BeaverFever

See my post from a few minutes ago. I don’t know what you’re talking about. No monitoring? Of course there’s monitoring Multiple agencies in fact: at the federal level and climate change Canada monitors and so does the auditor general. And there’s provincial and NGO monitoring also. . In fact monitoring and reporting is required by law. No goals? There are multiple: the most prominent ones being achieve 40-45% emissions reductions below 2005 levels by 2030, and to be net zero emissions by 2050 Canada’s Enhanced Nationally Determined Contribution …In March 2022, the Government of Canada introduced Canada’s 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan, which provides a roadmap for the Canadian economy to achieve 40-45% emissions reductions below 2005 levels by 2030, building upon the actions outlined in Canada’s previous climate plans. … https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/news/2021/04/canadas-enhanced-nationally-determined-contribution.html 2023 Progress Report on the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan The 2023 Progress Report is the first progress report on the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan (2030 ERP), a sector-by-sector roadmap released in March 2022 that identifies climate actions and strategies for Canada to reach its 2030 emissions reduction target and net-zero emissions by 2050. The report provides an update on progress towards Canada’s emissions reduction targets described in the 2030 ERP, including a summary of the 2023 Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollutant Emissions Projections report. It also provides a measure-by-measure update on the implementation status of federal measures and strategies as well as key cooperative measures and agreements with provinces and territories. Every sector has a role to play to ensure Canada charts a successful course to a safe and secure low-carbon future. The 2023 Progress Report on the 2030 ERP is the first of three reports under the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. Subsequent reports are required in 2025 and 2027 under the legislation. https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-plan/climate-plan-overview/emissions-reduction-2030/2023-progress-report.html

You obviously didn’t read any of the links I provided. One of them even has the word “Emergency” right the title and used the word “crisis” 5 times in the article . You’re not going to do that thing you do where you lie and claim the article says the exact opposite of what it actually says, are you? Or are you going to play your other dumb game like when you claimed calling someone a Marxist is completely different from calling them a communist? Are we going to have to hear there’s a magic secret rule that it doesn’t count unless the word is ised at least 6 times? If you want more links I can bury you in them but we both know it’s a waste of time because you won’t read them, will lie about them, and/or will invent childish asinine arguments about them. But here you go. Cited as a source in the very first link provided from NASA: SOCIETY MUST ADDRESS THE GROWING CLIMATE CRISIS NOW Download the PDF Immediate and coordinated actions to limit and adapt to human-caused climate change are needed to protect human and ecological health, economic well-being, and global security. https://www.agu.org/Share-and-Advocate/Share/Policymakers/Position-Statements/Position_Climate COP28 agreement: embracing the urgency of the scientific consensus? As COP28 ended in Dubai on December 12, 2023, the international community marked a significant step forward in addressing the climate crisis, while acknowledging the urgent need for greater ambition and action. The International Science Council (ISC), its members, Affiliated bodies and partners actively participated, urging policy-makers to seize the momentum and drive ambitious, science-based, sustainable policy solutions to face the existential climate threat. …. https://council.science/blog/cop28-urgency-of-scientific-consensus/ The climate change emergency Our climate change crisis https://www.sciencenews.org/century/climate-change-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-gas-emissions-global-warming The Climate Crisis – A Race We Can Win https://www.un.org/en/un75/climate-crisis-race-we-can-win And so on. Qualifications matter and the deniers you keep citing have none . They’re not recognized as experts. Many aren’t even actual scientists. They work for politicized groups like Fraser institute or they take money directly from polluters. When it’s NASA, United Nations, professional scientific bodies on my side vs some random dudes from the internet on your side don’t get to whine that people laugh at your random dude from the internet instead of debating his arguments point by point. And yet I still did post 2 videos where an actual scientist dismantles the random dude from the internet point by point. It’s been repeatedly shown in case you’re in such a bubble you’re completely unaware of the wildfires and other natural disasters that have now become completely routine. This is an absolutely idi*tic question. As I already pointed out that’s like someone who wants to commit crimes saying “show what impact anything I might have on the crime rate”. It’s GLOBAL warming. The requirement is to reduce GLOBAL emissions. Canada is on the globe. Don’t you get it? It been explained to you already. I’ve been trying to figure out what your angle is here: are you trying to argue that as long as every country EXCEPT Canada reduces GHG emissions we won’t have to? Are you demanding to see a paper that days global efforts to stop climate change by reducing GHG will fail unless Canada also participates? Are you demanding to see a paper that claims Canada alone must reduce GHG emissions to stop climate change while the rest of the world can keep polluting? Every possible reason for asking this question is just beyond stupid. They’ve been answered but you’re too thick-headed and dishonest to actually consider them. None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

