On 20/05/2021 11:21, GB wrote:
Clearly, if semi-arid regions become arid, that will lead to major
difficulties for a significant chunk of the world's population.


All the evidence is that semi arid regions are now becoming greener
under the impact of rising CO2



The point, though, is that people are complaining that they may not
be able to use their favourite picnic spot on long journeys, whilst
ignoring the idea that people in arid areas may effectively be
without water. Those too losses don't seem comparable to me.


Perhaps they are just using the loss of ability to travel as an
example of the way the scale and cost of the changes required to
deliver "net zero" with current technology continue to be kept from
the vast majority of the public.


"Continue to be kept from ..." - Are you suggesting a conspiracy, or
simply that many people haven't given this much though?

Of course its a conspiracy. Not formal, just tacit. Too many people are
making too much money and winning too many elections to want to
challenge the orthodoxy of 'climate change'

Cui bono?

It easier to ask who doesn't benefit, and there, there is only one answer
Joe public.
EVERYONE ELSE benefits by not challenging or promoting the lie
The media benefits from new scares stores every week
'green' business benefits
Government benefits
The third world benefits
A hundred activist organizations benefit.
thousands of charities have jumped on it to magnify their
importance.They benefit
millions of scientists get grants so long as they accept as an article
of faith that climate change is real man made and really happening. They
benefit.

Only you and I who see perfectly good cars being taxed out of existence,
whilst or electricity bills treble, are paying for this ****



--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".