Global Climate Change...Crisis or Politics?

[Nationalist]

I've asked a few members to provide realistic proof that climate change is a crisis worthy of the impositions the governments are saddling us all with. The cost...the panic...the fear...the asinine acts of some of these climate-cultists. They're answers are...shall we say..."weak" to say the least.

So...a challenge to the climate change advocates (and note I did not say death-cultists...)

Please provide irrefutable proof that the measures our governments are taking, which are now essentially responsible for inflation, are warranted. Prove that there is a crisis that requires we all suffer to one degree or another, in the name of saving humanity.

Go ahead...I'm listening.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Nationalist

[Michael Hardner]

The economic impact was studied and estimated to impact GDP at the single-digit level.

As to 'crisis or politics' ... I should point out that plenty of things are both.  Politics acts on things that are perceived to be crises, whether not they are crises.

Read this - 'perceived' is in the opening blurb...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap

[Nationalist]

21 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The economic impact was studied and estimated to impact GDP at the single-digit level.

As to 'crisis or politics' ... I should point out that plenty of things are both.  Politics acts on things that are perceived to be crises, whether not they are crises.

Read this - 'perceived' is in the opening blurb...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap

So...the "perception" of a crisis is the point of import?

Mike...each and every Canadian, American, and Hell...everyone in the Western World and more...are paying a price which many cannot afford...for what? Perception?

The fossil fuel industry actually drives both global energy and the global economy. Our governments have attacked it and driven prices up across the board. Its an artificial creation of inflation.

Man...there had better be a better reason for this than...perception.

[Michael Hardner]

23 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

1. So...the "perception" of a crisis is the point of import?

2. Mike...each and every Canadian, American, and Hell...everyone in the Western World and more...are paying a price which many cannot afford...for what? Perception?

3. The fossil fuel industry actually drives both global energy and the global economy. Our governments have attacked it and driven prices up across the board. Its an artificial creation of inflation.

4. Man...there had better be a better reason for this than...perception.

1. Here we are in politics, yes.  Now people on this board can do well to separate themselves from the target audience of the politicians by recognizing fake crises, or at least mitigating how media cover things.

2. Are you shocked ?  If so, this is a good learning point.

3. Ok - well now you are talking about the subject matter of the crisis which is a different discussion than what we were having.

4. Well, maybe think about some things that you favour political action on that are mostly perception.  I'm sure there are some.

[Nationalist]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Here we are in politics, yes.  Now people on this board can do well to separate themselves from the target audience of the politicians by recognizing fake crises, or at least mitigating how media cover things.

2. Are you shocked ?  If so, this is a good learning point.

3. Ok - well now you are talking about the subject matter of the crisis which is a different discussion than what we were having.

4. Well, maybe think about some things that you favour political action on that are mostly perception.  I'm sure there are some.

1. This reliance on perception in politics is a major reason there is a Nationalist political movement that no longer believes a word the institutions say anymore.

2. Oh I've learned...which is why I'm a Nationalist.

3. No. It IS the subject matter. Is this climate freak-out based on real and reliable facts and truth...or is it all just a tool of the politicians?

4. I'm in favour of unleashing the mining industries...proper and stern policing...freedom of speech and thought...2 genders based on genetics...avoiding a nuclear holocaust...allowing Africa to actually develop and benefit from its own abundant resources...My Nation First. This, to me, seems to be rooted in common sense.

[Michael Hardner]

25 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

1. This reliance on perception in politics is a major reason there is a Nationalist political movement that no longer believes a word the institutions say anymore.

2.. No. It IS the subject matter. Is this climate freak-out based on real and reliable facts and truth...or is it all just a tool of the politicians?

3. I'm in favour of unleashing the mining industries...proper and stern policing...freedom of speech and thought...2 genders based on genetics...avoiding a nuclear holocaust...allowing Africa to actually develop and benefit from its own abundant resources...My Nation First. This, to me, seems to be rooted in common sense.

