Jump to content

Michael Hardner

Senior Member
  • Posts

    43,094
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    97

Posts posted by Michael Hardner

  1. 2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

    But when Trump proposed the same thing it was "bonkers."

    Remember it is not a double standard, it is the standard. When Trump proposed it originally, he was xenophobic, racist, economically illiterate and so on. Now that Joe's handlers are doing it, it'll be a stroke of genius that saved the economy (that is doing great, btw).

    Well, yes.  This is an example of Trump policy that went against conventional thinking... and proved to be a strategy worth keeping.   Chips, and other commodities or commmodity-like goods are coming onshore.  Not surprising that China Trade policy isn't mentioned by the Democrats much but maybe surprising as to why you don't hear about it from the Republican side.  Maybe they're still hoping that China backs down, so that they can re-engage - who knows.

    Don't remember anybody important saying Trump was 'racist' for the China Trade War though.  

  2. On 3/6/2024 at 4:42 PM, impartialobserver said:

    surprisingly.. Canada has quite the foothold in rock and roll history. The Tragically hip, rush, broken social scene, nickelback, hot hot heat, F**ked up, barenaked ladies, ducks ltd, the arcade fire, sum 41, new pornographers, tegan and sara, tokyo police club, death from above 1979. A true rock connoisseur would know how influential these artists have been. 

    And harder Edge...

     

     

     

  3. 26 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

    1. They're too terrified of being called 'racist' or 'anti-immigrant' since the majority of people in our largest cities are immigrants.  

    2. Our universities are turning into dens of antisemitism ..

    1. That's an old story.  Discussion of immigration cuts is done in the open now, for obvious reasons.  But the other unstated problem is bursting the real estate bubble.  I believe Poilievre is a landlord, so he also knows that.  I don't expect major changes.

    2. Is that real?  Or just coffee shop chatter?  Honestly, how does one differentiate between a trend and individual incidents?  I have zero dogs in this fight.

  4. 29 minutes ago, Hodad said:

    Yes. Full points for patience and self-restraint. 

    I have gone through charitable phases over the years. I even started here very politely. I know, in principle, why one doesn't wrestle with pigs. But just in principle. 🤣

    Well you aren't dealing with pigs, in principle because pigs have none.

    People hate hypocrisy more than anything, which is why a molester or thief gets a bolder headline if he's a man of the cloth.  Drill down and you'll find that there is actually more in common today than in the past.  People who like to argue on here aren't as extreme as they let on.

    That also explains why they're arguing against caricatures a lot of the time.

    • Thanks 1
  5. 9 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

    So do I. 

    I absolutely do believe that the net effect of 8 billion humans raises the temperature of the earth - to an extent.

    I just don't believe anything at all with regards to the climate alarmist industry's mantra. I think that it's layers upon layers of bullshit, and Dr Curry does as well. She couldn't be more clear about that.

    Well, I think we're close to a position where I can say that there are some reasonable ideas there. Maybe that's the best we can hope for.

    • Like 1
  6. 22 minutes ago, Goddess said:

    That's the question, isn't it?

    I believe here is only the illusion of consensus.  Same thing happened with covid.  When you silence, censor, discredit, deplatform, and defund any expert who diverges from the accepted (money-driven) narrative - that's not consensus.

    During covid, the world's TOP experts in virology and vaccinology from places like Harvard, Stanford, Oxford, etc - were silenced, fired and deplatformed.  NOW, they have all been proven to have been telling the truth.

    Follow the money - always.  (The video I linked you to explains "the consensus", so I know you didn't watch it because you don't address the valid points in there).

    The fact that there ISN'T true consensus would make me less inclined to make policies that dramatically affect people's lives in a negative way.

    Same stance I took with covid.  Unless you were 90 years old and had multiple comorbidities - very few people were in danger.  This was known early on - long before there was a vax.  Yet we devastated lives, devastated economies, devastated societies.  

    I see the same progression with climate alarmism.

     

    You didn't answer my question. I asked what would happen if there were a consensus, not if there actually is one.

  7. 46 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

    1. "To a degree" isn't the standard that you're looking for MH.

    2. It's basically nothing.

    3. Your side says...

    4. ...that MMCC is gonna kill everyone for sure by 2021 or 2023 or 2024 or 2030 or 2040... it's a rolling death date. 

    5. My word isn't hoax.

    6. I'm backing a scientist who says that natural factors are likely the main drivers of climate change, which is the main climate skeptic POV.

    1. I asked for what I wanted 

    2. Cite?

    3. Not interested in your idea about sides.  I'm talking to you respectfully, there are no sides.

    4. Cite?

    5. Good.

    6. Cite?

    If you exaggerate or use scare words yourself, can you see how that would undercut your points?  Not saying that you do.

    2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

     

    Yet you do not want to discuss whether that "degree" warrants all the impositions being made in its name?

     

    Where did you get that idea anyway?

    • Like 1
  8. 1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

    1. The "hoax" Mike, is that this issue is being called a "crisis" worth imposing suffering on the population. 

    2. So why? Power? Money? Why?

    3. Suffering - People ARE suffering as a result of this "hoax". Are you ignoring poverty and hunger increases as a direct result of this lie?

    1. I appreciate this clarification.

    2. Because there's not much action and as much disinformation from Deniers as the UN, to be generous.  Just look at the arguments on here.

