Do You Believe in Man-Made Climate Change?

[CdnFox]

On 10/12/2025 at 1:23 PM, blackbird said:

God is in control.  Read the King James Bible and stop worrying about the climate.  

If god is in control i can only assume that he thinks of us as some sort of celestial demolition derby

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Do you think we can't afford it?

We must continue to keep our cities and environment clean.  Stop polluting oceans and waterways and clean up the mess.

I never said we should ignore pollution of the land and water.   CO2 is not pollution.

[Michael Hardner]

27 minutes ago, blackbird said:

We must continue to keep our cities and environment clean.  Stop polluting oceans and waterways and clean up the mess.

I never said we should ignore pollution of the land and water.   CO2 is not pollution.

You didn't answer my question. 😔

 

Oh well.

[blackbird]

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You didn't answer my question. 😔

 

Oh well.

I think you asked me if we can afford to fight against pollution.

Not sure why you asked that.   We must keep our lakes, country, and forests unpolluted.   I'm not against that.

Perhaps you were asking about the war on climate change.  No, I don't believe in it and we can't afford to fight climate change.  We are losing billions of dollars now as I already explained and it has done nothing to the climate.

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

I think you asked me if we can afford to fight against pollution.

Not sure why you asked that.   We must keep our lakes, country, and forests unpolluted.   I'm not against that.

Perhaps you were asking about the war on climate change.  No, I don't believe in it and we can't afford to fight climate change.  We are losing billions of dollars now as I already explained and it has done nothing to the climate.

I asked about your statement 'taking care of the planet'... needs 'balance'...

Why do you think we can't afford to "fight" (your word) climate change ?

 

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Why do you think we can't afford to "fight" (your word) climate change ?

Do you realize how much "fighting climate change the past ten 17 years has cost Canadians and the economy?  Carbon taxes were started in B.C. in 2008.  We in B.C. paid for this while the rest of the world paid none.  I pointed out some of the costs above.   The Trudeau era laws and regulations has cost Canadians billions of dollars and thousands of lost jobs in the energy industry and other industries.  It has made Canada poorer and is another reason for the millions more people going to food banks, high cost of housing and rent, and higher cost of living.  Billions squandered on a useless attempt to slow climate change.  That's why we can't afford it.  It's complete madness.

Do you seriously believe the war on climate change has cost Canadians nothing?

Edited October 14, 2025 by blackbird

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I asked about your statement 'taking care of the planet'... needs 'balance'...

Why do you think we can't afford to "fight" (your word) climate change ?

 

We've spent a fortune fighting it with zero benefit.  We cannot afford to spend our resources on something with no return no matter what it is. 

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

1. That's why we can't afford it.   

2. Do you seriously believe the war on climate change has cost Canadians nothing?

1. Because it costs money ?  You've said it was expensive but not why we can't afford it.
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I"m not going to bottle feed you to get through this.  Let's just leave it at this, but I'll give you some hints on how to frame your thesis a little better:

Instead of expressing things in terms of 'billions' (which sounds like a lot of money to someone who doesn't follow economics) consider presenting in terms of costs and mitigated costs as % of GDP.  That way you can see projected costs vs savings more clearly.

And maybe show our GDP over the last 20-30 years too to see what it really means.

I'd be interested in such an argument if you can source the numbers.  There are a lot of examples out there that do this.  

Here's one you can follow: https://iiasa.ac.at/news/apr-2024/what-are-economic-costs-of-climate-inaction

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Because it costs money ?  You've said it was expensive but not why we can't afford it.-inaction

If we get no results, we can't afford right now to waste money.  We're running a 100 billion dollar deficit. 

You're being dishonest again. 

[Michael Hardner]

27 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

If we get no results, we can't afford right now to waste money.  

We don't get "no" results... there are measured impacts to CO2 reductions.

And - are you responding to me on this thread ?  Do you do so regularly ?

