Michael Hardner

1) Google. 2) You really really have to frame this as a conspiracy don't you ? You stated something, I asked for the cite. You told me to go find it. i couldn't. Eventually it came up as something Justin said in French. I retracted. You can't simply have a discussion with someone you disagree with without making them into a villain of sorts, can you ? Again, I admitted the error. Do you do that on here, ever ? 3) I deny this. 4) Culture wars again. Sigh... Ok you're having a bad day so let's put you back on ignore until you're polite again, ok ?

1. Maybe I inferred wrongly from "Immigration levels affect standard of living" Apologies 2. Is it a problem ? Do you think immigration is a bad idea generally ? Again, I may have inferred improperly. 3. And this - ". Mass immigration will not slow down as long as the Libs are in power. They're not going to change anything." I guess you didn't say it's a bad thing but surely you can understand why I may have got there ? 4. Just because I make mistakes, doesn't mean I'm a leftist. I let people off the hook all the time, myself. Sorry that I mistook you for anti-immigration.

1. I don't think so. Provide a cite of me 'parroting' CBC claims... or maybe restate this without the hyperbole. 2. Far from it - and I have pointed this out to you several times. I asked for a cite, because I couldn't find the quote. Then someone posted it... it was in French. So I retracted my claim, only to be rewarded with you bringing it up as me refusing to do so again and again. (I don't know what your claim about Covid is/was) 3. You didn't respond to my points. The fact that I retracted a mistake should be all the evidence you need that I strive for objectivity. Do you have an example of yourself admitting you're wrong ? 4. Insults...

1. Incorrect. I've looked at the claims from actual climate scientists who opposed the status quo. I don't have to waste time on things that I recognize are set up as entertainment. And I can tell that by looking at it, for the reasons I stated. There are enough people on here who write off someone because they have blue hair. Or won't listen to someone because of their politics. I don't do that, I filter out disinformation entertainment And trolling. 2. No. I've looked at it. You mentioned that some people have outlined that climate change has been mitigated, and I asked you what those sources were. So you seem to ignore those. Why? I also don't pay attention to political, or scaremongering YouTube's that push the narrative that we are doomed due to climate change. ... So no, I don't accept your criticism here. When I read people who misrepresent what I have said, it makes me not want to engage with them. Are you aware that I have not made The same kind of statements about the economics of climate change mitigation than I have about the science itself? It's because I care more about the public sphere than any of this.

Ok, I guess I misunderstood why you were asking for an 'example' ... sorry. Anyway JS provided one. Scary Music - check Catchy scary graphics - check This is entertainment, not information. I didn't see the link before - can you post it ?

1. 2. Across the board ? Generally ? Or lately ? Because, you know we have had immigration since forever and maybe other factors should be looked at. We're slowing immigration somewhat now - do you expect an improvement ? --- Short answer - high immigration, paired with the economic landscape of the last 20 years, have caused hardships for working Canadians, no doubt. Also caused a lot of wealth for a certain strata. But to blame immigration across the board as being a bad idea is pretty short-sighted.

The Greens are kinda conservative no? I heard that from NDP people. Anyway they're the ones who own it today.

1. Really? I've never seen anyone, no legitimate source, state that.

1. They tried. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Pinochet, Hitler, Castro, Mao.... 2. Your problem isn't with immigration, it's with standard of living. 3. Conservatives aren't going to change it either, not drastically. They're not going to turn it to 100K. Really the zero growth thing is a green party idea.

1. The website says it went away. And Juno news seems to be more balanced than the other. 2. Sure, except nobody works for free. Including legitimate scientists. Yet people say scientists get paid to reinforce the consensus, and they're just wrong. Anu scientist who found an alternative would be a world famous hero.

But the rigorous sources point towards fe consensus, that's as good as we can do. I took 5 minutes to find a source, but I didn't read it myself. This will have to do for both of us. Cheers. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ad6018 Rate of global warming projected to decline under current policy And the economic studies actually put the impacts and investment required a lot lower than the media would tell you. That's because it's in no one's interest to calmly explain the situation.

It's idealistic, then again, maybe it's necessary. The model we use will have to change at some point. I agree.

1. You're having a basic misunderstanding of risk. You don't need to have had something happen at all in order to define a risk. 2. No, I didn't read it. 3. That statement is meaningless. It equates to saying people die all the time so why should I wear a seat belt? I hate analogies but that saying really is brainless.

1. No, I don't want people to be scared. I'm only asking for a risk assessment, for people to acknowledge that there's a risk. And you don't have to show risks have happened in order to look at them. We didn't have a nuclear war with the Soviet Union, but we regarded it as a risk and we prepared for the possibility. 2. Almost? What have you read that says there has been some mitigation or slowing? That might be the real information right there. 3. No, I didn't. I could find one, with some effort, that is well presented and easy to follow. And you are nice to me sometimes. So I considered this possibility that maybe you would want to engage with me on this topic. I thought about it ,you see. But I want to know first what's in it for me? If I find you a real site that explains how climate change has been slowed, will you acknowledge that? Will you pick that up and put it with the opinions that you already have? Because oftentimes I put a lot of effort... Like say 15, 20 or 30 minutes... Into making a case and providing some points for something. And the person just dismisses them. I don't go to far out environmental sites or politically based sites, just science. In other words, academics who are paid to be as accurate as possible. They're also paid and expected to correct themselves when they're proven wrong. And the good ones do. So I could go out and find something for you. That I'm afraid that you wouldn't believe it and I would have wasted my time. So I didn't provide a cite. What do you think?

I didn't make a claim about Juno. I made a claim about true North. When I went to look for it it had shut down or something. CATO is a privately owned think tank, and I don't trust their information. They're owned by an explicitly anti-government agency that has its hands in the oil industry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_family

1. Back up that it's a risk? Do I really need to? It's obvious the temperatures are increasing. Even if you don't think carbon is 100% the cause, as most scientists and people do, then something is happening. And obviously negative effects could be in store. That's the back-up. 2. John Stone provided the example. You would have to ask him where he got it. But that's an example of a risk anyway. And an example, according to him, of an impact that's happening now. You can even be a climate change denier and accept that there's a risk of some kind, and that there is something happening.

Say Reggie, where did you get that idea 😂

None of this is cited. So I suggest we ignore this post.

Margaret Thatcher, George Bush, Mulroney... Your need to frame this as a culture war shows that you're not a serious poster. Really, I am going to ask that you leave the site. It's not for you. No that's not right Climate change has been slowed.

Why should I have to? Oops John Stone did it for me ... see water costs above, his example not mine.

Doesn't have to be a crisis, only needs to be a risk. POTENTIAL impacts aren't certain but they could be huge. Any "crapping on the economy" equals single digit drag on GDP, ie you're being hyperbolic.

Wow... Some of those are so old. Uncited YouTube videos ... tsk tsk And what is it about GEOLOGISTS?!

I'm not going to watch your video promoting white criminals. I'm sure that the cops showed their citizenship too didn't they ? You are a ridiculous poster and should leave the site asap.

I don't know about THAT. The Trumpers I know personally were... well... polyamorous I guess is the polite word. Look at that crew, they're sex mad.... Didn't one of the big politicians give someone a handy in a theatre ?!? Conservative... peh

Your post doesn't represent anything like a rigorous analysis of immigration and crime. People have posted studies here before, that showed immigrants are less likely to be criminals than homegrown. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/debunking-myth-immigrants-and-crime/