Why climate alarmism and carbon taxes are a scam.

[ExFlyer]

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

 

Sorry, but I have to interject here.

You say you have no strong opinion yet your signature is a blog by you beginning with "I believe Climate Change is caused by humans because of four points:".

Also, as for proving, you are a person that pushes and demands proof for things you do not agree with and yet, when asked for proo fof your comments or settlements, you say your statements cannot be proven and that is the end of it now?

When told some folks would not spend a penny out of their millions towards climate change issues, you become belligerent and obtuse. I choose to give to several charities and causes but because one is not climate change, you are very adamant that I am not worthy and claim I am trying to get under your skin.

When it does not go your way, you become very defensive and claim no one want to talk to you. In fact, there are many retorts to your posts, you are unwilling to accept most of them.

So Michael, you do have an opinion on climate change and it is very strong, 

 

 

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, ExFlyer said:

Sorry, but I have to interject here.

You say you have no strong opinion yet your signature is a blog by you beginning with "I believe Climate Change is caused by humans because of four points:".

 

Read it again.  I said that I have no strong opinion on the Carbon Tax.  One can still believe in human-caused climate change, obviously.

You again failed to understand me.

[Guest]

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I can't prove I will be in a car accident today but I wear my seat belt anyway.

You can effortlessly prove with statistics from when it wasn't the law, to now, how likelier you are to die or be seriously injred in any crash.

Seatbelts demonstrably and significantly reduce harm during a crash. Its simple physics. 

So you can't prove you will be in an accident, but how long you have driven and how many crashes you have been in, are relatively accurate predictors to that likelihood as well.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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 don't think most want nothing done. I just don't see the logic on putting a price on pollution when the bulk of that price paid doesn't go to the cause. That makes no sense to me, and should be open for discussion. Not being labeled a climate denier for questioning it.

It makes no logical sense to me, to tax me more because I drive a car (contributing to the economy), to give the bulk of that cash to people with less money.

This isn't logical. 

Shouldn't your policies help with this?

Grinding people down financially, forcing them to spend less and slowing your economy is not how you fix a problem. Hand outs aren't how you fix a self inflicted issue.

In fact, that's precisely how you put people out of work, and nudge people close to social cracks, deep into them.

[ExFlyer]

18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Read it again.  I said that I have no strong opinion on the Carbon Tax.  One can still believe in human-caused climate change, obviously.

You again failed to understand me.

We are talking about climate change, not the carbon tax Michael.

Seems I am not alone in having difficulty understanding you on this subject

[Nationalist]

OK...I have a question.

@Michael Hardner...We all agree that man's presence and activities have an effect on the planet's climate. Do you believe that effect is enough to impose a financial and energy burden on the public and if you do...why?

[Michael Hardner]

22 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

OK...I have a question.

@Michael Hardner...We all agree that man's presence and activities have an effect on the planet's climate. Do you believe that effect is enough to impose a financial and energy burden on the public and if you do...why?

I think the question would be how much do we want to spend to mitigate the risk. There have been economic assessments made and that has more or less led us to where we are today. 

 

That is, researching and investing in reduction, mitigation, new technology and so on. 

 

We're not going to shut down all industry at this point, nor are we going to do nothing. 

 

I doubt any Canadian politician would advocate for any of those approaches. Trudeau talks a good game but in the end he doesn't want industry to collapse. If you believe his words more than his actions on climate, then why do you think he's being so honest on this particular topic I ask. 

 

Anyway, indeed it may make more sense to do nothing and just remediate the effects. If we were to be good citizens, that would result in a lot of global aid to affected countries in the future. 

 

The economic case is separate from the science case. Anyway. That's my point.

[Nationalist]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

I think the question would be how much do we want to spend to mitigate the risk. There have been economic assessments made and that has more or less led us to where we are today. 

 

That is, researching and investing in reduction, mitigation, new technology and so on. 

 

We're not going to shut down all industry at this point, nor are we going to do nothing. 

 

I doubt any Canadian politician would advocate for any of those approaches. Trudeau talks a good game but in the end he doesn't want industry to collapse. If you believe his words more than his actions on climate, then why do you think he's being so honest on this particular topic I ask. 

 

Anyway, indeed it may make more sense to do nothing and just remediate the effects. If we were to be good citizens, that would result in a lot of global aid to affected countries in the future. 

 

The economic case is separate from the science case. Anyway. That's my point.

OK...Do you not think we can take mitigating actions without imposing taxes and declaring war on our current technology?

The economic case is EVERYTHING Mike! The science has already concluded that we are not in the midst of a crisis. That's already settled.

