Grok's paper on why global climate change is likely natural

[eyeball]

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

and just look at @eyeball trying to defend his positon with lies.  He can't stand the simple fact that we did more to reduce GHG's under harper than we ever did under the liberals and so he tries t or 3 separate lies to try to get around that instead of facing the simple truth. 

I'm just trying to understand why Poilievre isn't making huge political hay out of the simple fact...the simple truth - that Conservatives can cut emissions by cutting a tax where Liberals can't do anything even with a tax.

Its a rather staggering opportunity to not be using in a axe the tax campaign.

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I mean look at him go!   For 10 years they said you can TAX climate change away  

And Poilievre has known for years he can make climate change go away with a tax cut but says nothing.

His silence is actually irresponsible.

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Failed? So you're trying to say that only man's use of carbon is warming the planetary climate?

It's clearly the biggest factor.

[Nationalist]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's clearly the biggest factor.

Hmmm...I think your wrong. Very wrong.

Man made CO2 is somewhere between 16 ppm or 420 ppm. Either is pretty darn small.

[Goddess]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

that Conservatives can cut emissions by cutting a tax

That's not what Polievre has said.

He's actually explained how the Conservatives plan to cut GLOBAL emissions in multiple interviews.

That's the difference.  Libs claim that taxing Canadians will cut Canada's emissions - it hasn't.  But they don't talk about how Canada can cut GLOBAL emissions.

Is this a GLOBAL problem or is it a Canada problem?

Conservatives are thinking bigger than Libs on this one.

[Goddess]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

Hmmm...I think your wrong. Very wrong.

Man made CO2 is somewhere between 16 ppm or 420 ppm. Either is pretty darn small.

I know he's wrong.

I'll try to find it but there has been a couple of times on this planet when CO2 level rose dramatically and there was zero chance of MAN being the culprit.

Climate alarmists don't look at the entire history of the planet. They look at one tiny window - thus, the hysteria.

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, Goddess said:

That's not what Polievre has said.

It's what CdnFox said and it's what Poilievre should be saying in a axe the tax election.

[Goddess]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It's what CdnFox said and it's what Poilievre should be saying in a axe the tax election.

Polievre has spoken on how Canada can help in reducing GLOBAL emissions in multiple interviews.

Carney thinks more money in billionaire's pockets and impoverishing the rest of the planet reduces emissions.

You decide.

It sounds like you believe the latter. 

 

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, Goddess said:

Polievre has spoken on how Canada can help in reducing GLOBAL emissions in multiple interviews.

How come he hasn't talked about how his old Conservative Party under Harper were actually the only party to ever cut CO2 emissions? With a tax CUT no less.

What do you mean just help reduce global emissions? Poilievre has the solution the entire globe is looking for. Why isn't he and every Conservative supporter shouting about this from rooftops everywhere?

[Goddess]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Why isn't he and every Conservative supporter shouting about this from rooftops everywhere?

They're drowned out by your Liberal media-funded screeching on every channel - "We can tax Canadians into oblivion to save the planet!"

And ding-dongs like you believe every word of it.

[eyeball]

12 minutes ago, Goddess said:

They're drowned out by your Liberal media-funded screeching on every channel - "We can tax Canadians into oblivion to save the planet!"

And ding-dongs like you believe every word of it.

Excuse me but I pointed out weeks ago Carney's first campaign lie, when he implied, through scrapping the consumer carbon tax, there was a better way.

There isn't, not according to the vast majority of experts on the topic of carbon pricing. Go ask Scott Moe if you don't believe me. He looked and couldn't find one.

I'll say another thing for Moe, he's now the most honest politician in Canada when it comes to AGW and carbon pricing, he just plain doesn't care and has given up entirely on it.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

I'm just trying to understand why Poilievre isn't making huge political hay out of the simple fact...the simple truth - that Conservatives can cut emissions by cutting a tax where Liberals can't do anything even with a tax.

Because nobody cares about climate change any more, thanks to you guys  

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

It's what CdnFox said and it's what Poilievre should be saying in a axe the tax election.

