-
Enjoy XS650.com? Consider making a donation to help support the site.
XS650.com receives a small share of sales from some links on this page, but direct donations have a much greater impact on keeping this site going.
Do we care about the enviroment !!! ????
- Thread starter 650Skull
- Start date
Charles13
XS650 Addict
? I asked about carbon tax and CO2 being bad for the climate
I ask myself why many constantly post things for the wrong reasons or, may be, based on google.
I set the stage to think about the problem, not an "issue".
People muck things up all the time.
Hell A.I. is biased and full of hallucinations.
and..no I do not care about you or me "poisoning" the environ and blaming it on CO2
Love Canal is another story.
Charles13
XS650 Addict
Skull why not engage our inquiry about this CO2 boogeyman? It’s very straightforward; CO2 is both necessary and very beneficial for the earth yet they are trying to pick our pockets over it. I’m not sure if Australia has signed on to these crazy climate policies, but I am in Canada where we are responsible for less than 2% of greenhouse gas production worldwide and we pay about a 20% tax on everything in the name of “carbon”. This honestly looks more like control or outright theft of our money; a green grift piloted by John Kerry and the WEF who collectively use far more carbon resources than the rest of us!
The EU is in the process atm of making it illegal for any EU country to opt out of these restrictions
Signed
Not a troll
The EU is in the process atm of making it illegal for any EU country to opt out of these restrictions
Signed
Not a troll
Charles13
XS650 Addict
Another WEF young global leader trying to fail upwards just like her buddy Justin, it is refreshing to see that she claims to have empathy though
Charles13
XS650 Addict
I did ff through the drivel but I see where you and I disagree
Post#1
I'm not going to get into debates or arguments. ...............It is up to individuals what they want to believe, but i am going to post information that is factually based and pear reviewed. Where there is some speculation surrounding a hypothesis this will be mentioned a well although some speculation will be based on past historical accounts that would be relevant to existing situations..........
I'm not going to get into debates or arguments. ...............It is up to individuals what they want to believe, but i am going to post information that is factually based and pear reviewed. Where there is some speculation surrounding a hypothesis this will be mentioned a well although some speculation will be based on past historical accounts that would be relevant to existing situations..........
Not a claim to b empathetic, she proved her empathy in the pandemic and Christchurch massacre.
Last edited:
In a world of disinformation. Teaching children from the earliest age to b critical thinkers who can distinguish real and false information.
https://www.dandc.eu/en/article/fin...any-years-children-young-kindergarten-age-are
https://www.dandc.eu/en/article/fin...any-years-children-young-kindergarten-age-are
Charles13
XS650 Addict
Or simply indoctrinating them, Finland, Sweden and Norway are honestly doing a great job compared to Canada, the EU and Britain who are going full censorship with thought laws incoming. The EU has very strict laws in the works that will enact very severe financial penalties on any EU country that does not go along with their green climate grift, I’m telling you it is a huge method of wealth transfer from the have nots to the have yachts.
Lol what is a thought law.....???
Censorship and Indoctrination is banning books, forcing an exclusive religious belief in the classroom.
The transfer of wealth is not a new concept. Globalisation has been a big driver. Moving to green energy is not the main driver, corruption by lobbyists employed by corporations, who were once in govt, using their contacts/friendship.
Corruption by the wealthy who have no moral or compassion towards those who have fallen through the cracks. Notice how the poor, and those on the lower socioeconomic ladder, are blamed for stealing the wealth from the blue cooler every day workers, by being lazy, when the wealthy hord more yet refuse to pay a living wage.
[QUOTE
The world’s five richest men — LVMH chief Bernard Arnault, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, investor Warren Buffet, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison and Tesla CEO Elon Musk — have seen their wealth double since 2020 and are earning $14m an hour, Oxfam’s report said.
But while the world’s few rich elite pile up wealth, world poverty has increased for the first time in nearly three decades,
According to Oxfam’s analysis, at least 1.7 billion workers globally saw inflation rise faster than their wages in 2022, limiting their abilities to buy food and to pay their energy bills.
Meanwhile, at the same time, the tiny elite group who are the wealthiest people in the world have only gotten richer, according to Oxfam’s findings.
In the past 10 years, more than half of the new wealth created globally has been directed to the pockets of the richest one percent of humanity. But between 2020 and 2021 alone, that rate accelerated still further, with the richest one percent getting 63 percent of all new wealth, leaving 99 percent of the world population with just 37 percent of new global revenue.
Those inequalities have gender and racial tinges, too, Oxfam found. Men owned $105 trillion more wealth than women, while Black families in the United States had only 15.8 percent of the wealth of a normal white household.
Unquote]
These five richest people in the world have nothing to do with green energy.
Censorship and Indoctrination is banning books, forcing an exclusive religious belief in the classroom.
The transfer of wealth is not a new concept. Globalisation has been a big driver. Moving to green energy is not the main driver, corruption by lobbyists employed by corporations, who were once in govt, using their contacts/friendship.
Corruption by the wealthy who have no moral or compassion towards those who have fallen through the cracks. Notice how the poor, and those on the lower socioeconomic ladder, are blamed for stealing the wealth from the blue cooler every day workers, by being lazy, when the wealthy hord more yet refuse to pay a living wage.
