Why climate alarmism and carbon taxes are a scam.

[NAME REMOVED]

,

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

 

As far as planting trees is concerned, we are and have been planting many millions of trees annually  for many decades. One million more is meaningless . I m glad I made you aware of the huge tree planting effort that has been ongoing by governments and the forest indutry.

 

Im surprised that there are ppl who do not know about tree planning.  I worked in BC over 2 summers in my youth planting trees. There are tons of reforestation companies.

[ExFlyer]

9 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

,

Im surprised that there are ppl who do not know about tree planning.  I worked in BC over 2 summers in my youth planting trees. There are tons of reforestation companies.

2 Summers?? I lasted 2 days LOL (steep side hill and pouring rain).  Hated it. Thanks and Kudos to you.

[Nationalist]

On 7/29/2024 at 7:49 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Sure.  I would say that economic hardship is a general problem, making it unreasonable for people to be expected to get behind this.

In other words, if we were flush we'd probably be more acceptable to paying for this.

No. When we're "flush" we'll be able to pay down new debts and perhaps make additional investments.

Until someone can prove there's an actual "crisis", the climate crap is nothing more than alarmist chickenshit.!

[NAME REMOVED]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

2 Summers?? I lasted 2 days LOL (steep side hill and pouring rain).  Hated it. Thanks and Kudos to you.

Yeah its hard work and the elements are nasty. I love nature. Slept in tents for 3 months. Also my legs grew by inches by the time i was finished. I did on average about 1200 trees/day IIRC.  Good but not like the highballers who planted up to 3k a day. 13 cents/tree, its not worth it unless one loves camping, and living in a tent.

[Michael Hardner]

23 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

No. When we're "flush" we'll be able to pay down new debts and perhaps make additional investments.

Until someone can prove there's an actual "crisis", the climate crap is nothing more than alarmist chickenshit.!

Most people believe there's an issue.  My comment was about the tendency for people to be open to such things.

[NAME REMOVED]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Most people believe there's an issue.  My comment was about the tendency for people to be open to such things.

They wont. People are just too selfish and stupid to do the right thing. If the 2023 wildfires were not a wake up call that there definitely is a climate crisis,  then nothing will change their minds.

Then again its easier to bury ones head in the sand than to make sacrifices for our childrens sake.

[Nationalist]

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Most people believe there's an issue.  My comment was about the tendency for people to be open to such things.

Fck such things!!!

All this panic does is sh1t on the middle-class.! Get this through your thick skull Mike...

THERE IS NO CRISIS!

This charade needs to be terminated immediately!

[Michael Hardner]

10 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

They wont. 

It's a question of degree. Things are tough right now. That's the whole point of this side discussion in the thread. 

If you had a million extra dollars. Would you spend one Penny to mitigate risk of environmental damage? Of course you would. Now slide the scale around and find The Sweet Spot....

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Fck such things!!!

All this panic does is sh1t on the middle-class.! Get this through your thick skull Mike...

THERE IS NO CRISIS!

This charade needs to be terminated immediately!

I have already told you that I didn't claim there was a crisis. There doesn't need to be a crisis to take steps. 

And my comments are aout how people view such charges generally...

You are so angry. Take a breath. 

[ExFlyer]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's a question of degree. Things are tough right now. That's the whole point of this side discussion in the thread. 

If you had a million extra dollars. Would you spend one Penny to mitigate risk of environmental damage? Of course you would. Now slide the scale around and find The Sweet Spot....

I certainly would not use my personal money.

i can though and might do things to decrease my personal footprint.

Taxing the entire citizenry of a country that is a minuscule player is not only unreasonable, it is unfair and, hurts the economy and makes the poor poorer.

And most importantly, not being able to prove it has done anything on the grand scheme of the climate thing.

EDIT:

I do believe there is a climate change issue. But to make the last place team pay the fines for the first team players is very wrong.

Edited July 30, 2024 by ExFlyer

[NAME REMOVED]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's a question of degree. Things are tough right now. That's the whole point of this side discussion in the thread. 

If you had a million extra dollars. Would you spend one Penny to mitigate risk of environmental damage? Of course you would. Now slide the scale around and find The Sweet Spot....

Many would not. This forum is proof of that.

Edited July 30, 2024 by DUI_Offender

[Nationalist]

17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I have already told you that I didn't claim there was a crisis. There doesn't need to be a crisis to take steps. 

And my comments are aout how people view such charges generally...

You are so angry. Take a breath. 

Gawd Damn right I'm angry!

This greenie panic is costing everyone! It's a disgusting display of outright LIES!

