Canada Must Exit Climate Agreement Immediately

[Nationalist]

5 hours ago, cougar said:

Of course I am dignified and decent.

I have the decency not to lie to people, not to make them believe in miracles and then let them suffer climate change and starvation, or go after their kids to murder them in a war!

 

Huh...and you assume that your opinions are just the correct ones because...?

People this is why Libbies need to be marginalized. The hubris is not supported by results. It's scary hearing how we all gonna die...but just like the infamous "Nazi" attack...the endless fear porn is also becoming dull background noise. 

[cougar]

14 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Huh...and you assume that your opinions are just the correct ones because...?

Because I am dressed up well and look sexy , of course !

I will be surfing with Trudeau next week near Toffino.  I can't be wrong.    Will send you pictures later.

Edited July 27, 2022 by cougar

[herbie]

7 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Its more that the climate freaks are demaning...with success...that western nations MUST elliminate fossil fuels IMMEDIATELY and BEFORE we can develop a reasonable and workable alternative.

The extremists are, not most of us. Just like the extremists on the other side are posting nonstop on everything wrong with EVs, wind and solar as if they can never be solved. That's where 'Can'tservative' comes from, acting like humans are too stupid to solve problems. Like posting that some country "only" gets 40% of it's energy from Green sources - as if that's a failure.

 

[Yzermandius19]

12 hours ago, cougar said:

1. Bullshit - three billion people are plenty to make the goods and services; you don't need another 5 billion to start making goods and services for themselves that they want and need !!!  The "economic growth" is a bullshit term by itself - brainwashing propaganda for guys like you.

2.  Bullshit - the most important inventions were made when we were below 3 billion

3. Bullshit - there were no even plastics back then! There were no pipelines of this scale!  There were no machines so large and not so many of them!

4. Bullshit - they might have had even more stupid forestry practices, but did not invade that much space and wipe out that much old forests.

5. Bullshit - when are you going to reach this prosperity when for all I know things have been going downhill for you in the past 30-40 years !!.    More people, more greed, more need!  A vicious circle of which there is no recovering.

6.  Human poverty and war are the only mechanism to keep our population from exploding.   Because of us not keeping our dicks in our pants or not stopping the senseless immigration!

Do I need continue responding to your bullshit arguments!

1. economic growth leads to the technological growth that reduces pollution

killing technological growth will simply lock in the kind of pollution you are constantly freaking out about

2. you couldn't even write that message on an internet forum when the earth was at 3 billion in population

plenty of major innovations occurred after reaching that population mark

3. there was worse pollution before plastics, pipelines and machines

these things reduced pollution, but you don't know anything about history so you think pollution only began after these things were invented

4. false, they invaded plenty of spaces and wiped out more forests prior to the industrial revolution

they used to burn wood instead of coal for energy, but again you know nothing about history, luddite

5. the more people that escape poverty the more people want to clean up the environment

the best defense against environmental degradation is reducing poverty

wealthier countries also have less kids, so if you are so worried about high population levels, prosperity is the quickest path to that as well

6. wealth keeps the population from exploding

poverty keeps the population exploding

look at the countries with highest birth rates, are they rich or poor? they are poor

look at the countries with the lowest birth rates, are they rich or poor? they are rich

look at the countries with lowest birth rates today, did they have way higher birth rates when they were poor? yes, they did

as usual, you're full of shit

 

you can't be a real environmentalist while being an anti-capitalist, they are mutually exclusive 

being the later deeply undermines the former, you're a fake environmentalist who really is just anti-capitalist

you're one the commies who hijacked the environmentalist movement to sell communism using a nicer sounding label

Edited July 27, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[cougar]

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

you can't be a real environmentalist while being an anti-capitalist, they are mutually exclusive 

 

Give yourself a break, I can't take no more of this.

Pull all those 8 billion out of poverty, give them all detached houses, a couple of recreational properties, a few hundred  thousand dollars a year to fart carbon in the atmosphere on planes, boats, 4-wheelers, trucks, snowmobiles.

Then add another 10 billion people to help humanity with the next technological inventions - you see they will come from exactly the newly added billions, because those first 8 billion people we had were all stupid and incapable of such achievements.

And this is how we will finally save the environment as true capitalists; of course if we only managed to convert Russia, China, Cuba.....to abandon socialism.

As usual you are full of it!  Don't waste your time no more.  You can't sell me the rotten, stinky goods you carry.

[Yzermandius19]

1 hour ago, cougar said:

You can't sell me the rotten, stinky goods you carry.

