Jump to content

Canada Must Exit Climate Agreement Immediately


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1  The extra bodies fuel the economic growth of the goods and services you like

2.   they also help to invent things that improve the environment you claim to want to protect

3. if you think pollution is bad now, it was far worse before the industrial revolution that you blame for ruining the planet

it was far worse when there was a lot less people as well

4.  the deforestation you decry was far worse before fossil fuels started being used en masse for energy

5.  human prosperity is the environment's friend

6.  human poverty is the environment's enemy

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Cougar is a selfish sadist who is willing to see people murdered so she can enjoy peace in her mountain retreat. 

You've lost.   Have some dignity and decency.  And I am a male by the way.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2022 at 9:55 AM, Nationalist said:

I live on facts Mike. 

I scanned your post for a cite.  Finding none, I didn't bother to read you piling more bad opinions on the old bad opinions.

Your posts are proud ignorance. 

Please go and squawk to your buddies at the donut shop about your earth's axis theory... It's not welcome here.

Edited by Michael Hardner
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, eyeball said:

There's way WAY more than enough consensus amongst a vast VAST number of scientists and experts across every branch of science and every single national and international academy of science on the planet. There has been for decades.

https://www.google.com/search?q=climate+change+consensus&oq=climate+change+consensus+&aqs=chrome..69i57.12548j0j7&client=ms-android-telus-ca-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

 

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Cougar is a selfish sadist who is willing to see people murdered so she can enjoy peace in her mountain retreat.  If anyone wonders if elites exist who would be happy to see most people suffer if it meant they could get a better view and some quiet from their Swiss or Jasper terrace, Cougar is proof positive. I remember her supporting unlimited abortion rights, including partial birth abortion (infanticide), probably for similar reasons.  Ecofascism is a thing.

Sounds...lonely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate deniers in 2022 are either blind and deaf (not dumb - that means can't speak and they do nothing but bellow at the top of their lungs) or willfully ignorant. Quoting a 3% disagree figure from 20 years ago, scouring the dregs of the Internet or simply making up things to seem like they know more than dick shit.

I'm sure they could dig up facts that prove gravity is a lie or a conspiracy if the Illuminati given enough time.

And it's not Jobs OR the Environment. I heard that shit 50 years ago and too many of us listened. There is no black OR white, night OR day, good OR bad. It's only the hard core Can'tservative that claims 90% effective is no good because it's not 100% so we shouldn't try at all.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I scanned your post for a cite.  Finding none, I didn't bother to read you piling more bad opinions on the old bad opinions.

Your posts are proud ignorance. 

Please go and squawk to your buddies at the donut shop about your earth's axis theory... It's not welcome here.

Hmmm...what would be the proper response called for here?

Hmmm...

I think, "Go fuck yourself little man."

Is appropriate.

Do have a warm and fuzzy day Mikey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, herbie said:

Climate deniers in 2022 are either blind and deaf (not dumb - that means can't speak and they do nothing but bellow at the top of their lungs) or willfully ignorant. Quoting a 3% disagree figure from 20 years ago, scouring the dregs of the Internet or simply making up things to seem like they know more than dick shit.

I'm sure they could dig up facts that prove gravity is a lie or a conspiracy if the Illuminati given enough time.

And it's not Jobs OR the Environment. I heard that shit 50 years ago and too many of us listened. There is no black OR white, night OR day, good OR bad. It's only the hard core Can'tservative that claims 90% effective is no good because it's not 100% so we shouldn't try at all.

Its not "denial" exactly.

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.

Mirrors pointed at the sky is not workable, nor are windmills.

In the meantime, we self impose restrictions that hurt everyone INCLUDING those not residing in the west.

That is dumb dumb dumb.

Edited by Nationalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, herbie said:

Climate deniers in 2022 are either blind and deaf (not dumb - that means can't speak and they do nothing but bellow at the top of their lungs) or willfully ignorant. Quoting a 3% disagree figure from 20 years ago, scouring the dregs of the Internet or simply making up things to seem like they know more than dick shit.

I'm sure they could dig up facts that prove gravity is a lie or a conspiracy if the Illuminati given enough time.

And it's not Jobs OR the Environment. I heard that shit 50 years ago and too many of us listened. There is no black OR white, night OR day, good OR bad. It's only the hard core Can'tservative that claims 90% effective is no good because it's not 100% so we shouldn't try at all.