You’re thenone sho doesn’t have reading comprehension. In fact I doubt you evn bothered to read anything posted. It’s been provided.

Lol. There is a consensus. Deal with it.

LMAO this is actually Trump’s policy on Electric vehicles, in his own words “I say what would happen if the boat sank from its weight? And you’re in the boat and you have this tremendously powerful battery, and the battery is now underwater, and there’s a shark that’s approximately ten yards over there? By the way, a lot of shark attacks lately, did you notice that? I watched some guys justifying it today, ‘well they weren’t really that angry, they bit off the young lady’s leg because of the fact that they were not hungry, but they misunderstood who she was. So there’s a shark ten yards, or here. Do I get electrocuted if the boat is sinking and water goes over the battery? Do I stay on top of the boat and get electrocuted, or do I jump over by the shark and not get electrocuted? You know what I would do, if there’s a shark or get electrocuted? I would take electrocuted every single time. I’m not gettin’ near the shark.“ -Donald J Trump That was supposed to be his argument against his completely made-up false claim that there would be mandatory electric boats under democrats (not a thing) that the boats would electrocute passengers if they sank (also not a thing)…..but in a hilarious plot twist he completely loses track of the point of his absurd hypothetical and actually prefers the electric boat over the shark after all! LMAO you can’t make this stuff up. This guy is such a nutjob.

Wow look how pathetically desperate you are. Nobody hand is greedier and grubbier than Trump’s don’t pretend otherwise. Don’t pretend he doesn’t also ask for donations and the very top of his website homepage and or that you didn’t know that LITERALLY ALL POLITICIANS ask for donations And of course you had to add in a misogynistic slur because as you repeatedly refuse to deny you despise women and have violent sexual thoughts towards them.

False it is a crisis Double False: that humans only have a small effect and that politicians have made that into a boogeyman False the scientific consensus has labeled it a crisis False - opposite of reality. No self respecting scientist will agree with your climate denial. The jury is in and has been for a long time. False you climate deniis bad science and most of your so-called scientists who you cite aren’t even recognized experts in the field. Some are known quacks and hacks who used to claim to be experts on human health and took money to say there’s no evidence tobacco is bad for you. False because YOU are the one not following the science and denying reality won’t lead to prosperity Links in my earlier posts

No it’s completely untrue and also kinda racist You have falsehoods in every sentence.

Then you should try familiarizing yourself with it sometime.

Wrong those were caused by ACTUAL people protesting ACTUAL police violence against black people, not by Democrats. Don’t you right wing kooks ever get tired of squealing “conspiracy” whenever reality is inconvenient?

This climate denier is not a scientist and has been thoroughly debunked That was a lame comeback. You can do better.