Don't bother: you are on super double-plus ignore  

Edited October 14, 2025 by Michael Hardner

[herbie]

Just remind him that scientific facts don't give a shit if you 'believe' them or not.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

We don't get "no" results... there are measured impacts to CO2 reductions.

There are no measured impacts. 

Take the great "carbon tax" for example.  The government didn't take the time to measure anything. They didn't put any targets in place and they also didn't bother to track or measure any of the reductions or any of the benefits through the entire time.

So they have admitted several times now that they cannot say that there was any benefit whatsoever or what that benefit might have been.

We can't afford that. We got nothing at all

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

And - are you responding to me on this thread ?  Do you do so regularly ?

Oh dear, did I ask you an awkward question that you can't answer and now you're unhappy because you look a little silly? LOLOL 

Do you live in a farm in Langley? Because you certainly do act like an ostrich the way you stick your head in the sand when you hear things you don't like  

The public is not interested and no results. Even if you could show a reduction in greenhouse gases it hasn't shown up as a reduction in climate change. And they can't even show that much.

We cannot afford to blindly give money to a cause where there is no goal, no science to indicate that there's a crisis, no science to indicate what the money we're spending is going to actually achieve in real terms as far as temperature, or any other social experiments along those lines

The liberals had 10 years to do whatever they wanted and had the public license to get away with it. And we got nothing.

And you can double ignore that all you like but the fact of the matter is the Canadian population won't

 

[Michael Hardner]

20 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

There are no measured impacts. 

Another absolutely citeless post.  Do you think I respect you so much that I would pull up a chair and have you just tell me everything and I'd believe it ?  Anyway, I made it one sentence in and even then it was a chore.

Would it kill you to Google something once in awhile ?  Seriously....

Climate Change has been positively impacted by mitigating further increases

 

Quote

Yes, climate regulations have had an effect on temperature, but the effect is to mitigate further temperature increase rather than reverse the warming that has already occurred. 

In other words, if it weren't for the Climate response we would be worse off in terms of warming.

Go read a bit and we'll chat again next year...

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Another absolutely citeless post. 

Says the guy who didn't cite his own post

Quote

Do you think I respect you so much that I would pull up a chair and have you just tell me everything and I'd believe it ?  Anyway, I made it one sentence in and even then it was a chore.

I think you respect your tribe so much that even if I presented you with a note from god you would still find fault with it. For example here you are trying to make your failure my fault. You can't address the issue so you're trying to attack me instead. I'm sure that level of debate just wows all the kids at the preschool  
 

Quote

Would it kill you to Google something once in awhile ?  Seriously....

Would it kill you to debate honestly once in awhile? Seriously

 

Quote

Climate Change has been positively impacted by mitigating further increases

In other words, if it weren't for the Climate response we would be worse off in terms of warming.

Your link doesn't say that. In fact your link specifically says that so far it's had a very minimal impact if any. And it doesn't even mention which regulations are working or which doesn't

You literally just proved that you're wrong. You can't show that carbon tax had any impact, which is specifically what I said, you can't even show that any policies have had any significant impact and in fact according to your link it hasn't.

 

LOL  holy crap, did you wake up today and ask yourself "How can i make myself look like an absolute tool" or something

Well now that we have your data that proves that we've got nothing for all of our hard work so far I reiterate that people are not interested in spending huge amounts of money for no benefit moving forward.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

 

1. I presented you with a note from god you would still find fault with it. 

2.  you can't even show that any policies have had any significant impact and in fact according to your link it hasn't.

 

1. No.  I can find fault with anything including my own work.  I have LIKED and agreed with your posts from time to time, so not sure why you haven't noticed that.  I assume it's wishful thinking.

2. Significant ?  Now you're qualifying... Policies have had an effect, and you're now moving your own goalposts from saying theres "no" effect.  So let's stop there.

