Yellowtail

To me it just means that you think you should be able to make any unsupported claim, regardless of how false it is. You're just repeating it when you claim; "Meaning (to almost all people) that only humans have had any impact on climate change since the industrial era..." Why do you not just admit your statement is wrong and rephrase to read something like; Since the dawn of the industrial era, human-activity has been the primary driver of climate change. That is at least arguably true.

So again, what (if anything) is stopping anyone from reconfiguring existing cities into 15-minute cities? Did many of them not used to effectively be 15-minute cities?

You statement does not help me understand your question. Do you have a question or not. In any event, what is (if anything) stopping anyone from reconfiguring existing cities into 15-minute cities? Did many of them not used to effectively be 15-minute cities?

You first claimed that only human activity had any impact on climate change. You were not able to provide a link that supported that claim. You then qualified your original statement to be that only human activity has had any impact on climate change in the last 200 years. You were not able to provide a link that supported that claim. Are you now changing your position again such that you are now claiming that only human activity has any impact on man-made climate change? If so, do you have a link that supports that claim?

Is it also your position that ONLY humans have any impact on the climate, or are you pretending I was making some other claim? I am not now, nor have I ever claimed AGW wan not real.

So you do not have anything that supports your claim, that's what I thought. In any event, given that the vast majority of petroleum workers are gas-station/pump attendants, "no-brainer" or otherwise, clearly you are mistaken.

Clearly, as the official position of the Asean Now Association of Pikers had awarded Starbucks with the "Absolute Worst Coffee in Thailand Award" for the last eight years running.

I'm sorry, I do not understand your questions.

I did not say it was you making foolish claims, but I did ask you to provide evidence that supported your claim that all climate change was man made. While you responded with a link, you never provided anything that supported your statement. Now, you have qualified your claim by limiting it to the last 200 years. So, apparently you are now claiming that "...all climate change in the past 200 years is man made.", which is patently false. While AGW is real, many things impact the climate, volcanic eruptions (like Mount St. Helens) are just one example. Volcanoes Can Affect Climate | U.S. Geological Survey (usgs.gov)

Someone was claiming (foolishly) that ALL climate change is man made. I was not making an argument; I was making a joke. Sorry for the confusion.

Can you provide a link that supports your statement? I do not believe it is true.

Well I was half-right, clearly there is nothing stopping anyone from building a 15-minute cities.

Not to be argumentative or trying to deflect, but Germany proved that nuclear war not needed by burning coal. "More than 30% of Germany’s energy comes from coal, the dirtiest of the fossil fuels – and the government has made controversial decisions to turn to coal to help with energy security." Germany quits nuclear power, ushering in a 'new era' as it closes its final three plants | CNN

The thread is about climate change. Germany been shutting down its safe, non-CO2 producing nuclear plants and are burning coal to produce the energy lost doing so. How is burning coal deflection in a discussion about climate change?

Germany proved what? There just burning more coal now, how is that helping?

So, you really have no idea whether it's being dealt with or not, correct? Per the link I provided, it would appear it is being delt with, at least by the countries that are not cheating.

Do you have anything that supports your claim that it's never actually been delt with?

So the Earth heating to where it is uninhabitable due to CO2 emissions is less of a risk than nuclear power, got it.

Somone claimed "...and mankind hasn't found a safe way to deal with this..." Then someone else responded: "I'm pretty sure they know how to deal with it safely..." To which you (snarkily) commented: "And I know you won't be pretty sure unless you had some hard evidence to back up your claim." Any then asked: "Can you share that evidence with us?" I was only providing the evidence you asked for.

Oh, and your responses have been substantive? You have refused all along to actually discuss it. There is NOTHING stopping any city from being developed into a 15-minute city. And cities are doing NOTHING to turn themselves into 15-minute cities.

Do you have anything that supports this? I'm not calling you a liar, but I think you are misinformed.

I understand that the official position of the Asean Now Association of Pikers had awarded 7-11 with the "Best Coffee in Thailand Award" for the last three years running.

There's this: Nuclear waste processing | IAEA

I'm sorry, I did not realize you were only pretending to actually want to discuss this, but okay keep burning fossil fuel for at least the next fifty years, because that is what is happening. Who reported about minor's lives, and when?

Whatever they want.