|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 17, 2023 22:34:18 GMT
Well as you have started doing so now, when we tried to reverse the process you all watched it be crushed by political interference and never said a word. Except of course Brexit equals bad and we need more people with less. No idea what you mean. Perhaps some real examples. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 17, 2023 22:38:58 GMT
Don't be daft. These are perfect examples of how ridiculous the idea of not measuring things by populace.
So China has less impact on climate change than the UK - are you sure?..  Sorry I keep forgetting English is not your first language. I said "By populace" In English that means per person. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2023 22:49:57 GMT
I didn't ask you to justify what china is doing. I asked you to qualify YOUR claim. My claim is that China's Co2 emission completely dwarfs ours and is likely to do to an even higher degree in the future. So, even if you starved the entire population of the UK to death, burned the bodies, then stamped on the ashes and beat them with sticks, it would make no odds. I don't think Zanygame can accept this and is now just arguing for the sake of it. Apparently, I am more to blame for emissions than China, which makes it ideal because it's easier to attack the people of our own country if the intention is to try and screw us. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Feb 18, 2023 5:15:25 GMT
Of course now you have to move the goalposts. Don't be daft. These are perfect examples of how ridiculous the idea of not measuring things by populace. But everyone else is obviously telling you that either you are rubbish at maths, or are trying to pull a fast one. Meanwhile the Chinese are doing it on a grand scale. Pointing it out has now somehow become daft. You asked a while back how did they convince the Chinese, when in actual fact it is the other way around. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Feb 18, 2023 6:23:19 GMT
So China has less impact on climate change than the UK - are you sure?.. Sorry I keep forgetting English is not your first language. I said "By populace" In English that means per person.No it doesn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 18, 2023 7:39:25 GMT
So China has less impact on climate change than the UK - are you sure?.. Sorry I keep forgetting English is not your first language. I said "By populace" In English that means per person. My point - if you measure per person then China has less impact on climate change than the UK. are you really trying to argue that? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 18, 2023 9:14:39 GMT
My claim is that China's Co2 emission completely dwarfs ours and is likely to do to an even higher degree in the future. So, even if you starved the entire population of the UK to death, burned the bodies, then stamped on the ashes and beat them with sticks, it would make no odds. I don't think Zanygame can accept this and is now just arguing for the sake of it. Apparently, I am more to blame for emissions than China, which makes it ideal because it's easier to attack the people of our own country if the intention is to try and screw us. I don't think you can accept Co2 production is created by each human being. China produces more because its a vast country with many more people. That does not excuse us from dealing with our Co2 production. Your argument is so ridiculous it almost defies discussion. What if every smaller country in the world followed your lead, how long before that Co2 pollution dwarfed China's. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 18, 2023 9:15:30 GMT
Sorry I keep forgetting English is not your first language. I said "By populace" In English that means per person. My point - if you measure per person then China has less impact on climate change than the UK. are you really trying to argue that? No, of course not. China produces more because its a vast country with many more people. That does not excuse us from dealing with our Co2 production. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 18, 2023 9:34:48 GMT
Sorry I keep forgetting English is not your first language. I said "By populace" In English that means per person. My point - if you measure per person then China has less impact on climate change than the UK. are you really trying to argue that? Maybe you miss the point? which appears to be that China produces less Co2 --- per person --- . Which, if true, must be part of the equation. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 18, 2023 10:11:15 GMT
My point - if you measure per person then China has less impact on climate change than the UK. are you really trying to argue that? No, of course not. China produces more because its a vast country with many more people. That does not excuse us from dealing with our Co2 production. As I have tried to point out, that notion contains a significant distortion. Much of China's population has a very basic lifestyle and much of China is barely developed by western standards. China's emissions are currently related to its industrial activity, not its population size. However, this will inevitably change as China's development extends across its vast territory and make your impoverishment / destruction of the UK and the enslavement of its people entirely and totally inconsequential. Yet you persist like a berserk energiser bunny, insisting this must be done. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 18, 2023 10:16:35 GMT
No, of course not. China produces more because its a vast country with many more people. That does not excuse us from dealing with our Co2 production. As I have tried to point out, that notion contains a significant distortion. Much of China's population has a very basic lifestyle and much of China is barely developed by western standards. China's emissions are currently related to its industrial activity, not its population size. However, this will inevitably change as China's development extends across its vast territory (if China itself persists) and make your impoverishment / destruction of the UK and the enslavement of its people entirely and totally inconsequential. Yet you persist like a berserk energiser bunny, insisting it must be done. Birmingham might have produced more Co2 than Liverpool, but they are still part of the same country. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Feb 18, 2023 10:18:20 GMT
No, of course not. China produces more because its a vast country with many more people. That does not excuse us from dealing with our Co2 production. As I have tried to point out, that notion contains a significant distortion. Much of China's population has a very basic lifestyle and much of China is barely developed by western standards. China's emissions are currently related to its industrial activity, not its population size. However, this will inevitably change as China's development extends across its vast territory (if China itself persists) and make your impoverishment / destruction of the UK and the enslavement of its people entirely and totally inconsequential. Yet you persist like a berserk energiser bunny, insisting this must be done. lol |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 18, 2023 10:23:04 GMT
No, of course not. China produces more because its a vast country with many more people. That does not excuse us from dealing with our Co2 production. As I have tried to point out, that notion contains a significant distortion. Much of China's population has a very basic lifestyle and much of China is barely developed by western standards. China's emissions are currently related to its industrial activity, not its population size. However, this will inevitably change as China's development extends across its vast territory (if China itself persists) and make your impoverishment / destruction of the UK and the enslavement of its people entirely and totally inconsequential. Yet you persist like a berserk energiser bunny, insisting this must be done. China also produces our goods for us. And I asked you for some numbers relating to these two factors. Either way, saying you will change nothing because someone else is worse has never been a good argument. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 18, 2023 10:32:40 GMT
As I have tried to point out, that notion contains a significant distortion. Much of China's population has a very basic lifestyle and much of China is barely developed by western standards. China's emissions are currently related to its industrial activity, not its population size. However, this will inevitably change as China's development extends across its vast territory (if China itself persists) and make your impoverishment / destruction of the UK and the enslavement of its people entirely and totally inconsequential. Yet you persist like a berserk energiser bunny, insisting this must be done. China also produces our goods for us. And I asked you for some numbers relating to these two factors. There is no need because (for the tenth time) I'm not arguing that china is doing anything wrong. I'm arguing that impoverishing us further will make no odds The reason you keep coming back to this silly motif of blame is because you are searching for rationales to blame and beat down a particular group. This fixation is likely not your fault btw - someone hypnotised you |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2023 11:34:41 GMT
I don't think Zanygame can accept this and is now just arguing for the sake of it. Apparently, I am more to blame for emissions than China, which makes it ideal because it's easier to attack the people of our own country if the intention is to try and screw us. I don't think you can accept Co2 production is created by each human being. China produces more because its a vast country with many more people. That does not excuse us from dealing with our Co2 production. Your argument is so ridiculous it almost defies discussion. What if every smaller country in the world followed your lead, how long before that Co2 pollution dwarfed China's. We have so little industry and record high energy costs that there's not a hope in hell of nature even noticing us, because there's no way to compete with the globalist setup.
If you're worried about the number of people in the UK, then so were those who were more opposed to free-movement and mass-immigration, which led to that conservative estimate of a 10 million people population increase recently. Thanks to that we are further away from being self-sufficient.
It's just odd that you, a EUphile and supporter of free-movement (mass-immigraion too, no doubt), would be so concerned about emissions now. It all seems dishonest and just another opportunity to try and screw us.
|
|
