Why climate alarmism and carbon taxes are a scam.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. "You first" ... doesn't workdstanding how stubborn you can be...

Then why would we go first? 

49 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Yeah OK.

Here you are again LOL

ROFLMAO!!!!! You mean 'here i am responding to a post you made asking me questions and looking for clarification?

Yeah - that's kind of how this works  

Did you need anything else explained to you or are you good now?  

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Then why would we go first? 

We wouldn't and we shouldn't.

[NAME REMOVED]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

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. 

 

I think you may need to look up what ""land use, planning, development, and environmental matters: encompasses.

Where does it say "responsible for all firefighting and emergency services?"

Ill be waiting....

[CdnFox]

Just now, DUI_Offender said:

I think you may need to look up what ""land use, planning, development, and environmental matters: encompasses.

 I think i don't.  I already know what it means - and care and management of the forest to prevent fire hazards and reduce risk is right on their website. They've got entire webpages dedicated to their firesmart programs and they are 100 percent responsible for clearing forests and managing risks inside national parks. 

You got drunk and f*cked up.  Plain and simple.  You believed something you read on the internet and didn't listen to what you were being told, and then posted a link without reading what it said and it proved you were wrong. 

Now you look like a complete useless tard. Maybe don't dig your hole any deeper and go do some actual reading. 

 

[Army Guy]

17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Because it could never be proven.  Why demand proof of something that's impossible to prove.
 

It seems that this is a very popular demand these days, make something up and insist everyone believe it....you can pull info from our rectums and proclaim it to be true...make it loud enough and say it over and over again, (Climate barbies theory not mine) then it must be true...like the earth is flat, the moon is made of cheese, bigfoot,  .... ...

We demand proof on almost everything yesterday, Boomers used science facts and figures to prove if something existed or not...I watched a documentary recently about bigfoot...Yup these guys made an entire industry out of a hairy man roaming the woods, and when asked to prove it they come up with very grainy photos, or plaster casts of footprints...and of course the stories. which get better every time someone tells them........

MAN has screwed up almost more of the planet that much is a fact....you can see it smell it, taste it, touch it...but climate is changing but is unprovable, but every time there is a fire or storm, tornado, or a fart is heard from the north, it is all due to climate change.....and the only thing we have proof of is it is all impossible to prove, thats a huge leap of faith...

[NAME REMOVED]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 I think i don't.  I already know what it means - and care and management of the forest to prevent fire hazards and reduce risk is right on their website. 

 

Show me where it says the Park is responsible for fighting fires.

Also prove to me that Parks Canada failed to do what their mandate is, in terms of forest management and fire prevention.

Na for the love of God, stop touching yourself in the bushes, outside of the middle school girls track meet.

Edited July 30, 2024 by DUI_Offender

[CdnFox]

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

We wouldn't and we shouldn't.

well then we can wait for china and india to get their crap together before we worry about climate change, right?

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

 

We demand proof on almost everything yesterday... 

....and the only thing we have proof of is it is all impossible to prove, thats a huge leap of faith...

You can't prove some things, such as cigarettes cause cancer.  But we are certain that they do.  Not a leap of faith but a logical conclusion, that is all.

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

well then we can wait for china and india to get their crap together before we worry about climate change, right?

No, we all sign a treaty and work on it together.  

I don't think Poilievre will be withdrawing from the Paris accord, even if he kills the carbon tax.

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

No, we all sign a treaty and work on it together.  

But we can't apperently.  China isn't interested and neither is india. 

 

Quote

I don't think Poilievre will be withdrawing from the Paris accord, even if he kills the carbon tax.

No need, he'll just point out that it failed before he ever got to office and that the libs had failed to hit the target and it's there fault that we missed it.  It's not like there's any penalty for missing it or the like. 

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

1. Well Michael, if climate change causes can not be proven, then you , the one that demands proof for almost everything musty be in an ethical quandary. EDIT: You said " You can't prove some things, such as cigarettes cause cancer.  But we are certain that they do.  ". Well Michael , that can be proven and has ben many many times.

2. I used the word correctly, just elaborated the usage to you.

3. Again, calling me stubborn because I will not give to climate change ,yet I give to children hospitals, heart institute, cancer institute and to any kid that rings my doorbell selling chocolates for their team, among others.

My point to you Michael is climate change is no on  my charitable donation list. Why this is such an issue to you is befuddling. As you even  say, it is my money.

Edited July 30, 2024 by ExFlyer

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

1. Well Michael, if climate change causes can not be proven, then you , the one that demands proof for almost everything musty be in an ethical quandary.

