Global Climate Change...Crisis or Politics?

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

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...

Abstract models. Like that silly hockey stick model? The problem with models is the extent to which the modeler chooses extreme potential to depict future progress. If I remember correctly, the covid models were nonsensical. 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Abstract models. Like that silly hockey stick model? The problem with models is the extent to which the modeler chooses extreme potential to depict future progress. If I remember correctly, the covid models were nonsensical. 

If you hate all models then I can't convince you.  You should know that your enemies use them, though.

The hockey stick model was informative.  Again, if you hate GRAPHS... basically just data plotted in two dimensions, then I don't have time to try to make you change your mind.

[Nationalist]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

If you hate all models then I can't convince you.  You should know that your enemies use them, though.

The hockey stick model was informative.  Again, if you hate GRAPHS... basically just data plotted in two dimensions, then I don't have time to try to make you change your mind.

What I "hate", is models created to present a predetermined outcome. This hockey stick model for instance, has been torn to sheds many times. And its just silly to suggest I "hate" graphs. You're now engaging in reality warping. Have you ran out of relevant discussion point and so lean back on nonsense?

Come on Mike...there must be some realistic reason for this imposition you can present?

[Michael Hardner]

50 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

1. What I "hate", is models created to present a predetermined outcome.

2. This hockey stick model for instance, has been torn to sheds many times.

3. And its just silly to suggest I "hate" graphs. You're now engaging in reality warping. Have you ran out of relevant discussion point and so lean back on nonsense?

 

1. Ok you hate lying. Ok. 

2. Not by the peer review process.

3. No, I just didn't understand why you would call a temperature graph silly.

[Nationalist]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok you hate lying. Ok. 

2. Not by the peer review process.

3. No, I just didn't understand why you would call a temperature graph silly.

1. Yes I do.

2. The Medieval Warm Period (800AD - 1300AD)

3. Because its inaccurate.

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

1. The Medieval Warm Period (800AD - 1300AD)

2. Because its inaccurate.

1. It wasn't torn to shreds on that, that's just not so.

2. Not appreciably so.  If you are talking about the MWP then I don't remember much controversy there.

The paper was cited profusely and a period in the mediaeval period doesn't have much impact on anything else.  Certainly since it was published the temperatures have continued to rise so...

 

If you disagree then I don't think that I can convince you otherwise. 

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Nationalist said:

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

"Catlyn" Jenner claims to be a woman.  Justin Bieber claims to be a man.  People claim all sorts of things.

Quote

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.

Well this is an issue, and I notice that the science reports often provide a very wide range of possibilities, ranging from nothing bad will happen in the next 100 years to were all going to die by Thursday. It's these big wide ranges of possibility, which makes the findings not all that useful.  And the newspapers and the left always tend to take the worst case scenario from any study and present that as if it were the only scenario. And that starts to fall apart when you really scrutinize it - but they're after that headline and they're hoping people don't look too close.

Quote

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.

Well that's an issue but that's not even the biggest 'tell' for me.  The issue for me is that they don't have a solution.  They're not remotely serious about it.  "OH MY GOD WE"RE ALL GOING TO DIE BY 2020 FROM CLIMATE CHANGE!!"  - Holy shit, that's terrible, what needs to happen right now to prevent that?? - "oh..  i don't know.  Maybe a tax? I'll give it some thought.  We're letting china do what it wants tho, that's only fair." 

Uh huh. Sounds like they really believe the whole 'crisis' thing.

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. It wasn't torn to shreds on that, that's just not so.

2. Not appreciably so.  If you are talking about the MWP then I don't remember much controversy there.

The paper was cited profusely and a period in the mediaeval period doesn't have much impact on anything else.  Certainly since it was published the temperatures have continued to rise so...

 

If you disagree then I don't think that I can convince you otherwise. 

 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

"Catlyn" Jenner claims to be a woman.  Justin Bieber claims to be a man.  People claim all sorts of things.

