Why climate alarmism and carbon taxes are a scam.

[Legato]

2 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

You were already provided a link to NADA which you conveniently continue to ignore.  You must seriously live under a rock if it’s news to you that every government and scientific organization believes climate change is real. How many links do you need?

 

United Nations

https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/mythbusters?gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAAD9kiAdI9naItlbPyCMGlBRJulPtx&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI5ci3psvZhwMVBDMIBR2XRwYEEAAYAiAAEgJY3PD_BwE

 

US government 

https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/causes-climate-change

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/scientific-consensus/
 

 

 

Scientific Community and media :

‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans

https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/19/case-closed-999-of-scientists-agree-climate-emergency-caused-by-humans

 

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1103618

 

 

Scientific consensus on climate change

There is a nearly unanimous scientific consensus that the Earth has been consistently warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution, that the rate of recent warming is largely unprecedented,^{[1]: 8 [2]: 11} and that this warming is mainly the result of a rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂)caused by human activities. The human activities causing this warming include fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation,^{[3]: 10–11} with a significant supporting role from the other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide.^[1]: 7 This human role in climate change is considered "unequivocal" and "incontrovertible".^{[1]: 4 [2]: 4}
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

 

 ChatGPT - ”Is there scientific consensus that climate change is an emergency caused by human activity ?”

Yes, there is a strong scientific consensus that climate change is an urgent issue and is largely driven by human activities. This consensus is supported by numerous scientific organizations and studies worldwide. Key points include:

1. **Human Activities as a Primary Driver**: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that it is "extremely likely" (95-100% probability) that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

2. **Scientific Consensus**: Multiple studies have shown that over 97% of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. Major scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Geophysical Union (AGU), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), endorse this view.

3. **Impacts of Climate Change**: The impacts of climate change, such as rising sea levels, increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events, shifting wildlife populations and habitats, and effects on human health, are well-documented. These changes pose significant risks to natural and human systems.

4. **Urgency and Action**: The scientific community emphasizes the urgency of addressing climate change. The IPCC's reports stress the need for rapid and significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, which is crucial to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

The overwhelming consensus is based on extensive research and evidence gathered over decades. Addressing climate change is seen as critical to ensuring a sustainable and stable environment for future generations.

 

Honestly a person could keep this up all day every day its the published official position of virtually every government and recognized scientific body and has been for years if not decades.   Now we all know your next moves:  you’ll scream “globalist deep state conspiracy” so you can dismiss everything above without evidence then you’ll lobotomize yourself so you can forget reading it at all and go back to your lie that nobody has ever provided you any evidence. 

You quote science consensus. That's not how science works. In fact the word consensus is the anathema of real scientists, unlike the ones that conform to the will of those offering the next grant.

[BeaverFever]

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

LOL - just for fun i did a couple of quick searches for canada and climate change just in case there really was some new stuff, i wanted to read it before you posted it.  This is what came up  

Will Canada benefit from climate change? - Canadian Climate Institute

Joe Oliver: Here’s a truth few dare to utter: Canada will benefit from climate change | Financial Post

So the first things that popped up were talking about how much better off we'll be   LOLOLOL!!

Maybe you have something different, but you sure haven't posted it yet  

You really ought to read your own links instead of just bullshitting based on the headline.   The first article doesn’t say Canada will be better off and in fact it is challenging a climate denier’s claim. Canadian Climate Institute is not a climate denier site or pro-climate change. Their own stated priorities are:

• Incentivizing clean economic growth and low-carbon competitiveness,
• Reducing emissions and accelerating Canada’s net zero energy transition
• Making our economy and infrastructure more resilient to a warming climate.

 

 

The second link is non/expert editorial in a conservative paper citing the climate denier claim that is rebutted in your first link. 

Edited August 4 by BeaverFever

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, BeaverFever said:

You really ought to read your own links instead of just bullshitting based on the headline.  

Why? It was funny - it's not like i was presenting an argument, just pointing out that the first searches aren't about how horrible it'll be for canada.  i was just passing time waiting for that evidence you were going to post about how canasda can make a difference and how it's a crisis. 
ummm..... speaking of which, where's that now?