2. I used the word correctly, just elaborated the usage to you.

3. Again, calling me stubborn because I will not give to climate change ,yet I give to children hospitals, heart institute, cancer institute and to any kid that rings my doorbell selling chocolates for their team, among others.

4. Why this is such an issue to you is befuddling.  

1. No.  I can't prove I will be in a car accident today but I wear my seat belt anyway.
2. No you didn't.
3. I don't care who you give to, the numbers are ridiculous and you are standing on a point against my analogy to prevent the discussion from moving forward.
4. It's an issue because you are usually worth talking to but you are essentially blocking the discussion on a ridiculous premise.  The only thing you're doing by refusing to accept the premise is blocking my point that people, generally, are more willing to give to "causes" if they have more disposable income.  It's actually got zero to do with the issue but more about you enjoying getting under my skin.

Well, enjoy it.  I guess I can't convince you that people are more willing to give if they have more money.  It's a ridiculous premise then.

[ExFlyer]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. No.  I can't prove I will be in a car accident today but I wear my seat belt anyway.
2. No you didn't.
3. I don't care who you give to, the numbers are ridiculous and you are standing on a point against my analogy to prevent the discussion from moving forward.
4. It's an issue because you are usually worth talking to but you are essentially blocking the discussion on a ridiculous premise.  The only thing you're doing by refusing to accept the premise is blocking my point that people, generally, are more willing to give to "causes" if they have more disposable income.  It's actually got zero to do with the issue but more about you enjoying getting under my skin.

Well, enjoy it.  I guess I can't convince you that people are more willing to give if they have more money.  It's a ridiculous premise then.

OK Michael. You are in fact becoming or became an climate change evangiist

No sense going on.

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

OK Michael. You are in fact becoming or became an climate change evangiist

Aaaand... you say this at the end of an exchange that was all about trying to agree on an assumption regarding basic economics.  That was the point I was making when you started adding rehashed points in.

 

Your comprehension isn't what I thought.

[ExFlyer]

20 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Aaaand... you say this at the end of an exchange that was all about trying to agree on an assumption regarding basic economics.  That was the point I was making when you started adding rehashed points in.

 

Your comprehension isn't what I thought.

Neither is yours it seems.

I ended because it was getting nowhere. I know when to stop.

[taxme]

On 7/19/2024 at 10:12 PM, CdnFox said:

Dude nobody takes you or your comments seriously.  And if you look at how much atmosphere there is even a small percent of it being carbon means that there's an insane amount of carbon there, not a 'minscule amount'.  220,000,000,000,000 tonnes of the stuff. That's your 'minicule' amount.  It takes craptonnes to sustain life.  It's not particularly potent at all. 

The earth's atmostphere used to contain 200 times as much carbon as it does now. The stuff is not all that potent at all. 

Which brings us back to the question you can never seem to answer - why is this a crisis. 

 

There is no climate crisis. It is just another man made globalist hoax of a crisis. I am alive thanks to carbon. In the mean time, the WEF globalists that keep trying to push this climate crisis nonsense still keeps flying around the world in their private jets, driving around in their big SUV'S, and owning hundreds of homes which are spewing tons of carbon into the atmosphere. The globalists just cannot seem to be able to practice what they preach. But of course we the sheeple are supposed to practice what they reach. We are supposed to own nothing and be happy. Up their's. 🤣

Have you noticed lately that global warming is not talked about much anymore by the leftist liberal media anymore. Apparently, it has been put on the back burner for now because this presidential race between Trump and Bidumb is what they all want to talk about now. They are trying their hardest to try and stop Trump from becoming the next President. The globalists have tried to assassinate Trump already and it will probably not be their last try. 😬

[Aristides]

Warming winters allowed the mountain pine beetle to move north during the nineties and destroy a large swaths of BC and Alberta pine forests. A lot of the dead wood was logged but much of it remains and is now contributing nice seasoned fuel for fires. Deniers seem incapable of making simple connections like this.

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Warming winters allowed the mountain pine beetle to move north during the nineties and destroy a large swaths of BC and Alberta pine forests. A lot of the dead wood was logged but much of it remains and is now contributing nice seasoned fuel for fires. Deniers seem incapable of making simple connections like this.

And they were largely wiped out again in a particularly cold winter in 2020 or 2021 (can't remember).  

So.  Where is your god now?   

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

And they were largely wiped out again in a particularly cold winter in 2020 or 2021 (can't remember).  

So.  Where is your god now?   

More likely because they ran out of food. By 2008 they had wiped out half of the provinces lodgepole pine.

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

Edited July 31, 2024 by Aristides

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Aristides said:

More likely because they ran out of food. By 2008 they had wiped out half of the provinces lodgepole pine.

