Climate Change Action NOW

[Audrey Devlin]

The science is there, the technology is ready to go.  Now we need the political will to make it happen.  Interestingly, regardless of political stripe, and whether you choose to believe or act on the science is entirely up to you.  However, we are ALL in this together, simply by being a member fo the human race and we will have to own up to the destruction of the environment that will be our own undoing.   Frankly,there is no more time for dithering, and it is past time for all of our governments to get together and make a plan for cutting emissions in half in the next 5 years.  Urge your MP to get going on this, no matter what your party.  Other than the Cons, I believe that all parties are on board to effect that change - and those who are deniers will simply have to be dragged into a new GREEN AGE whether they like it or not.  For the greater good of humanity.  

[Dougie93]

In most cases I am prepared to go to war to defend people from being dragged anywhere by the authoritarian left, but in this case there's no need to, your techno-utopian leftist central planning is guaranteed to collapse all on its own.  Go ahead, make my day, you're just going to blow yourselves up and incite a backlash which will ultimately empower the populist right.

[Dougie93]

And this, again, is why I say that people on the right should play the long game and actually vote for these leftist authoritarian parties now, feed them rope to hang themselves with, let the central planners run amok, because it's guaranteed to come crashing down on the electorate, and that's the only way to get the pendulum to swing hard to the right.

Once the population is enraged by the corruption, incompetence and dysfunction incited by the Climate Barbies, that's when you pounce, to destroy the totally discredited central plan once and for all time.

 

[Dougie93]

Also bear in mind, the left is ascendant right now and feeling cocky about it, but that's only because of Quantitative Easing.

The central banks are propping up runaway spending and preventing Canadians from paying the real price of things, so the leftists are having a free money party.

That's not going to last, but until interest rates  return to historical levels, which they will, Canadians will keep voting for leftist utopian fairy's and unicorns, because they're not paying for it yet.

So now is not the time to make your move to bring the left down, you just have wait until Canadians actually get the bill for all this and feel that pain.

Then it will be payback time and the left will be the ones getting dragged around where they don't want to go, starting with massive cuts to government spending incited by the inevitable fiscal crisis which will come.

Edited June 1, 2019 by Dougie93

[Queenmandy85]

Thank you Audrey. Well said. Doug, in his infinite wisdom is saying people who are smart, people like Stephen Hawking, are left wing. So if that is the case, he is advising us to vote for the left. Therefore, according to Doug, the less intelligent people vote conservative. I don't agree with Doug. ( I rarely do) People on the right and the left are smart enough to see the disaster coming down on us if we don't drastically reduce Carbon emissions.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Thank you Audrey. Well said. Doug, in his infinite wisdom is saying people who are smart, people like Stephen Hawking, are left wing. So if that is the case, he is advising us to vote for the left. Therefore, according to Doug, the less intelligent people vote conservative. I don't agree with Doug. ( I rarely do) People on the right and the left are smart enough to see the disaster coming down on us if we don't drastically reduce Carbon emissions.

It's been that way for a while now.  Why haven't the people who are smart enough to see the disaster coming down on us drastically reduced Carbon emissions?

[Dougie93]

5 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Thank you Audrey. Well said. Doug, in his infinite wisdom is saying people who are smart, people like Stephen Hawking, are left wing. So if that is the case, he is advising us to vote for the left. Therefore, according to Doug, the less intelligent people vote conservative. I don't agree with Doug. ( I rarely do) People on the right and the left are smart enough to see the disaster coming down on us if we don't drastically reduce Carbon emissions.

Show me the text with the data where Professor Hawking asserts that a Canadian carbon tax will drastically reduce global emissions, otherwise you are not even smart enough to understand what an appeal to authority fallacy is.

You're a big talker about science, but you're not even being logical, really we're just dealing with your feelings here.   Not science; just more fatuous  virtue signalling.

Edited June 2, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

The only discernible effect of this virtue signalling crusade is that it is going to raise prices, which will eventually become inflation, which will mean interest rates will go up, which means people will lose their homes and/or have to sell them.

<slow claps>

Trudeau jr same as Trudeau sr, the economics of the 1970's are back, and those of us who lived through the 1980's know what comes next.

Perhaps childish virtue signalers have never had to pay an 18% mortgage rate, although this debt ridden Canadian economy will melt down if we even get to half of that.

The tax and spend us off a fiscal cliff Liberals are extracting money from Canadians which those Canadians can't actually afford, they're just punting the pain into the near future.

And for what?  It will have no effect on global emissions whatsoever.   Science!

I suppose there's nothing to be done about it, this clown country of village idiots will just have to learn the hard way, again.

It's all for the middle class; I hope they can enjoy those Sunny Ways when they are defaulting on their mortgages.

I'll be circling like a vulture to take your house from you at fire sale prices, and I won't feel bad about it, because I gave you fair warning.

