Jump to content

Are humans really responsible for climate change?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

IN the 2nd post on this thread you encapsulated the answer.  It's pretty simple and the denial-lovers and conspiracy-lovers who can't see this should be ignored.  

We can still talk about whether the response proposed makes sense, but not about conspiracies.  I think that whoever funded the conspiracy industry on this helped lay the groundwork for Russia, and others who are subverting our democracy.  I actually think we have to start curtailing anonymous dissemination of false information based on what happened here.

Centrepiece, Sillywalker and Oftenwrong don't want to believe our institutions, which is their right. But they shouldn't be allowed to publish lies.

Typical horse-shit from anonymous people is stuff like this:

It's the technique of the Big Lie, repeated forever and it's bringing us down.

It is the human bankster globalist elite(one world order government)that is helping to bring us all down. We the people are not at fault here. We the people do not start wars.

It's funny how not one of our human environmental groups out there has said anything about massive immigration into western countries around the world and how that is effecting so called climate change and the environment in those western countries? Blame the humans in western countries all the time for all of the pollution in the world and global climate change when we all should know by now that it is the non-western world that is causing the problems of pollution and global warming. China and India come to mind.

There is a "Big Lie" being promoted out there and it is all coming from our lying politicians and the lying media. The western countries are not the problem of climate change. It is the rest of the non-western countries that is creating this so called climate change. Believe it of not. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it not be smart for  USA/Canada/EU  to ban all imports from China which has no environmental laws,k  do more for climate change than anything we can do?

The fact that no politician raises that issue as a solution is hypocritical and makes a mockery of anything we do to supposedly to ombat climate change.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, scribblet said:

Would it not be smart for  USA/Canada/EU  to ban all imports from China which has no environmental laws,k  do more for climate change than anything we can do?

The fact that no politician raises that issue as a solution is hypocritical and makes a mockery of anything we do to supposedly to ombat climate change.  

 

The real question that they should all be asking themselves is how long do they want to keep playing this propaganda climate change hoax game? As you said why not stop dealing with China and India also if they are serious about climate change as those two countries are the biggest environmental polluters in the world. Why do we taxpaying humans in the western world have to pay more taxes and put up with more environmental rules and regulations re climate change when China and India are the biggest human polluters of them all. 

Do you really believe that human politicians do really care about the environment one bit? I doubt they do at all. And besides the USA/Canada/EU are pretty much contributing to the problem of this so called global warming all the time with all of the flying that they continue to do from all of the travelling that they do from around the world. Whatever happened to those conference calls? 

The whole wide world is full of government lying and bull chitting hypocrites. Let's try to be realistic here. Only brainwashed zombie like fools get all upset over the environment. I will bet that no member here really cares all that much about the environment either otherwise would any of them want stop driving their vehicles, or flying to somewhere, or stop heating their homes plus doing the many other things that they do every day in their life to live and get by with. Do people really think that Al Gore or David Suzuki are very serious about global warming? My opinion is no they do not.  C'mon, stop lying to yourselves. You really do not care all that much about the environment all that much now do you? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Argus said:

This is pretty much my position. I'm not going to argue with most of the world's scientists that the world is warming, or that we're having an impact. What to do about it, though, is the question. I also agree with whomever said China and the rest of the developing world are just catching up to the West, and it would be unfair to freeze them in place as they try to industrialize.

But as long as China alone is increasing its emissions each and every year by far and away more than Canada's total promised cutbacks any action by us is pointless. Giving them, the Indians and the rest another twenty five or thirty years before they have to stop their emissions growth means we'll be well past the point of actually impacting global warming until long, long after I'm dead anyway. There is a delay factor, you know, in that even if we completely eliminated CO2 emissions it would take decades to have any impact. So a warmed globe is what we're gonna get. Best start planning for that.

If you want some answers on what to do then talk to some experts on  the questions. They never refrain from giving good advice. 

China is doing a miraculous job with an extremely difficult situation, but has managed to lift millions more out of poverty than any other country has ever done.

But about the answers? You don't want to hear any answers do you. You would rather throw your hands in the air and proclaim the fight to be lost. Is there a lot of money in it for you?

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Welcome to the Theatre of the Absurd....some climate change alarmists, having lost a battle they could never win, now want to "deny" people their freedom of expression rights.

You'll find most Canadians different from Americans who have turned to extreme right fascism and neo-Nazism under Trump. The FBI/Mueller is much too slow taking the psychopath president down.

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, montgomery said:

You'll find most Canadians different from Americans who have turned to extreme right fascism and neo-Nazism under Trump. The FBI/Mueller is much too slow taking the psychopath president down.

 

No I won't....a majority of Canadians favour the death penalty and tighter control of the borders.

Trump has higher job approval ratings than Trudeau, Merkel, or Macron.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I think we are doomed regardless.  If, given your superior level of intelligence, you have any suggestions that would actually work, please don't waste them here, but get them to the UN immediately.  There is no time to lose.