[CdnFox]

11 hours ago, Five of swords said:

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

No, the bandwagon fallacy is where someone claims a thing is correct because everyone else agrees with that one thing.  This is where i'm saying if NOBODY agrees with you about ANYTHING....  The problem isn't everybody else  

But you've been wrong about everything you've posted so far so it's no surprise you screwed that up  You haven't got a case of bandwagon fallacy, you've got Paranoid Personality  Disorder   

 

[Five of swords]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No, the bandwagon fallacy is where someone claims a thing is correct because everyone else agrees with that one thing.  This is where i'm saying if NOBODY agrees with you about ANYTHING....  The problem isn't everybody else  

But you've been wrong about everything you've posted so far so it's no surprise you screwed that up  You haven't got a case of bandwagon fallacy, you've got Paranoid Personality  Disorder   

 

Right, so you cannot even manage the mathematical axiom of substitution. 'Everyone agrees with x' where x is 'you are wrong'. 2 step proof, a bit too many moving parts for your brain.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Five of swords said:

Right, so you cannot even manage the mathematical axiom of substitution. 'Everyone agrees with x' where x is 'you are wrong'. 2 step proof, a bit too many moving parts for your brain.

ROFLMAO - the point was there is no x .  If nobody agrees with anything you say they feel you're wrong on x y and z and all the other letters   If everybody simply disagreed with one thing that would be different but thats not what i sad. 

Sigh. It isn't even noon and you insist on looking like an !diot 

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

That's a curious collection of groups you're making your point with.

What was damaged and how? In the case of monarchs, clergy and nobility their credibility and authority were challenged by an increasingly effective press, a more informed public and an expanding middle class more determined to govern itself.

I think we were on a better footing but now the public's credibility is increasingly on the line. I think we lack a clear set of guiding principles we can all agree to and it's making us increasingly ungovernable.

It's the fact these principles need to be global in nature that's most challenging.

Edited July 31, 2024 by eyeball

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What was damaged and how? In the case of monarchs, clergy and nobility their credibility and authority were challenged by an increasingly effective press, a more informed public and an expanding middle class more determined to govern itself.

I think you'll find by and large they were challenged by men at arms with swords and guns. The person who said the pen is mightier than the sword probably never got hit with a sword. 

[Five of swords]

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

ROFLMAO - the point was there is no x .  If nobody agrees with anything you say they feel you're wrong on x y and z and all the other letters   If everybody simply disagreed with one thing that would be different but thats not what i sad. 

Sigh. It isn't even noon and you insist on looking like an !diot 

I really have no idea how to respond to elementary logic fails like this other than to say yousuffer from severe mental retardation and there is no way to have a discussion about anything with you. Sorry.

[CdnFox]

Just now, Five of swords said:

I really have no idea how to respond to elementary logic fails like this other than to say yousuffer from severe mental retardation and there is no way to have a discussion about anything with you. Sorry.

LOL So you realized you were wrong and you're lashing out blindly flailing your arms and crying   ROFLMAO!!

I gotta say kid, you're always good for a laugh  

[Five of swords]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

LOL So you realized you were wrong and you're lashing out blindly flailing your arms and crying   ROFLMAO!!

I gotta say kid, you're always good for a laugh  

No dude.  You fail at basic axiomatic logical reasoning.

 

If a=b and b=c then a=c.

 

That is an axiom. It is supposed to be so self evident that no proof is required for it. Basically, mathematicians used to think that nobody can be so stupid that they are unable to recognize that claim as true. You have proven them wrong.

[CdnFox]

Just now, Five of swords said:

No dude.  You fail at basic axiomatic logical reasoning.

If a=b and b=c then a=c.

LOL - that wasn't the proposition kiddo   The correct math would be if a is not equal to b, then b is not equal to a. If c = c then c is = c. 

The thing you said was wrong. I pointed that out.  I then pointed out something different that is more correct   

There was no axiomatic logical reasoning involved   You were just wrong.  I corrected you and provided something else that was more correct. 

You're a pretty broken little guy aren't you   

[Michael Hardner]

27 minutes ago, eyeball said:

That's a curious collection of groups you're making your point with.

What was damaged and how? In the case of monarchs, clergy and nobility their credibility and authority were challenged by an increasingly effective press, a more informed public and an expanding middle class more determined to govern itself.

I think we were on a better footing but now the public's credibility is increasingly on the line. I think we lack a clear set of guiding principles we can all agree to and it's making us increasingly ungovernable.

It's the fact these principles need to be global in nature that's most challenging.

Social and technological progress, mostly.

And the same people who accepted the words of the clergy today do not accept the words of scientists.

