MigL

But that isn't what I said. I specifically said that the poor have more pressing, immediate priorities than climate change. And, If I'm wrong, I'm not the only one "Therefore, other problems and, specifically, lowered economic development are greater threats to humanity than global warming." From Is climate change the number one threat to humanity? - Goklany - 2012 - WIREs Climate Change - Wiley Online Library "This opinion piece argues that even if the ‘full incremental costs’ of abatement in developing countries would be covered by industrialized countries, the former's development prospects could be hampered by climate change mitigation due to the following reasons ... Third, higher energy prices could have negative effects on poverty and inequality." From How climate change mitigation could harm development in poor countries - Jakob - 2014 - WIREs Climate Change - Wiley Online Library "Individuals who feel insecure about their economic future are significantly more likely to reject the existence of anthropogenic climate change. Furthermore, climate change denial and uncertainty are more common in more rural and less prosperous regions and in countries more economically dependent on fossil fuels." From Socioeconomic Roots of Climate Change Denial and Uncertainty among the European Population | European Sociological Review | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

Who mentioned 'extreme left wing activists' ? And that question would be a whole 'nother thread ...

Not that I doubt your numbers, CharonY, as you always post accurate and valid data, but you do have to examine the cross-section of the population that was surveyed, the questions asked, and the time frame considered. And I'm not arguing the fact that climate change doesn't disproportionately affect poor farmers who grow their own food on small parcels of land, or fishermen who catch their daily meals; while the poor who live by the seashore out of survival necessity are greatly affected by climate change, those of us who live in condos by the beach in vacation houses are 'insulated' from most of the effects of climate change. Here is the gist of my argument ... If YOU are a sub-Saharan father of two children who haven't eaten in two days, and you are given the choice of a 40% CO2 emission reduction or two bowls of rice for your children, YOU will pick the bowls of rice in a heartbeat. All the numbers you posted don't make this fact any less credible. Or as Dimreepr likes to say, you can't eat CO2 emission reductions.

You can get POd about it and concentrate on the other garbage he says, while totally ignoring the main point concerning climate change. To almost half the world's population it isn't even in the top 10 concerns. They have more important things to worry about, like survival. We have the luxury of being able to consider what will happen in 50 or 100 years, because we have all we need for our daily survival. A lot of people in 3rd world countries do not, and until the situation is rectified, I don't see much progress towards meeting targets.

I would think more Mexican than Spanish. ( I'd consider Mexican a mix of indigenous and Spanish peoples ) But, you're right, certainly not German.

Since most have chosen to ignore the video I posted, I will try to explain the important point made in the video. Given the choice between feeding their family, keeping them in good health, and raising them out of poverty, over 1 Billion Chinese people ( interesting story about Xi Jinping ) and another 1 Billion Indian people, will do whatever they need to do, even if it means spewing CO2 into the atmosphere 24/7. Climate change is the least of their concerns; number 1 would be "where is the next meal coming from?" Until that problem is addressed, the 1.6% reduction and 2% reduction coming from the elimination of fossil fuel energies from Canada and the UK are meaningless. But I guess poor people trying to feed their families and survive are 'sharks' to Peterkin.

Could he be D Trump's long lost brother |

Then you missed the important part which comes after the 'woke' put downs. Open your mind. If you don't understand other people's motivation, you will never get along with them, or convince them to your way of thinking. And this problem won't be solved by only the 'woke' people doing their part; it needs the efforts of everyone.

This is the reason why emission targets will continue to be missed by most countries along with some put downs of 'woke' culture. All I ask is that you actually watch it before you neg rep me, as I would be very interested in your opinion, and ways to work around the problems of trying to reach emission targets.

I drink red wine with fish. Oh, the horror !

First time I got drunk and threw up, I was 5 years old; on cherries preserved in alcohol. Wine and beer ( and occasionally liquors ) was always available to me, if I so chose, and sometimes, as a child, breakfast consisted of sucking a raw egg out of its shell, followed by a 'shot' of Marsala ( a fortified wine ). I felt no need to abuse drink, as it was available f I wanted it, and didn't go out and get 'stupid' when I reached drinking age. I appreciate wines that I like ( not 'good' as that is subjective ), refreshing lagers brewed in the German tradition ( no matter where thy're from ), not warm beers that you have to chew, and I like brandies/cognacs, but will partake of smooth sctches ( not peaty ), bourbons and good sipping tequilas, if the occasion arises. Add that to your anecdotal evidence Dim.

No, biology cannot. But the gun the American is carrying can. They would have known you weren't Canadian as soon as you answered, unless your answer was "Yes. I'm sorry."

Heeey! I happen to like Merlot. Very drinkable wth a plate of pasta for a Sunday afternoon lunch with the family.

Is that because of quantity, or quality? I tend to like full bodied reds, but ones aged in oak barrels, like Cab Sauv, tend to give me headaches, if I drink more than half a bottle. I find Amarone, made from partially dried Valpolicella grapes, to be good, without the headaches when I over indulge.

This is more to do with the 'instability' that DrmDoc mentioned, rather than strictly racism. The biggest motivator seems to be fear. Someone like INow, or Ken, are very worried about climate change and global warming. It will not cause the extinction of the human race, but it has the potential to massively change how we live our lives. Others, like a redneck MAGA supporters, are worried about immigration, because immigrants will take the manual labor jobs and they'll have to re-train or be unemployed. Either way, it is a massive change to how they live their lives. fear of change seems to be the common denominator.

I don't think group size matters and there is no 'critical mass'. We are hardwired to perceive differences as possible threats; most animals, like us, do so. Far better to recognize that this is a part of our nature, and we can like, or dislike, whatever, or whoever, we choose. ( we can even choose to change our likes and dislikes, as most are fairly fluid ) It is acting on those likes and dislikes that needs to be controlled by good laws. For example, I might like cocaine, and that is fine, but I cannot use or buy according to laws. Similarly, I might not like black people, and that should be fine too, but I cannot discriminate against them when renting an apartment; and we probably need better laws against that sort of thing.

Spoken like a person who did not see the value of investing time and effort to learn some Physics. Which then brings us to your second question ...

Usually the cost. Drink what you like. I can buy a nice bottle of Argentinian, Chilean, Spanish, French, Italian or South African wine for as cheap as Can$ 10-12 per 750 ml bottle. Yet a bottle produced in the Niagara Region ( 5 Km away )will cost me Can$ 16-18 per 750 ml bottle. And is nowhere near as good.

8 / 8 And it's Domesday book. A little history knowledge goes a long way.

I think ... I believe .... I remember when science used to start off with "I observe ...".

That isn't logical. At some point in the past there was no 'before', nor a 'next'.

I see ... You're making salad.

That statement was for clarification. My previous post indicated that the deBroglie wavelength is inversely proportional to the particle's momentum. IOW, observer dependent.

Might be COVID induced fever making him delusional ...

Pliz answer the question I asked ...