Edited June 2, 2019 by Dougie93

[cannuck]

9 hours ago, bcsapper said:

It's been that way for a while now.  Why haven't the people who are smart enough to see the disaster coming down on us drastically reduced Carbon emissions?

Of course, I would disagree strongly with that.  This is no different from how we practice medicine these days...attack the symptom instead of the disease - because you can make a lot of money attacking symptoms without killing off the cause of the problem.

Smart people would have figured out how to limit the number of people emitting carbon instead of trying to make some bucks scaring the WEALTHY part of the world into giving them money to chase down unicorn farts.

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, bcsapper said:

It's been that way for a while now.  Why haven't the people who are smart enough to see the disaster coming down on us drastically reduced Carbon emissions?

Because politics guarantees that idiots, soothsayers, liars and witch doctors will prevail over people with brains and a heart.

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

22 hours ago, Audrey Devlin said:

The science is there, the technology is ready to go.  Now we need the political will to make it happen.  Interestingly, regardless of political stripe, and whether you choose to believe or act on the science is entirely up to you.  However, we are ALL in this together, simply by being a member fo the human race and we will have to own up to the destruction of the environment that will be our own undoing.   Frankly,there is no more time for dithering, and it is past time for all of our governments to get together and make a plan for cutting emissions in half in the next 5 years.  Urge your MP to get going on this, no matter what your party.  Other than the Cons, I believe that all parties are on board to effect that change - and those who are deniers will simply have to be dragged into a new GREEN AGE whether they like it or not.  For the greater good of humanity.  

LOL, cutting carbon output in half ain't gonna happen and even if it did it would result in climate change acceration. Your thinking all this conversion to carbon free doesn't come with its own contribution to climate change? Where do you think all the materials and manufacturing processes for these rechnologies come from? 

If Trump succeeds in bringing manufacturing back home he will have done more to curb climate change than everyone else combined. Transportation of raw products and finished goods is a huge contributer to greenhouse gases and pollution and in North America alone they say we're short a million heavy trucks on the highways, making them all to electric is not going to fix this. 

Don't preach to me we need to reduce greenhouse gasses then push globalization, we all know we have the technology and ability to cut greenhouse gasses by a factor of ten within the next ten years, nobody is interested, especially the wealthy and influential and of course the masses will just follow. 

[Dougie93]

There is a side benefit to all this appeal to the authority of the scientists, in that it is in fact undermining their authority.

Bear in mind that a hundred years ago scientists all agreed that black people were inferior subhumans, they had the data, it was clear.

Bear in mind the scientists who experimented on Jews in the concentration camps.

Scientists are not actually to be trusted, they are subject to partisanship and are in fact mostly hacks.

It's good to have that reinforced from time to time, and the publicly funded partisan hack Climate Scientists are providing a useful lesson.

[Michael Hardner]

Aha.  It's SCIENTISTS that are the simplistic cause to everything gone wrong.  We have a solution now.

 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Because politics guarantees that idiots, soothsayers, liars and witch doctors will prevail over people with brains and a heart.

Well, it's been that way forever.  I'm always fascinated by the notion that humans can work together for a common good, as evinced by the attendees of all these conferences and meetings we have around the world.  They can't, and they won't. 

I bet we have another one soon.  We should have a sweepstake on where it will be.  I'm betting Melbourne.  Or Cape Town.  No, Reykjavik!

[Guest]

4 hours ago, cannuck said:

Of course, I would disagree strongly with that.  This is no different from how we practice medicine these days...attack the symptom instead of the disease - because you can make a lot of money attacking symptoms without killing off the cause of the problem.

Smart people would have figured out how to limit the number of people emitting carbon instead of trying to make some bucks scaring the WEALTHY part of the world into giving them money to chase down unicorn farts.

Disagree strongly with what?  I asked a question. 

[Dougie93]

27 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Aha.  It's SCIENTISTS that are the simplistic cause to everything gone wrong.  We have a solution now.

 

Nothing's gone wrong, life is good, it's never been better actually, although you need to hedge for a global correction, but that's okay, corrections are a good thing, buy low sell high.

Just make sure you're not depending on the Federal Government for anything, most of your services are after all delivered by the province.

The Federal Government actually does almost nothing of any particular worth, it's a classic Self Licking Ice Cream Cone.

Your real Westphalian State is the United Kingdom - United States Security Agreement, the Government of Canada is a parasite.

Edited June 2, 2019 by Dougie93

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

1. Nothing's gone wrong, life is good, it's never been better actually, 

2. Just make sure you're not depending on the Federal Government for anything, most of your services are after all delivered by the province.

1. ?  Didn't you just post saying you want to see the country bathed in flames ?  To kill liberals ?  Or something ?

2. Transfer payments ?  It's like 10-year-old me saying I earned my $5 that had nothing to do with my allowance

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. ?  Didn't you just post saying you want to see the country bathed in flames ?  To kill liberals ?  Or something ?