1.  I don't get the connection there.  This idea is pretty elementary to how the public sphere works.  If you mean that we rely too much on perception I agree.  But Nationalism is not a fact-based frame of perspective, it's a value.
2. You can ask yourself that... lots of discussion on the board on that issue.
3.  There is always a lens between the facts and how we feel about them, ie. perception

[Nationalist]

22 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  I don't get the connection there.  This idea is pretty elementary to how the public sphere works.  If you mean that we rely too much on perception I agree.  But Nationalism is not a fact-based frame of perspective, it's a value.
2. You can ask yourself that... lots of discussion on the board on that issue.
3.  There is always a lens between the facts and how we feel about them, ie. perception

Granted. Yet...it is now undeniable that the measures taken by our governments concerning the climate, are based on very nebulous evidence and predictions. Essentially...I see it all as a massive media/propaganda program. So if there really is no irrefutable reason for this financial and indeed physical imposition...then we're simply hitting ourselves over the head with our own baseball bats.

That's incredibly stupid.

In order to justify this imposition, there MUST be a real and verifiable reason. Not just propaganda and perception.

Are we, the human race, going to doom ourselves, or even a significant number of us, if we don't stop burning things for energy extraction? If the answer is...we "think"...or it "could"...then this needs to stop now.

I can support research into other sources of energy. But this...what is going on right now...is madness, if its all based on what "could" be.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Nationalist

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

I've asked a few members to provide realistic proof that climate change is a crisis worthy of the impositions the governments are saddling us all with. The cost...the panic...the fear...the asinine acts of some of these climate-cultists. They're answers are...shall we say..."weak" to say the least.

So...a challenge to the climate change advocates (and note I did not say death-cultists...)

Please provide irrefutable proof that the measures our governments are taking, which are now essentially responsible for inflation, are warranted. Prove that there is a crisis that requires we all suffer to one degree or another, in the name of saving humanity.

Go ahead...I'm listening.

Well as you know i'm not really a climate change zealot but i do believe it's an issue so i'll take a stab at it

First off - how are we defining 'crisis'?   I don't think there's any crisis at all that's well served by panic, so any 'panic' reactions get thrown out and solutions that are virtue signalling and achieve nothing should get thrown out on the face of it whether the problem is a 'crisis' or just 'serious'.

So removing that - how would you set the bar as to whether or not its a 'crisis'? What conditions would have to be met to convince you that's an appropriate term for the situation?  

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

 

1. In order to justify this imposition, there MUST be a real and verifiable reason. Not just propaganda and perception.

 

1. Why would it be different for Climate than for Racism, Economy, Nationalism or ... anything ?  You want to take perception out of the equation, you have to eliminate people ie. democracy.

 

[Nationalist]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Well as you know i'm not really a climate change zealot but i do believe it's an issue so i'll take a stab at it

First off - how are we defining 'crisis'?   I don't think there's any crisis at all that's well served by panic, so any 'panic' reactions get thrown out and solutions that are virtue signalling and achieve nothing should get thrown out on the face of it whether the problem is a 'crisis' or just 'serious'.

So removing that - how would you set the bar as to whether or not its a 'crisis'? What conditions would have to be met to convince you that's an appropriate term for the situation?  

Hmmm...good question. OK...

IMO...to call this climate thing a proper "crisis", one must prove that the man's actions and effects on the climate are killing people. Can anyone prove that man's actions and effects on the climate are killing people? Or will we just claim that without absolute proof?

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

 . Can anyone prove that man's actions and effects on the climate are killing people?  

Why does it have to be killing people ?  Can't impact on the economy be used ?  After all impact on the economy is being used to justify not taking action also.

[Nationalist]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Why would it be different for Climate than for Racism, Economy, Nationalism or ... anything ?  You want to take perception out of the equation, you have to eliminate people ie. democracy.