I can't sell logic to someone driven totally by emotion

especially someone driven by resentment and envy of obviously beneficial things

all your suggestions are tear things down

in fact the things you want to tear down most are the very things that build things up the most

and you have zero idea of how to properly replace them once torn down

there is no reasoning with you, you are totally immune to it

they don't come any more irrational than you

facts don't care about your feelings

Edited July 27, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[Nationalist]

10 hours ago, cougar said:

Because I am dressed up well and look sexy , of course !

I will be surfing with Trudeau next week near Toffino.  I can't be wrong.    Will send you pictures later.

Of course...

what a twit.

[Nationalist]

10 hours ago, herbie said:

The extremists are, not most of us. Just like the extremists on the other side are posting nonstop on everything wrong with EVs, wind and solar as if they can never be solved. That's where 'Can'tservative' comes from, acting like humans are too stupid to solve problems. Like posting that some country "only" gets 40% of it's energy from Green sources - as if that's a failure.

 

Ya know what? I don't believe a word of this. And why? Because I've read some of your posts.

You are one of these extremists.

[Nationalist]

6 hours ago, cougar said:

Give yourself a break, I can't take no more of this.

Pull all those 8 billion out of poverty, give them all detached houses, a couple of recreational properties, a few hundred  thousand dollars a year to fart carbon in the atmosphere on planes, boats, 4-wheelers, trucks, snowmobiles.

Then add another 10 billion people to help humanity with the next technological inventions - you see they will come from exactly the newly added billions, because those first 8 billion people we had were all stupid and incapable of such achievements.

And this is how we will finally save the environment as true capitalists; of course if we only managed to convert Russia, China, Cuba.....to abandon socialism.

As usual you are full of it!  Don't waste your time no more.  You can't sell me the rotten, stinky goods you carry.

I think you should move to Russia, China or Cuba.

Don't worry...you won't be missed...

[Yzermandius19]

3 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Ya know what? I don't believe a word of this. And why? Because I've read some of your posts.

You are one of these extremists.

of those on the forum who highly prioritize environmental issues

some are useful idiots

but most are extremists

all the reasonable people are calling out the extremists

not defending them or acting like they don't exist

[Nationalist]

4 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

of those on the forum who highly prioritize environmental issues

some are useful idiots

but most are extremists

all the reasonable people are calling out the extremists

not defending them or acting like they don't exist

Marvie.

I just don't think herbie is anything less that an extremist.

[ExFlyer]

18 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

First of all you're using Google which is useless for anything within the Progressive narrative.

S.........

Try Duck Duck Go if your mind ever decides to open up.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=97+%+consensus&atb=v315-1&ia=web

Is your point and argument that Duck Duck Go is better search engine than Google??

Is that really all you got?? LOL Ha Ha Ha. ?

[Infidel Dog]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Is your point and argument that Duck Duck Go is better search engine than Google??

Is that really all you got?? LOL Ha Ha Ha. ?

No. My point is the same one I've posted 3 times now and you seem madly, desperate to divert away from.

My point remains this one:

Quote

  On 7/25/2022 at 1:09 PM, Infidel Dog said:

Show us this overwhelming evidence of an inevitable human caused, humanity ending, climate catastrophe. Contrary to what you may believe there is no scientific consensus of that when you describe it specifically, out loud the way I just did.

You seem to believe you have evidence to the contrary. Very well. Let's see it.

 

[Infidel Dog]

And as I said to the last Greta fan that tried the ol' proggy divert with a mock trick.

I'll even stop the counter-mock on his reliance on the partisan search ap, Google providing his support for his imagined consensus is on this specifically: an inevitable human caused, humanity ending, climate catastrophe.

Edited July 27, 2022 by Infidel Dog

[ExFlyer]

6 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

No. My point is the same one I've posted 3 times now and you seem madly, desperate to divert away from.

My point remains this one:

 

Your statements denying climate change are not important to me.  I questioned the post you made which stated this:

"First of all you're using Google which is useless for anything within the Progressive narrative.

Secondly you're using the term "Climate Change" which is an ill defined and I'd say bogus term.

But we're talking about consensus and the one that got the most play from your news was what they call the 97% consensus. Even your Google link mentions it. They of course are in love with it so you'll only get that side.

There is another side. It says the 97% consensus is bogus. You won't check it out so you'll have to take my word for it. It's very persuasive. Impossible to counter once you know all the details.

Try Duck Duck Go if your mind ever decides to open up.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=97+%+consensus&atb=v315-1&ia=web: "

 

One search engine results versus another. really?? LOL

Edited July 27, 2022 by ExFlyer

[Infidel Dog]

Just now, ExFlyer said:

Your statements denying climate change are not important to me. 

