Climate change is a Myth

[User]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Comprehension is something else, too. His usual reply when someone is laughing at him and he understands it as screaming at nothing in particular.

He screamed into the void... 

[Michael Hardner]

10 hours ago, User said:

 

Lets stick to more general concepts. You say you are not a doomsday person, but how bad of a problem to you think this is? Do you lean more towards adaptation or prevention?

 

I would say the problem is more political, economic, and social.  If people were willing to spend the money because they were very worried about the risk I think the world could make an impact. I don't think it's doomsday. 

The economic reports I have seen, and this is from memory, put the impact and cost in single digit percentages. 

That would make me lean towards.. I would call it mitigation. But it also means to me that politics has made this a bigger problem on both sides of the issue.

Edited to add... 

My presence on these boards, my Hope for these boards, and my style of criticizing versus making positive claims of my own... They all go to the root of my take on this and everything else: 

Our public sphere needs to be healthier. We need to have better discussions, so that we can solve our problems.

Edited February 18 by Michael Hardner

[User]

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I would say the problem is more political, economic, and social.  If people were willing to spend the money because they were very worried about the risk I think the world could make an impact. I don't think it's doomsday. 

The economic reports I have seen, and this is from memory, put the impact and cost in single digit percentages. 

That would make me lean towards.. I would call it mitigation. But it also means to me that politics has made this a bigger problem on both sides of the issue.

Edited to add... 

My presence on these boards, my Hope for these boards, and my style of criticizing versus making positive claims of my own... They all go to the root of my take on this and everything else: 

Our public sphere needs to be healthier. We need to have better discussions, so that we can solve our problems.

I meant, how bad of a problem do you think climate change is? I know you do not think it is doomsday... I am trying to get you to generalize on how bad the problem is if it is not doomsday. Like, we need to do something now to slow down or stop increases in temperature because you think it will be really bad in some particular way anytime soon?

I mean, I am trying to get to the heart of why you think we need to do anything at all. 

I have no idea what you mean by cost in single digit percentages... percentages of what?

Politics is a huge problem, but I think we see this a lot differently in how. 

I understand your stated motives here, at least what you claim, not that I agree as I have articulated before. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, User said:

 

1. I mean, I am trying to get to the heart of why you think we need to do anything at all. 

2. I have no idea what you mean by cost in single digit percentages... percentages of what?

3. Politics is a huge problem, but I think we see this a lot differently in how. 

4. I understand your stated motives here, at least what you claim, not that I agree as I have articulated before. 

 

1. Well it could have huge consequences. I'm not saying that it will, but it could. So we should at least get a framework in place to do something in case it gets worse. 

2. Percentages of GDP. 

3. I think the bulk of the population still sees this as a nice to have. 

4. I will put my exchange with paxAmericana on the previous page is evidence.  All I want is for people to have a factual exchange of ideas, and arrive at a reasonable conclusion. 

It drives me crazy that bad science gets floated around.  That does happen in both sides of the question.

[bush_cheney2004]

On 2/19/2026 at 5:55 AM, Michael Hardner said:

It drives me crazy that bad science gets floated around.  That does happen in both sides of the question.

 

Agreed...this was happening even before Michael Mann's "hockey stick" entered popular culture from the 1998 publishing.   Complex analysis and risks were distilled for easier consumption by the masses and exploitation by politicians.  An ex American vice president enriched himself in the process (Al Gore).

So the fun and games have gone on for over 25 years, but the relentless inertia of economic and thermodynamic reality doesn't really care.  So I think your eventual conclusion and balanced perspective is best.

[User]

On 2/19/2026 at 3:55 AM, Michael Hardner said:

1. Well it could have huge consequences. I'm not saying that it will, but it could. So we should at least get a framework in place to do something in case it gets worse. 

2. Percentages of GDP. 

3. I think the bulk of the population still sees this as a nice to have. 

4. I will put my exchange with paxAmericana on the previous page is evidence.  All I want is for people to have a factual exchange of ideas, and arrive at a reasonable conclusion. 

It drives me crazy that bad science gets floated around.  That does happen in both sides of the question.

1. I know I asked for generalizations, but this is a bit much in saying it "could" have huge consequences and perhaps you are not calling for the same kind of actions as others, but you did say it was just percentages of GDP, which is HUGE. 

2. This is no small amount. GDP is the whole of the economy, and "percentages" of the American GDP would be around a Trillion dollars. Curious though, what kind of areas do you think we need to spend this much on? 

3.  Because the doom and gloom we have been told about for the last 4 decades has been a lie and most of the proposed "solutions" are wholly impractical, expensive, and political. My favorite being that the 1st world nations must pay the 3rd world nations because we have gotten the advantages they have not. 

Also, my favorite is how most everyone, even on this forum, completely ignores China and India. They brag and celebrate about how much it is costing their own country like Canada, while they ignore that the coal is just being shipped over to China to burn instead. 

4. Again, you say this, but to have a factual exchange of ideas, you have to be willing to put forth your factual ideas and stand behind them when challenged. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, User said:

1. I know I asked for generalizations, but this is a bit much in saying it "could" have huge consequences and perhaps you are not calling for the same kind of actions as others, but you did say it was just percentages of GDP, which is HUGE. 

2. This is no small amount. GDP is the whole of the economy, and "percentages" of the American GDP would be around a Trillion dollars. Curious though, what kind of areas do you think we need to spend this much on? 

3.  Because the doom and gloom we have been told about for the last 4 decades has been a lie and most of the proposed "solutions" are wholly impractical, expensive, and political. My favorite being that the 1st world nations must pay the 3rd world nations because we have gotten the advantages they have not. 

Also, my favorite is how most everyone, even on this forum, completely ignores China and India. They brag and celebrate about how much it is costing their own country like Canada, while they ignore that the coal is just being shipped over to China to burn instead. 

4. Again, you say this, but to have a factual exchange of ideas, you have to be willing to put forth your factual ideas and stand behind them when challenged. 

 

1. Single digit of GDP is huge, I admit. 

2. I guess funding alternatives, or research for alternatives would be one. 

Honestly, I'm not as knowledgeable in this area and there have been almost no discussions on here in terms of details.  By that I mean, people looking at the cost of individual remedies or mitigations costing them out, etc etc. Etc. It's not the type of conversation we have on here, including me. 

3. I think most people made the point that China and India are worse. And I don't think too many people contest it.  

4. Honestly. I don't know where to start with this one. For the science and climate change, I read up enough on it to get the basics and when I make a point I like to cite NASA or some such.  The economic exploration seems to me to be a lot deeper. 

The amount of reading I've done on the economics, is probably about 1 to 5% of what I've read on the science. 

This is not me tapping out... I just don't know.

[John Stone]

......... arguably people today can generally forget about climate change ............. although its having an effect now it is nothing like it will be for the next couple of generations.

Water, food, clean air and disease security are all at risk ...........but  for the near-future,  generations..... not now. 

Something like the 4 horses of the apocalypse is predicted.  

There will be war ......... the World will feast on it .

Rhetoric will rule. 

Fall of Giants. 

Too harsh?

Perhaps.