The Great Climate Change Swindle

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

How does a Chinese person buying land outside of China related in any way to what property protections Chinese people have inside China?  I'm not following you on this one.  Cannot be seized?  Did the Soviet Union or other countries have this ability in the past?  Maybe you just made a poor example?  

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

5 minutes ago, Red said:

Hi Red.  What's the point with the photos?

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

12 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

How does a Chinese person buying land outside of China related in any way to what property protections Chinese people have inside China?  I'm not following you on this one.  Cannot be seized?  Did the Soviet Union or other countries have this ability in the past?  Maybe you just made a poor example?  

Dan, 

The major disguishing factor between social-liberalism and socialism is respecting private property. By allowing legal exportation of capital the Chinese government per definition respects private property (the default for socialism is that the government owns all property)

That said, I openly admit that I do not know much about Chinese law, so it could well be that I made a poor example

ps. I believe @Red meant to illustrate how the chinese doesn't tear down property to build infrastructure. 

[Red + 252]

40 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Hi Red.  What's the point with the photos?

It was a response to "To what extent do they respect private property?

• "

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

21 minutes ago, Red said:

It was a response to "To what extent do they respect private property?

• "

Yes, I got that.  And?

[Red + 252]

7 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Yes, I got that.  And?

And... it depends on what point you want responded to next......................................................

The various labels of communism, socialism or capitalism are never implemented by governments in textbook form.  The pictures shown above could never have been taken in Australia as the project approval phase would have subsumed any property ownership impediments.

China's 3 Gorges Dam forced the displacement of about 1.5 million people living in more than 1,500 cities and towns along the river, so as a command economy nothing gets in the way of their nation-building projects.

 

[TXPower + 643]

1 hour ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

 

I am no expert on Chinese law, so I cannot answer in detail, I see Chinese citizens purchasing land etc in Europe. This must mean that they allow export of capital. Land in Europe (or US or elsewhere) cannot be seized, so hence to an extent the Chinese government must respect private property. 

Agreed, seizing the property of a citizen is a much more daunting task when that property is physically over seas in another sovereign nation.  Property in China is easily seized and due process does not have the same meaning as it has in the west.  I mean lets be honest, imprisoning and torturing is bad enough to say nothing of the ultimate seizure, killing your own citizens because they don't accept, believe and adhere to the party line.  Doesn't exactly inspire confidence in property rights when the right to life isn't revered.   

Cute pics...……...

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Ok.  If you had stated that along with the photos you would have just gotten a "Like" from me.

[TXPower + 643]

32 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Ok.  If you had stated that along with the photos you would have just gotten a "Like" from me.

😀

[Red + 252]

30 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Ok.  If you had stated that along with the photos you would have just gotten a "Like" from me.

Tips are appreciated 😎

 

[PeterfromCalgary + 60]

The IPCC has been screaming wolf about climate change for about 30 years now.  In that time the world economy has grown substantially, poverty has fallen and life expediencies have increased.  Reports of the death of the earth have been highly exaggerated.

[Red + 252]

5 minutes ago, PeterfromCalgary said:

The IPCC has been screaming wolf about climate change for about 30 years now.  In that time the world economy has grown substantially, poverty has fallen and life expediencies have increased.  Reports of the death of the earth have been highly exaggerated.

You could have chosen almost any 30 years over the past few centuries and said the same without invoking climate change.

What is amusing, however, is that the physical evidence of climate change is much, much longer than 30 years.  Meanwhile Svante Arrhenius had worked out what was probable around 120 years ago.

Why is it that you cannot quote anything supporting your claims? 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 hours ago, Red said:

You could have chosen almost any 30 years over the past few centuries and said the same without invoking climate change.

What is amusing, however, is that the physical evidence of climate change is much, much longer than 30 years.  Meanwhile Svante Arrhenius had worked out what was probable around 120 years ago.

Why is it that you cannot quote anything supporting your claims? 

You could have chosen almost any 30 year period over the past few centuries and said the same, invoking climate change. 

I think this entire argument supports @PeterfromCalgary's claims.  Ok, I'm ignorant, hopeless, stupid, etc.  I say, if, for example, an artist or sophisticated art dealer/collector has a masterpiece for sale and needs a buyer in order to fund similar artworks in the future, and the potential customers don't show an interest, he/she has a couple of options:  He/she can stand next to his/her potential buyer(s) and tell them how ignorant, hopeless or even stupid they are, but that will mean he/she is not going to make the sale.  Or he/she can find a way that makes the buyer want the masterpiece, and more just like it.  Of course the artist or dealer/collector could also choose another line of work.

So far you have failed to make me want your masterpiece and, if you want me to buy your claims with my hard earned money, it is incumbent upon you to make me want to buy.  Or should the government be brought in to force me to buy your masterpiece?  Many governments put a value on the arts and the development of artists, but they learn to find a taxable amount that does not make everyone in town want to get out the pitchforks, tar and feathers. 