Quote

The first article doesn’t say Canada will be better off and in fact it is challenging a climate denier’s claim.

 

What climate denier? It's referring to moody's research. And moody's doesn't deny that there's climate change they just simply said that for a number of sectors it will be actually a net positive rather than a negative. These guys claim that that may not be entirely true because of other factors, but then don't actually produce any numbers or information making that point.

And of course the other one just simply says we'll be better off more or less.

There were some others too, here's one from the CBC

Canada could be a huge climate change winner when it comes to farmland | CBC News

 

The point really wasn't that climate change is good, rather the point was your argument was that virtually every single source says it's terrible and yet when I do a search the first articles that pop up all talk about how great it'll be.

And you still haven't provided your evidence or research papers indicating otherwise

This one's going downhill for you quickly kiddo, did you want to take one more stab at it?

10 minutes ago, Legato said:

You quote science consensus. That's not how science works. In fact the word consensus is the anathema of real scientists, unlike the ones that conform to the will of those offering the next grant.

And also it doesn't address the issues.  It says that there's climate change (which i think we all agree is a thing that happens) and that it's going fast and there you go. 

It doesn't explain why it's a crisis, OR that canada could do anything whatsoever to have an impact on that. 

[Army Guy]

6 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

You were already provided a link to NADA which you conveniently continue to ignore.  You must seriously live under a rock if it’s news to you that every government and scientific organization believes climate change is real. How many links do you need?

 

United Nations

https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/mythbusters?gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAAD9kiAdI9naItlbPyCMGlBRJulPtx&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI5ci3psvZhwMVBDMIBR2XRwYEEAAYAiAAEgJY3PD_BwE

 

US government 

https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/causes-climate-change

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/scientific-consensus/
 

 

 

Scientific Community and media :

‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans

https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/19/case-closed-999-of-scientists-agree-climate-emergency-caused-by-humans

 

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1103618

 

 

Scientific consensus on climate change

There is a nearly unanimous scientific consensus that the Earth has been consistently warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution, that the rate of recent warming is largely unprecedented,^{[1]: 8 [2]: 11} and that this warming is mainly the result of a rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂)caused by human activities. The human activities causing this warming include fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation,^{[3]: 10–11} with a significant supporting role from the other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide.^[1]: 7 This human role in climate change is considered "unequivocal" and "incontrovertible".^{[1]: 4 [2]: 4}
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

 

 ChatGPT - ”Is there scientific consensus that climate change is an emergency caused by human activity ?”

Yes, there is a strong scientific consensus that climate change is an urgent issue and is largely driven by human activities. This consensus is supported by numerous scientific organizations and studies worldwide. Key points include:

1. **Human Activities as a Primary Driver**: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that it is "extremely likely" (95-100% probability) that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

2. **Scientific Consensus**: Multiple studies have shown that over 97% of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. Major scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Geophysical Union (AGU), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), endorse this view.

3. **Impacts of Climate Change**: The impacts of climate change, such as rising sea levels, increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events, shifting wildlife populations and habitats, and effects on human health, are well-documented. These changes pose significant risks to natural and human systems.

4. **Urgency and Action**: The scientific community emphasizes the urgency of addressing climate change. The IPCC's reports stress the need for rapid and significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, which is crucial to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

The overwhelming consensus is based on extensive research and evidence gathered over decades. Addressing climate change is seen as critical to ensuring a sustainable and stable environment for future generations.

 

Honestly a person could keep this up all day every day its the published official position of virtually every government and recognized scientific body and has been for years if not decades.   Now we all know your next moves:  you’ll scream “globalist deep state conspiracy” so you can dismiss everything above without evidence then you’ll lobotomize yourself so you can forget reading it at all and go back to your lie that nobody has ever provided you any evidence. 

I think the 99.9 % quote has been debunked, for many reasons, first they did not contact every climate scientist so hardly 99.9 % of them agree, making that claim a lie......, be kind of like saying (99.9 % of liberals are thief's and lairs according to a study i made) second not all those that did reply are even in the climate speciality.