2. Transfer payments ?  It's like 10-year-old me saying I earned my $5 that had nothing to do with my allowance

I won't have to do anything about that, the liberal order will blow itself up and incite a revolt without any intervention from me.

As I said, barring self defence, I will only kill on the orders of the Commander-in-Chief, I'm not the one who will burning anything down, I am nothing, if not law abiding.

Edited June 2, 2019 by Dougie93

[Michael Hardner]

24 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

1. Well, it's been that way forever. 
2. I'm always fascinated by the notion that humans can work together for a common good, as evinced by the attendees of all these conferences and meetings we have around the world.  They can't, and they won't.  

1. Then why are you asking the question in the first place ?  I answer it and you say "oh I knew that" ???

2. That's as myopic as thinking humans are only selfish beings.  People act in both the common- and self- interest.  I am sorry that I have to explain this to you, or perhaps sorry that such an elementary part of life hasn't shown itself to you thus far.

The sad part about educating people on here, is that the thread just dies and they never say thank you. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Then why are you asking the question in the first place ?  I answer it and you say "oh I knew that" ???

2. That's as myopic as thinking humans are only selfish beings.  People act in both the common- and self- interest.  I am sorry that I have to explain this to you, or perhaps sorry that such an elementary part of life hasn't shown itself to you thus far.

The sad part about educating people on here, is that the thread just dies and they never say thank you. 

1) It was a rhetorical question.  Meant to make a point, not invoke an answer.  When you did answer I thought the decent thing to do was to carry the conversation forward.

2) You can't explain it to me because it's not the case.  Sure, I'll get together with my neighbour to remove a troublesome tree stump, but that sort of thing doesn't translate to international cooperation.  I'm not sorry I have to explain that to you.  I don't mind at all.  It's why we're here, after all.

3) Not dead yet...

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

1) It was a rhetorical question.  Meant to make a point, not invoke an answer.   

2) You can't explain it to me because it's not the case.  Sure, I'll get together with my neighbour to remove a troublesome tree stump, but that sort of thing doesn't translate to international cooperation. 

3) I'm not sorry I have to explain that to you.  I don't mind at all.  It's why we're here, after all.

 

1) It comes across as a real, albeit naive question.  I don't see the point.  Anybody who would recognize the rhetoric knows the answer is obvious.

2) I feel that people who think humans are purely subjective are projecting, and therefore it's not easy to explain to them that others are not like them.  Your tree stump story isn't heartwarming because we all know you're trying to get with his wife.

3) On Remembrance Day are you thinking "Man, no wonder those guys volunteered for service.  The pay and army food must have been sweet"

Let's see your evidence that significant acts of selflessness and charity are fiction.

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) It comes across as a real, albeit naive question.  I don't see the point.  Anybody who would recognize the rhetoric knows the answer is obvious.

2) I feel that people who think humans are purely subjective are projecting, and therefore it's not easy to explain to them that others are not like them.  Your tree stump story isn't heartwarming because we all know you're trying to get with his wife.

3) On Remembrance Day are you thinking "Man, no wonder those guys volunteered for service.  The pay and army food must have been sweet"

Let's see your evidence that significant acts of selflessness and charity are fiction.

 

1) Of course it's obvious.  That was the point.

2) 3) I said, individuals act differently from herds. 

As to your request, what about climate change?

Edited June 2, 2019 by bcsapper

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

1) I said, individuals act differently from herds. 

2) As to your request, what about climate change?

1) So... the Canadian Army was acting selfishly even though the volunteers were selfless ?  Do you enjoy being The Riddler to my Batman ?  I don't.  Your relative (to your political cohort) wit in posting doesn't cover up a sloppy mental model for how people behave.

2) What about it ?  I answered the original question above and you ran out of runway/rhetoric.  

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) So... the Canadian Army was acting selfishly even though the volunteers were selfless ?  Do you enjoy being The Riddler to my Batman ?  I don't.  Your relative (to your political cohort) wit in posting doesn't cover up a sloppy mental model for how people behave.

2) What about it ?  I answered the original question above and you ran out of runway/rhetoric.  

I think you're being deliberately obtuse because you get my point but you don't want to admit it.  No Riddler.  Batman, only if you say so...

1) Soldiers, for the most part, act selflessly, and join up for the greater good.  Armies act the way generals and politicians who are miles from harm's way dictate they should act.

I don't understand your last sentence in 1)

2) Climate change is the point of the thread, and the point of my original rhetorical question to which you responded.  It seemed appropriate.  It's certainly a great example of the inability of large groups of people to cooperate for the greater good, even when it's obviously very necessary.

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

   It's certainly a great example of the inability of large groups of people to cooperate for the greater good, even when it's obviously very necessary.

People act, individually, on a scale from selfish to selfless.  Group mechanics may vary.  How a nation responds to 9/11, Pearl Harbour, Climate Change isn't prescriptive, even if you agree on the general grain of human nature.