[CdnFox]

29 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. No.  I can find fault with anything including my own work.  I have LIKED and agreed with your posts from time to time, so not sure why you haven't noticed that.  I assume it's wishful thinking.

I think I was pretty obviously stating for this subject specifically rather than in general but of course you couldn't argue with that so you once again tried to twist what I said into something else you could argue with. Pathetic

And I see you still didn't address the point

30 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Significant ?  Now you're qualifying...

I'm not qualifying anything. I'm simply not ruling out negative impacts   All we can say was certainty is one way or another it doesn't appear to have been a measurable positive impact. That's according to your link

And instead of addressing what I said now you're trying to pick a word in hype on that because you know what I said was true and you can't deal with that

Mike. Your own damn link said we haven't achieved much to date. You can whine and cry and distract to your heart's content but nothing changes that. We have got nothing from the current climate change work we have done. And until you can show that we are getting some sort of benefit people aren't interested

And you cannot lie, deflect, ignore, bullshit your way out of that. It's the way it is

[Barquentine]

17 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The public is not interested and no results. Even if you could show a reduction in greenhouse gases it hasn't shown up as a reduction in climate change. And they can't even show that much.

The public is very interested. But since we're having troubles with 'Pizza the Hut' in Washington we have a lot of other issues to worry about.

We can show a reduction in greenhouse gases where mitigation has taken place: https://time.com/7020410/traffic-emissions
Paris-, the site of a landmark conference in 2015 focused on the environment, says it has been making progress for years. In 2007, it adopted the Plan Climat, which in 11 years reduced its carbon footprint by 20%, and cut greenhouse gases by 25%.

Unfortunately large scale mitigation will take many decades but will happen. Fossil fuels will be replaced, reforestation will happen... And this will happen in spite of you right wing idi0ts who don't like science.

Somwhere in this thread you mentioned ostriches - the perfect analogy for you climate change deniers.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Barquentine said:

Unfortunately large scale mitigation will take many decades but will happen.

Canada has been punished enough for something we can't control, the climate.

This website gives the 2023 emissions for many countries in the world.

Canada is way down the list.  In 2023 Canada emitted 1.47% of the world's emission.

In the same year China emitted 33.98%, the U.S.A. emitted 12 %, and India emitted 7.57 %.

So why are we sacrificing our country, our people's well-being, our jobs and prosperity by killing the energy industry, jobs, and putting carbon taxes and regulations on industries to try to reduce something that will not make any difference to the earth's CO2 emissions.   

Human emissions are also only a tiny fraction of natural CO2 in the atmosphere and there is no proof that man is causing climate change.  Do a little searching on the internet and read articles on the topic and learn a few things instead of believing the climate change scam artists.

There are a couple hundred countries in the world and Canada is only one of them.  Most of the world is not doing anything to reduce their emissions.  In fact, emissions are going up in some countries like China, India, Russia, and the U.S. and various smaller countries.  So why are we punishing ourselves when it won't make any difference?  

CO₂ Emissions by Country 2025

Edited October 15, 2025 by blackbird

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Canada has been punished enough for something we can't control, the climate.

 

Humans do control the climate.

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Barquentine said:

And this will happen in spite of you right wing idi0ts who don't like science.

Unfortunately science is being falsely used to claim something that has not been proven.

quote

The Illusion of a Climate Crisis: Unveiling the Truth About “Fake” Climate Change

Climate change is not “fake” in the sense that it’s a complete fabrication; the climate is changing, as it always has. However, the narrative portraying catastrophic, human-caused global warming leading to imminent societal collapse is demonstrably exaggerated and often based on flawed scientific models and politically motivated agendas.

Understanding the Core Misconceptions

The idea that climate change is “fake” stems from several key arguments that challenge the dominant narrative. These include doubts about the degree of human influence, the accuracy of climate models, and the effectiveness of proposed solutions. Moreover, critics point to natural climate variability, historical climate fluctuations, and the politicization of climate science as reasons to question the accepted dogma.