Meanwhile back in reality UK is struggling with an ongoing wave of violent anti-immigrant far right riots that have broken out across the country sparked by fake news spread on social media by right wing groups and Neo Nazis. After a British-born CHRISTIAN teenager with mental illness stabbed children at a dance studio, the right wing liars (including many who were previously banned from twitter for fake news and hate speech before Musk reinstated them) continue to falsely spread that the attacker was a Muslim asylum seeker Who Are the Far-Right Groups Behind the U.K. Riots? https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/03/world/europe/uk-stabbing-riots-far-right-protesters-explained.html UK police face far-right rioters seeking to enter hotel thought to be housing asylum seekers Police in the north of England town of Rotherham were struggling to hold back a mob of far-right activists who were seeking to break into a hotel believed to be housing asylum seekers, in the latest bout of rioting following a stabbing rampage at a dance class last week that left three girls dead and several wounded showed few signs of abating https://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/uk-police-face-far-right-rioters-seeking-to-enter-hotel-thought-to-be-housing-asylum-seekers/IRZBE3RM5RF4RDBCWFJ5BSFBQE/

It’s based on surveys of the thousands of scientific papers that have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals over the past several decades. Multiple surveys have shown the number to be 97% or 99%. I find this to be an odd argument from a climate denier. Obviously many political parties have tried to do more but have been held back by opposition from industry. The reason governments haven’t done more is because of climate denier lobbying propaganda and other forms of resistance from industry. The fossil fuel industry is the richest and most powerful industry on the plan and has many governments political parties and politicians under its influence. It is the inherent nature of capitalist countries that business and industry have a massive outsized influence on government policies and politicians, especially in the United States where nearly all politicians are for sale and the bureaucracy itself is highly politicized. The first link is by climate denier right wing think tank Fraser institute, who also used to take money from tobacco companies to put out studies doubting that smoking was harmful (once that became public they stopped publishing their donors list). The second link is an article written by Texas energy (not environment) professors (“Houston Energy Fellows” and a lecturer in the department of “construction management”) who presumably are industry-friendly. and the best they could come up with is that a more nuanced approach to assessing the scientific consensus, stating that it could be as low as 80% rather than 97% but even if taken at face value 80% is still a substantial consensus The third link contradicts your point entirely as it states the scientific consensus is actually GREATER than most people think and is 99.9%

1) As I already mentioned your demand for evidence of “how Canada can make a difference” is a red herring when it’s clearly stated that collective action is required FROM ALL COUNTRIES . Imagine if a criminal told you they would continue to commit crimes unless you could prove that they alone would make a difference in the crime rate by following the law. It’s an idi0tic argument you’re trying to make here 2) The evidence that climate change is a crisis has been presented to you repeatedly but you continue to pretend it hasn’t 1) Those articles don’t talk about “how great it will be”. AT BEST some try to find some HYPOTHETICAL silver lining. For example none of them say that getting some extra farmland is going to be worth all the floods, wildfires, landslides, property damage, mass migration etc that climate change is already bringing. 2) IN FACT the authors of that study in the CBC article you posted (wait isn’t CBC communist Marxist liberal propaganda that can’t be trusted ???) openly admitted that their review only assessed temperatures and not the quality of land or soil, the fact that huge swaths of forests or other ecologically important areas may need to be destroyed to create new farmland in the north. or the fact that doing so would result in the release of far more carbon. The article even quotes an expert who points out that the fertile farming soil of southern Canada took thousands of years to develop and most of the soil in northern areas is far too rocky and acidic for farming in any climate. Yes I have, I posted a whole page full of links, you’re just denying reality again No you’re the one desperately grasping at straws, posting links to articles you didn’t even read that contradict your own arguments, then making excuses that you only did so for amusement “to kill time” and making straw man arguments like demanding evidence of how Canada alone can stop global climate change when nobody has ever said that.

LMAO That’s not true at all. Add science to the long list of topics you bullshit about

You really ought to read your own links instead of just bullshitting based on the headline. The first article doesn’t say Canada will be better off and in fact it is challenging a climate denier’s claim. Canadian Climate Institute is not a climate denier site or pro-climate change. Their own stated priorities are: Incentivizing clean economic growth and low-carbon competitiveness, Reducing emissions and accelerating Canada’s net zero energy transition Making our economy and infrastructure more resilient to a warming climate. The second link is non/expert editorial in a conservative paper citing the climate denier claim that is rebutted in your first link.