[QUOTE
The world’s five richest men — LVMH chief Bernard Arnault, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, investor Warren Buffet, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison and Tesla CEO Elon Musk — have seen their wealth double since 2020 and are earning $14m an hour, Oxfam’s report said.
But while the world’s few rich elite pile up wealth, world poverty has increased for the first time in nearly three decades,
According to Oxfam’s analysis, at least 1.7 billion workers globally saw inflation rise faster than their wages in 2022, limiting their abilities to buy food and to pay their energy bills.
Meanwhile, at the same time, the tiny elite group who are the wealthiest people in the world have only gotten richer, according to Oxfam’s findings.
In the past 10 years, more than half of the new wealth created globally has been directed to the pockets of the richest one percent of humanity. But between 2020 and 2021 alone, that rate accelerated still further, with the richest one percent getting 63 percent of all new wealth, leaving 99 percent of the world population with just 37 percent of new global revenue.
Those inequalities have gender and racial tinges, too, Oxfam found. Men owned $105 trillion more wealth than women, while Black families in the United States had only 15.8 percent of the wealth of a normal white household.
Unquote]
These five richest people in the world have nothing to do with green energy.
.....
Wow!
Lemme no how tat werks out
Lemme no how tat werks out
Charles13
XS650 Addict
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/08/endangered.php
Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday moved to rescind its 2009 “endangerment finding,” which declared greenhouse gases a threat to public health. The repeal will dismantle the legal basis for the federal government’s recent and sweeping climate agenda. Yet just as important was the Department of Energy’s Tuesday report that knocks down the scientific basis of the supposed threat, by providing a more rounded and up-to-date assessment of the state of climate science….
The study—which its authors say is written “to be accessible to non-experts”—notes that historical data doesn’t back up claims that climate change is increasing the frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, flood or droughts. It points out problems with modeling, uncertainties over the extent human activity plays a role, the relatively minimal economic effects of climate change, and the limits of U.S. policy action on global emissions.
All this matters, since it was the Obama and Biden teams that used selective, one-sided scientific claims to argue for an endangerment finding and federal intervention. The climate crowd and mainstream media is in a tizzy over the new report, accusing Wright and the authors of rejecting “overwhelming consensus.” They must not have read the document, which draws heavily on peer-reviewed literature published since 2020.
Here are a few noncontroversial findings from the report—based on peer-reviewed literature from recent years—that might surprise Times readers. Global warming has risks, but also benefits, including greater agricultural productivity. We still don’t know the extent to which human activity plays a role in warming, given natural variability, data limitations, uncertain models and fluctuations in solar activity. Models predicting what is to come remain all over the map. U.S. historical data doesn’t support claims of increased frequency or intensity of extreme weather. Climate change is likely to have little effect on economic growth. U.S. climate policies, even drastic ones, will have negligible effect on global temperatures.
This is the honest, modest assessment of the state of climate science today. Which explains the climate activists’ fury, since it is at odds with the controlled story of “mass extinction” and “end of glaciers” and “deathly heat waves” that the “consensus” gatekeepers obsessively enforce. Complete control over that scientific narrative has been essential to their ability to manipulate debate and, under Joe Biden’s presidency, gear the entire government to “fighting” the “threat.”
Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday moved to rescind its 2009 “endangerment finding,” which declared greenhouse gases a threat to public health. The repeal will dismantle the legal basis for the federal government’s recent and sweeping climate agenda. Yet just as important was the Department of Energy’s Tuesday report that knocks down the scientific basis of the supposed threat, by providing a more rounded and up-to-date assessment of the state of climate science….
The study—which its authors say is written “to be accessible to non-experts”—notes that historical data doesn’t back up claims that climate change is increasing the frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, flood or droughts. It points out problems with modeling, uncertainties over the extent human activity plays a role, the relatively minimal economic effects of climate change, and the limits of U.S. policy action on global emissions.
All this matters, since it was the Obama and Biden teams that used selective, one-sided scientific claims to argue for an endangerment finding and federal intervention. The climate crowd and mainstream media is in a tizzy over the new report, accusing Wright and the authors of rejecting “overwhelming consensus.” They must not have read the document, which draws heavily on peer-reviewed literature published since 2020.
Here are a few noncontroversial findings from the report—based on peer-reviewed literature from recent years—that might surprise Times readers. Global warming has risks, but also benefits, including greater agricultural productivity. We still don’t know the extent to which human activity plays a role in warming, given natural variability, data limitations, uncertain models and fluctuations in solar activity. Models predicting what is to come remain all over the map. U.S. historical data doesn’t support claims of increased frequency or intensity of extreme weather. Climate change is likely to have little effect on economic growth. U.S. climate policies, even drastic ones, will have negligible effect on global temperatures.
This is the honest, modest assessment of the state of climate science today. Which explains the climate activists’ fury, since it is at odds with the controlled story of “mass extinction” and “end of glaciers” and “deathly heat waves” that the “consensus” gatekeepers obsessively enforce. Complete control over that scientific narrative has been essential to their ability to manipulate debate and, under Joe Biden’s presidency, gear the entire government to “fighting” the “threat.”
"pear reviewed" per the gun clan
yummy
yummy
