That is a different discussion. I am not arguing for any centralized government interference, or indeed for any specific remediation measures. I am only arguing for the scientific facts.LeafByNiggle:
Yeah, but it wasn’t proposed as the reason to initiate centralized government interference in all areas of life back then, like it is today.1cthlctrth:
Then I guess those nefarious forces must have started really early, because the theory was first proposed in 1896.
Nope. You said:LeafByNiggle:
Yeah, actually, you claimed that CO2 was “provably” … “bad for climate change.” You used the NASA article as your “Is so” reply to my post.
The word “provable” is applied only to CO2 being good for plant growth - a point I did not dispute. I did not say it is “provably bad for climate change”. You switched the words around and changed the meaning. I saw what you did.
No.
See above for an explanation of your misunderstanding.
You’d think there were people here too young to remember the “controversy” over acid rain (which lasted until the marble statues started to dissolve…). Or the “controversy” over whether smoking was really bad for your health. Or the “controversy” over whether the use of DDT was affecting predatory birds like bald eagles.
yeah, because india and china being allowed to build new coal plants for the next 10 years shows how dire it really is…
I did not realize we had made China and India our colonies, so we could dictate the energy uses of 2.7 billion other people who naturally wonder why only residents of the US of A are allowed to want a certain “standard of living.”
yeah, because their air is different than ours and when according to AOC and the dems in 12 years when the world ends india and china will be okay.
Look at the figures I posted. Explain how we get to claim the right to generate somewhere between 2 and nearly 10 times as much CO2 per person as they do. Sure, they’re going to go for that math. What country wouldn’t do that for the great nation with the cool MAGA hats?
you miss the point
The answer is that the US has dropped the ball in leadership in a cooperative way on this issue (for example, by withdrawing from the Paris Accords). Without that leadership, nations are not as inclined to get out ahead, especially if it looks they might lose out competitively in the world economy by doing so.
we got out because it was a bad deal. it was an executive order. from the start, it was an economic redistribution policy with no mandated reductions.
I’d phrase this differently
You are deflecting from my answer to your question of why China is not doing more to install green energy. The answer is the US is not leading in this effort. I know you think we have good excuses for not leading (The Paris Accords were a bad deal…) but that does not alter the fact that we are not leading. And that’s partly because the administration thinks climate change is a hoax and so of course they are not going to lead.LeafByNiggle:
we got out because it was a bad deal. it was an executive order. from the start, it was an economic redistribution policy with no mandated reductions.
even today nobody really has any idea what’s going on. it is all smoke and mirrors and money being moved to where the globalist want it to go.
This is all irrelevant since we are not cooling down, but heating up. So the dangers of extreme cold are not the dangers we are facing, but the opposite.
Just the coal plant used to send power through the transmission lines and used to build parts in china and India and parts of the US. Not to mention the batteries are terrible for the environment and the cars are net neutral.