 

I disagree. I can see and hear racism and its effects. I am in the economy and can see its effects. I am a Nationalist and know its effects.

I CANNOT see climate change...clearly...and the extent of its effects are not clear at all.

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Why does it have to be killing people ?  Can't impact on the economy be used ?  After all impact on the economy is being used to justify not taking action also.

Impacts on the economy can and do kill people.

AFTERTHOUGHT: I do not advocate for taking NO action. But I see the current actions as panic driven nonsense. I advocate for research into what we might term..."better"...sources of energy. But never forget...no matter how we extract energy from our environment, there will always be consequences.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Nationalist

[OftenWrong]

Climate change is always happening in nature. It's irrational for humans to think we can keep the climate the same to suit us. 

Also climate change has not truly arrived yet, since global temperature average is only slightly increased. Not at the safety threshold set by the Paris accord. But we are heading towards it. What we see now is just a spate of bad weather.

Forest fires are started for lots of reasons. To label it as "climate change" risks ignoring real issues that could mitigate the problem, all the while fixated by fear of global warming and doing nothing of any significance about it.

My opinion we cannot stop it, slow it down or influence it significantly in any way, for a variety of reasons. Lack of cooperation is but one.

Learning to adapt will be the most important thing moving forward.

Edited September 27, 2023 by OftenWrong

[Nationalist]

5 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Climate change is always happening in nature. It's irrational for humans to think we can keep the climate the same to suit us. 

Also climate change has not truly arrived yet, since global temperature average is only slightly increased. Not at the safety threshold set by the Paris accord. But we are heading towards it. What we see now is just a spate of bad weather.

Forest fires are started for lots of reasons. To label it as "climate change" risks ignoring real issues that could mitigate the problem, all the while fixated by fear of global warming and doing nothing of any significance about it.

My opinion we cannot stop it, slow it down or influence it significantly in any way, for a variety of reasons. Lack of cooperation is but one.

Learning to adapt will be the most important thing moving forward.

Good point. It is obvious that the biggest...if not all...climate change advocates do not practice what they preach. That suggests an ulterior motive.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Nationalist

[CdnFox]

48 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Hmmm...good question. OK...

IMO...to call this climate thing a proper "crisis", one must prove that the man's actions and effects on the climate are killing people. Can anyone prove that man's actions and effects on the climate are killing people? Or will we just claim that without absolute proof?

Ahhhh.

Well.

In that case you probably win. I was thinking that might stretch out a little longer.

So.  How bout them canucks?

[CdnFox]

25 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Learning to adapt will be the most important thing moving forward.

I think that's probably true.

Further i think that while man probably does have an impact, that will change over time as we develop better tech in a natural and organic fashion. 

And in the meantime if there's tech that helps a little lets do it  - solar power is cheap so adding that to our power mix is a good idea. But trying to replace oil with solar is stupid.

 

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

1. I disagree. I can see and hear racism and its effects. I am in the economy and can see its effects. I am a Nationalist and know its effects.

2. I CANNOT see climate change...clearly...and the extent of its effects are not clear at all.

3. Impacts on the economy can and do kill people.

 

1. You think that the effects of racism, nationalism and so on are objective facts and not opinions ?  There was a great conservative on here Argus who used to argue on this topic.
2.  I would say that the same thing is true of almost any large phenomenon you are trying to quantify.
3. Right.  But if they don't... we still care about them.

Note I'm still talking meta here... I'm still talking about politics dependent on people and hence perceptions.  But again I support the RE-introduction of more fact-based assessments of our standing.  To me, though, that requires intermediaries and the public intellectual.

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. You think that the effects of racism, nationalism and so on are objective facts and not opinions ?  There was a great conservative on here Argus who used to argue on this topic.
2.  I would say that the same thing is true of almost any large phenomenon you are trying to quantify.
3. Right.  But if they don't... we still care about them.

