Jump to content

Michael Hardner

Senior Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    42,789

  • Joined

  • Days Won

    94

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Michael Hardner

  3. Total fossil emissions in the world is only 0.1% to 0.2% of total greenhouse gases

    in Federal Politics in Canada

    Posted

    5 hours ago, cannuck said:

    I imagine there are more than a few.   You could start by contacting Dr. Howard Dryden - the man behind the goes website and a oceanic scientist with academic credentials and professional accomplishments in water treatment far beyond almost any mere mortal.   While he stands WAY out in front, he is hardly alone in his understanding of these issues.

     

    Way out front because?  

    I'm looking at his work...

     

     

  5. Total fossil emissions in the world is only 0.1% to 0.2% of total greenhouse gases

    in Federal Politics in Canada

    Posted

    15 minutes ago, blackbird said:

    Studies that have no underlying empirical proof are not scientific proof.

    Studies citing other studies that have no proof are not proof either.

    Repeating the same thing over 435 times doesn't prove anything.

    It's a survey of scientists.  Here's a more recent one: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774

    Published by an LSU scientist.  Abstract: 

     

    Quote

    We find that agreement on anthropogenic global warming is high (91% to 100%) and generally increases with expertise. Out of a group of 153 independently confirmed climate experts, 98.7% of those scientists indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels. Among those with the highest level of expertise (independently confirmed climate experts who each published 20+ peer reviewed papers on climate change between 2015 and 2019) there was 100% agreement that the Earth is warming mostly because of human activity.


    So, it's not evidence of climate change, no.   The evidence is in the papers such as MBH99 (Temperature reconstruction) https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999gl900070 and cited by 2733 other papers.  CO2 monitoring is done by NASA https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/ 

    And the Greenhouse Effect is known, ergo - if you increase the amount of CO2 it increases temperature in the atmosphere.

    It's pretty much a slam-dunk which is why 100% of climate scientists now buy into it.  Although that wasn't the case 20 years ago so it seems that some of them have been convinced.

    If you have an alternative theory, please publish it.  Don't post a video of someone in a church basement in Iowa telling a bunch of conspiracy folks that the scientists are "idi0ts" etc.

  6. Total fossil emissions in the world is only 0.1% to 0.2% of total greenhouse gases

    in Federal Politics in Canada

    Posted

    27 minutes ago, blackbird said:

    1. Since you are so well-informed, what is the underlying scientific proof that man is causing climate change?  Or where is the proof the minute amount of man-made CO2 is causing global warming? 

     

    1. How about a study ABOUT the studies ?  It's 20 years old but showed that consensus was achieved that long ago.

    https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=c38660c58a91b26edfb6a7d85fa41e68b2b5e472

    Cited 435 times by other studies.

  9. Jordan Peterson: Our rotten, rotting universities

    in Federal Politics in Canada

    Posted

    3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

    Progress is a good thing.

    But in every movement for the good of society, there are extremists who will attempt to hijack and ruin the movement for those who pushed through with good intent.

    I look at Black Lives Matter. So many riots. Cost billions. Many black owned businesses were seriously vandalized if not destroyed.

    They did more damage to black communities, than good. Crime rate increases, and other issues aligned within the consequences of putting all police under the same umbrella, socially. Under guise of good intent.

    I also look at universities suppressing free thought, by sensorship that often punishes those with dissenting views.

    In guise of being equal, putting safe spaces for racial minorities (among others) that literally are more divisive than they are helpful.

    Trying to wash down generations of white guilt, via shaming. 

    These are all practices growing in such environments. 

    This level of progressive thinking is a threat to meritocracy. Is a threat to nuclear families. Is a threat to black communities advancing socially.

    Progress in advancing others, is good. If that advancement actually holds people back, it should be questioned. Definitely has no business going unchallenged in an educational environment. 

    I see so many debates held at universities turning violent, which often showcases some of that decay socially.

    I don't hear much from Black Lives Matter these days.  

    The complaining about such movements, is rather akin to complaints about Q-anon, in my books, in that they're just complaining about archetypes, even real archetypes.  

    We still have markets and competition so that should take care of meritocracy.  My company seems to be majority non-white and merit is never in question here.  Grist for the mill, it seems.

    • Like 1

  11. Total fossil emissions in the world is only 0.1% to 0.2% of total greenhouse gases

    in Federal Politics in Canada

    Posted

    1 hour ago, cannuck said:

    It is a HUGE factor, and many atmospheric and oceanic surface things contribute to changes in water vapour.  The other biggie is of course methane - an extremely large natural emission that is massively contributing to climate change.