 

[Aristides]

20 hours ago, Political Smash said:

Perhaps you should come to Earth where there is no such crisis, just a small bunch of radicals with a sick agenda and a strangle hold on main stream media of which not one of them (let alone you) can prove that 3% of the Earth's surface area occupied by humans raises the Earth's atmospheric temperature 0.000001 degree.

Like I said.

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

If anything, you are just proving my point. Alberta is responsible for all the services, while "Parks Canada" does  have control over planning and development.

 

NNoooo....  Read it slowly, it's ok to mumble to yourself as you do if that helps...

Because of Jasper’s unique location within a National Park,the local government does not have control over land use and planning. Parks Canada is responsible for land use planning, development and environmental matters. 

Land use and planing. Development AND ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS.

Your own link has proved you to be entirely wrong.  You're a useless leftie drunk who can't even read his own links. 

Jasper is not responsible for the management of that forest - the feds are. And they were warned in 2017 that leaving the beetle kill there would be a  disaster. And they left it. Now there's a disaster. 

You're a typical zombie leftie repeating what you've been told without the ability to even  read your own sources for god's sake. 

[Michael Hardner]

33 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

Many would not. This forum is proof of that.

Sure... I don't think we disagree on this.

[Michael Hardner]

34 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

1. I certainly would not use my personal money.

2. Taxing the entire citizenry of a country that is a minuscule player is not only unreasonable, it is unfair and, hurts the economy and makes the poor poorer.

3. And most importantly, not being able to prove it has done anything on the grand scheme of the climate thing.

4. I do believe there is a climate change issue. But to make the last place team pay the fines for the first team players is very wrong.

1. Again, the question is whether you would give 1 cent out of an extra 1 million to mitigate risk.  And you are saying no.  I can't believe that your reply relays anything but a stubborn adherence to principle.
2. There's no solution without a global framework and the other 200 countries won't give Canada an opt out.
3. It can't be proven.
4. Canada is a high per-capita polluter.

Anyway, you're bringing up points that I discussed earlier.  Read through the thead for your answers on this.  The only point I was making on the posts where you responded is this:

If the economy is good, people are more willing to give.

If you dispute that, then ok.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

A tax is a tax, regardless by whatever government is in power.

 

Who said it wasn't?  What's your point?

Quote

OK, he'll do "something"? LOL

Yep.  He'll do something to give the leftie losers who've already blown the issue something to chew on.  Why is that funny to you?
 

Quote

Not being obtuse at all. I do to know what you mean when you say "invest in tech".

DO you really tho?

Quote

What tech are you talking about?

Yeah i didn't think so. 

Who knows? Whatever tech looks the most promising when he actually comes to power and can see where things are at. Whatever makes the most sense at the time given the state of technology, the available companies and existing investment to work with, what's being developed or deployed around the world. 

How is that so difficult for you to get? Honestly if you can't understand the simple idea that before we can move away from fossil fuels we need more advanced tech and investing in it's development might help speed that along then you're just not at a level to be having this conversation. 

Quote

As far as planting trees is concerned, we are and have been planting many millions of trees annually  for many decades. One million more is meaningless . 

Yeah but it'll look like we're doing something and hey, it's a million more trees so at least we'll have more trees which is nice. Maybe it can go with clearing out some of that beetle kill and refreshing the forests so we don't have more jaspers, unlike the libs. 

It's not going to do much. But it'll look like we're doing something and it won't cost much and we'll actually get some small benefit if we can get rid of those beetle kill areas. 

But that's the point.  If you wanted to do something REAL about climate change - then you needed to get rid of the tax 10 years ago and do something that actually WOULD make a difference without trashing our economy.  After 10 years of the libs demanding the carbon tax would solve all our problems and now people can't even afford to eat properly climate change is falling to a very low priority for the next few years. 

 

[ExFlyer]

31 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Again, the question is whether you would give 1 cent out of an extra 1 million to mitigate risk.  And you are saying no.  I can't believe that your reply relays anything but a stubborn adherence to principle.
2. There's no solution without a global framework and the other 200 countries won't give Canada an opt out.
3. It can't be proven.
4. Canada is a high per-capita polluter.

Anyway, you're bringing up points that I discussed earlier.  Read through the thead for your answers on this.  The only point I was making on the posts where you responded is this:

If the economy is good, people are more willing to give.

If you dispute that, then ok.

1. I said I would not use my personal money..

2. Lets see the other 200 countries do somethung then. O have nior seen any effort by the largest polluters including the US.

3. That is what I said,...it cannot be proven so... stalemate

4. Hi per-capita means zero. The pollution and climate crises issue is global not per person but by corporations and countries.

Ypu may think you discuss them , I actually do not think you discuss, you evangilize and people are turned off by it.