It really isn't 

But as usual when the truth doesn't serve you you turn to lies instead. You're like a liberal homing Pidgeon that way   

[Michael Hardner]

11 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Hmmm...I think your wrong. Very wrong.

Man made CO2 is somewhere between 16 ppm or 420 ppm. Either is pretty darn small.

You versus pretty much the entire weight of climate science.  

Citing ppm on its own, without relating it to anything else is an example of wrongheaded thinking.    Tiny amounts of some things can have huge effects. Plutonium for example. 

 

In this case, the relationship between CO2 and the greenhouse effect is causative. You can show this in a lab, that CO2 in the atmosphere increases warming. 

CO2 is increased by human activity, and we can measure the this is happening to a large degree.

Edited March 29 by Michael Hardner

[User]

12 hours ago, eyeball said:

Excuse me but I pointed out weeks ago Carney's first campaign lie, when he implied, through scrapping the consumer carbon tax, there was a better way.

There isn't, not according to the vast majority of experts on the topic of carbon pricing. Go ask Scott Moe if you don't believe me. He looked and couldn't find one.

I'll say another thing for Moe, he's now the most honest politician in Canada when it comes to AGW and carbon pricing, he just plain doesn't care and has given up entirely on it.

Once again... this is the stupidity I already pointed out. It is eliminating coal power in Canada... just to ship coal to China to be burned there instead. 

If the point is to help global CO2 emissions and combat climate change, you have done nothing. 

A consumer carbon tax doesn't do anything except price your own country out of manufacturing or other important things like fertilizer production to grow your crops. 

Instead of making it in Canada, you clowns will just import it from China. You still need to grow food, you still need fertilizer, making it so costly that you drive the business overseas has accomplished nothing. 

 

[Nationalist]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You versus pretty much the entire weight of climate science.  

Citing ppm on its own, without relating it to anything else is an example of wrongheaded thinking.    Tiny amounts of some things can have huge effects. Plutonium for example. 

 

In this case, the relationship between CO2 and the greenhouse effect is causative. You can show this in a lab, that CO2 in the atmosphere increases warming. 

CO2 is increased by human activity, and we can measure the this is happening to a large degree.

Actually...that's not really true,

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1112950/

Is it.

The monumental hubris it takes to entertain the idea that man can change the climate of our entire planet, to the extent that we need to freak right fckin' out and commit financial suicide is.. well it's down right "monumental". And it's based on shady "facts" and half truths. In a gruff word...it's "bullshit".

Is the planetary climate...warming?

Some, yes.

But is it cause to freak out and make radical and economically unsound and devastating "new rules" globally?

Hardly...

We closed an ozone hole...we brought urban smog to heal...Hell now we wanna blast our a55es off to Mars. I have a sneaking suspicion that man can find a solution to your angst...yet not negatively drag the global economy down.

Don't you? I mean...man is a particularly ingenious rat.

[Michael Hardner]

30 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Actually...that's not really true,

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1112950/

Is it.

The monumental hubris it takes to entertain the idea that man can change the climate of our entire planet, to the extent that we need to freak right fckin' out and commit financial suicide is.. well it's down right "monumental". And it's based on shady "facts" and half truths. In a gruff word...it's "bullshit".

Is the planetary climate...warming?

Some, yes.

But is it cause to freak out and make radical and economically unsound and devastating "new rules" globally?

Hardly...

We closed an ozone hole...we brought urban smog to heal...Hell now we wanna blast our a55es off to Mars. I have a sneaking suspicion that man can find a solution to your angst...yet not negatively drag the global economy down.

Don't you? I mean...man is a particularly ingenious rat.

Your link is from 27 years ago right?

I explained that there still were alternative theories in the 1990s but Carbon and Temperature kept going up, and the alternative theories died off.

Poetic musings about the hubris of man don't stand up against the facts.  Man does a lot of good and bad things.

And I don't think I brought up economics so I'll leave that alone.

[Nationalist]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Your link is from 27 years ago right?

I explained that there still were alternative theories in the 1990s but Carbon and Temperature kept going up, and the alternative theories died off.

Poetic musings about the hubris of man don't stand up against the facts.  Man does a lot of good and bad things.

