Jump to content

Michael Hardner

Senior Member
  • Posts

    42,573
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    92

Posts posted by Michael Hardner

  1. 11 minutes ago, blackbird said:

    I clicked on your link but it does not prove climate change is caused by man.  It is your own bloq with a few points you claim.  Funny the 3 comments on the bottom all disagree with you too.

    Yes, and I responded to them.

    I'm not going to prove it, but my thoughts should eliminate most doubt on how to respond to this challenge.

    See if you can come up with a specific criticism, just as an exercise.

  2. 20 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

     

    I found this about the second part of the bill, the hate part, and it's just as ridiculous. It makes me think this bill was never intended to pass constitutional muster but is just virtue signaling by the Trudeau government. It's a conservative leaning organization but the bare particulars it gives are clear enough.

     

    The person doesn't introduce themselves and, pretty early on, says in my view.... But who are they?  

  3. 28 minutes ago, eyeball said:

    Really, and you can you prove that?

    How exactly?

    You are speaking to someone who only believes things that confirm his misplaced beliefs.

    Two to three thousand-year-old Aramaic text of unclear authorship, 10-year-old Facebook post unattributed.

    You should spend your time elsewhere, and just accept that this person cannot be educated.

  4. 1 hour ago, Rebound said:

    In a week when Trump and his lawyers told New York judges they were unable to obtain $485 million in bonds to appeal a fraud verdict (for exaggerating his wealth)… Trump claims yesterday that he has “almost $500 million in cash!”

    Well, Leticia will be happy to hear this, and if Trump doesn’t post it as bond in a few days, she’ll seize that cash and save herself the trouble of putting Mar-a-Lago up for sale. 
     

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/22/trump-500-million-civil-fraud/

    Yeah I couldn't believe this one.  He's going to lose possession of his properties.

  5. 16 minutes ago, Legato said:

    As I said. I had links to some articles which gave a much better insight into AGW. Now they have disappeared.

    Even if I could find them you would find a way to ignore.

    To me there's a much more to it than what the alarmists would have you think. You know the same people that throw paint a priceless paintings and glue themselves to the road. Do you align yourself with them?

     

     

    It sounds like you think there may be a conspiracy afoot.  Conveniently, that's hard to disprove.  

    But some of your language might lead a reader to think there's actual evidence being published, not an articles or YouTube videos, but in the scientific literature.

    Till you have something like that we don't have anything to talk about.

    13 minutes ago, blackbird said:

     

     

    You think a "paper" is proof of anything.  Not a chance.

    Many scientists are simply repeating what they heard others say.  Nobody has any real proof.  Papers don't prove anything.  Man-made climate change is impossible to prove.  It cannot be replicated in a lab.  

     

    But it would be easy to publish a paper pointing out flaws if that was being done. Where is your paper?

    You don't have one that we don't have anything else to talk about.

    Or you can look at the link in my signature and actually refute rather than just making a passing comment.

  6. 2 hours ago, Legato said:

    Many of the scientists that are against the so called consensus have been ostracised. You should know that's not how science works. I had some theories bookmarked from a couple of years ago. They have now mysteriously disappeared.

    Science should by wide open to all theories but since it has become politicised it's not true science anymore.

    Just ask Galileo about the inquisition.

    So - post their papers then.  "I had some bookmarked theories that have mysteriously disappeared" ... why would you even post that ?

    You don't believe the science is settled - your words.  And you don't have a single link to an actual paper that is giving a counter theory.

    Why are you wasting our time on here ?

    5 hours ago, blackbird said:

     

    I looked at your link and it does not prove anything.  Just a claim.

     

    Give a specific criticism that addresses my points. 

    The anti-Climate Change people are amazing to me in that the claim a giant opposition to the consensus and never can post a single paper - not one - that takes down Climate Change.

  7. 2 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

    Pretty telling you can't even bring yourself to take a stand on one of the oldest antisemitic conspiracies in the world, wild stuff.

    But do you have evidence that there is NOT a Global Zionist Conspiracy ?

    JFC... give it up with this one, he's not going to take his armband off...

  8. 5 hours ago, I am Groot said:

    The only medium for obtaining such information, such opinions, such judgments from those we presume to know better than us is the media, both mainstream and online. And much of it is suspect due to ideological preferences. But it's all we have.

    Following up - I listened to quite a few pieces on this.  This was one that stuck out:

    -David Fraser is an acclaimed tech and privacy lawyer at the Schulich school of law.  No political axe to grind.  The other pieces I found were from CTV News - a panel with communications directors from all 3 parties... so, no.  

    He went through it and doesn't think much of the bill, but I couldn't find much on the Human Rights angle.  He leaves it to 28:40.  Most of the analysis is about the protecting children angle.   He thinks the bill is weak but - have a look.  It doesn't seem draconian, except that he thinks pieces of it won't withstand constitutional challenge.

    Have a look and see if you find other quality criticisms.  They are out there.


     

     

  9. 1 hour ago, Legato said:

    1. The only consensus I see is scientists scrambling for next years funding. They will easily fall in line with the wishes of those providing the grant money.

    2. Any one who say's the science is settled has little knowledge of how science works.

    3. Science is only true until a new theory comes along which disproves the current science... ad infinitum.

    1. The accusation that people are lying for their salaries is pretty thin. Any scientist that came up with conclusive proof that climate change was not an issue or was not caused by humans would be a global savior and would be hailed.

