Michael Hardner

The Democratic Party May soon be banned. Anybody here think that's a bad idea?

All the factors can be quantified. Human caused CO2 is the largest factor.

Sorry I don't usually respond to you because I have you on ignore. I don't know where you got that but I didn't say it. You're arguing against something I didn't say.

You said that there was one fact. All of those other factors are understood and aren't causing the increase in temperature. Those are either 1990s theories or discounted ones, such as volcanic activity causing the increase.

No, I explained that you can make the Greenhouse effect happen in a lab by increasing the amount of Carbon. And we know humans are making more carbon, and the temperature of the lower atmosphere is increasing. You can't say it's 100% certain but it's beyond a reasonable doubt. https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect/

Your link is from 27 years ago right? I explained that there still were alternative theories in the 1990s but Carbon and Temperature kept going up, and the alternative theories died off. Poetic musings about the hubris of man don't stand up against the facts. Man does a lot of good and bad things. And I don't think I brought up economics so I'll leave that alone.

Trumps have discovered social engineering. Openness and acceptance of LGBTQ is regarded by them as social engineering, not a common value. Did liberals make a mistake on that one ? Objectively, how much does the government get to decide what is a 'common value' ? Or, furthermore, to interpret recognized value-words like 'Freedom' ? Freedom seems to mean you can buy a message and broadcast it whether or not it is true. Nobody would argue that. But it doesn't mean freedom of equal access to education or health. Postmodern Republicanism truly is a wonder to behold. It will lead back to a kind of 19th century pastoralism, I suspect. Maybe with a monarchy though.

You versus pretty much the entire weight of climate science. Citing ppm on its own, without relating it to anything else is an example of wrongheaded thinking. Tiny amounts of some things can have huge effects. Plutonium for example. In this case, the relationship between CO2 and the greenhouse effect is causative. You can show this in a lab, that CO2 in the atmosphere increases warming. CO2 is increased by human activity, and we can measure the this is happening to a large degree.

It's clearly the biggest factor.

You have a set of effects, combined with a causal link that can be reproduced in any lab. That should remove reasonable doubt, especially since the alternate explanations have all failed.

Hmmm... falsifying data is difficult to do when the original data is open and available. Also there are a large number of data points and sources that would have to be changed. Temperature data over time comes from a very large number of sources, over time, from many countries and teams.

They aren't conservatives, they are just small people who think they are better than they are. To me, the USA used to be about Abilene Kansas. I stayed there once, my friends family was from there. It's a big... Nothing. Small town with one main Street. But they had such a meritocracy, that a kid from that town... Dwight Eisenhower... Became the most powerful man in the world.

Really a waste of time to discuss such things with conspiracy theory. I can't see the messages of the person you're talking to though, full disclosure.

Conservatives care for the environment. In the 1980s we had conservatives in office and we moved forward. The new populists are a mix of marxists, libertarians and corporatists.

The idea that jobs must be protected over general prosperity has not been embraced by any federal party since Ed Broadbent. I used to think this, and trust me I do empathize and admire the humanism at the heart of this but the basic math says that some work is best done elsewhere. Of course, it's commerce so greed is involved and other factors like national security but specialization is a general rule of thumb that provides goods and services most efficiently. Any humane country should cushion the impacts of reallocation, and displacement and you can see that Canada has been far better at this than the USA.

Only if you really get the sense that the average American wouldn't buy it though. I get that sense with my latest piping hot pretzel, but you know I'm never sure...

No. People who didn't like the implication financed opposition.

Why would he have a border in the trunk of his car? 🤔

No, it's science. They look at data, test hypothesis, correct their formulas... all of this...

Zing... Anyway, did those pollsters have Trudeau ahead 3 months ago? If not, what went wrong? 🤔

Not clowns, but lying clowns.

They quote celebrities and Al Gore, people who only cite the theories... Versus crackpots who make up their own theories. There were some legitimate scientists in the '90s who predicted that climate change was not human-caused. But after decades, the temperatures didn't go down as they predicted You should really put someone on ignore, if they fabricate science.

1. Yes. 2. Because lower tariffs allow us to export more goods and products. 3. The government would have to subsidize that right? 4. But our GDP is many multitudes higher?

He's FINISHED ! 🤣

1. Interesting that you put 'globalism' in a bucket that includes 'global consciousness', environmentalism and so on together with global trade. Maybe not a bad idea. But, as with anything, the more you pack into the car the more difficult it is to keep track of it all. Some globalist initiatives (using your definition) are good for inflation and some are bad. The current inflation probably has more diverse root causes than that sticker you put on your car with a smiling planet earth hugging a bird. 2. It also creates jobs and reduces prices. To make 'reducing jobs' a 'gross thing', by definition, then you have to include automation right ? And technology in general. But, again, it's your definition and your opinion. Who am I to say it's not gross for you ? 3. I agree that special cases need to stay in Canada, but I also don't trust politicians to decide that because they will carve out their own little parts for themselves/their constituents. Not sure if something as simple as a mask needs to stay on shore, but energy and food do to a degree. And media, especially. 4. Yes, and it's hard to believe that we are much better off in a macro sense. I said: it's hard to believe. But it's true on the whole. If you acknowledge that that *might* be true, then we have the next phase of THAT discussion which is: why does everything seem tougher ?