I disagree. As soon as you start taking money out of peoples perssonal pocket, you lose them in principal, economically and, morally.

Lastly Michael, I agree there is a climate crisis and as I have said before, arguing this is as fruitless, emotional and, partisan as arguing the pros and cons of covid vaccinations.

 

[ExFlyer]

36 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Who said it wasn't?  What's your point?

Yep.  He'll do something to give the leftie losers who've already blown the issue something to chew on.  Why is that funny to you?
 

DO you really tho?

Yeah i didn't think so. 

Who knows? Whatever tech looks the most promising when he actually comes to power and can see where things are at. Whatever makes the most sense at the time given the state of technology, the available companies and existing investment to work with, what's being developed or deployed around the world. 

How is that so difficult for you to get? Honestly if you can't understand the simple idea that before we can move away from fossil fuels we need more advanced tech and investing in it's development might help speed that along then you're just not at a level to be having this conversation. 

Yeah but it'll look like we're doing something and hey, it's a million more trees so at least we'll have more trees which is nice. Maybe it can go with clearing out some of that beetle kill and refreshing the forests so we don't have more jaspers, unlike the libs. 

It's not going to do much. But it'll look like we're doing something and it won't cost much and we'll actually get some small benefit if we can get rid of those beetle kill areas. 

But that's the point.  If you wanted to do something REAL about climate change - then you needed to get rid of the tax 10 years ago and do something that actually WOULD make a difference without trashing our economy.  After 10 years of the libs demanding the carbon tax would solve all our problems and now people can't even afford to eat properly climate change is falling to a very low priority for the next few years. 

 

Yeah OK.

HE, coming to power has what to do with "tech"??LOL Understand what "Idea?? You have presented nothing. You keep saying "tech" without saying anything.....what "tech"?  Climate control satellites?? LOL

Did "HE" say a million more trees or is that you?? LOL

Uhh, the pine beetle issue was long before trudeaus liberals (since discovered in 1999 actually)  ...the conservatives could have done something too.

I hate the carbon tax too so...your point??

 

 

 

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Yeah OK

HE,

Quote

uuuuhhh.... you ok over there big guy?coming to power has what to do with "tech"??

Time. The election isn't for well over a year, and that's before he can even consider where the best place to put money would be. 

Who can say what companies will open up by then or close by then or what investment capital will look like by then or what advancements in a variety of fields currently being studied will be, etc etc 

What kind of !diot would decide what investment is best YEARS before he can actually invest?  Other than you?

Quote

LOL Understand what "Idea?? You have presented nothing. You keep saying "tech" without saying anything.....what "tech"?  Climate control satellites?? LOL

Sure if someone's got a really solid plan for one  

This is so simple and you're losing your mind over it.  There are a number of technologies that, if developed, will make it easier to get away from fossil fuels or will mitigate climate change.   When he comes to power he will likely look at a 'climate' plan that includes investing in whichever ones are most promising at the time. 

Now will you please try to get yourself back together?

Quote

Did "HE"

I'm really starting to worry about you. 

Quote

 

say a million more trees or is that you?? LOL

 

Me.  He's talked about planting trees but no numbers.  It was an example.

Quote

Uhh, the pine beetle issue was long before trudeaus liberals

But the report in 2017 saying remove the trees in the national park or it'll burn down (and it just burnt down) did not  

However we're not talking about blame for the beetles, we're talking about taking responsibility for helping mitigate the damages and the risk. He can pay to cut down and dispose of some of the beetle kill and to replant those areas with new trees.  I don't know that would do much for climate change in the big picture but i'll do more than the carbon tax did and it would be very good to get rid of that matchbox stuff and have healthy forests again. 

Quote

I hate the carbon tax too so...your point??

Then you should have stopped the libs from doing it. Spoke out, arranged other liberals to write and protest it, whatever. As was predicted, it's done nothing for climate change and it's hurting the economy, and now people are going to be turned off climate change. 

[Michael Hardner]

23 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

1. I said I would not use my personal money..

2. Lets see the other 200 countries do somethung then. O have nior seen any effort by the largest polluters including the US.

3. That is what I said,...it cannot be proven so... stalemate

4. Hi per-capita means zero. The pollution and climate crises issue is global not per person but by corporations and countries.

5. Ypu may think you discuss them , I actually do not think you discuss, you evangilize and people are turned off by it.

6. I disagree. As soon as you start taking money out of peoples perssonal pocket, you lose them in principal, economically and, morally.

7. Lastly Michael, I agree there is a climate crisis ...

8. ... and as I have said before, arguing this is as fruitless, emotional and, partisan as arguing the pros and cons of covid vaccinations.