    Please note your sig line is extremely dishonest.  Anthroprogenic CO2 emissions are not the "cause" of climate change, they are a very minor contributor.

    Read the link.

    You didn't answer my question either, although you seem to think that you did.

  15. Jordan Peterson: Our rotten, rotting universities

    in Federal Politics in Canada

    Posted

    5 hours ago, suds said:

    Here's a liberal I can identify with. A liberal who can actually think for himself....

     

    Aside from expressing vehement opposition to the progressive worldview, and pointing out the most ridiculous and contradictory examples... I don't see any progress in raising alarms about this ethic.

    DeSantis and his crew moved on...so it's now in the domain of comedians to poke at it.  

  18. Total fossil emissions in the world is only 0.1% to 0.2% of total greenhouse gases

    in Federal Politics in Canada

    Posted

    8 hours ago, blackbird said:

    Really? I thought you knew some of the basic causes of global warming.  One would think you knew water vapour was a major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.  But you say "it's probably not a factor"????

    If you do find some websites mentioning water vapour, you will find it is by far the biggest cause of global warming.  The amount of water vapour far exceeds the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and human emitted CO2 is negligible compared with natural CO2 and water vapoour.  Water vapour is what produces the clouds, precipitation and humidity in the air. So yes, if they are being honest, the experts will admit water vapour is a major factor.

    You didn't answer if it's increasing.  CO2 is.

  19. Total fossil emissions in the world is only 0.1% to 0.2% of total greenhouse gases

    in Federal Politics in Canada

    Posted

    10 minutes ago, blackbird said:

    Why is it so hard to find how much greenhouse gas including water vapour is in the atmosphere?  When I do a search, I find all kinds of websites that talk about man-made CO2 but not water vapour.  Water vapour is by far the biggest greenhouse gas and contributor to global warming.  But is seems very difficult or impossible to find the facts about natural greenhouse gases including water vapour.  They don't appear to want to talk about that.  They prefer to focus on man-made CO2.

     

    Is water vapour increase?  If the experts aren't looking at it, it's probably not a factor.

  20. Jordan Peterson Warns of Surveillance State, Future ‘Secret Police’

    in Federal Politics in Canada

    Posted

    On 4/4/2024 at 12:59 PM, Venandi said:

    It's the pervasive use of this fallacy that I find fascinating, in most cases it's a desperate deflection that flies in the face of common sense, real issues get totally ignored, and later, largely because of it, a bunch of easily anticipated WTF did you think was going to happen questions get asked.

    The people who use this fallacy to shutdown others would likely balk at the idea that they needed a Phd in anthropology before suggesting to their teenage daughter that it was a bad idea to quit high school and move in with a  28 year old boyfriend. 

    You don't need a masters in criminology to recognize that the bulk of a police budget is personnel expenses either, run that by most 10 year olds and they'll suggest that cutting funding will lead to attrition. Throw in vilifying the department, easy bail, and raising felony/indictable offence limits (on shop lifting) and the result isn't, by any playground definition, an unexpected or unintended consequence. Take the madness a step further and eliminate all police responses below the new felony threshold (due to personnel shortages) and robbers will start carrying calculators. 

    The idea that transgender women (meaning uncut males) would infiltrate women's sports isn't surprising either... is it?

    I'd suggest that anyone shocked by any of this needs to listen to people like JP a little more attentively, even if he's shouting naked from the roof.

    Most amazing of all is that In this particular example, much of the support the transgender community received actually came from young laddies who ultimately had the most to loose. 

    Explaining that support may require a Phd but there's a huge gulf between explaining why and anticipating some of the potential negative effects.

     

     

     

    ?  What ?

     

    I can learn something from a dead skunk, I suppose, but not much.

  24. Coleman Hughes on race & "woke" identity politics

    in Moral & Ethical Issues

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

    1.  But how does this answer my question.  How is this message not consumable by the masses, as opposed to identity politics messaging?

    2. True, but that's not where the phrase comes from, it has ancient greek origins:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_a_spade_a_spade

    "The phrase predates the use of the word "spade" as an ethnic slur against African Americans,[15] which was not recorded until 1928."

    1. Because it requires too much thought.

    2. Still.  People don't use the word niggardly anymore either.

    ...

×
×
  • Create New...