I'm not claiming that you are not right, but you have so far failed to make me want to buy it, all threats to my grandchildren aside.

[Red + 252]

5 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

You could have chosen almost any 30 year period over the past few centuries and said the same, invoking climate change. 

...........................................................................

I'm not claiming that you are not right, but you have so far failed to make me want to buy it, all threats to my grandchildren aside.

There was zero logic to the claim.  Climate change need not have been a consequence of industrialisation/progress.

Moreover, the probable consequences of climate change now suggest an opposite future.

 

[JunoTen + 118]

1 minute ago, Red said:

There was zero logic to the claim.  Climate change need not have been a consequence of industrialisation/progress.

Moreover, the probable consequences of climate change now suggest an opposite future.

 

There will be no consequences to climate change. Climate change is a real phenomenon that has been recuperated by fear-mongerers on the left. The exponential growth of solar, electric autonomous vehicles and carbon capture will put a halt to this topic by 2030, and probably before that.

[Red + 252]

11 minutes ago, JunoTen said:

There will be no consequences to climate change. Climate change is a real phenomenon that has been recuperated by fear-mongerers on the left. The exponential growth of solar, electric autonomous vehicles and carbon capture will put a halt to this topic by 2030, and probably before that.

I would like to think that could be true.

But the reality to the surviving wives of Australian farmers who committed suicide because of increasing occurrence & severity of drought sending them bankrupt after generations of making a good living is testimony to the opposite.

[JunoTen + 118]

10 minutes ago, Red said:

I would like to think that could be true. 

But the reality to the surviving wives of Australian farmers who committed suicide because of increasing occurrence & severity of drought sending them bankrupt after generations of making a good living is testimony to the opposite.

It's a terrible thing to kill oneself, especially in 2018. But politicians like to be alarmist and it gets into people's heads, while the data in every aspect of life (poverty, hunger, homelessness, illiteracy) suggests that everything is getting better and will ultimately be okay.

 

I think there's already 3 people that died in France for example over these protests against the carbon tax. Those people died for nothing, because the carbon tax is useless. This is a tragedy.

[Red + 252]

3 minutes ago, JunoTen said:

It's a terrible thing to kill oneself, especially in 2018. But politicians like to be alarmist and it gets into people's heads, while the data in every aspect of life (poverty, hunger, homelessness, illiteracy) suggests that everything is getting better and will ultimately be okay.

Politics had nothing to do with the farmers suiciding.  In the case of Australia, the pattern of drought is locked in via climate change, to the extent that the peak farming body is now demanding that the government gets serious and stop burying its head in the sand.  This represents a full 180 degree turnaround from their stance ( bunkum ) just a few years ago.

I think there's already 3 people that died in France for example over these protests against the carbon tax. Those people died for nothing, because the carbon tax is useless. This is a tragedy.

If you don't believe you are ill, don't go to the doctor to be cured, then die, then many would say that's a personal issue you failed to deal with adequately.

 

[JunoTen + 118]

5 minutes ago, Red said:

Politics had nothing to do with the farmers suiciding.  In the case of Australia, the pattern of drought is locked in via climate change, to the extent that the peak farming body is now demanding that the government gets serious and stop burying its head in the sand.  This represents a full 180 degree turnaround from their stance ( bunkum ) just a few years ago.

They can demand all they want, it can only happen when it's economically viable, which is why it's happening now. The economic growth that has saved so many lives was built on fossil fuels, and climate change has thus far been a very affordable side effect.

5 minutes ago, Red said:

If you don't believe you are ill, don't go to the doctor to be cured, then die, then many would say that's a personal issue you failed to deal with adequately.

The issue will be dealt with but it will be dealt with by the market, which is an effective way of dealing with it. The carbon tax is a stupid way of dealing with it.

[Red + 252]

14 minutes ago, JunoTen said:

They can demand all they want, it can only happen when it's economically viable, which is why it's happening now. The economic growth that has saved so many lives was built on fossil fuels, and climate change has thus far been a very affordable side effect

That's a nonsense comment.  You seem to have no idea about what a government can do.

And farmer suicides are fine because a lot more people have prospered at their expense?

Here's your argument another way.  It's cold so let's light a fire. Oh, we need to take your wood to fuel our fire because we have a brick house.  Sorry that you your timber home isn't there any more, but that's ok because thanks to you we are doing fine.

14 minutes ago, JunoTen said:

The issue will be dealt with but it will be dealt with by the market, which is an effective way of dealing with it. The carbon tax is a stupid way of dealing with it.

False.

The market is not invested in the environment.  It's invested in profit.  Had it been as you suggested then there would never have been an issue to worry about.

