Prince Charles gives the world 18 months to save humanity from climate change

a reply to: Phage

They're the only three that matter in this thread.

Speaking as an EXPERT with a PHD in political Science.

I did my undergrad at ATS university.

a reply to: neo96

They're the only three that matter in this thread.

I disagree.

a reply to: Phage

I disagree.

And?

a reply to: neo96

And nothing. I disagree. Opinions are what they are.

And we were doing so well for a moment.

a reply to: Phage

. Opinions are what they are.

Yep everyone has one.

The difference is I'm not trying to shove it down peoples throats via government fascism.

a reply to: neo96

The difference is I'm not trying to shove it down peoples throats via government fascism.

We are again not at odds.
Good. We again agree. I'm not doing so either.

Do you believe in the concept of a representative republic?

a reply to: CthulhuMythos

Weather is coming..

*ominous catchy theme music plays*

a reply to: Phage

Do you believe in the concept of a representative republic?

Yeah it's one of those things that's RESTAINED by a constitution and says the mob can't cater to their every neurosis.

a reply to: neo96

Indeed.
So, hypothetically, if the government of a representative republic passes laws in support of fighting climate change you would accept those laws.

Or would that automatically turn that government into one which is fascist, because you disagree with those laws. In your opinion?

a reply to: Phage

Nope we no longer have to.

See Sanctuary states like California.

Thesedays we get to IGNORE laws we don't like.

a reply to: neo96

That's a change of subject, an interesting one though.

And I don't see how it applies. Say, hypothetically, a law was created such that energy producers were taxed for their carbon output and the proceeds were distributed to taxpayers via credits or rebates (it's called a revenue neutral system). How would moving to another state accomplish anything?

The idea of such a system being that the tax credits would offset the increased consumer prices, if any.

Kinda makes you wonder what these powerful elites will do in the next 18 months when humanity isn't scared into following their lead?

Has the line in the sand been drawn?.

Will the elite start taking more drastic steps to get there way?

To be clear my pondering has really nothing to do with the validity of anthro climate change; the elite could be pushing for a worthy cause.

The question still remains how far are they willing to push.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: neo96

Indeed.
So, hypothetically, if the government of a representative republic passes laws in support of fighting climate change you would accept those laws.

Or would that automatically turn that government into one which is fascist, because you disagree with those laws. In your opinion?

I don't think the resistance really has much to do with people seeing such laws as fascist or not. A worpd like fascist is used as a scare tactic.

The real issue is that the people don't trust their government enough to give them yet another way to tax us. Another way to pick winners and losers.

If some how our government where to be trusted not to line their own pockets over this issue a lot more people would support it.

a reply to: DanDanDat

A world like fascist is used as a scare tactic.

Who is neo96 trying to scare do you think? He's the one who used it.

The real issue is that the people don't trust their government enough to give them yet another way to tax us.

It was a hypothetical question aimed at how one's perception of government action may vary depending upon one's personal opinion. Perhaps you missed that. A republic is great unless it does something I don't like, at which point it is no longer a republic, it is fascist. Something along those lines.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DanDanDat

A world like fascist is used as a scare tactic.

Who is neo96 trying to scare do you think? He's the one who used it.

The real issue is that the people don't trust their government enough to give them yet another way to tax us.

It was a hypothetical question aimed at how one's perception of government action may vary depending upon one's personal opinion. It seems you missed that. A republic is great unless it does something I don't like, at which point it is no longer a republic. Something along those lines.

I understand your point and disagree with its cynicism.

A republic is great until the government can't be trusted to carry out the people's business.

I think a lot of people would be willing to stand behind a government doing "something they don't like" if they had confidence that there government had their best interests at heart.

a reply to: Phage

I don't doubt your charts, as a rejoinder I would just say check the sunspots out and the global warmers hysteria, match the very high period from about 2000 up until about 2012 , but when they started to drop it was no longer global warming but climate change . The very high solar activity has indeed increased world temps but as I said its over. Remembering that if theirs a very slight sunspot its counted as a hit even though it very small and insignificant

a reply to: anonentity

but when they started to drop it was no longer global warming but climate change

They are two different but related terms and both have been used for decades. Global warming causes climate change.

The very high solar activity has indeed increased world temps but as I said its over.

Solar activity has been declining for more than 60 years.

And temperatures have been rising.

a reply to: Phage

Their have been peak years during a general decline that's true. But the general temperatures do seem to match with the activity. The stable years are over for a while. I would imagine that those who's high standard of living depends on reading future trends will have taken measures to ensure they continue to prosper. For the rest of us it will no doubt be much the same.

a reply to: anonentity

But the general temperatures do seem to match with the activity.

Perhaps, if you are thinking there is an inverse relationship. Temperatures have been rising (you said you do not dispute that data) and solar activity has been declining.

We are on track for this year to be the second warmest on record.

a reply to: Phage

In a couple of weeks when the worst blizzard in recorded history hits, I will remember this discourse. Fudging graphs for political expediency, is being done all the time for economic purposes, no doubt the same is being done for the climate narrative. Because its also an economic indicator, but if this winter is worse than last then no doubt a few questions will be addressed at the UN. Because traditional growing areas will have to be rethought. I suggest that we are already in an economic crisis, and quickly heading to a climatic one. Take Burning the Amazon which was front page a few weeks back, the fires are still burning as they create more growing land, but now the place seems to have a drought , much like fires burning in Australia Soon we will see a climatic state of emergency declared, probably with Marshal law and that will be that.