Trump's Speech on Paris Accord

[danny W1M]

CBC had some wackadoodle so called scientist on the radio yesterday saying, by 2050 the Florida peninsula(southern most 3/4's) would be covered over by ocean and the whole island of PEI in Canada.

Aren't these doomsayers tired of having their predictions fail and not come true?

Oh well, he got his five minutes of fame being on the radio.

[newguy]

the thing about a Jerry Springer show you do not find out who the biggest wacky o is till later in the show.Trump is way ahead of everyone so far in that department.

[Hamloc]

Grassfarmer keep in mind that we both raise cattle when you read what I am about to say.

If you were truly as concerned about the environment as you claim you would quit raising cattle. The methane produced by cattle is much worse for the atmosphere than C02. Now I have read your many posts on the ability to sequester carbon with responsible range management and fully support this outlook. Back to methane. I get the impression that you cater to customers who want natural forage finished beef, correct me if I am wrong. Research shows there are various ways to reduce methane excretion in beef cattle, feed high carbohydrate feeds such as corn grain, grinding or pelleting the forages and of course hormonal implants which improve feed efficiency and therefore lessen total methane production. Not implanting and feeding an all forage diet would therefore increase methane production. In my own cattle operation I think with management changes I could reduce my carbon output 5 or maybe 10% without reducing my herd numbers but to personally decrease my carbon output by 30% as mandated in the Paris agreement I would have to reduce my herd by 25%. My point is many people pontificate on cutting back on greenhouse gas production but very few can demonstrate how they could do it personally.

As for your question on Donald Trump, he ran on withdrawing fron the Paris agreement, he is attempting to fulfil that promise. Governing does strange things to you. Our Alberta premier was a anti-pipeline activist her whole life, now that she is Premier she is one of the loudest proponents of pipeline construction in Canada.

Grassfarmer did you read the article in the Financial post I mentioned earlier?

[wakopa]

Think I'm gonna worry more about the criminals coming in this country and a certain religion that promotes killing poeple like me than climate change . Where are those emails that the scientists sent to each other on how they have to screw us , wasn't it Klause that put it on here awhile back, but unless it came from cbc or cnn it wouldn't be the truth right ?

[MBgrower]

Carbon taxes = big revenue streams for governments. Researchers need grant money. Grant money generally comes from governments. Researches conclude man made global warming. Government rewards said researchers with more money. Government increase carbon tax....... follow the money folks.

[grassfarmer]

Hamloc have you really looked at the research leading to the conclusion that feeding high energy feeds versus grass is the way to reduce emissions? It's all reductionist science. While a trial no doubt shows that growing them faster on grain or pelletized forage = less days alive = less methane produced (and less water used) it does not factor in the emissions impacts of producing the pellets or growing the grain.
A complete, holistic analysis would be needed to determine the least damaging method of beef production. On my system that would include the contribution our cattle make to sequestering C02 through our grazing management, the fact our fat cattle only get trucked once in their lives but it would also include the fuel and machinery usage we do incur to make or buy in winter feed.
An analysis of the conventional system would include this increased efficiency due to being grown faster but would also have to include additional trucking costs of cattle from ranches to auction marts and to feedlots. It would have to include the emissions incurred farming the land to grow the grain and silage used in the feedlot and the trucking of grain into the feedlot and trucking manure out.

Some of the research results I've studied pin the entire emissions of the land base (gasses produced by natural decay of vegetation) used in the cow/calf through to fat cattle stage under a grass based system on the grass-fed production system yet exclude the land base emissions of the cow/calf herd, the grain growing emissions and the grain growing land base emissions used under the "conventional" production system.
Do you think that is a fair analysis upon which to base policy? A complex multi-factor analysis needs to be done and thus far I haven't seen one.

Haven't read the article you suggested, will look at it later.

[stonepicker]

So grass, are denying the science about cows? The same science that endorses manmade climate change?

[burnt]

In many of the climate change deniers posts on Agriville, facts or scientific evidence don't matter its all about the politics. Left vs right. Liberals vs Conservative. Never a a shred of any credible science to back their claims. Just a lot of over heated rhetoric and laughable claims.

It is so ironic that some fiscal conservatives are so concerned about deficits and growing debt and the impact on future generations but are in complete denial about what the massive financial impact of climate change will be on our children and grandchildren. In the true meaning of the word conservative it should imply that you don't **** up the world for future generations and pass on the costs and a legacy of bad decisions.

Well chucky, as a hysterical alarmist asking others to provide evidence, now's your chance to back up your claims. And remember, we get to decide what "evidence" is acceptable...see how this works? You and grassy and forage are apparently the only ones who get to decide what stands as evidence or science.

And you want to pretend to be apolitical? LOL! You're quite the comedian, along the lines of Kathy Griffin!

BTW, what kind of a stupid fool would use the term "climate change deniers"? Why don't you point out a few so we can quiz them about whether they actually "deny" that climate changes?

[chuckChuck]

Burnt checkout NASA's website on climate change https://climate.nasa.gov/.

If you need more evidence than that I will post a list of numerous scientific organizations that clearly prove and state that current rapid climate change is caused by humans and their massive release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

When I use the words "climate change deniers" it means those who don't believe in human caused accelerated climate change.

I think you would have to be pretty stupid to not know that the worlds climate changes for other reasons as well.

[furrowtickler]

Cover by none othe than CNN

[fjlip]

"I think you would have to be pretty stupid to not know that the worlds climate changes for other reasons as well."
And to know beyond a shadow of a doubt how much change is attributable to "mankind" is pure GUESS WORK!
The "scientists" just pick a number out of thin air to scare the shit out of the population, and get more $$$ to do more of the same. Calculate a World Temperature! Horse or Cow shit! Impossible too many variables! All BS!

[chuckChuck]

"I think you would have to be pretty stupid to not know that the worlds climate changes for other reasons as well."
And to know beyond a shadow of a doubt how much change is attributable to "mankind" is pure GUESS WORK!
The "scientists" just pick a number out of thin air to scare the shit out of the population, and get more $$$ to do more of the same. Calculate a World Temperature! Horse or Cow shit! Impossible too many variables! All BS!

No doubt you are more than qualified to recognize bullshit. And NASA faked the moon landing too!