The Role of Natural Climate Variability

The Earth’s climate has always fluctuated. Ice ages, warm periods, and significant shifts in weather patterns have occurred throughout history, long before industrialization. The current warming trend is often attributed solely to human activity, ignoring the powerful influence of natural cycles such as solar variations, volcanic activity, and ocean currents like the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). These natural forces contribute significantly to climate variability and should not be discounted when assessing the causes and effects of current changes.

Solar Activity and Its Impact

The sun’s energy output isn’t constant; it varies over time. Cycles of increased and decreased solar activity can influence Earth’s temperature. While solar variations are relatively small in the context of total energy received by Earth, they can still play a role in regional and global climate patterns.

The Influence of Volcanic Eruptions

Volcanic eruptions release large amounts of aerosols and gases into the atmosphere. While some gases, like carbon dioxide, contribute to warming, the aerosols can temporarily cool the planet by reflecting sunlight back into space.

The Questionable Accuracy of Climate Models

Climate models are complex computer simulations used to predict future climate scenarios. However, these models are not perfect and have several limitations.

Oversimplification: Models often oversimplify complex natural processes, such as cloud formation and ocean circulation, leading to inaccuracies.

Dependence on Assumptions: Models rely on numerous assumptions about future emissions, population growth, and technological advancements, which can significantly affect the outcomes.

Historical Data Limitations: The accuracy of climate models depends on the availability and quality of historical data. In some regions, historical climate records are incomplete or unreliable.

The Problem with Feedback Loops

Climate models struggle to accurately represent feedback loops, which are processes that amplify or diminish the effects of climate change. For example, the melting of ice reduces Earth’s reflectivity (albedo), leading to further warming. Accurately modeling these feedback loops is crucial for reliable predictions, but current models often fall short.

The Politicization of Climate Science

Climate science has become increasingly politicized, with governments, organizations, and individuals promoting specific agendas. This can lead to bias in research funding, publication of studies, and dissemination of information. Critics argue that the pressure to conform to the dominant narrative can stifle dissenting voices and hinder objective scientific inquiry.

The IPCC and Its Role

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a leading international body for assessing climate change. While the IPCC’s reports provide valuable information, they are often perceived as overly alarmist and biased towards emphasizing the role of human activity.

The Exaggerated Threat and Ineffective Solutions

Many proposed solutions to climate change, such as carbon taxes and renewable energy mandates, are economically costly and may not be effective in significantly reducing global emissions. Critics argue that these policies can harm economic growth, disproportionately affect low-income communities, and ultimately fail to achieve their intended goals.

The Ineffectiveness of Renewable Energy

While renewable energy sources like solar and wind are growing, they are intermittent and require substantial investment in infrastructure and energy storage. They also have environmental impacts, such as land use and resource depletion.

unquote

Why is climate change fake? - The Institute for Environmental Research and Education

NOTE  "Climate science has become increasingly politicized, with governments, organizations, and individuals promoting specific agendas."

Yes, governments like the Liberals in Canada have used the fear factor to gain votes.  They paint the picture that only they can save us from climate change.

As noted in the previous post Canada only emits 1.47% of the world's CO2 while China emits almost 34%.  So even if Canada were able to reduce it's emissions by one quarter, which is extremely unlikely, it would still be unable to reduce the total CO2 being emitted by the rest of world.  So why are we sacrificing our economy and prosperity of Canadians for something so vague and unrealistic?  It just doesn't make sense.  Sure we should improve our forest fire fighting readiness and capability.  That would make some sense.  But this whole climate change agenda of the environmentalists is not going to help Canadians and is not going to stop climate change.  Wake up!

Edited October 15, 2025 by blackbird

[blackbird]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Humans do control the climate.

We know that is your mantra;  it is a religion to you.

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

We know that is your mantra;  it is a religion to you.