You were already provided a link to NADA which you conveniently continue to ignore. You must seriously live under a rock if it’s news to you that every government and scientific organization believes climate change is real. How many links do you need? United Nations https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/mythbusters?gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAAD9kiAdI9naItlbPyCMGlBRJulPtx&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI5ci3psvZhwMVBDMIBR2XRwYEEAAYAiAAEgJY3PD_BwE US government https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/causes-climate-change https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/scientific-consensus/ Scientific Community and media : ‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/19/case-closed-999-of-scientists-agree-climate-emergency-caused-by-humans The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1103618 Scientific consensus on climate change There is a nearly unanimous scientific consensus that the Earth has been consistently warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution, that the rate of recent warming is largely unprecedented,[1]: 8 [2]: 11  and that this warming is mainly the result of a rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2)caused by human activities. The human activities causing this warming include fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation,[3]: 10–11  with a significant supporting role from the other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide.[1]: 7  This human role in climate change is considered "unequivocal" and "incontrovertible".[1]: 4 [2]: 4  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change ChatGPT - ”Is there scientific consensus that climate change is an emergency caused by human activity ?” Yes, there is a strong scientific consensus that climate change is an urgent issue and is largely driven by human activities. This consensus is supported by numerous scientific organizations and studies worldwide. Key points include: 1. **Human Activities as a Primary Driver**: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that it is "extremely likely" (95-100% probability) that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. 2. **Scientific Consensus**: Multiple studies have shown that over 97% of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. Major scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Geophysical Union (AGU), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), endorse this view. 3. **Impacts of Climate Change**: The impacts of climate change, such as rising sea levels, increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events, shifting wildlife populations and habitats, and effects on human health, are well-documented. These changes pose significant risks to natural and human systems. 4. **Urgency and Action**: The scientific community emphasizes the urgency of addressing climate change. The IPCC's reports stress the need for rapid and significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, which is crucial to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. The overwhelming consensus is based on extensive research and evidence gathered over decades. Addressing climate change is seen as critical to ensuring a sustainable and stable environment for future generations. ****** Honestly a person could keep this up all day every day its the published official position of virtually every government and recognized scientific body and has been for years if not decades. Now we all know your next moves: you’ll scream “globalist deep state conspiracy” so you can dismiss everything above without evidence then you’ll lobotomize yourself so you can forget reading it at all and go back to your lie that nobody has ever provided you any evidence.

So unless you see evidence that Canada alone can save the entire world from climate change, you’ll believe that we should just pollute as much as we want? The entire world needs to reduce emissions. Canada needs to do its part.

False. Every governmental and scientific body states climate change is real and reducing emissions is the only solution. You’ve been shown repeatedly for decades now and all you do is scream conspiracy because don’t want to accept reality.

Wow quite the renowned subject matter expert you’ve cited.

No I didn’t. Buy you’re known for grossly misrepresenting what others say NOBODY has ever said a person’s race should be ignored. What clueless bigots like you are totally incapable of comprehending is that 1) YOU don’t get to tell other people what their race:ethnicity is whether they like it or notA person who appears to your culturally ignorant eyes as Black Indian “Chinese” etc may not actually be that or they may be mixed, or they may have llived her for multiple generations and don’t identify with a foreign culture.. Or may they do. The point is THEY tell you mot the other way around 2)Only bigots like you would believe that people should be treated according to their race….and that you alone get to decide what that treatment is You are nothing but a pathetic LIAR when you say Kamala is “blackfacing” herself. She has been open that she is half black her entire life and participated in Black sororities, attended a black college etc. What’s cringeworthy is Trump presuming to dictate to Black people who is and isn’t black based on his own ignorance, blatant lies and prejudices. Go ahead and delete that inconvenient information so you can go back to living in your clueless fake news Trump cult bubble.

No I didn’t advocate being colourblind Only a conservative could be so absolutely clueless “Acknowledge another person’s colour and treat them appropriately”. LMAO I would love to hear an example of how you do that in your own life I didn’t say IGNORE their race. What Im trying to tell you is don’t make ignorant uninformed assumptions about a person’s race based on their appearance and then dont use those ignorant assumptions to make even more ignorant uniformed assumptions about the person. Only a clueless conservative could think those are your only 2 options Do you not understand?