Then there is the other side of the coin, IF and that is a big IF this is as serious as you paint it to be , why has our government lacked any real action ?, unless of course you think the present liberal plan of taxing the shit of canadians is the right plan...why have we the people been convinced by our government to take action ? Some of your comrades say it is all about money ? what's that say about our current government, and how much your life is worth then...something to think about when voting....

If they can manipulate hard data such as figures what else are they changing to support their narrative.

Quote

The phoney claim of 97% consensus is mere political rhetoric aimed at stifling debate and intimidating people into silence.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-the-con-in-consensus-not-only-is-there-no-97-per-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many-misunderstand-core-issues

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/public-hugely-underestimate-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change

[BeaverFever]

14 hours ago, Legato said:

You quote science consensus. That's not how science works. In fact the word consensus is the anathema of real scientists, unlike the ones that conform to the will of those offering the next grant.

LMAO That’s not true at all. Add science to the long list of topics you bullshit about 

[Michael Hardner]

57 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

LMAO That’s not true at all. Add science to the long list of topics you bullshit about 

The dumbest conspiracy theory of all is that scientists do bad work because they're paid for a living.

If a scientist was actually able to disprove human-caused warming, they would be the most famous scientist in history.

[BeaverFever]

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Why? It was funny - it's not like i was presenting an argument, just pointing out that the first searches aren't about how horrible it'll be for canada.  i was just passing time waiting for that evidence you were going to post about how canasda can make a difference and how it's a crisis. 
ummm..... speaking of which, where's that now?

1) As I already mentioned your demand for evidence of “how Canada can make a difference” is a red herring when it’s clearly stated that collective action is required FROM ALL COUNTRIES . Imagine if a criminal told you they would continue to commit crimes unless you could prove that they alone would make a difference in the crime rate by following the law. It’s an idi0tic argument you’re trying to make here  

2) The evidence that climate change is a crisis has been presented to you repeatedly but you continue to pretend it hasn’t  

 

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

What climate denier? It's referring to moody's research. And moody's doesn't deny that there's climate change they just simply said that for a number of sectors it will be actually a net positive rather than a negative. These guys claim that that may not be entirely true because of other factors, but then don't actually produce any numbers or information making that point.

And of course the other one just simply says we'll be better off more or less.

There were some others too, here's one from the CBC

Canada could be a huge climate change winner when it comes to farmland | CBC News

 

The point really wasn't that climate change is good, rather the point was your argument was that virtually every single source says it's terrible and yet when I do a search the first articles that pop up all talk about how great it'll be.

1) Those articles don’t talk about “how great it will be”. AT BEST some try to find some HYPOTHETICAL silver lining. For example none of them say that getting some extra farmland is going to be worth all the floods, wildfires, landslides, property damage, mass migration etc that climate change is already bringing.

2) IN FACT the authors of that study in the CBC article you posted (wait isn’t CBC communist Marxist liberal propaganda that can’t be trusted ???) openly admitted that their review only assessed temperatures and not the quality of land or soil, the fact that huge swaths of forests or other ecologically important areas may need to be destroyed to create new farmland in the north. or the fact that doing so would result in the release of far more carbon. The article even quotes an expert who points out that the fertile farming soil of southern Canada took thousands of years to develop and most of the soil in northern areas is far too rocky and acidic for farming in any climate. 

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And you still haven't provided your evidence or research papers indicating otherwise

Yes I have, I posted a whole page full of links, you’re just denying reality again 

 

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

This one's going downhill for you quickly kiddo, did you want to take one more stab at it?

No you’re the one desperately grasping at straws, posting links to articles you didn’t even read that contradict your own arguments, then making excuses that you only did so for amusement “to kill time” and making straw man arguments like demanding evidence of how Canada alone can stop global climate change when nobody has ever said that. 

[BeaverFever]

9 hours ago, Army Guy said:

think the 99.9 % quote has been debunked, for many reasons, first they did not contact every climate scientist so hardly 99.9 % of them agree, making that claim a lie......, be kind of like saying (99.9 % of liberals are thief's and lairs according to a study i made) second not all those that did reply are even in the climate speciality.