 

1. And I responded to my thoughts on that.
2. "You first" ... doesn't work
3. It's ridiculous to use a fact about provability to stymie mitigating risk
4. It means we are worse pollutors, to a person.
5. I never evangelize.  I point out incorrect and stubborn arguments such as yours.
6. I guess you don't pay taxes then.  Or you think everyone should be able to veto what they don't personally agree with.
7.  Agree ?  I didn't post that there was one.
8. Then leave the board.

I think saying you wouldn't give 1 cent out of one million dollars is just grandstanding how stubborn you can be...

[herbie]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Jasper is not responsible for the management of that forest - the feds are. And they were warned in 2017 that leaving the beetle kill there would be a  disaster. And they left it. Now there's a disaster. 

And it's a National Park, which means it remains in it's natural state. So you don't log it, you don't pave it. Sure you protect the buildings and settlements within the park but in this case it wasn't possible. A 5km deep ring of concrete around the town wouldn't stop 100m walls of flames and high winds. Nor an ugly clearcut big enough and both would ruin the entire setting of the town.

And keep in mind WHY there was a bug kill problem. It was the first evidence 25 years ago of climate change, which some of you blockheads still deny.

[ExFlyer]

19 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Time. The election isn't for well over a year, and that's before he can even consider where the best place to put money would be. 

Who can say what companies will open up by then or close by then or what investment capital will look like by then or what advancements in a variety of fields currently being studied will be, etc etc 

What kind of !diot would decide what investment is best YEARS before he can actually invest?  Other than you?

Sure if someone's got a really solid plan for one  

This is so simple and you're losing your mind over it.  There are a number of technologies that, if developed, will make it easier to get away from fossil fuels or will mitigate climate change.   When he comes to power he will likely look at a 'climate' plan that includes investing in whichever ones are most promising at the time. 

Now will you please try to get yourself back together?

I'm really starting to worry about you. 

Me.  He's talked about planting trees but no numbers.  It was an example.

But the report in 2017 saying remove the trees in the national park or it'll burn down (and it just burnt down) did not  

However we're not talking about blame for the beetles, we're talking about taking responsibility for helping mitigate the damages and the risk. He can pay to cut down and dispose of some of the beetle kill and to replant those areas with new trees.  I don't know that would do much for climate change in the big picture but i'll do more than the carbon tax did and it would be very good to get rid of that matchbox stuff and have healthy forests again. 

Then you should have stopped the libs from doing it. Spoke out, arranged other liberals to write and protest it, whatever. As was predicted, it's done nothing for climate change and it's hurting the economy, and now people are going to be turned off climate change. 

Yeah OK.

Here you are again LOL

[ExFlyer]

16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. And I responded to my thoughts on that.
2. "You first" ... doesn't work
3. It's ridiculous to use a fact about provability to stymie mitigating risk
4. It means we are worse pollutors, to a person.
5. I never evangelize.  I point out incorrect and stubborn arguments such as yours.
6. I guess you don't pay taxes then.  Or you think everyone should be able to veto what they don't personally agree with.
7.  Agree ?  I didn't post that there was one.
8. Then leave the board.

I think saying you wouldn't give 1 cent out of one million dollars is just grandstanding how stubborn you can be...

1,. OK. it is my money.

2.  Yes, "me first" works for me and many many others. Many are tired of paying for someone else and most of all, someone elses ideas.

3. Michael, provability is the root of this and so many climate crisis discussions/debates. Yoi demand proof of almost everything except the climate crisis. You are OK with conjecture and hearsay and theories.

4. Michael, do not play with per-capita as if that is how a crisis is monitored. Anti vaxxers use that and you poo poo them LOL

5 When I say evangelize, I mean you keep on and on and on about climate crisis. Not in the same sense as blackturd and the bible but...

6. I pay taxes like everyone lse. I may not like them or what they go to but, I am a citizen and am obliged to pay my taxes. Don't know what your point is there.

7.?

8. Leave the board?

Really Michael?  Michael, I can do with my money as I wish, just like you can. The fact you are upset how I choose to spend my money is really quite odd.

 

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

1. You demand proof of almost everything except the climate crisis. You are OK with conjecture and hearsay and theories.

2. When I say evangelize, I mean you keep on and on and on about climate crisis.  

3. Really Michael?  Michael, I can do with my money as I wish, just like you can. The fact you are upset how I choose to spend my money is really quite odd.

 

1. Because it could never be proven.  Why demand proof of something that's impossible to prove.
2. Ok, so you admit you're using the word incorrectly.
3. I'm just amazed you would be so stubborn as to not give a single penny.  In fact, I don't believe it.  The only thing that I would guess at is that you're going to say that to be stubborn and make a point.  Of course it's your money, that's the whole premise of the exercise.