Michael Hardner

Of course he wants this. And the timing is working out.

No models predicted the sky falling. Explain how all factors are to be included in a model.

Explain how a model would include ALL factors. "The left's idea of social change is a threat to national security" And you don't want to BAN them?

1. Why is it that people are brainwashed by leftist ideas but not rightist ones? Don't you have faith in people's basic intelligence? Access to information? 2. Except that the problem is happening in most of the world's countries, not just the West. Tunisia, Sri Lanka, Vietnam... 3. Too bad you can't give birth I guess. Wait how many kids do you have again? Less than 3?

What do you mean 'to say' ? Do you mean to 'estimate' or to 'determine exactly' ? Because you only need a fairly accurate estimate for large-scale models. That's not how models work. You don't need to include every factor in a model, only significant ones. Good on you. Best of luck banning the Democrats as well. Cheers.

No, I said that the way YOU framed it is a false binary. There's a difference. And there's a vast ocean between the two options you put forward. That's why it's a false binary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma ex: EIther you're a socialist or extremely right-wing. That's not generally true, there are lots of other options. ( Although not so much on this board it seems. )

Let's talk about alarmism on YOUR position now. Climate activism is CAUSING our economic problems ? That would be tough for you to prove now, wouldn't it ?

1. Ah ok, good. 2. *I* am ? No. I'm not. 3. The Progressive movement, which I assume means the 60s "libs" allowed people to pursue things that they otherwise were prevented from pursuing... ie more "freedom" 4. It's worse than before. Lots on the right are decrying our political systems for that very reason.

The Powers that be have been lying since the first Sumerian shaman declared to the people that the animal sacrifice to Anu was a success. I'm sorry to pop your cherry on that one. In other news, Clinton DID have sex with that woman Ms. Lewinsky.

Which... could mean that we see more unions defying back-to-work orders ? Wow... it's the 1970s again... At least it will give Poilievre something to chew on. But then again just as many private union members support the Conservative Party of Canada as they do the NDP. I was surprised by that when I looked it up, but then again these are parties that direct their comments to 'workers' quite often. https://angusreid.org/unions-strike-labour-canada-ndp-conservatives-liberals/

1. I said ... it DIED. Would your agenda change if you died ? Mine would. 2. Most if not all DEMOCRATS want actual Communism ? That's an outrageous statement. Even Hillary Clinton has stated that SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE won't happen: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-single-payer-health-care-will-never-ever-happen/ So, you're just wrong on that. 3. I usually have you on IGNORE, with due respect, so I'm not familiar with your positions. But if what you say is true then yes you should work to ban the Democratic party and democracy in general for the USA in case people ever stupidly re-elect them. 4. I am not going to contract your personal perspective, ie. you see nothing every day. Enjoy your day. To add: Single Payer Healthcare is present in most Western Capitalist economies. So, Hillary Clinton is not even a socialist. .

1. Well, sure but 1917 was a long time ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution 2. Morality is personal, but yeah... I sure don't have a problem with that. Incentivizing excellence is a systemic approach, so that's at least more rational than what Marie Antoinette and King Louis thought. Interestingly, both Cuba and the US (as I understand) work to reduce the wages of doctors. 3. I agree. But you do hear the phrase "deserve" a lot from the right when they talk about what people earn. I am conservative, so I buy into the institutions that got us here: labour peace, free enterprise, and a managed 3-part balance between public, enterprise, and labour.

I think that's a false binary. ie. Whether it's happening vs whether it will end us. The true binary, for years, was whether warming was actually happening, believe it or not. Then it was whether CO2 was to blame. Then it was how MUCH CO2 was to blame. At the end of it will be "well, we can't do anything now". Those of you who have changed your positions from "it's not happening" please raise your hands. The idea that it's the end of existence for humans isn't provable, but the idea that we COULD mitigate this is realistic. What is the cost we're willing to put into mitigating that ? Low single digits of GDP ? And let's not conflate the economic troubles of the masses with Climate Change moderation - there are plenty of folks who are doing great and could afford to guarantee their continued presence as our economic overlords. (Nudges Elon)

I maintain that the current spate of populist movements are driven by the perception of poor economic outlook for working people. It's not hard to see where that comes from and it's not hard to sympathize. And it's a problem for ALL centrist parties.

1. Well your comments on me are noted. I didn't post to goddess, I don't think, I responded to her post. 2. Rabid leftism would be nationalization of industry, banning of private capital and so on. Since that died, as a concept, over the last 30-50 years it became harder for people to rail against "the left" so they made it about social change. I don't see how social change can be politicized on a party level since everyone agrees with freedom and it's just the details to be worked out. 3.I heard of him before, some kind of climate denialist. I don't have the job to shoot down every incorrect theory, the system itself does that quite well.

Thank you for bringing only poster on this thread to point this out. Also noted that no one has accused the Carney liberals as being "leftist" in this thread. Telling...

The forest fire situation seems to be increasing now so it was probably less of a factor from before. They can measure carbon in the atmosphere, and determine the relationship between that and temperature. It's purely a mathematical exercise to determine that. Volcano emissions are pretty constant ( why wouldn't they be ? ) and the fact that people submit this as a factor indicates that they're not familiar with the large body of work over many years. ( Assuming they're not being purposely deceptive. ) There's a small line at the bottom in purple that indicates volcanic activity. Source: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities

Well, it MIGHT. Maybe lower your defense shields a bit...

It's probably a giant Nothing Burger, designed to distract from the actual problems of the country... Unity and wage disparity. If they want to ban leftism, by which I'm sure they mean the Democrats, why don't they just do so? The answer is the same reason that this test would probably die, if it is at all as advertised...... It's unconstitutional. The bigger the problems of the West become, the more we focus on... Divisive s***

You like Populism but not unions. 🤔 You want to increase wages but not allow organizing. 🤔 The forces that keep wages low don't just use immigration.

Their problems are politicized to the point where nothing gets fixed.

You're not anything, though. What is the plan? How are you planning to change human nature? Or are you Communists? Because you gutted public education, and made it impossible for poor people ( 1/2 the country ) to get educated.

Trump's not fixing this...

In terms of having their own ideas, I suppose so.

No it definitely isn't. But there would be no way to prove causation just as it has never been proven that cigarettes cause lung cancer. However, the margin of doubt is small enough that proof isn't required. So we take action, collectively, to mitigate the risks.