It’s based on surveys of the thousands of scientific papers that have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals over the past several decades. Multiple surveys have shown the number to be 97% or 99%. 
 

9 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Then there is the other side of the coin, IF and that is a big IF this is as serious as you paint it to be , why has our government lacked any real action ?, unless of course you think the present liberal plan of taxing the shit of canadians is the right plan...why have we the people been convinced by our government to take action ? Some of your comrades say it is all about money ? what's that say about our current government, and how much your life is worth then...something to think about when voting....

I find this to be an odd argument from a climate denier. Obviously many political parties have tried to do more but have been held back by opposition from industry. The reason governments haven’t done more is because of climate denier lobbying propaganda and other forms of resistance from industry.  The fossil fuel industry is the richest and most powerful industry on the plan and has many governments political parties and politicians under its influence. It is the inherent nature of capitalist countries that business and industry have a massive outsized influence on government policies and politicians, especially in the United States where nearly all politicians are for sale and the bureaucracy itself is highly politicized.

 

9 hours ago, Army Guy said:

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-the-con-in-consensus-not-only-is-there-no-97-per-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many-misunderstand-core-issues

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/public-hugely-underestimate-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change

The first link is by climate denier right wing think tank Fraser institute, who also used to take money from tobacco companies to put out studies doubting that smoking was harmful (once that became public they stopped publishing their donors list). 
 

The second link is an article written by Texas energy (not environment) professors (“Houston Energy Fellows” and a lecturer in the department of “construction management”) who presumably are industry-friendly. and the best they could come up with is that a more nuanced approach to assessing the scientific consensus, stating that it could be as low as 80% rather than 97% but even if taken at face value 80% is still a substantial consensus  

The third link contradicts your point entirely as it states the scientific consensus is actually GREATER than most people think and is 99.9%

[ironstone]

17 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans

 

[Legato]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

LMAO That’s not true at all. Add science to the long list of topics you bullshit about 

It's on your list, the one written on a roll of wall paper.

 

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 

The third link contradicts your point entirely as it states the scientific consensus is actually GREATER than most people think and is 99.9%

It's basically 100% for climate scientists.  The best you can get against it is that some will say we don't know how much impact the human factor is 

 

But hey look here... Somebody posted a video! I'm sure that will disprove everything 🤔

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, ironstone said:

 

This climate denier is not a scientist and has been thoroughly debunked

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Legato said:

It's on your list, the one written on a roll of wall paper.

 

That was a lame comeback. You can do better. 

[Legato]

1 minute ago, BeaverFever said:

This climate denier is not a scientist and has been thoroughly debunked

 

 

 

 

That was a lame comeback. You can do better. 

Nothing better than the truth. 

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, Legato said:

Nothing better than the truth. 

Then you should try familiarizing yourself with it sometime. 

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

1) As I already mentioned your demand for evidence of “how Canada can make a difference” is a red herring when it’s clearly stated that collective action is required FROM ALL COUNTRIES .

Bullshit.  Not all countries are participating.  We don't control all countries. We control this country. So what you mean is you dodged teh question and you're angry i'm bringing it back up again. 

Again, show me what difference canada can make as part of the solution. End of story. Whether it's part of a collective effort or singly it probably doesn't make a difference as far as what we as a country achieve, our contribution would be the same. So show me that anything that we can do would actually make a difference. 

as far as the criminal goes this would be easy. I can say in one second if you steal one less car then the outcome will be that one less car will be stolen. I can go on further and say that means that based on the average car the insurance company will lose $50,000 less that year than they would have. I can even show impact statements from those directly affected by the theft (the owners) to show the human impact of their actions.  And i don't mean someone who was indirectly affected at some future point. 

I can even go a step further and point out that the benefit to him would be that he won't go to jail in the future. So we have the whole picture.

See how it works? Yet for some strange reason you can't tell me a single thing about what Canada can or cannot do or what kind of contribution it can make or what that contributions affect would have. 