What do you know about reducing greenhouse emissions and the value of green tech?  Have you changed your lifestyle, installed green power, written to politicians and published articles advocating for the closure of coal plants, and proposed planning solutions that have been adopted?   I’ve done all of the above and not all of it was for the better.  It’s easy to react fearfully to dramatic stories about what might happen.  It’s another thing to do something about it, learn in depth about the issues, see the complexities, the winners and losers of strong government intervention, and to come to a more balanced perspective.  Your fervour seems backed by ignorance and inexperience, so it’s hard to take you seriously.

No one is saying we shouldn’t try to reduce human made climate change where possible and sensible, but destroying the economy and stripping people of rights, especially the poor, isn’t how we should do it.  Many of the 2030 action plans being rolled out by countries demand great sacrifices for little impact on climate change.

Germany’s green power push has gutted their power supply and put them at the mercy of Russia, who don’t care about climate change policy, a utopian project for suckers like Canadians.  Not even Biden’s America will impose carbon taxes.  Yet the Yanks are reducing greenhouse gas emissions through free market technological innovation faster than Canadians. 

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

32 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

1.destroying the economy and stripping people of rights, especially the poor, isn’t how we should do it.  

1. Destroying the economy... is an exaggeration.  Also if you care about the poor then are you going to support aid packages for the poor nations impacted by climate change?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Destroying the economy... is an exaggeration.  Also if you care about the poor then are you going to support aid packages for the poor nations impacted by climate change?

According to this the US military spends the annual Climate Change budget every single day.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

People who wish to restrict the number of children any couple has, is neither dignified nor decent.!

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!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

According to this the US military spends the annual Climate Change budget every single day.

 

But they will not spend even the promised 2.3 billion because of a single idiotic senator with investments in the coal industry who vetoed the bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

What do you know about reducing greenhouse emissions and the value of green tech?  Have you changed your lifestyle, installed green power, written to politicians and published articles advocating for the closure of coal plants, and proposed planning solutions that have been adopted?  

Have a go at herbie.  Maybe he will be easier prey, but I think you will be out of luck with him too.?

Edited by cougar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Consensus is as high as it is enduring, the latter factor taking on more significance as time goes by.

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

The consensus paper that got the most attention was the one by the runner of the mistakenly named blog "Skeptical Science."

Here's a rational and fact based explanation of why that paper is bogus:

Consensus? What Consensus?

There are other papers claiming to support consensus. Most are even less credible than the one Cook and his blog activist users put together.

I notice the problem they often have is establishing a clear definition of what they mean by "Climate Change." 

So what they wind up doing is proving things even climate sceptics realists agree with.

Everybody agrees Climate Changes. Almost all know CO2 and other gases can induce some warming. The question is how much.

But the first consensus paper I ever saw tried to convince people it had established a consensus by simply asking scientists does Climate Change and can humans influence warming.

Here's the problem: how does that show an inevitable coming catastrophe caused by human influenced global warming?

There is no consensus for that and I defy you to produce evidence there is. I'll even let you use Google. Your first attempt failed at that. Try again.

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And let's be clear...

This was my original request:

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.

 

You've yet to address it. You're still trying the old dodge of redefining what you mean by consensus then taking a superior pose to the actual request. All you've produced is posturing.

Go ahead though...now that it's clear what we're actually talking about show me all this "science" on the absolute certainty of Warmageddon.

We both know you can't. It doesn't exist. There are some models. If models are as reliably foolproof in their prophetic power as they'd like you to believe why doesn't somebody take them to the racetrack and get rich? Shall we discuss Y2K?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Destroying the economy... is an exaggeration.  Also if you care about the poor then are you going to support aid packages for the poor nations impacted by climate change?

No because I wouldn’t impoverish them as your policies would.  The conservatives will solve climate change. They have the geniuses and the government formulas to make it happen. You have to accept liberty, however, to make it happen.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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!

 

The ends don’t justify the means.  Dumb communist idea to claim to reduce human suffering then increase it in their passionate ignorance.

Radical climate change policy is literally suicide.  Watch out for A.I.‘S power to push this, because data inputs will account for carbon levels.  Literally humanity at war with A.I. or the environment.  Be careful how you program society’s algorithms.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. ... because I wouldn’t impoverish them as your policies would.  

2. The conservatives will solve climate change. They have the geniuses and the government formulas to make it happen. You have to accept liberty, however, to make it happen.  

1. Hm ?  They're already poor.

2. Carbon Tax vs credits trading... No big miracles on play there.  Will Poilievre even put forward a plan before the election?  Who knows...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Hm ?  They're already poor.

2. Carbon Tax vs credits trading... No big miracles on play there.  Will Poilievre even put forward a plan before the election?  Who knows...

 

The first step is eliminating all green taxation schemes.  Change a few registrations on energy and building code and let the free market compete.

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...