The techno Lords of our day are so much more wealthy than even the industrialists were A. Fraction of the worth of gates, Bezos, etc. 

 

[Five of swords]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

LOL - that wasn't the proposition kiddo   The correct math would be if a is not equal to b, then b is not equal to a. If c = c then c is = c. 

The thing you said was wrong. I pointed that out.  I then pointed out something different that is more correct   

There was no axiomatic logical reasoning involved   You were just wrong.  I corrected you and provided something else that was more correct. 

You're a pretty broken little guy aren't you   

Well I know you don't understand elementary logic and there is nothing I can do to help you. Sorry.

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

Well I know you don't understand elementary logic and there is nothing I can do to help you. Sorry.

Kid my dog has a better understanding of elementary logic than you do  

But keep going,  it's like watching that show where they get little kids to talk about things they don't understand because it's hilarious and cute   

[Michael Hardner]

42 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 

What was damaged and how?  

The printing press was used to disseminate ideas against the church.  The rise of small business and corporations upended the nobility.  Philosophical writers in the Renaissance and age of enlightenment created new ideas for human organization.  Radio and television created a homogenization to mobilize America towards National goals. 

 

It goes on and on. There is a theory that we're going to eventually get to the end of progress, and maybe go back to kind of a middle ages setup. This might be the first days of that. 

 

The politicians would take the place of the church in the middle ages, and the true Kings would be the techno Lords.  There would be a small merchant class, and lots of serfs.

[eyeball]

53 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

There is a theory that we're going to eventually get to the end of progress, and maybe go back to kind of a middle ages setup. This might be the first days of that. 

I'm pretty sure there'll be an interregnum between now and then that's preceded by a war and near complete collapse of global order and civilization. Recovery from that will be in little isolated regions of high tech areas centered around the enclave/retreats techno lords are currently building themselves.

It appears to me their pursuit of their own self interest is the path forward. It remains to be seen if they can keep developing and share the sort of technologies that make everyone as self sufficient.

 

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, eyeball said:

1. I'm pretty sure there'll be an interregnum between now and then that's preceded by a war and near complete collapse of global order and civilization.

2. Recovery from that will be in little isolated regions of high tech areas centered around the enclave/retreats techno lords are currently building themselves.

3. It appears to me their pursuit of their own self interest is the path forward. It remains to be seen if they can keep developing and share the sort of technologies that make everyone as self sufficient.

 

1. Maybe?

2. It's kind of a movie scenario.  "Falls"  of societies as such, usually aren't Mad Max scenarios.  Germany, Japan, the UK, have all been hit by economic collapse, war and so on.

You wouldn't want to be strolling around on the worst day.  But they're ok places. So 

Easter Island on the other hand... Sheesh...

3. I don't understand. Who is they?

[Army Guy]

22 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

 

So i guess science is not enough today, we are now leaning on logical conclusions to explain things, much like the infinite amount of genders, or the budget will balance itself... what your asking all of us to do is trust in someone's logic...like that one guy that thought the earth was flat and if we ventured to far east or west we could fall off...Today most of would laugh at that type of logic...some still believe it is true...But with such a lack of proof one can not blame the doubters...

 

[eyeball]

22 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. I don't understand. Who is they?

The techno lords and whoever inhabit the areas under recovery. I guess I'm thinking along the lines of the sci-fi Foundation Trilogy series.

22 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Easter Island on the other hand... Sheesh...

Actually islands, if they're not too small or remote, should be amongst the likeliest places to recover first.

[Michael Hardner]

18 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

So i guess science is not enough today, we are now leaning on logical conclusions to explain things, much like the infinite amount of genders, or the budget will balance itself... what your asking all of us to do is trust in someone's logic...like that one guy that thought the earth was flat and if we ventured to far east or west we could fall off...Today most of would laugh at that type of logic...some still believe it is true...But with such a lack of proof one can not blame the doubters...

 

I don't know... you do you I guess. 

The fact that things are sometimes not provable doesn't mean we have to puke out ridiculous conclusions such as you have done. 

Humans are causing climate change. Cigarettes cause cancer. Science is a tool for us to make decisions.

Stop being so hysterical.

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The techno lords and whoever inhabit the areas under recovery. I guess I'm thinking along the lines of the sci-fi Foundation Trilogy series.

Actually islands, if they're not too small or remote, should be amongst the likeliest places to recover first.

Well it's your fantasy, I guess. 

I can't go too far into it or I'll start imagining Elon Musk in an iron mask and leather underwear... riding on top of dune buggy with a bazooka in hand. 

My guess is we end up on Scandinavian style technocracy.

 

2064, write it on your calendar.

Edited July 31, 2024 by Michael Hardner