Yet you expect us to believe in it. 

 

As to the rest    what a load of horseshit.  It says canada would benefit. That was the FIRST thing i found

And you STILL haven't posted a single scrap of data answering my two very simple questions.  

NOT ONE OF YOUR LINKS SCIENTIFICALLY ADDRESSES THOSE QUESTIONS.   

Did I miss something? Point out the specific research section that addresses them and I'll apologize. I didn't see it

 

5 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

No you’re the one desperately grasping at straws, posting links to articles you didn’t even read that contradict your own arguments, then making excuses that you only did so for amusement

I said that when I posted them. It is hilarious that the first two things I searched for after your statement that everybody agrees that it's terrible his articles saying how good it could be for Canada.

Meanwhile you still haven't posted a single thing to answer my questions.

 

 

So lets recap. 

I started this off by saying despite being asked numerous times by numerous people nobody has put forward any evidence that Canada could make a significant difference or that the climate change issue is a crisis.

Despite numerous posts you still have not provided anything scientific to address those two questions. And in fact have dodged around it like a maniac.

Furthermore, when I pointed out that when I did a search as you suggested the first dozen articles are so that come up our articles about how climate change might benefit Canada.

Now you're having a hissy fit and a meltdown and you still have not actually provided any proof of those two simple easy to comprehend statements.

Nobody could work harder than you to prove that climate change crisis is a hoax or that Canada can't do anything about it. Your utter inability to provide anything and your pathetic and sad whimpering about somebody else posting something that you don't like makes it crystal clear that you do not believe in climate change being a crisis either you just like the idea

[Legato]

38 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Then you should try familiarizing yourself with it sometime. 

After you sunshine.

[ironstone]

Ok, let's all buy Tesla's and use paper straws.

[Army Guy]

9 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

It’s based on surveys of the thousands of scientific papers that have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals over the past several decades. Multiple surveys have shown the number to be 97% or 99%. 
 

I find this to be an odd argument from a climate denier. Obviously many political parties have tried to do more but have been held back by opposition from industry. The reason governments haven’t done more is because of climate denier lobbying propaganda and other forms of resistance from industry.  The fossil fuel industry is the richest and most powerful industry on the plan and has many governments political parties and politicians under its influence. It is the inherent nature of capitalist countries that business and industry have a massive outsized influence on government policies and politicians, especially in the United States where nearly all politicians are for sale and the bureaucracy itself is highly politicized.

 

The first link is by climate denier right wing think tank Fraser institute, who also used to take money from tobacco companies to put out studies doubting that smoking was harmful (once that became public they stopped publishing their donors list). 
 

The second link is an article written by Texas energy (not environment) professors (“Houston Energy Fellows” and a lecturer in the department of “construction management”) who presumably are industry-friendly. and the best they could come up with is that a more nuanced approach to assessing the scientific consensus, stating that it could be as low as 80% rather than 97% but even if taken at face value 80% is still a substantial consensus  

The third link contradicts your point entirely as it states the scientific consensus is actually GREATER than most people think and is 99.9%

Lets move the goal posts ...you quoted the following below....nowhere in your statement did you include that 99.9 % of scientist who published a report, it misleads readers...in fact your quote is a lie period...99.9 of scientist do not agree.  

‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans

 

I'm not a climate denier, I'm sceptical that this is a crises that most if not all climate change supporters believe it to be...it looks like one big money grab, with trillions of dollars up for grabs...

The government has been held back, This government had a majority, then held a majority with NDP backing...they could have brought frosty the snowman back to life if that is what was needed...Liberal government managed to almost shut down new exploration, pipelines, really kicking the oil lobby in the nuts....so your excuse is a weak one....what your really saying is oil and gas runs this nation....or am i wrong...

why not just say it was the government lacked the will, because of votes....ya getting votes took precedence over climate change... and now your trying to say what....i should care about climate change, when our own government according to you lack the will to make real changes that are needed to fight it........

who cares if it is real or not...the government is not going to do anything of any value to fight it, even guys that support the idea of climate change have really done nothing for it, or reduce their footprint...like solar, heat pumps, wind power, made their homes more efficient etc...And if that is the case why spend 200 bil on nothing really...does that make sense to any of those posting here....200 bil could fix a lot of other issues this country faces such as health care, education, indra structure, new homes, taken one or more off that list and still have done the same for climate change...