    3. I'm not aware of actual impacts there, but ok.  Curry talks about potential impacts.

  9. 5 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

     

    1. Yet you do not want to discuss whether that "degree" warrants all the impositions being made in its name?

    2. If that's true, and I think it is, in your opinion, do you believe the measures taken and the suffering being imposed on the public these measure have caused, are justified?

    1. Yeah if you want to talk about what Curry is saying, let's talk about it. But the discussion starts out with somebody saying global warming is a hoax. It's not happening... Or at least that's the inference anyone would get from it. Then it turns into well... We should implement a new kind of politics that is more amenable to risk management discussions. And the UN should take the lead on that. Do you see how the conversation switched there? 

    2. Suffering... You have to factor in the enjoyment people get from exaggeration online.

    • Haha 1
  10. 11 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

    "vague"

    I listened to the full half hour video, given to the annual GWPF lecture recently.  She doesn't say anything about a hoax, more about risk response, policy setting and priorities.

    Sure there's lots in there you would agree with but lots you wouldn't either such a prioritizing global poverty via the UN.

    I asked how you would make all of the politics better and you said honesty is the key.  Well, to me, you should be honest with yourself first.  Everyone should.  That's why I spent over an hour this week considering my position.  

    So terms like hoax and "bankrupting Canada" Are, to me, every bit is exaggerated as talking about a climate crisis.

    11 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

    "vague"

    I listened to the full half hour video, given to the annual GWPF lecture recently.  She doesn't say anything about a hoax, more about risk response, policy setting and priorities.

    Sure there's lots in there you would agree with but lots you wouldn't either such a prioritizing global poverty via the UN.

    I asked how you would make all of the politics better and you said honesty is the key.  Well, to me, you should be honest with yourself first.  Everyone should.  That's why I spent over an hour this week considering my position.  

    So terms like hoax and "bankrupting Canada" Are, to me, every bit is exaggerated as talking about a climate crisis.

  11. 7 hours ago, WestCanMan said:
    • .

     

    That's not vague, it's a scathing indictment of political faux-science and some direct comments stating that "there’s disagreement and uncertainty about the most consequential issues".

    According to Dr. Curry, climate alarmists have all overplayed their hand, and they're doing it at the whim of politicians. She's saying that politicians are behind the drive to come up with this so-called "science". 

    Do you understand that? It was from 4 days ago. It's not old. It's not vague. She's not a layman. Her opinions carry weight. 

    What's vague is the connection between what she says and your claims of a hoax. 

    There's no hoax here. She believes that humans cause global warming to a degree. 

    Do you agree with that or not? 

    I never got into this to debate whether alarmism is a thing or not. If that is what you mean by hoax, you're not using the word correctly. 

    In your post here, you are backing a scientist who believes in climate change. 

     

  12. 11 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

     I already proved to you that current climatologists don't all agree on global warming. Dr Curry aready explained, just 4 days ago, that the 97% consensus BS that climatards puff about is BS. Dr Curry acknowledged that there may be some anthropological climate change but she never said that it was driving the bus all by itself, nor did she even say that it's a given that man-made climate change is an existential threat.

    Stop spouting BS MH. 

    You wanted to act like all climatologists agreed and that is 100% false. My point is well proven. 

    No I never said 100%. And let me get actual papers Curry has put out since you're vague on it.

  13. 2 hours ago, Goddess said:

    1. I think we should always look for better ways of doing things, that protect the earth.

    2. Do I think bankrupting Canada, impoverishing the world and giving all the money to oligarchs will do anything to affect the climate?  Likely not.  But that seems to be the answer climate people are going for.

     

    1. Agreed.
    2. Sigh.  Bankrupting Canada... that's hysterical exaggeration.  I can say that without saying whether or not it's worth it to mitigate, or do a carbon tax.  If you are one of those people calling for 100% honesty from media and want lower levels of hysteria... just saying maybe your tendency to use extreme terms is something they do too ?  Maybe it's a human thing ?

    And people who are worried about bankruptcy... some of them think we should be charging companies for this (some conservatives on this board).  Maybe Poilievre will do that, who knows...

    • Thanks 1
  14. 2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

    1. I found you climate experts who weren't on board with the global warming narrative.

    2. Then you trotted out a BS wiki story about Dr Curry that was only relevant 14 years ago.  

    3. Dr Curry even talked directly about the fake "97% consensus stat" which climate alarmists continually cite, saying that it's BS. 

    4. Sure. When you know their names and google them they come up. 

    5. Try to do a google search that generates the names of climate skeptics. 

    1. Not what I asked for.  And the 'not on board' part... they're on board with the parts you specifically disagree with.
    2. So if you're saying she thinks amthropogenic warming is not real, I didn't see that quote.  Try me again.  
    3. I didn't ask about that.  Why do you keep providing things I didn't ask for ?
    4. Are those the names you gave me already ? 
    5. I gave you the assignment.  You (well, you and Goddess) came up with a few names.  I did know them but I didn't know they were still publishing their theories.  Fair enough.  I would say you won the challenge (you and Goddess).

    The rest of the stuff... I didn't dispute.  I don't think 97% is off, though.  If Curry disputes it, she would have to provide evidence... If that was in your post, I missed it.

    I feel like we did a good discussion here.  I would stay I stand corrected with Svensmark and Shaviv.  Are we done then ?

×
×
  • Create New...