I explain why in my signature link.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Barquentine said:

The public is very interested.

Not really, it's fallen WAAAAAYY down the list of public priorities. 

Remember how much it got talked about last election? Me either. 

Quote

But since we're having troubles with 'Pizza the Hut' in Washington we have a lot of other issues to worry about.

Before he came along the polls were saying nobody was interested in carbon taxes etc

Quote

We can show a reduction in greenhouse gases where mitigation has taken place: https://time.com/7020410/traffic-emissions

No, we can't. 

CO2 in the atmosphere has reached highest level in 800,000 years: WMO report | CBC News

You posted a news story which does not arrive at the conclusion you made and isn't science, and is easily refuted, 

And that is my problem.  ANd the problem a LOT of people are having with climate change.  I can find 100 papers of the highest quality looking into things like the vaccines, or crime, or a dozen other contentious issues but i have yet to find any actual science that shows that there's a crisis or that anything we have or could do will mitigate that.  And nobody else i've asked has been able to provide it either. 

Quote

Paris-, the site of a landmark conference in 2015 focused on the environment, says it has been making progress for years. In 2007, it adopted the Plan Climat, which in 11 years reduced its carbon footprint by 20%, and cut greenhouse gases by 25%.

Which is pointless as near as i can tell. It hasn't done a thing to reduce climate change and frankly the numbers are slightly fudged.  It's pretty easy to make things look like you want by picking and defining things to your favour.  As a silly example if emissions fell from 100 to 10 in one year and then climbed to 20 in the next year i could claim an 80 percent reduction in emissions OR a 100 percent increase in emissions just by choosing the year  

Where's the science that shows us how much that alleged 'reduction' actually saved is in climate temperature or events?  I see NO benefit, we're still hearing that climate change is getting worse. 

And i don't think anyone else is hitting their targets, we're sure as hell not. 

Quote

Unfortunately large scale mitigation will take many decades but will happen. Fossil fuels will be replaced, reforestation will happen... And this will happen in spite of you right wing idi0ts who don't like science.

And here we go.  You don't like the facts, so you're going to lash out at me. 

Hey stupid - those things will happen BECAUSE of conservatives. Because we're not spending money on stupid carbon taxes that drain our economy and do nothing. Because we're not doing ev mandates that try to make an immature solution work for everybody.  We're the ones who are saying adapt for now and let the technology happen.

You guys are the ones who managed to turn the country away from climate change with your snake oil, lies, and fake solutions. 

You better hope for the planet's sake that conservatives can fix your mess. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I explain why in my signature link.

But you don't.  Nor have you ever produced a single bit of actual science that shows this is a crisis or that anything we can do can mitigate it. 

Just like every other climate snake oil peddler. 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

 

But you don't.  Nor have you ever produced a single bit of actual science that shows this is a crisis or that anything we can do can mitigate it. 

"Crisis" isn't a scientific term.  I don't try to show there's a crisis.

Stop straw manning.  Don't respond to my posts please, it's always your made-up doodles.

[CdnFox]

38 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

"Crisis" isn't a scientific term.  I don't try to show there's a crisis.

 

Then there's not much to worry about. 

If the situation does not represent a crisis then we can let the natural market forces work this out over time. In time better and cleaner tech will become available and supplant dirtier tech. 

I will say you're one of the only people on the 'pro climate change' side that DOESN'T think it's a crisis. 

Quote

Stop straw manning.  Don't respond to my posts please, it's always your made-up doodles.

I don't think you know what that term means.  This is a perfectly legitimate question that is now being asked all over the world in light of the utter failure of the climate change zealots to produce any results despite many fortunes being spent on it. 

And i'll respond to what i want to.  I get that as a hard core leftie you want to use cancel culture and shut down anyone who presents facts you don't like but unfortunately for you,  you don't run the place. 

It would probably just be easier to learn to cope with the facts and other people's arguments in an adult fashion.