Edited December 8, 2018 by Red
poor spellink

[JunoTen + 118]

3 minutes ago, Red said:

That's a nonsense comment.  You seem to have no idea about what a government can do.

And farmer suicides are fine because a lot more people have prospered at their expense?

Here's your argument another way.  It's cold so let's light a fire. Oh, we need to take your wood to fuel our fire because we have a brick house.  Sorry that you your timber home isn't there any more, but that's ok because thanks to you we are doing fine.

I believe the number of people that have been brought out of poverty and hunger by fossil fuels is much bigger than the number that have suffered from climate change. That's all I'm saying.

4 minutes ago, Red said:

False.

The market is not invested in the environment.  It's invested in profit.  Had it been as you suggested then there would never have been an issue to worry about.

Of course it's invested in profit, that's why it'll go for renewables. Because they're cheaper and will continue to get cheaper. Cutting emissions is just a side effect of greed.

[Red + 252]

11 minutes ago, JunoTen said:

I believe the number of people that have been brought out of poverty and hunger by fossil fuels is much bigger than the number that have suffered from climate change. That's all I'm saying.

Of course it's invested in profit, that's why it'll go for renewables. Because they're cheaper and will continue to get cheaper. Cutting emissions is just a side effect of greed.

There is no logic to your points.

In the first instance you imply that whatever happened to date is fine because it has helped a lot of people, and the future, no matter how dire as a result, is not our concern.

The second suggests renewables as a market-led solution in the future - not right now - and denies the fact that the markets had no interest in acting beforehand.  And by that I mean government intervention, which blows your ideas out of the water.

Market forces still allow smoking.  And that market segment knowing lied to the public about its ill effects.  The same tactics they used were also applied for some time to DDT and asbestos, until their links to deaths became blindingly obvious.  My point is that it is folly to propose markets as a panacea to anything.

[JunoTen + 118]

13 minutes ago, Red said:

There is no logic to your points.

In the first instance you imply that whatever happened to date is fine because it has helped a lot of people, and the future, no matter how dire as a result, is not our concern.

No, I'm saying that fossil fuels had a positive net effect.

 

13 minutes ago, Red said:

The second suggests renewables as a market-led solution in the future - not right now - and denies the fact that the markets had no interest in acting beforehand.  And by that I mean government intervention, which blows your ideas out of the water.

The very near future, because renewables grow exponentially. Government intervention would have meant paying more for energy. Someone would have had to pay for that, and it would have raised the costs of everything that needs energy to be produced. Which is everything.

13 minutes ago, Red said:

Market forces still allow smoking.  And that market segment knowing lied to the public about its ill effects.  The same tactics they used were also applied for some time to DDT and asbestos, until their links to deaths became blindingly obvious.  My point is that it is folly to propose markets as a panacea to anything.

And they should allow smoking. If you don't want to smoke, don't smoke... But that's just my view, you can think otherwise. I am for banning DDT though.

 

Although I would need to look it up more, because it is possible that DDT saved more people than it killed.

Edited December 8, 2018 by JunoTen

[NickW + 2,714]

3 hours ago, JunoTen said:

They can demand all they want, it can only happen when it's economically viable, which is why it's happening now. The economic growth that has saved so many lives was built on fossil fuels, and climate change has thus far been a very affordable side effect.

The issue will be dealt with but it will be dealt with by the market, which is an effective way of dealing with it. The carbon tax is a stupid way of dealing with it.

Why - many politicians on the right view it as an efficient way of driving down CO2 emissions. The tax can be fiscally neutral by offsetting other taxes elsewhere. 

Its often been suggested that a worthwhile use of the carbon tax would be to offset payroll taxes - reduce the cost of employing people. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Meanwhile, the same wealthy elites continue to buy homes as close to the beaches as possible and build hotels there. The government offers flood insurance at rates far too low to cover the costs of hurricanes and flooding (not due to global warming). Large portions of North America were once underwater and may well be again. It will have little to do with mankind. The rise of ocean levels will be slow enough that real estate buyers will just clear out the flooded buildings and build a little farther higher up in elevation. Coastal property will always be at a premium and the elites will flock there. 

The real goal of the globalist elites is to control the middle and lower classes. They are for mass migration so they can diminish the middle classes and gain cheaper labor. They are close to their goal and have been for decades. Their hatred of Trump's nationalism is proof of their frustration. Nationalism is now taking hold in Europe, Brazil, and wherever migration is forced on the existing populace. 

Conservatism Around The World https://docs.google.com/document/d/1twQ_yBtl-FPwhXf2mYA7qvGj1D8yts8El0m8nObWxuU/edit

Global Warming AKA Climate Change https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B7YYeQTmESPhjlS_dj4zMTxWOiJhmLjxN1I_1NJcJFY/edit

One World Government AKA Globalism https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k8kNhtZJLuN66TpDuo67WBV1U2JhhZIvAefxeMNK0ls/edit