The government could have done a lot more than relying on oil and gas companies permission, like improve the electrical grid to support future inventions, put to use nuclear power such as larger ordinary plants to SMR's , built more hydro plants, invested more into R&D of wind and water, and tidal energy....200 billion could have done a lot in those areas...So once again we come back to lack of government action, lack of Canadian citizens action... but somehow we feel the need to attack those non believers to bring them into the fold....WHY ?

Who cares who authored the reports prove their outcomes wrong...I mean your claiming 99.9 % of scientist is an out right lie...what else are they lying about....If we can't take action in our own nation, that politicians love their  careers more than their own lives, that Canadians don't want to take action that will cost them quality of life and dollars...let alone the rest of the globe....what is the point ?...does believing get me into a special club, into heaven sooner, free travel points....do we get to hang out...what does it get me...

why is so important to separate people into deniers or believers...when not many people don't give a shit to start with....or is that what we do now divide and conquer.... 

Have you done anything to your home like solar , heat pump, to reduce your draw on the electrical grid, is your home as efficient as possible... I've done all of that....and we have not made any progress in fixing climate change...All the believers out there put your money where your mouth is....becasue nobody else is going to do anything of any value to stop this crises....   

 

[Army Guy]

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's basically 100% for climate scientists.  The best you can get against it is that some will say we don't know how much impact the human factor is 

 

But hey look here... Somebody posted a video! I'm sure that will disprove everything 🤔

I thought that this was a given climate change is man made or so 99.9 of the scientist says ....all 100 % or have you changed your mind now, and maybe man is not responsible for all of it...Just wondering how it can be man made and man not responsible for it...

[ironstone]

This meme is basically true.

[eyeball]

These are sure halcyon days for deniers. You really do seem to be enjoying yourselves. 

Emissions are up, action is down, oil companies are on the cusp of being unleashed. Heck even Trudeau bought you a pipeline.

 

Win win win yadda yadda...

Edited August 5 by eyeball

[I am Groot]

On 7/28/2024 at 2:33 PM, Aristides said:

We are frogs in a gradually heating pot and when we eventually realize it is going to kill us, it will be too late to get out.

It's not going to kill us all. Life is going to kill us just as it has everyone else in history. The climate will be fine.

[I am Groot]

On 7/29/2024 at 6:31 PM, herbie said:

Perhaps you should try shouting that from atop soapbox in Jasper. And so post a pic of your bruises from the rocks thrown at you.

Because obviously there would be no forest fires without climate change...🙄

[Nationalist]

24 minutes ago, eyeball said:

These are sure halcyon days for deniers. You really do seem to be enjoying yourselves. 

Emissions are up, action is down, oil companies are on the cusp of being unleashed. Heck even Trudeau bought you a pipeline.

 

Win win win yadda yadda...

And do you understand why this is happening?

Because, as many had suspected all along, this is the crisis that never was. The politicians took an obvious fact that 8 billion people do have a small effect on the average global temperatures and turned it into the fcking boogeyman. It's the politicians who label it as a crisis. No self respecting scientist will. That would be bad science.

So follow the science and enjoy the coming prosperity. 

Edited August 5 by Nationalist

[I am Groot]

On 7/31/2024 at 11:43 AM, 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. 

Who made them? I was watching a speech by Bjorn Lomborg while I ate my cereal this morning. He made the point that the latest projections suggest a drop in world GDP by somewhere between 2 and 3 points in 2100 if the models are correct. However, the cost to remediate this would be considerably more. The more expensive we made energy, the more negative impact that has on GDP.

It's quite possible the bad governance in Canada will cost us 2-3 points off our GDP just by the damage its done to our resource and manufacturing sectors. (that's me, not Lomborg). In fact, I believe economists have suggested just bringing in free trade between the province would be worth this much.