And I don't think I brought up economics so I'll leave that alone.

The only fact you have is that the climate changes. The rest is pure conjecture. 

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You versus pretty much the entire weight of climate science.  

Citing ppm on its own, without relating it to anything else is an example of wrongheaded thinking.    Tiny amounts of some things can have huge effects. Plutonium for example. 

 

In this case, the relationship between CO2 and the greenhouse effect is causative. You can show this in a lab, that CO2 in the atmosphere increases warming. 

CO2 is increased by human activity, and we can measure the this is happening to a large degree.

Why not post some of this climate science then? You certainly talk about it enough but you've never actually responded to a single request from anyone (and there have been many) to cite what you're claiming with actual science. 

Of all the lefty concepts, climate change is the most passionately argued and least cited. 

[eyeball]

20 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Why not post some of this climate science then?

Here's a good place for you to start.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) traps heat because its molecular structure allows it to absorb infrared radiation (heat) emitted by the Earth, preventing it from escaping into space, a process known as the greenhouse effect.

This was discovered by Eunice Newton Foote in 1856.

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

The only fact you have is that the climate changes. The rest is pure conjecture. 

No, I explained that you can make the Greenhouse effect happen in a lab by increasing the amount of Carbon.

And we know humans are making more carbon, and the temperature of the lower atmosphere is increasing.

You can't say it's 100% certain but it's beyond a reasonable doubt.

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect/

[Nationalist]

54 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No, I explained that you can make the Greenhouse effect happen in a lab by increasing the amount of Carbon.

And we know humans are making more carbon, and the temperature of the lower atmosphere is increasing.

You can't say it's 100% certain but it's beyond a reasonable doubt.

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect/

Mike I know what the greenhouse effect is. I also know what volcanic eruptions, planetary orbit, solar activity and oceanic influence...are.

And I reasonably doubt.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Here's a good place for you to start.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) traps heat because its molecular structure allows it to absorb infrared radiation (heat) emitted by the Earth, preventing it from escaping into space, a process known as the greenhouse effect.

This was discovered by Eunice Newton Foote in 1856.

And? That's not a very good place to start at all. Our air has always had carbon in it. Carbon dioxide is a necessary thing for life on this planet. So as is the case with most of your posts your information is utterly useless.

And once again you post this utterly useless information rather than some of this science you claim exists but can't seem to find to save your life.

Which is why you were dumb enough to pretend that you could "tax away" climate change all these years. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

No, I explained that you can make the Greenhouse effect happen in a lab by increasing the amount of Carbon.

You didn't explain. You made a statement unsubstantiated by any evidence whatsoever. Despite all of the many people who have requested the science

Quote

And we know humans are making more carbon, and the temperature of the lower atmosphere is increasing.

How do we know. Produce a scientific research paper that examines this

Quote

You can't say it's 100% certain but it's beyond a reasonable doubt.

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect/

Again, you link to a propaganda page not a scientific document.

In all this time you have not been able to produce one scientific document to substantiate your claims. You talk about all this science and how massively overwhelming the evidence is and yet you cannot produce one single dram of this supposed evidence

Why is that? It kind of feels like maybe the evidence doesn't exist

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Mike I know what the greenhouse effect is. I also know what volcanic eruptions, planetary orbit, solar activity and oceanic influence...are.

And I reasonably doubt.

You said that there was one fact.  

All of those other factors are understood and aren't causing the increase in temperature.  Those are either 1990s theories or discounted ones, such as volcanic activity causing the increase.

[Legato]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You said that there was one fact.  

All of those other factors are understood and aren't causing the increase in temperature.  Those are either 1990s theories or discounted ones, such as volcanic activity causing the increase.

So a 4% carbon tax will stop climate change sometime in the amorphous future

Why not have a 100% tax and stop the climate by next Tuesday?

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, Legato said:

So a 4% carbon tax will stop climate change sometime in the amorphous future

Why not have a 100% tax and stop the climate by next Tuesday?

Sorry I don't usually respond to you because I have you on ignore. 

I don't know where you got that but I didn't say it. You're arguing against something I didn't say.