    2. It's pretty easy to understand how it works.  If you know that there's a lot of uncertainty in the theory of human caused warming, post the papers that are disputing that.

    3. Exactly. Look at my signature.  Who is proposing another theory?

  10. 4 minutes ago, Rebound said:

    1. You're looking up the definition of a word in the dictionary, and hiding behind it.

    2. In the United States, it is illegal to fund terrorism and terrorist groups. Are you seriously going to say that if a group says they are "freedom fighters," that makes it legal to give them money? Because if I look up "freedom" and "fighter" in the dictionary, they don't say "Terrorist." Does that make it legal? No, it is not legal if the group is a still a terrorist group. 

    If someone is waving a Palestinian flag and screaming into a bullhorn about Palestinian Intifada Revolution, what they are doing is calling for and supporting acts of terrorism against Jewish people. There is no ambiguity and no dictionary entries to hide behind. It is simple fact.

    1. I'm talking about the Globe & Mail article.
    2. I don't think I'm talking about any of that.

  11. 11 minutes ago, Legato said:

    Which science, your science or the other guy's science, they are not the same.

    Science is science... when they disagree, science arbitrates it.  It's fine to talk about Galileo but pretty extreme outlier.  Contentious issues are fought back and forth, such as the black holes & multiverse questions Stephen Hawking talks about in A Brief History of Time.  But this issue has far more consensus, and the need for action is also great.

  12. Just now, I am Groot said:

    1. The only medium for obtaining such information, such opinions, such judgments from those we presume to know better than us is the media, both mainstream and online. And much of it is suspect due to ideological preferences. But it's all we have.

    2. It has been a defense in law, though. 

    3. Which means it will be a huge deterrent to anyone having that dialogue you want on key social issues unless they approach that dialogue from the far left.

    1. There is plenty of media that is trustworthy enough to use as a platform.  Plenty.  But I haven't seen any that have taken this approach.  Not that there haven't been, but... maybe I will look for one.
    2. Doesn't really work for hate speech.  I can't see anybody going to a judge and saying "See, Judge ?  The Jews actually DO control the world..." 
    3. This is the problem of bubbles.   Getting some objective information, as I outlined, should draw people out of their bubbles and leave social media to go where it's already headed, ie. back to cat and baby pics...

  13. 15 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

    1. It can be made to sound reasonable.
    2. But under this legislation, truth is not a defense. I could be charged just for saying that online.

    1. Agreed.  It can also be made to sound draconian.  The fact that there is inadequate understanding from "the" public and "the" errors is somewhat the fault of those reviewing the details, and somewhat related to how the public reviews such things but the fault is PRIMARILY and most importantly on the government IMO.  

    For the public to get a better understanding of complex legal issues, we need to rediscover our humility.  The fact is that "the" public can't be expected to:

    1- Read a 150 page legal document - not even to speak of UNDERSTANDING it
    2- Doesn't have any trusted public intellectuals to explain such things
    3- Doesn't know how to find such people
    4- If they were able to, they would be in the habit of trusting a single opinion on such things.

    The liberal world was highly confused by Margaret Atwood's sharp comments on the legislation, but that itself was based on a single article.  There are indeed strange new aspects of this bill - like a "restraining order" type block on expressing ones opinion and the government already lost the trust of the people awhile ago so that clause is fraught.

    2. Truth hasn't been a defense for awhile.  People on here regularly attack folks also for making true comments about whiteness.  My points from 1, above, point to the need to rebuild structures to support dialogue.

  14. I'm taking a new tack on all of this - that it's actually a normal phenomenon wherein media changes upend the public sphere.  You CAN turn a sphere upside down.  Charlatans take the opportunity to inflame chuds and gain an advantage to grasp at and sometimes seize power.

    But the bad news is that the chuds are always there, creeping like a fungus.  They have to be minded and tended to... but you probably won't ever educate them.  To do so would require all of us to be more aware of our ideologies.

  15. 7 hours ago, blackbird said:

    Wow!  The whole point of my post is to show that man does not emit enough CO2 to have any affect on climate change.  You obviously didn't even bother reading it or never absorbed it.

    Are you sure you know what the word "anthropogenic" means?

    Your "idea" - what there is of it - is conveyed in the subject line.   The idea that humans are causing climate change has been accepted and is beyond reasonable doubt at this point.

    You have to start looking at yourself at this point, to see what is wrong with your approach to knowledge.  It's called reflection, and I can't help you with it.

  16. 12 hours ago, eyeball said:

     Certainly not like a tax code that results in Warren Buffet being taxed less than his secretary.

    Well... something like that would only happen if the wealthy and powerful had the ability to influence politics by directly paying politicians... and also influencing media so that political contributions were never brought up as something that needed reform.  🤨

    • Like 1
  17. 45 minutes ago, West said:

    1. It's a thought system and theory that influences. A woman bones her boss as an example and the guy loses his ability to practice law.A pastor has a consensual affair with a woman and he ends up in prison.

    Just a few example; I'm not suggesting right or wrong. 

     

    1. Yes such things happen.  The Marxist thought system comes from Hegel's Dialectical process...

×
×
  • Create New...