Note I'm still talking meta here... I'm still talking about politics dependent on people and hence perceptions.  But again I support the RE-introduction of more fact-based assessments of our standing.  To me, though, that requires intermediaries and the public intellectual.

I think there are objective effects. Observable effects. While there appear to be the same for climate change, none of them conclude that we are doomed.

[Michael Hardner]

20 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I think there are objective effects. Observable effects. While there appear to be the same for climate change, none of them conclude that we are doomed.

Future predictions aren't science except in rare cases.  Yes if the temperature of the earth is to be 10K degrees that's a problem but the science should be separate from the discussion of risk mitigation, economic and social effects.

But those are perceptions, values and opinions too... as with economics, racism or anything political.  You can't take the human out of the equation.

[Nationalist]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

Future predictions aren't science except in rare cases.  Yes if the temperature of the earth is to be 10K degrees that's a problem but the science should be separate from the discussion of risk mitigation, economic and social effects.

But those are perceptions, values and opinions too... as with economics, racism or anything political.  You can't take the human out of the equation.

When your decision, based on perception and rather interesting models, inflicts harm and suffering on the population, you'd better have a lot of real and objective reasons for doing so. Otherwise...you're engaging in control for control's sake.

We can't even say for sure that any mitigation will produce the desired results.

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

1. When your decision, based on perception and rather interesting models, inflicts harm and suffering on the population, you'd better have a lot of real and objective reasons for doing so. Otherwise...you're engaging in control for control's sake.

2. We can't even say for sure that any mitigation will produce the desired results.

1. I'm sure that in whatever example you are referring do, the proponents believe that they do.
2. Yes, so we have to make the best guess.  Economics has a lot of guessing and I love listening to the world's leading economists as - despite all of their knowledge they are very humble.

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I'm sure that in whatever example you are referring do, the proponents believe that they do.
2. Yes, so we have to make the best guess.  Economics has a lot of guessing and I love listening to the world's leading economists as - despite all of their knowledge they are very humble.

Yet only you are willing to dig into this...which I have to give you kudos for so...kudos to you for having a genuine interest.

@CdnFox and @OftenWrong chimed in, but nobody from the...looking for a fair term for them...ah of course...Libbies  bother. Why? I figure we're talking over most of their capacity. Meh...

Proof. It takes real, cold, hard proof, before a leader impose this...program...because it cannot produce any reasonable results except increase poverty and hardship for the people a leader is supposed to work FOR.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Yet only you are willing to dig into this...which I have to give you kudos for so...kudos to you for having a genuine interest.

@CdnFox and @OftenWrong chimed in, but nobody from the...looking for a fair term for them...ah of course...Libbies  bother. Why? I figure we're talking over most of their capacity. Meh...

Proof. It takes real, cold, hard proof, before a leader impose this...program...because it cannot produce any reasonable results except increase poverty and hardship for the people a leader is supposed to work FOR.

Mike IS a libbie   LOL

I think that where they have a challenge is the "Crisis" part. You can defend the idea that climate change is a thing that's happening, or even that man plays a role, or even that it's a very serious issue - but if it's a "crisis" then that creates a number of problems for the left. Number one - why aren't the liberals taking it seriously?

[Michael Hardner]

I design work flows for a living, so I am interested about how abstract models can be used for practical results.  Democracy is such a model...

[Nationalist]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Mike IS a libbie   LOL

I think that where they have a challenge is the "Crisis" part. You can defend the idea that climate change is a thing that's happening, or even that man plays a role, or even that it's a very serious issue - but if it's a "crisis" then that creates a number of problems for the left. Number one - why aren't the liberals taking it seriously?

Mike claims to be conservative. I've been over that with him.

The problem Libbies have is nobody really knows how serious climate change is or will be. Thus they can't justify all the impositions taken.

Oh they yell and scream a lot but, when pushed to produce evidence, all their tails sag between their legs. None of the typical "pose" have posted in this thread and I doubt any will. If any do engage, it'll be another exhibition of faux morality.