Do You Believe in Man-Made Climate Change?

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

 

 

If the situation does not represent a crisis ...

I didn't argue that it's not a crisis. I didn't argue that either way. My argument is that humans are causing warming, and we must assess the risk and respond. 

 

By the way... The culture warriors on here, if search was working, might have found that I have never argued against risk acceptance. 

That means, if someone makes the case to do nothing, they have at least considered the risk. However, there are costs and responsibilities to deal with the outcome, which might be very bad.

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I didn't argue that it's not a crisis. I didn't argue that either way.

Well what you're saying that is you don't believe it's a crisis. Whether you argue it or not if you believed it was a crisis you would state that you feel as a crisis.

Trying to pretend that you both do and don't believe is a crisis at the same time would of course be childish.

So not a crisis. I agree.

Quote

My argument is that humans are causing warming, and we must assess the risk and respond. 

Well the first step in doing that would be to assess the risk. And there would be all kinds of scientific data stating clearly what the risk was and how serious it is. I'm so far despite having asked a billion times along with everyone else on the board we haven't seen any

The second step would be evaluating what kind of response would achieve the necessary results. And we've seen absolutely nothing on that as well

Quote

By the way... The culture warriors on here, if search was working, might have found that I have never argued against risk acceptance. 

You seem to be pretending that you're walking some sort of line where you never argue for or against anything. It sounds like you don't think this is a serious issue and you're treating it as a bit of a joke. Which is fair enough, I don't think it's nearly as serious as most people say either

 

Quote

That means, if someone makes the case to do nothing, they have at least considered the risk. However, there are costs and responsibilities to deal with the outcome, which might be very bad.

I don't think I've ever heard anybody make the case for doing nothing. I think most people who aren't rapidly delusional about the subject feel that the best thing we can do is mitigation in the short term and allow the markets to create solutions in the future that actually work and reduce emissions as we can

But I think the public is done with this fake attempts to reduce emissions through things like taxing it. that achieved nothing. In fact I haven't seen anything so far that is actually achieved any notable amount of climate change. We seem to be proceeding a pace.

 

And here's a pro tip. If you ever want anyone to take you seriously about anything then you have to care about it. And caring about it means you have a position on it. You often play the game where you try and pretend that you've never spoken in favor of or against whatever you're talking about but that doesn't make you appear neutral and it makes you appear disinterested.

Why should I give a crap if you don't?

[Michael Hardner]

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well what you're saying that is you don't believe it's a crisis. Whether you argue it or not if you believed it was a crisis you would state that you feel as a crisis.

 

That's guesswork on your part, I think.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

That's guesswork on your part, I think.

Neither half of that sentence is true.

And if it was you could easily clarify, but the fact that you doesn't demonstrate that I'm correct.

To you climate change is a game. Nothing serious.

To the rest of Canada it's starting to look like a fraud. Sending it cost a lot of money but delivers nothing.

[Legato]

On 10/15/2025 at 11:55 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Humans do control the climate.

Okay. I'm playing golf tomorrow how do I dial in sunshine and light winds.

I will await your scientifically defined answer.

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, Legato said:

Okay. I'm playing golf tomorrow how do I dial in sunshine and light winds.

I will await your scientifically defined answer.

Hahaha 😂 

[CdnFox]

28 minutes ago, Legato said:

Okay. I'm playing golf tomorrow how do I dial in sunshine and light winds.

I will await your scientifically defined answer.

Don't be silly.  You just set it to the temperature you want and hit "AUTO" and it handles the rest. What do you think this is, 1970!??!

[cannuck]

I haven't had the time to read through all 20 pages, so cut me some slack for that.

Have been directly involved, of often fully invest in resource recovery business or policy since mid 1980s.  Unlike the "experts" and "climate scientist" who's opinions and paycheque depend upon toing the political line of their funding I/we (because I have often been part of a company, an industry body or a consortium) where the participants have been 100% invested in solving environmental problems that had not at the time been addressed.  I am revealing that because for for about half of my lifetime, it is where my money and time went.

Going back to page 1 (that I DID read) it was mentioned that the real problem is pollution, and that is a 100% correct generalization.  Problem is: the climate scam businesses all point to carbon emissions as the primary factor and that is absolute BS.  Why would "climate scientists" say such a thing then?   Easy: that's where the money is, and the old saw is dead on - we get what we pay for.   There are billions to be made, and being made daily by demonizing carbon, being paid to demonize carbon, trading carbon credits, taxing carbon emissions and on it goes.  Reality is the #1 problem, and the one that can and most likely WILL bring us to the end point of sustainability is how we have poisoned the oceans and waters of our world.

In my dealings and travels, I have had the exceptional good fortune to meet one of the world's leading water scientists, and he has for many years spent his time and considerable fortune asking the right questions, seeking the right answers and trying to get the truth into as many eyes, ears and hands as possible.  You can read about well proven science and gain some idea of how and why the BS is generated at  

https://goesfoundation.com/

My overall take on the whole mess?  The royal "we" have been led down the garden path by not questioning and reasoning what we are being told daily, heck by the MINUTE from various organizations, media and institutions.  We need to pull our heads out of our collective arse or we are in for some serious big trouble in just a decade or two if we continue to do what we are doing today - including wasting resources and vesting interest in a line of complete BS.

 

 

[Goddess]

3 hours ago, cannuck said:

There are billions to be made, and being made daily by demonizing carbon, being paid to demonize carbon, trading carbon credits, taxing carbon emissions and on it goes.