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

Nope, it was the weather.  Here's an example from 2020. I don't know why but it's not letting me paste the link but you can look it up easy enough from the cbc title below. 

Turns out we still do have really cold years. 

Everyone gets that the earth gets warmer and colder and has before humans ever showed up. So things will change, they always do.  But that doesn't make it a crisis and it doesn't mean every single change is 'global warming'. If unusually cold years don't mean global cooling then unusually warm ones don't mean global warming. 

[Five of swords]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. No.  I can't prove I will be in a car accident today but I wear my seat belt anyway.
2. No you didn't.
3. I don't care who you give to, the numbers are ridiculous and you are standing on a point against my analogy to prevent the discussion from moving forward.
4. It's an issue because you are usually worth talking to but you are essentially blocking the discussion on a ridiculous premise.  The only thing you're doing by refusing to accept the premise is blocking my point that people, generally, are more willing to give to "causes" if they have more disposable income.  It's actually got zero to do with the issue but more about you enjoying getting under my skin.

Well, enjoy it.  I guess I can't convince you that people are more willing to give if they have more money.  It's a ridiculous premise then.

Comprehension anemia seems like a pandemic on this whole forum. It is like they all got the same brain killing std or something.

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

Comprehension anemia seems like a pandemic on this whole forum. It is like they all got the same brain killing std or something.

If you find yourself thinking that it's not you, it's the rest of the world that's crazy - it's you.   

 

[Five of swords]

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

If you find yourself thinking that it's not you, it's the rest of the world that's crazy - it's you.   

 

Yup...bandwagon logical fallacy. Seems about your speed.

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, Five of swords said:

Comprehension anemia seems like a pandemic on this whole forum. It is like they all got the same brain killing std or something.

The people who are against the carbon tax want to debate me on that topic even though I don't have a strong opinion either way.  I also don't think that any plan at all is a sure sure cure for the problem. I think a collective response to the risk posed is warranted, and that it obviously has to be global and enforced through treaty. 

I do argue strongly against people who try to use the truism that climate change isn't proven as some kind of reason to do nothing.  I also argue against crackpot science 

I'm not a pinball machine though. I'm not going to keep letting people play me if they're not interested in participating in the basics of discussion. 

My logic for thinking climate change is anthropomorphic is in my signature:

 

 

http://michaelhardner.blogspot.com/2019/12/human-caused-climate-change-hardners.html

 

Edited July 31, 2024 by Michael Hardner

[Five of swords]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The people who are against the carbon tax want to debate me on that topic even though I don't have a strong opinion either way.  I also don't think that any plan at all is a sure sure cure for the problem. I think a collective response to the risk posed is warranted, and that it obviously has to be global and enforced through treaty. 

I do argue strongly against people who try to use the truism that climate change isn't proven as some kind of reason to do nothing.  I also argue against crackpot science 

I'm not a pinball machine though. I'm not going to keep letting people play me if they're not interested in participating in the basics of discussion. 

My logic for thinking climate change is anthropomorphic is in my signature:

 

 

http://michaelhardner.blogspot.com/2019/12/human-caused-climate-change-hardners.html

 

From my own research on climate change, I notice 2 remarkable trends:

1) the actual scientist reports from ipcc don't predict anything that would be a big deal. Certainly not some existential threat to humans. Some Polynesian hunter gatherers tribes might struggle in the worst case scenario, but that is about it. And I personally don't care much about them. And The actual letter of the predictions seems no big deal, despite the use of a lot of scare words like 'devastating'

 

2) a lot of politicians and crazy people love to radically exaggerate the risk to the point of insanity...thus you had al gore with his prediction that Manhattan would be underwater by 2016. So it is difficult to blame anyone for concluding that it is all just a hoax.

Edited July 31, 2024 by Five of swords

[Michael Hardner]

10 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

From my own research on climate change, I notice 2 remarkable trends:

1) the actual scientist reports from ipcc don't predict anything that would be a big deal. Certainly not some existential threat to humans. Some Polynesian hunter gatherers tribes might struggle in the worst case scenario, but that is about it. And I personally don't care much about them. And The actual letter of the predictions seems no big deal, despite the use of a lot of scare words like 'devastating'

 

2) a lot of politicians and crazy people love to radically exaggerate the risk to the point of insanity...thus you had al gore with his prediction that Manhattan would be underwater by 2016. So it is difficult to blame anyone for concluding that it is all just a hoax.

These are fair points. 

Point 2 happens because of our unhealthy public sphere.  We have had a kind of social structure to deal with issues, in the past... that included such groups as monarchs, clergy, nobility, the Press...

They have been damaged and we can't find our footing.