Not what I said.....I've already spoken about the need for nuclear and effective climate change technologies.

I would imagine that our attitudes to migration are very different. Regardless what methods are you putting forward to 'encourage people to stay where they are'......I wager it's nothing that is practical or realistic.

This is you believing pure bunk and fantasy.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Only if it could be sustainable and carbon-neutral. WWII consumed vast amounts of fossil fuels. And the noise pollution was terrible.

Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

No one denies that the climate changes. It's cyclical.

From the reading I've done, we're heading for a grand solar minimum, lasting 30-40 years, which will cause a temperature decrease, caused by reduced sun activity.

Major Climate Paper Withdrawn By Nature
[Link]

Climate Scientists Write To UN: There Is No Climate Emergency
[Link]

What's the betting that the discussion that they're asking for won't be permitted? You would have thought that if the advocates had a strong case, they'd relish the opportunity to show that the 'deniers' are incorrect, and to end the argument.

Edited by Rubin (27 Sep 2019 10.20am)

The media's gate keeping and the attempts to control and demonise language are just more evidence of the path we have been led down.

Imagine if the 'Yellow Jackets' had been protesting against a government that the EU media didn't like.....The BBC for example, would have those stories on the front page every day.

Just like they highlight 'death threats' against certain people but not others......All agenda.

Like Sargon said....Dirty dirty smear merchants.

Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Sep 2019 7.59pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Your last line says it all.
Until people understand this we will all be taken to the cleaners.

Not saying you're wrong, but have you got any evidence for this? I've no idea if big oil etc have funded any studies, and I'd be interested in finding out, and seeing what the outcome of the studies was. From the little bit of googling I've just done, it seems as though they have funded studies arguing against it up until 2007, but are now in fact funding the other side for various reasons. [Link]

From what I've heard, the "97% of clitmate scientists" argument is mostly a result of the threat of the withdrawing of the funding of studies if agreeable results are not produced, meaning "if you don't give us the results we want, you won't be able to put food on your table or pay your mortgage".

Completely agree with your second paragraph. Not accusing you of doing this, but one thing that often crops up is the people conflate 'man made climate change' with pollution, and if you question the former, accuse you of being in favour of the latter and 'big oil'.

The issue however, is that none of the current renewable sources really cut the mustard. Solar panels barely pay off their carbon footprint before they need to be replaced, and wind turbines are unsightly, massively expensive, and their blades are currently being buried in the ground in some places. Nuclear does seem to be the way to go until they've developed better renewable sources.

Edited by Rubin (27 Sep 2019 9.45pm)