically on her autism. The  climate denial people always attack her autism by exploiting prejudice and undermining her agency by asserting that sh is merely a puppet.

One should be careful with this invalidating perspective as it affects all autistic people. The argument that our views are not valid and that we act only as puppets is profoundly discriminatory and diminishes all people with disabilities.

Who cares? I'm a Posties son and i don't.  That's a distraction from the issue.

I'm an engineer.    I do not care about all the garbage we're being fed about the climate hoax - the biggest hoax perpetrated on the populations of the world,

If you look at 100 years of the world's climate data, there is basically NONE.      That's right - NONE.     Only the US has reliable data over that period - South America, Asia, Russia, India, Africa - and even Europe - there's only very little, patchy data.       Unfortunately, NOAA is manipulating the data to 'prove' global warming - even though the data shows a slight cooling which corresponds with the Sun's output.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/06/13/doctored-data-not-u-s-temperatures-set-a-record-this-year/

Up to 50% of the 'recorded data' is actually made up data from a computer model that is designed to show warming.

Greta is a sad, brainwashed child-puppet, made to order by an American left-wing news agency.     I feel sorry for her.   Her parents are monsters for training her to the point that she's burning out from anxiety about the end of the world.       It's sad to see her 'protesting' in Sweden  when her minders and handlers and publicists hugely out-number the press and other protesters.     It's all FAKE.

China has said they will not even consider looking at their carbon footprint until after 2035.    India is one of the largest polluters on the planet - they don't care either.

Politically, it's all about introducing socialism / communism / tyranny via the back door - and our children are being indoctrinated from an early age - classic Marxist policy - get them when they are too young to question anything.     Look into the TRILLIONS being scammed from Carbon Credit trading.     If you tell a lie for long enough, it becomes the truth.

The 97% BS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewJ6TI8ccAw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnnDOMyZjbE

Now don't get me wrong, I am totally for sensible care of our planet, but the climate change hoax is a religion that I'm not willing to take part in.

.

Also - did you know that the BBC created a company that promotes the climate change con?      So their 'independent scientists' they have on their news are, in a way, their own employees pushing their fake climate agenda.

The BBC are so confident in their scam that their pension fund is heavily invested into this company - conflict of interest?   Impartial?    It's a massive fraud.

They're upper class, but so are the double-barrelled folk who are the mouthpieces of XR. 

I believe in the Science. I also support Extinction Rebellion but from home as i don't go out much at the moment. Used to be more into political activism but found it stressful in the end. I'm glad i did it though.

I think if you want to bring class into it you can talk about the bosses and shareholders of Oil and Gas companies.  About as working class as messrs Farage and Johnson i think.  Anyway it's the political influence of these large companies that is keeping the problem unsolved.  I think most voters of both the major political parties want it solved.