Desire for net zero referendum growing among public, poll finds

Correct, but emmissions are continuing to increase and they show no sign of slowing down. Things will get worse if this continues.



Industrial society, as it is today, is unsustainable. While it does it give us wonderful luxuries, if these luxuries are underpinned by unsustainable processes then we need to do something about it. Either we scrap these luxuries entirely or switch to sustainable ways of having them. It's possible for us to lower our greenhouse emissions while also maintaining these luxuries (e.g. switching from oil and gas to renewable sources of energy). This is what the "climate lot" want, it's what anyone should want.

On the second bit, I have no objection to taking measures to help tackle climate change provided they don't require me to lower my standard of living. Can you give me some examples of that? Because so far every proposal I have seen involves asking people to make at least some level of sacrifice. If you want people to sacrifice luxuries then it should apply to everyone, not just the plebs. I refuse to lower my standard of living to "save the planet" while Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, and their young global leaders are swanning around the world in their private jets. If everyone needs to make sacrifices then they should lead by example first. But we all know they won't, because what this is really about is the elite taking even more control over our lives than they already have. Climate change is just a way for them to convince the plebs to lower their standard of living while believing it's for the greater good.

If there are standards of living that need to change then they should change for everyone, particularly those who are the worst polluters. And I agree - I think there should be outright bans on the use of private jets because they generate an absurd amount of pollution and are awful for the environment.

I can sympathize with that. I think that most of the climate lot have good intentions and believe that if sacrifices have to be made, then everyone will have to make them and so we'll all be in this together. But I fear it won't be like that at all. I think the climate emergency narrative is being pushed by people with a very different agenda, people who want the plebs to make sacrifices so the elite can still enjoy their luxuries. You'll own nothing, you'll be told you can't get on a plane. But that won't apply to Klaus Schwab and Billy Boy. They and their young global leaders will still be swanning around in their private jets eating as much steak as they like. Gates has been encouraging everyone to go vegan for ages but he isn't one himself. That really says it all if you ask me, for all they talk about saving the planet and making sacrifices, the reality is they just want YOU to make sacrifices, not them.

Right, but none of this actually affects the severity and reality of climate change. If Klaus Schwab and Billy Boy (whoever they are, never heard of them) say that people shouldn't have private planes because it's bad for the climate, but then go on to use private planes themself, then all that makes them is hypocrites. It doesn't change the fact that private planes are bad for the environment and that we should still continue to push for them to be banned.

Klaus Schwab is chairman of the WEF, the organization that wants you to own nothing and be happy about it. He's boasted about "penetrating" governments and in general seems to have quite a disturbing amount of influence for someone that is not elected, someone that nobody voted for. As for Bill Gates, surely you know who that is? In this day and age there can't be many people who don't know him?

I don't think they are just hypocrites. I think they are using climate change to try and grab even more control over our lives than what they already have. In my opinion, what they are really aiming for is a return to a feudal society, with the vast majority of people sacrificing their current luxuries to live in poverty "for the good of the planet" while the elite still keep their luxuries and rule over us. So the way I see it, lowering my standard of living would just make their job easier, so why should I do it? I say again that if they truly cared about the climate and weren't just using it as an excuse to grab more power, why don't they give up their private jets first?

I've just read "a voyage of discovery" by prof Lance Endersbee, He shows how the (expanding) Earth is sitting on a great ball of molton rock and is is fed by matter from and even bigger ball of fire, so while man has an effect on his micro climate in cities, if you want to understand water and petroleum distribution and shortage, the answer lies beneath, the assumptions many are working with are wrong.



Clockwork and expanding Earth explanations compared:

This is a joke, right?

Oh dear, prejudice rules

Do you actually believe the debunked 'Expanding Earth Theory' nonsense?

I don't know about that but I found his points about the source of water and petroleum persuasive.

The case for expamding Earth is argued here, though I just read the intro and conclusion.

Weird how you chose to accept the belief of two people with fringe beliefs over the massive scientific consensus on both global warming and the non-expansion of the Earth. Have either of these works been peer reviewed, validated, confirmed by other scientists outside some dodgy 2000s-looking website?

History shows that "mainstream" science, like mainstream religion has usually opposed and rejected those who challenge their assumptions but with most breakthroughs, "today's heresy becomes to.orrow's true doctrine"

"Peer review" means does it agree with the assumptions we work to.?

I like to keep an open mind.