Michael Hardner

I get you now. I made the bad assumption that Sweden had similar population to ours. I didn't realize they were much smaller. Abandoning platitudes and useless habits is a must. Furthermore, when a politician makes a promise of a program it needs to be accompanied with a tracking dashboard audited by a third party, or the auditor general. That way we can follow up. People are getting much better at tracking things via numbers, however, there's no objective truth yet so you'll get clashing statistics. Also governments have to start admitting mistakes, and we have to forgive mistakes when they try something new. You get somewhere by failing a few times than succeeding.

Exactly. What is there to be learned ? One party has a core of motivated and engaged followers, even if it's a smaller number.

https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/blog/2024/what-canada-potential-capacity-housing-construction We do more than that but our immigration has been much higher.

Well it's difficult to understand the appeal of Carney, the most boring politician we have seen in a country of boring politicians, we should note that Poilievre was only ever popular in relation to Trudeau. His numbers were never good, in terms of likability. As for this West versus East thing... We are behaving as a nation more than we have in years, in the face of the tariff threat. Separatism in Quebec is down. And based on 338 seat projections, the Liberals are healthy... Tied with the CPC in Manitoba, and ahead in BC based on seat counts. Poilievre is a Rebel, and Canada is culturally loyalist which is the opposite... The USA was formed by rebels, we defer to authority. Carney is an insufferably dull authority on the economy.

American. Must boycott.

I doubt that I will "complain" (your word).

Did I say that the sky is falling? Did I take a position on a detailed response? You keep coming at me from these angles, I think because you want to make an argument where we don't have one. Sometimes there's nothing to say.

Why do I have to produce proof for a claim I did not make?

1. No, it's not resolved. If you don't want to continue, that's fine but it's not resolved. 2. I suppose. But the analogy doesn't work for me.

1. You told me that I stuck out on science, so why would I continue to pester you? 2. Well at some point fossil fuels will be gone. I'd like to see more nuclear power for one. And as I mentioned before, the quality of dialog needs a major shift.

1. Not very gracious, especially since you're the one changing a subject, but okay. 2. I'm 100% against tripe. 3. Ok.

We're on to a new topic, it seems. I welcome that. I think that we should try to mitigate climate change, but whatever we do needs to be based on consensus around a real solution. All the parties have climate policies I believe. Maybe not PPC.

We haven't talked about response. So how can you say I'm not interested in negotiating or compromising? And I don't think interpretation should be subject to negotiation. Facts point to a conclusion, what would be the role of negotiation in that exchange? "The thermometer shows it's -20. I interpret that to mean that I would feel cold if I went out" "Let's compromise on this" ?

A compromise on what? Science?

Well ok, but an encyclopedia entry is not authoritative when it comes to providing the complete evidence of climate change caused by humans. Furthermore, you're nitpicking one word in that article and trying to work backwards to say that we can include there's not enough evidence. I would say look at summaries of the scientific papers, how often they're cited by other papers etc. There is enough evidence, though ,and as I mentioned, there are no other factors that add up to causing climate change on the level that it's happened other than human produced CO2

The Democratic Party May soon be banned. Anybody here think that's a bad idea?

All the factors can be quantified. Human caused CO2 is the largest factor.

Sorry I don't usually respond to you because I have you on ignore. I don't know where you got that but I didn't say it. You're arguing against something I didn't say.

You said that there was one fact. All of those other factors are understood and aren't causing the increase in temperature. Those are either 1990s theories or discounted ones, such as volcanic activity causing the increase.

No, I explained that you can make the Greenhouse effect happen in a lab by increasing the amount of Carbon. And we know humans are making more carbon, and the temperature of the lower atmosphere is increasing. You can't say it's 100% certain but it's beyond a reasonable doubt. https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect/

Your link is from 27 years ago right? I explained that there still were alternative theories in the 1990s but Carbon and Temperature kept going up, and the alternative theories died off. Poetic musings about the hubris of man don't stand up against the facts. Man does a lot of good and bad things. And I don't think I brought up economics so I'll leave that alone.

Trumps have discovered social engineering. Openness and acceptance of LGBTQ is regarded by them as social engineering, not a common value. Did liberals make a mistake on that one ? Objectively, how much does the government get to decide what is a 'common value' ? Or, furthermore, to interpret recognized value-words like 'Freedom' ? Freedom seems to mean you can buy a message and broadcast it whether or not it is true. Nobody would argue that. But it doesn't mean freedom of equal access to education or health. Postmodern Republicanism truly is a wonder to behold. It will lead back to a kind of 19th century pastoralism, I suspect. Maybe with a monarchy though.

You versus pretty much the entire weight of climate science. Citing ppm on its own, without relating it to anything else is an example of wrongheaded thinking. Tiny amounts of some things can have huge effects. Plutonium for example. In this case, the relationship between CO2 and the greenhouse effect is causative. You can show this in a lab, that CO2 in the atmosphere increases warming. CO2 is increased by human activity, and we can measure the this is happening to a large degree.

It's clearly the biggest factor.

You have a set of effects, combined with a causal link that can be reproduced in any lab. That should remove reasonable doubt, especially since the alternate explanations have all failed.