And your desperate need to divert from the point is laughable to me and useless to you. It won't work.

When you apply what you really mean to this new, ambiguous and thus apocryphal definition of the term "climate change" there is no consensus.

There is no scientific consensus for this: "an inevitable human caused, humanity ending, climate catastrophe."

[eyeball]

18 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

Based on what? On what you'd like to believe? 

It's based on the persistent weight of what a vast body of scientific expertise says that it knows to be true.  The basis for your argument against that is to question the wisdom of jumping off bridges because everyone else is.

Every now and then on occasion there really is a good reason for jumping off a bridge. And this is one of them.

Edited July 27, 2022 by eyeball

[eyeball]

15 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

And your desperate need to divert from the point is laughable to me and useless to you. It won't work.

When you apply what you really mean to this new, ambiguous and thus apocryphal definition of the term "climate change" there is no consensus.

There is no scientific consensus for this: "an inevitable human caused, humanity ending, climate catastrophe."

The problem you seem to have is that you insist on 100% consensus before doing anything.  I asked earlier if this standard is based on a principle that is applied any other time we try to determine when taking action on other issues.  I still haven't seen an answer.  

[eyeball]

...

Edited July 27, 2022 by eyeball
double post

[ExFlyer]

51 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

And your desperate need to divert from the point is laughable to me and useless to you. It won't work.

When you apply what you really mean to this new, ambiguous and thus apocryphal definition of the term "climate change" there is no consensus.

There is no scientific consensus for this: "an inevitable human caused, humanity ending, climate catastrophe."

I never diverted from the point I made to you about your choice of web search engines.

Your claim about climate is totally unimportant to me.

Your claim Duck Duck Go is better than another search engine is what I am laughing about and mocking you about. No more no less.

[cougar]

8 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

I can't sell logic to someone driven totally by emotion

 

There is zero logic in all of your argument - only  bullshit , as I pointed out to you numerous times.

Keep pulling people out of poverty so they can buy more and take over more of the habitat so they can "save" it !

What a bunch of dimwits you are.

[Yzermandius19]

33 minutes ago, cougar said:

There is zero logic in all of your argument - only  bullshit , as I pointed out to you numerous times.

Keep pulling people out of poverty so they can buy more and take over more of the habitat so they can "save" it !

What a bunch of dimwits you are.

more poverty takes up more habitat

wealth allows people to live comfortably

while taking up less of it

the historical record shows this is a fact

your feelings that it doesn't work that way

aren't backed by the facts

Edited July 27, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[cougar]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1. more poverty takes up more habitat

2. wealth allows people to live comfortably

while taking up less of it

3. the historical record shows this is a fact

4. your feelings that it doesn't work that way

aren't backed by the facts

1. Huh ????  - Bullshit.   You can shove a poor person in a small apartment on the 15th floor, but a rich one will ask for a mansion, you idiot !  Once they have the mansions they start filling them up with stuff - new damage to the environment!

2. Huh ??? - Bullshit.   They take more to accumulate wealth so, then they do not use the wealth to take more........Wow!

3.  What HISTORICAL RECORD ????  My historical record shows we had white rhinos and tigers and occapis and orcas and whales and lots of trees and lots of fish in those dark days when people were starving.  But now we have developed countries.  We have become rich and look what is left of the ecosystems - close to nothing.   Bullshiter !

4.  Exactly what I post is backed by facts.

Yours is a product of a sick mind poisoned by a sick society.

You need to be a capitalist to save the environment - ?   What a croc!

 

[cougar]

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Marvie.

I just don't think herbie is anything less that an extremist.

We, who don't buy your bullshit are all extremists.  Of course.

 

[Infidel Dog]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

The problem you seem to have is that you insist on 100% consensus before doing anything.  I asked earlier if this standard is based on a principle that is applied any other time we try to determine when taking action on other issues.  I still haven't seen an answer.  

The problem there is I haven't a clue what you're talking about. Diversion to the obtuse, maybe?

My point is very clear and has nothing to do with whatever you're postulating there. There is no scientific consensus on the idea of an imminent, and inevitable, human caused Warmageddon.

You seem to think I expressed a requirement of 100% though. Not sure where that comes from. Your side made a claim of 97. I'll discuss that with you, if you want.

Back to my original point though. This idea you have there is a "vast body of scientific expertise" supporting consensus (of any kind) on fossil fuel Warmageddon is a fantasy.

Go ahead though. Show it to me. You've failed so far and your buddy chirping from the cheap seats is so worried he desperately continues to insist we talk about something else.

Edited July 27, 2022 by Infidel Dog