Michael Hardner

As @August1991 often says: we get along. Part of the new populist game book is to make it look like there's constant strife, that could only be helped by eliminating social services and increasing the wealth gap even more...

"I love crazy women" 🤫

One is a wealthy white person, the other a hard-working person trying for a better life.

Somebody called me a farm animal. We don't really get along.

Wrongful conviction is a well known problem. And your misuse of scripture is noted once again. Go to a death row vigil, you'll find some real Christians there.

You gave a reasoned response that addressed his concern about the family, and also eliminated the possibility of having the government kill people. Imagine if one of the convoy people was convicted of murder under questionable circumstances, and the federal government called for the death penalty. All the people on here whose views of things change depending on the ideology of the main actors... They sure would pivot at that point. It's sick to call your response sick.

1. Yes exactly. You can ask the poster how murder rates have been declining over time without capital punishment. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rossella-Selmini/publication/276597069/figure/fig2/AS:668989134999579@1536510847770/Canadian-homicide-rates-per-100-000-population-male-and-female-1974-2012-Source.ppm In any case, their statement is hyperbolic, which leads me to ask.. What are postures on here Willing to give up to improve the justice system? Pay more taxes? Allow social workers to decide sentences and work with people individually to rehabilitate? How about monitoring of all citizens? If you're concerned about crime, are you willing to have yourself and all others you monitored 24/7 to eliminate crime? I find that people with easy answers are unfamiliar with complexity, generally.

Hahaha 😂

That's guesswork on your part, I think.

I didn't argue that it's not a crisis. I didn't argue that either way. My argument is that humans are causing warming, and we must assess the risk and respond. By the way... The culture warriors on here, if search was working, might have found that I have never argued against risk acceptance. That means, if someone makes the case to do nothing, they have at least considered the risk. However, there are costs and responsibilities to deal with the outcome, which might be very bad.

1. Not really. Actually, media criticism in this day and age seems a bit ridiculous. 2. Maybe, however, it's the media outlet that frames the story. For example... A so-called science story often begins with the following " new study says...".

Of course, but I am able to assess facts on their own without the drapery of provocative language. It doesn't matter. People on here argue against science for entertainment, which - on the macro - supplants democratic dialogue for low entertainment. Here's a headline: CO2 levels at an 800,000 year high https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/co2-climate-emissions-cop30-9.6939220

"Crisis" isn't a scientific term. I don't try to show there's a crisis. Stop straw manning. Don't respond to my posts please, it's always your made-up doodles.

The words" tipping point" represent a red flag for me. There may be such a thing, but it's too dramatic a term...

Interesting. You seem to be quoting DHS though. I don't trust them or most of the press. This article seems legit: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/ice-claimed-13-old-boy-200601575.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJDxpNUf0HBp_-rEW2yqnI_P7g6stNxz-CFkX-efaGLZmRg0td3xEy-6SBc6Vz9k_blbOIkj_L7U0YDlGMQ38jJwNmGL1LTktzV42n-FPLH8r_LPXhEXusHSWpsPgXkZAueIxca8WlqqfmpKQI_cvZrmmjx9pPtvbRytNvUnQSiS

I explain why in my signature link.

Humans do control the climate.

It's not really a forum, as much as an insult arena.

And WHY is Qatar off the hook exactly ? Does it really only cost ONE plane to be excused for assisting the October 7th attacks ? Americans occupied Afghanistan for almost 20 years but I guess this is different... because they bought Trump a plane. Well, it WAS a really nice plane I guess.

1. No. I can find fault with anything including my own work. I have LIKED and agreed with your posts from time to time, so not sure why you haven't noticed that. I assume it's wishful thinking. 2. Significant ? Now you're qualifying... Policies have had an effect, and you're now moving your own goalposts from saying theres "no" effect. So let's stop there.

Another absolutely citeless post. Do you think I respect you so much that I would pull up a chair and have you just tell me everything and I'd believe it ? Anyway, I made it one sentence in and even then it was a chore. Would it kill you to Google something once in awhile ? Seriously.... Climate Change has been positively impacted by mitigating further increases In other words, if it weren't for the Climate response we would be worse off in terms of warming. Go read a bit and we'll chat again next year...

You know... I asked a bunch of honest questions, which is what a forum is for. You came back with 3 insults then said that *I* had lost credibility somehow. Care to try again, or ...

We don't get "no" results... there are measured impacts to CO2 reductions. And - are you responding to me on this thread ? Do you do so regularly ? Don't bother: you are on super double-plus ignore

1. Because it costs money ? You've said it was expensive but not why we can't afford it. 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man I"m not going to bottle feed you to get through this. Let's just leave it at this, but I'll give you some hints on how to frame your thesis a little better: Instead of expressing things in terms of 'billions' (which sounds like a lot of money to someone who doesn't follow economics) consider presenting in terms of costs and mitigated costs as % of GDP. That way you can see projected costs vs savings more clearly. And maybe show our GDP over the last 20-30 years too to see what it really means. I'd be interested in such an argument if you can source the numbers. There are a lot of examples out there that do this. Here's one you can follow: https://iiasa.ac.at/news/apr-2024/what-are-economic-costs-of-climate-inaction

This is pretty scrambled up... What does that mean "policy should be planned in an INTERNATIONAL WAY" ? And policy makers don't outsource work - firms do. Are Globalists specific to government, industry or both ? And Globalization was a huge boon to US corporations - are they traitors ? I'm just trying to pin the tail on the donkey here.