There's plenty of smart people out there.  And no shortage of good ideas.  We just need enough voting citizens with the wisdom and humility to listen to them.

And yeah, I've learned that smart ideas are completely wasted on this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ReeferMadness said:

There's plenty of smart people out there.  And no shortage of good ideas.  We just need enough voting citizens with the wisdom and humility to listen to them.

 

They are voting....with the majority voting no.   The alarmists refuse to accept that even when "educated" about climate change, people can still choose other priorities.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, scribblet said:

Would it not be smart for  USA/Canada/EU  to ban all imports from China which has no environmental laws,k  do more for climate change than anything we can do?

The fact that no politician raises that issue as a solution is hypocritical and makes a mockery of anything we do to supposedly to ombat climate change. 

Wait.  Are you talking about the China that completely owns the solar panel manufacturing market?  Or the China that is winning the battle to control the battery market?           Or the China that has almost 100% of the world's electric buses?  Or the China that is positioning itself to take over the auto industry as it electrifies?

Right wingers need to stop eating their own bullshit.  China is a harsh dictatorship and they won't shed tears if there is a die-off, including some of their own population.  But they are also realists and they are skating to where the puck is going to be, not where it used to be.  Yes, they have modernized their country using coal - who hasn't??  But while we squabble over pipelines for dirty bitumen, they are leapfrogging us.

Wake up.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, ReeferMadness said:

There's plenty of smart people out there.  And no shortage of good ideas.  We just need enough voting citizens with the wisdom and humility to listen to them.

And yeah, I've learned that smart ideas are completely wasted on this forum.

So have I, but that's another issue.  If you want voting to have an effect, you'll have to form a world government.  Every citizen of Canada could have the wisdom of Solomon and vote accordingly, and it wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference to Climate Change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, scribblet said:

Would it not be smart for  USA/Canada/EU  to ban all imports from China which has no environmental laws,k  do more for climate change than anything we can do?

The fact that no politician raises that issue as a solution is hypocritical and makes a mockery of anything we do to supposedly to ombat climate change.  

 

Yeah you hit that one right on the head. Western economies, markets essentially exploit the fact that environmental regulations are quite lacking in third world countries. That is one reason they manufacture goods much cheaper than they can be made here. Outright ban might not be tenable but I could see a good reason to apply tariffs. Their ability to circumvent regulations gives them an unfair advantage. Make their goods more expensive to buy, unless they meet certain standards. But none of our current leaders have the guts to do anything like this, and we all know why.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Centrepiece, Sillywalker and Oftenwrong don't want to believe our institutions, which is their right. But they shouldn't be allowed to publish lies.

Really would like to know what I have published that you consider to be a lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, ReeferMadness said:

Wait.  Are you talking about the China that completely owns the solar panel manufacturing market?  Or the China that is winning the battle to control the battery market?           Or the China that has almost 100% of the world's electric buses?  Or the China that is positioning itself to take over the auto industry as it electrifies?

Right wingers need to stop eating their own bullshit.  China is a harsh dictatorship and they won't shed tears if there is a die-off, including some of their own population.  But they are also realists and they are skating to where the puck is going to be, not where it used to be.  Yes, they have modernized their country using coal - who hasn't??  But while we squabble over pipelines for dirty bitumen, they are leapfrogging us.

Wake up.

You can always find stuff that supports a claim, and stuff that refutes it.   If China is cornering the renewables market, I don't think it's out of the goodness of their hearts.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45640706

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/climate/china-energy-companies-coal-plants-climate-change.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, montgomery said:

China is doing a miraculous job with an extremely difficult situation, but has managed to lift millions more out of poverty than any other country has ever done.

But about the answers? You don't want to hear any answers do you. You would rather throw your hands in the air and proclaim the fight to be lost. Is there a lot of money in it for you?

If any one has the answer I'd be delighted to hear it. It's patently obvious that person won't be YOU, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ReeferMadness said:

He's probably talking about the China that's continuing to increase it's CO2 emissions by huge amounts every year, and will continue to do so for decades, virtue signalling notwithstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Really would like to know what I have published that you consider to be a lie.

I never said you published a lie.  You have published falsehoods, of course, such as Environmentalism is a conspiracy to steal money but you haven't lied that I know.

But... it is VERY telling that when I start talking about mitigating the amount of lying from online sources you and BC all of a sudden get upset about freedom of expression.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

But... it is VERY telling that when I start talking about mitigating the amount of lying from online sources you and BC all of a sudden get upset about freedom of expression.  

 

No, what is telling is that climate change alarmists insist on their right to publish falsehoods and lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Overreach - I have only said publishing of lies needs to be looked at.  You seem to have a problem with that.

 

I have a "problem" with any attempt to disenfranchise people of their right to freedom of speech/expression, regardless of their stance on "climate change".