Well this is an issue, and I notice that the science reports often provide a very wide range of possibilities, ranging from nothing bad will happen in the next 100 years to were all going to die by Thursday. It's these big wide ranges of possibility, which makes the findings not all that useful.  And the newspapers and the left always tend to take the worst case scenario from any study and present that as if it were the only scenario. And that starts to fall apart when you really scrutinize it - but they're after that headline and they're hoping people don't look too close.

Well that's an issue but that's not even the biggest 'tell' for me.  The issue for me is that they don't have a solution.  They're not remotely serious about it.  "OH MY GOD WE"RE ALL GOING TO DIE BY 2020 FROM CLIMATE CHANGE!!"  - Holy shit, that's terrible, what needs to happen right now to prevent that?? - "oh..  i don't know.  Maybe a tax? I'll give it some thought.  We're letting china do what it wants tho, that's only fair." 

Uh huh. Sounds like they really believe the whole 'crisis' thing.

This is not about the climate IMO. Its about increased government control.

[Michael Hardner]

25 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

 

This is not about the climate IMO. Its about increased government control.

I had to look this person up.. it seems like they wrote a column, not a paper, supporting some questions published by somebody else.. another team... That were discredited. By 2006 it didn't matter anymore because warming had continued indeed it continues to this day.

 

The original paper is now 20 years old, and no real doubts to the original claim that warming is unprecedented. I think we can stay safely that we know for sure that the warming is unprecedented right now.

 

See climate over Millenia by Spencer Weart.

 

If this is what you mean by the hockey stick graph being torn to shreds, I think you owe me a retraction.

 

 

Edited September 28, 2023 by Michael Hardner

[CdnFox]

43 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

 

This is not about the climate IMO. Its about increased government control.

Never let a crisis go to waste

- the left, frequently

[eyeball]

On 9/27/2023 at 6:19 AM, Nationalist said:

Prove that there is a crisis that requires we all suffer to one degree or another, in the name of saving humanity.

The extent and influence of denial is the biggest crisis surrounding climate change bar none.

As for the most accurate description of the future, the future being now, whoever it was that came up with the frog in a pot on a stove nailed it.

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The extent and influence of denial is the biggest crisis surrounding climate change bar none.

 

So..... you're saying you can't describe why climate change is a crisis? Those who ask the question are the real crisis?

You get how that makes you AND climate change look, right?

Quote

As for the most accurate description of the future, the future being now, whoever it was that came up with the frog in a pot on a stove nailed it.

So the future is now and not the future, and your scientific description of climate change is 'a frog in hot water'.

And it's surprising to you that people listen to this kind of answer and blow climate change off as a complete farce.

If you can't actually describe why it's a crisis - why do you think it's a crisis?  Echo chamber repitition? Muh feels? What's driving this for you if not state-able facts?

[Nationalist]

On 9/28/2023 at 4:04 PM, Michael Hardner said:

I had to look this person up.. it seems like they wrote a column, not a paper, supporting some questions published by somebody else.. another team... That were discredited. By 2006 it didn't matter anymore because warming had continued indeed it continues to this day.

 

The original paper is now 20 years old, and no real doubts to the original claim that warming is unprecedented. I think we can stay safely that we know for sure that the warming is unprecedented right now.

 

See climate over Millenia by Spencer Weart.

 

If this is what you mean by the hockey stick graph being torn to shreds, I think you owe me a retraction.

 

 

Not from where I'm standing. There are plenty of respected scientists who refute this graph. 

https://skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

https://www.climatesciencenews.com/2019-08-26-climate-change-hoax-collapses-as-michael-mann-bogus-hockey-stick-graph.html

[Nationalist]

On 9/28/2023 at 7:33 PM, eyeball said:

The extent and influence of denial is the biggest crisis surrounding climate change bar none.

As for the most accurate description of the future, the future being now, whoever it was that came up with the frog in a pot on a stove nailed it.

What nonsense is this? 

Considering the cost of climate change measures, you don't think real proof of a crisis is warranted?

Just OBEY? Is that your point?

[Nationalist]

https://repolitics.com/forums/topic/46470-most-canadians-want-carbon-tax-reduced-or-killed-poll/

So...it looks like the Canadian public need real proof of a climate crisis too. What a surprise...