Not quite. In response to an idi0tic post claiming that all half black people insist on identifying as black,(and implying that is somehow wrong): I pointed out the obvious fact that people who are half black are treated as black based on their appearance regardless of whether they prefer to identify that way or not. So it is others who are forcing the black identity on them. I already explained that. I don’t treat people according to the their appearance and neither should you.

Canadian warship shadowed ‘dual-purpose’ Chinese vessel in Bering Strait A Canadian warship travelled to the Bering Strait in July to shadow China’s most advanced polar icebreaker as the Xue Long 2 transited the passageway between Russia and Alaska as part of Beijing’s effort to reinforce its Arctic ambitions. The Canadian government did not make public this part of HMCS Regina’s trip to the Arctic Ocean until it faced media requests about the frigate’s itinerary this week. The Department of National Defence did not explain why it omitted this monitoring of the Chinese ship from its news release accounts of the trip, which it had described as an “Arctic awareness and sovereignty mission.” HMCS Regina’s tracking of China’s Xue Long 2 (Snow Dragon 2) research vessel came at a potentially fragile moment in Canada-China relations. Open-source vessel tracking websites suggest this took place July 13 to 17. The same ship-tracking websites show HMCS Regina turned off its transponder July 13 in the Bering Sea. Four days later the Canadian vessel reappeared in Arctic waters. …Department of National Defence spokesperson Frédérica Dupuis said in a statement that as climate change warms the Arctic, Canada is seeing more foreign actors with regional military ambitions in the area who seek natural resources, energy and transportation routes. China does not possess territory in the Arctic but has taken to calling itself a “near-Arctic state” with hopes of legitimizing its presence in the region. Ms. Dupuis said China’s Snow Dragon 2 vessel has dual purposes when it enters Arctic waters. Competitor nations “are exploring Arctic waters and the sea floor, probing our infrastructure and collecting intelligence,” she said. On July 24, North American Aerospace Defense Command said it monitored two Chinese H-6 bombers and two Russian TU-95 strategic bombers flying in Alaska’s Air Defense Identification Zone, a defined band of international airspace that requires the ready identification of all aircraft in the interest of national security. “We are seeing more Russian activity in our air approaches, and a growing number of Chinese dual-purpose research vessels and surveillance platforms collecting data about the Canadian North that is, by Chinese law, made available to China’s military,” Ms. Dupuis said. … The Canadian frigate’s trip also coincided with a visit to the Bering Sea by four Chinese military ships including a destroyer, two guided-missile destroyers and a replenishment ship. The government of Japan identified these vessels through postings on X and the U.S Coast Guard reported encountering the Chinese warships. Ms. Dupuis said HMCS Regina did not interact with the Chinese naval flotilla. … Steffan Watkins, an Ottawa-based consultant who tracks aircraft and ships, said he’s still confused why the Canadian military took steps to reduce its visibility during the Bering Strait passage. “Why did they turn off their transponder, specifically hiding their location, for the transit of the strait and until they had broken off from monitoring the research vessel?” he said. “If this is just an innocent friendly passage, why turn off the transponder?” Vice-Admiral Angus Topshee, commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, said he’s proud of how far north HMCS Regina ventured. “It’s extremely rare for a frigate to operate at such high latitudes and it is definitely the record for a Halifax-class north of the Bering Strait.” … https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canadian-warship-shadowed-dual-purpose-chinese-vessel-in-bering-strait/#:~:text=A Canadian warship travelled to,to reinforce its Arctic ambitions.

Those aren’t lies those are your gross distortions of what actually happened and what Democrats actually said The lie machine that has been going full tilt for over a decade now is the Republican Party. Trump’s BIG LIE that the election was stolen being the crown jewel of a lie and fantastic accusation. And that’s before we even get into the crackpot COVID and QAnon conspiracy batshit. .