Constitutional rights trump the climate change religion and its rabid zealots.

 

 

Edited by bush_cheney2004
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I never said you published a lie.  You have published falsehoods, of course, such as Environmentalism is a conspiracy to steal money but you haven't lied that I know.

But... it is VERY telling that when I start talking about mitigating the amount of lying from online sources you and BC all of a sudden get upset about freedom of expression.  

I said no such thing. You have deliberately misquoted me, and also personally called me out in a thread, without linking to my user name. Learn to write in this forum without attacking posters, and you will not be reported.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

China is definitely part of the problem, but as I have said in many cases and many times - EVERYONE gets to our economic status by raping and pillaging the environment.  We just had our turn long before China figured out how to join the party.  They (China and India) will repeat our sins because that is what you need to do to get INTO a position where you can afford to climb on your high horse.   The big difference, though, is that instead of grinding along for decades or even centuries as we had, China will move forward as quickly as they have over the last 30 years.  There are actually environmental laws in China, and there is a HUGE effort by government to back away from coal.  Spend a week in Beijing and you will see why they actually do take this stuff seriously.  BUT: they also take the business side of it extremely seriously.  When you own the marketplace for renewables but don't use much of them yourself, it should tell you where reality is in these technologies.

Also, on the subject of "listening to the experts":  one could fill an entire encyclopedia with the sheeple type of behaviour of various technical and scientific "experts" going a long way down the wrong road.   I have as yet to see no reason to believe the "global warming"...oh, wait, they now call it "climate change" is any different from hundreds of fad-science trends that proved to be erroneous that preceded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Don Jonas said:

So no amount of data could convince you because you misinterpreted earlier "fads" as science and are now unwilling to believe anything ever again?

I really don't have the time to explain how data can be and is interpreted.   One can come to any conclusion based on how one processes information and comes to their conclusion.  Even in peer reviewed work, bias shows through regularly.   You literally need to BE a genuine expert to be able to assess with accuracy, and since this is not my field, I will simply stick with my opinions.   I have already shown some obvious and glaring exceptions to the conventional "wisdom" of climate data.

BTW:  it is exactly your kind of response that someone else who you probably don't understand has loudly proclaimed something that they may or may not understand, and anyone who doesn't accept that must be some kind of sub-human that characterizes something that I would question for credibility.

Edited by cannuck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Argus said:

I also agree with whomever said China and the rest of the developing world are just catching up to the West, and it would be unfair to freeze them in place as they try to industrialize.

 

Personally, although I've read variations of this argument in several places. I find it somewhat specious. China's rise has been heavily facilitated by Western capitalism's desire to obtain cheap labour and minimize other resource input costs. Essentially, an economic model has been imposed in the developing world that promotes the use of the cheapest fuels, and mainly coal, in order to juice profits. China and other developing world countries could have jumped the industrial age by applying energy production and consumption best practices from the get-go, but that wouldn't have served the globalist agenda. A friend who traveled to India on business a few years ago noted how the Indians, who never developed an adequately functional land-line telephone system, had vigorously and pretty much universally embraced cellular phone technology. They didn't go back and start with switchboards and rotary dial phones. Rather, they leapfrogged an entire technological phase altogether.

Personally, I think that other than relying on technological advancements in energy production and consumption to curb C02 emissions, we'll have to implement a global trading system based on carbon intensity whereby goods that are produced with the lowest carbon inputs will get preferential access to markets. Taxing consumption as the Trudeau government is now doing is a chimeric mug's game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I never said you published a lie.  You have published falsehoods, of course, such as Environmentalism is a conspiracy to steal money but you haven't lied that I know.

But... it is VERY telling that when I start talking about mitigating the amount of lying from online sources you and BC all of a sudden get upset about freedom of expression.  

I believe it is to steal money. I'll use the example of the bike share program in many cities, that are to cut down on car traffic (that creates a lot of this CO2 thing) in major cities and provide 'cheap' transportation. However each major city that has put this into place has not made a profit. IN fact they suffer major losses due to how expensive it is to put in place and to maintain. While providing very little benefit. Those who want to use it , have to use their credit card or app on the phone to pay for the bike where you are limited to 30 minute rides. All GPS tracked/monitored.

With all that linked together,  that's more huge data mining.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/despite-losses-city-set-to-pump-more-money-into-bike-share-1.4560453

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/beware-the-hidden-costs-of-bike-sharing-programs

Quote

Montreals bike-share program in its second year of existence had a total loss of $6.7 million after an operating profit of only $1.5 million. As a result of these financial problems, the City of Montreal had to save the company from bankruptcy with a loan of $37 million and a $71-million credit guarantee in the Spring of 2011 so the company could pay its suppliers.

That's 37 million stolen from taxpayers to bail out a private company that is operating at a loss, but providing a 'public' service.  That's outright theft in my view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...