 

3 hours ago, cannuck said:

if we continue to do what we are doing today - including wasting resources and vesting interest in a line of complete BS.

I think this is a really important point and every time it's made here, the climate alarmists get an extreme case of the vapors and insist that no amount of money, no amount of suffering is too much because we're all going to spontaneously combust in flames ANY SECOND NOW. (Previously, we were all going to freeze to death ANY SECOND NOW.)

The vast amounts of money being spent on lowering emissions of carbon, is money that could be spent on finding technologies that would actually improve the planet's environment.

And it is impoverishing the world.  Impoverished people don't give a rat's patootie about the environment.  They just want to survive each day.

Up to $41 billion in World Bank climate finance not being properly tracked, Oxfam finds | Oxfam International

Where is all this money going to?  No one knows, but there seems to be a lot of people getting super fuquing rich off this and still no effect on carbon, globally.

It's a scam.

It's a grift.

 

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, Goddess said:

 

Where is all this money going to?  No one knows,  

It's a scam. 

 

Yeah, just look it up folks.  Not hard.

[cannuck]

4 hours ago, Goddess said:

 

I think this is a really important point and every time it's made here, the climate alarmists get an extreme case of the vapors and insist that no amount of money, no amount of suffering is too much because we're all going to spontaneously combust in flames ANY SECOND NOW. (Previously, we were all going to freeze to death ANY SECOND NOW.)

The vast amounts of money being spent on lowering emissions of carbon, is money that could be spent on finding technologies that would actually improve the planet's environment.

And it is impoverishing the world.  Impoverished people don't give a rat's patootie about the environment.  They just want to survive each day.

Up to $41 billion in World Bank climate finance not being properly tracked, Oxfam finds | Oxfam International

Where is all this money going to?  No one knows, but there seems to be a lot of people getting super fuquing rich off this and still no effect on carbon, globally.

It's a scam.

It's a grift.

 

I am quoting your full post for emphasis.

Finally, ONE place in this world gets it right:

https://www.theenergymix.com/saskatchewan-to-extend-life-of-coal-plants/#:~:text=Saskatchewan's government is planning to,offline in the coming years.

what few people realize is that there is a lot of talk about Clean Coal Technology, but there is only one plant on the planet that I am aware of that has gone full bore CCT - and that is SK's Boundary Dam.  As anyone who has read my Goesfoundation link now knows, coal ash (mostly carbon particulates) are doing immense damage to oceans and lakess - but CCT eliminates those emissions.  Just to put this into perspective: CCT plants cost more to build than a nuke.

[Michael Hardner]

27 minutes ago, cannuck said:

 

https://www.theenergymix.com/saskatchewan-to-extend-life-of-coal-plants/#:~:text=Saskatchewan's government is planning to,offline in the coming years.

what few people realize is that there is a lot of talk about Clean Coal Technology, but there is only one plant on the planet that I am aware of that has gone full bore CCT - and that is SK's Boundary Dam. c

I appreciate that you are bringing thoughtful and provocative material to the discussion.

[Goddess]

57 minutes ago, cannuck said:

I am quoting your full post for emphasis.

Finally, ONE place in this world gets it right:

https://www.theenergymix.com/saskatchewan-to-extend-life-of-coal-plants/#:~:text=Saskatchewan's government is planning to,offline in the coming years.

what few people realize is that there is a lot of talk about Clean Coal Technology, but there is only one plant on the planet that I am aware of that has gone full bore CCT - and that is SK's Boundary Dam.  As anyone who has read my Goesfoundation link now knows, coal ash (mostly carbon particulates) are doing immense damage to oceans and lakess - but CCT eliminates those emissions.  Just to put this into perspective: CCT plants cost more to build than a nuke.

In Jan. 2024, Sask had to send energy to Alberta, due to a severe cold snap.  The power came from natural gas and coal-fired plants.

The grid strain on Alberta's energy system wasn't caused solely by renewable energy (2 natural gas plants went off-line due to freezing up) but it did highlight that wind and solar were so limited during the cold snap  due to low wind speeds and short daylight hours, that renewables need to be backed up with fossil fuels.

At this point in time, anyways.

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, cannuck said:

Just to put this into perspective: CCT plants cost more to build than a nuke.

Why are you throwing good money after bad then? Accelerate your SMR program instead of prolonging the use of archaic fuels.

[cannuck]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Why are you throwing good money after bad then? Accelerate your SMR program instead of prolonging the use of archaic fuels.

The coal assets are something we know very well how to use and are already in place.  Also: it takes a giant pair to first of all be the leaders in CCT while being scorned by global wokism and even more chutzpa to give coal a 25 year path forward.   Rhe way I understand it this will take us into our nuclear future (we have Uranium coming out of our wazoo).   Personally: I hope we can do this with subcritical mass gas cooled reactors heavy on thorium fuels

Edited October 23, 2025 by cannuck

[John Stone]

re: Do you believe in man made climate change?

 

Try living on a sub, submerged for 30 days with a funky ventilation system. 

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, John Stone said:

re: Do you believe in man made climate change?

 

Try living on a sub, submerged for 30 days with a funky ventilation system. 

Navy man? 🤔

7 minutes ago, John Stone said:

re: Do you believe in man made climate change?

 

Try living on a sub, submerged for 30 days with a funky ventilation system. 

It smells different when they open the hatch 😂

[John Stone]

.......... man made climate change?

 

 

China. 

Los Angeles