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

https://repolitics.com/forums/topic/46470-most-canadians-want-carbon-tax-reduced-or-killed-poll/

So...it looks like the Canadian public need real proof of a climate crisis too. What a surprise...

well - to be more specific they need proof of it before they're willing to PAY for it. They're happy to accept it if it's free.  Gotta be afraid of SOMETHING after all, and it's not legal to burn witches anymore.

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Just OBEY? Is that your point?

We should follow what science says. Like 50 years ago.

But nowadays though? Just do whatever you feel like.

[Nationalist]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

well - to be more specific they need proof of it before they're willing to PAY for it. They're happy to accept it if it's free.  Gotta be afraid of SOMETHING after all, and it's not legal to burn witches anymore.

I don't understand why anyone would submit to this cost, or the fear used to justify it, when nobody can prove climate change is something we need to panic about.

It's a simpleton's reaction to a nasty federal leader who's trying to extend and expand these "emergency powers" way after The Rona.

I will not OBEY for no good reason and I cannot believe these "institutions" that have lied to us repeatedly. 

[Nationalist]

Just now, eyeball said:

We should follow what science says. Like 50 years ago.

But nowadays though? Just do whatever you feel like.

Which science? The bought and paid for science? The independent science?

There are responsible ways to reduce our carbon footie-print and allow for the economy to thrive. We do not have to panic and make grandiose imposition on our own population. 

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

There are responsible ways to reduce our carbon footie-print and allow for the economy to thrive. We do not have to panic and make grandiose imposition on our own population. 

This would have been true 50 years ago.

In any case, don't panic it's far too late now so you've got nothing to worry about. 

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I don't understand why anyone would submit to this cost, or the fear used to justify it, when nobody can prove climate change is something we need to panic about.

It's a simpleton's reaction to a nasty federal leader who's trying to extend and expand these "emergency powers" way after The Rona.

I will not OBEY for no good reason and I cannot believe these "institutions" that have lied to us repeatedly. 

Well i think the logic is "it MIGHT be true, so if it's free to fix it then might as well".  If it starts hurting people then they start getting serious.

People know that good luck charms really don't work.  But a stunning number of people still carry one, because 'maybe'?

Humans have always been that way. "this stone keeps away dragons."  "How  do you know?'  "see any dragons around here?"  "fair enough - i'll take two, just to be safe".

 

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

This would have been true 50 years ago.

No, it wouldn't.  I know you like to virtue signal that, but it's false.  "OH IF ONLY PEOPLE HAD LISTENED TO ME BACK THEN... "

But its' bullshit. 50 years ago there was no talk of climate change like there is today. Next to no science on the subject either.  in fact in those days suzuki was talking about global cooling being a possible threat.

There was nothing to transit into either. No electric cars, nuclear power was a bust at that stage, solar power was in it's infancy  and nowhere near viable  -  to quote from the 'Guide' -  'we were so amazingly primitive that we still thought digital watches were a pretty neat idea".

So basically what you're doing is lying to try to excuse your behavior today. You want to say climate change is bad - but then you'd have to explain why you're not doing anyhting about it.  So you pretend that you WANTED to do so, but nobody else did and so now it's too late and that's why you don't.

Pathetic. You are spineless and don't have the courage of your convictions. Typical leftie.

[Nationalist]

16 minutes ago, eyeball said:

This would have been true 50 years ago.

In any case, don't panic it's far too late now so you've got nothing to worry about. 

Good. Then you won't mind if we bring this chickenshit to an abrupt halt.

[Nationalist]

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well i think the logic is "it MIGHT be true, so if it's free to fix it then might as well".  If it starts hurting people then they start getting serious.

People know that good luck charms really don't work.  But a stunning number of people still carry one, because 'maybe'?

Humans have always been that way. "this stone keeps away dragons."  "How  do you know?'  "see any dragons around here?"  "fair enough - i'll take two, just to be safe".

 

It appears very few of the climate imposition fans can actually justify the imposition. 

Maybe it's time to shed the fear mongering of these silly children and make Canada what it should be?

[eyeball]

55 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Good. Then you won't mind if we bring this chickenshit to an abrupt halt.

Not at all. The hotter and sooner the better.