Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
SuperJail Warden
Member
+223|2228
How and why would a white person even want to live the outback anyway? Did you ancestors really travel thousands of miles to opposite side of the Earth just for you to live in a trailer in the middle of nowhere?
uziq
Member
+199|1961
do you not know the most basic history of australia?
SuperJail Warden
Member
+223|2228
Prison colony a long time ago. None of these people were ever colonial prisoners.
uziq
Member
+199|1961
why did white poeple ever want to live in utah? the dakotas? wyoming? arizona? new mexico? i don't know, all these places seem, or once seemed, pretty inhospitable.
RTHKI
mmmf mmmf mmmf
+1,629|5246|Oxferd

uziq wrote:

why did white poeple ever want to live in utah? the dakotas? wyoming? arizona? new mexico? i don't know, all these places seem, or once seemed, pretty inhospitable.
mac looks down on anyone that doesn't live on the coast
https://i.imgur.com/tMvdWFG.png
SuperJail Warden
Member
+223|2228
Moving into the interior of the country reminds me of a family taking an old person into the forest to die.
uziq
Member
+199|1961
dilbert, how am i supposed to be butthurt over your comments about people i have literally no relation or resemblance to?

you're judging a bunch of people you've never met with crass stereotypes, not just with the usual 'move out of a fire-prone zone' derp advice, but with all sorts of strange and frankly neurotic lines about them all taking drugs. u feeling k hun?

i'm unsure what the link is between the two stories you've posted? so one person kept vintage cars and they got destroyed. is that the person who was financially wrecked by the fires, the single-dad, who needed help? the one you accused of poor life choices like having tattoos and taking drugs? what exactly is your point here? is the woman with the rolls-royce making national petitions for help?

Last edited by uziq (2020-01-21 10:15:11)

uziq
Member
+199|1961
why by land area? the UK is one of the most densely populated places on earth.

how dishonest is it to absolve australia's responsibility because it's a vast and inhospitable continent? 'oh, our emissions by land mass are really low'. how funny that the land mass part totally subtracts the most germane fact: that PEOPLE cause the emission of CO2.

either way this is retarded use of statistics. the solution to australia's bad stats are to increase the birth rate

can't see the wood for the fucking trees ... and this is your scientific education?
uziq
Member
+199|1961
no, what you need is meaningful statistics that factor in people and their carbon use/demands, i.e. per capita. not comparing the amount of a gas emitted with the total land area, as if it's the land and its size that is affecting the use of carbon. the vast majority of australia's population live in a tiny coastal fraction of the total land mass, so that stat taken alone is obviously misleading in the extreme.

and yes, what an achievement it would be to cook the figures by increasing population and continuing at current levels of emission. hence why i said your post was beyond stupid and a monumentally useless citing of statistics.

again, it's amazing that you take the statistics and conclude we need a Malthusian population cull. you really are committed to bad science, aren't you?

Last edited by uziq (2020-01-26 02:29:47)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,646|4614|eXtreme to the maX
OK, so why are overpopulated countries allowed to emit more than countries with smaller populations? When the land masses are of comparable sizes?
Why is it OK for China to emit 20 times the carbon emissions of Australia when their country is barely larger?
Why should countries which are overpopulated be rewarded?

If the world population doubles but everyone cuts their individual emissions by 25% will that be OK?
Per capita emissions will have gone down, so it would be 'fair', but net emissions would have increased by 50%.
Even that would be much better than anyone is realistically expecting at this point.

Using a per capita figure without capping population makes no sense at all.
Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+199|1961
over-populated countries aren't 'allowed' to emit more? where's the permission, exactly? they are being urged to sign up to and commit to the same carbon emissions targets/use as everyone else. the obvious ideal aim being to transition and decarbonise their economies altogether.

why do i get the feeling your real animus here is that countries like china might 'get ahead' of your beloved white civilization in australia?

the global community can play this finger-pointing game of delayed responsibility until the sun swells and explodes. 'b-b-b-but they're still allowed to use more!' it's like children on a playground. australia have already cynically manipulated this argument to death, all the while becoming a major worldwide fossil fuel exporter despite having the population of a second-tier city in china. your economy has experienced nothing but non-stop salad days throughout the global recession because you've all been dining out on an unsustainable industry. pity poor australia!

it's funny how you want to claim every prerogative and honour for 'the West' and its civilization, to continually put us on a moral level above 'asian culture', and yet when it comes to taking the lead and doing the right thing for the environment, out the window goes all that blessed idealism about the West. you're really nothing but a pig-headed nativist who wants everything for your own kind, and all the 'pessimistic realism' and 'scientific objectivity' is just a shallow cover for 'white's first'.

Last edited by uziq (2020-01-26 03:04:00)

Adams_BJ
Warman is a hermaphrodite.
+2,030|5131|Little Bentcock
I dunno, 20 times more emissions at almost 60 times the population is a pretty good record.
uziq
Member
+199|1961
and china is investing a lot more in solar energy than australia. the weight of big nations swing both ways.

your obsession with ‘red peril’ and rapidly growing china leads to slightly ridiculous conclusions — like culling the population. nations come in different sizes. that picture cannot be fixed.

and yes, a country still developing and transferring its population from rural poverty to modern living has different needs and responsibilities from one in which its entire population already live in very modern, comfortable cities. at least china can justify its fossil fuel policy on social need. australia is exporting coal merely so it can try to keep a seat at the big table economically. not realistic for a small nation.
uziq
Member
+199|1961
this is all very far away from the inconvenient fact that australia's per-capita carbon emissions are quite frankly criminal, and the government is cynically proceeding with policies that play-off international tensions against one another so that australia's elite can continue to plunder fossil fuel wealth and blur over the structural weaknesses of australia's economy.

your malthusian pet fantasies and bad statistics are a bore at this point.

also china's population haven't been in rural poverty for generations because of over-population. read a fucking book.

Last edited by uziq (2020-01-26 05:17:36)

uziq
Member
+199|1961
the only people reading those statistics with such a willingly retarded rationale was you.

but it’s nice to know that, as per usual, it’s your problem with indian immigrants that really has you riled.
uziq
Member
+199|1961
dilbert the only person raising those 2 stats was you? all i said was that ranking countries based on total land area is useless beyond belief.

you're acting like the entire paris accord is written around co2 per capita.

straw meet
man

Last edited by uziq (2020-01-26 16:22:28)

uziq
Member
+199|1961
yes, per capita is a more useful statistic than total landmass. that's because it takes into account people rather than just geographical area.

do you need this to be explained to you?

i'm sure growing population has never occurred to anyone thinking about climate change whatsoever.
uziq
Member
+199|1961
really? the majority of australia's land mass is put to use providing food, solar power, wind power? seems like land is quite a misleading figure to me.

again, the only person placing such a stress on these two statistics is you. i'm not even sure what your argument is? because china and india are big, australia has no obligation to do anything whatsoever? seems wise.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2020 Jeff Minard