U.S. Report Says Humans Cause Climate Change, Contradicting Top Trump Officials

[AlbertaFarmer5]

There are several advantages disadvantages in every industry depending on what country you live in. Energy price is only one out of many.

Since most of the provincial budgets go to education and healthcare I think it is pretty difficult to argue that these are inefficient unnecessary jobs.

How is it that capturing the suns energy and turning it into electricity not producing a useful commodity that adds value to an economy? Just one example.

Somehow you imagine a world with less carbon emissions not still producing goods and services which is completely out to lunch. We will still need commodities, materials, energy all of which create wealth.

This will be a long transition. You and I will be long gone before it is 1/2 way done.

A bigger issue for jobs will likely be automation. It has already reduced a lot of jobs. Some are predicting 40% of jobs will disappear in the next 20 years or something like that.

Under Conservative governments we still see wealth distribution and social programs like health care, education, pensions, Old age security, guaranteed income supplements, welfare, EI, subsidies to businesses, royalty and tax cuts, agriInvest, and the list goes on and on.

How can you support those programs if you are so against wealth redistribution?

I doubt you are a fan of Zerohedge, but here is their take on job creation cost:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-10-30/average-job-creation-cost-2013-553000

That is $553,000 per job. That is an excellent ROI compared to leaving that capital in the hands of entrepreneurs to create jobs at their actual cost. I'm obviously not referring to the services we expect government to provide, I'm referring to schemes with the sole intention of job creation, such as the current green energy myth.

I don''t have to imagine a world with less carbon emissions where we are still producing commodities, we won't be we will be importing them. The rest of the world without the burden of carbon taxes will continue producing commodities at below our COP, while our producers have been driven out of business by this punitive wealth redistribution, Then we get to figure out how to pay for importing these commodities without any productive economy left. We are not isolated from the rest of the world.

Tax cuts aren't wealth redistribution, it is a reduction in redistribution, but of course when you view all income as belonging to the government, who decides what small portion we should be allowed to keep, that is the logical conclusion.

One of these green adherents was interviewed on CBC one day, and she pronounced, very proudly that for every job lost in the fossil fuels industry, three would be created in the renewables industry. Now I may not be smart enough to do such complicated math, but the only conclusion I can draw is that the energy costs must also increase by 700% to pay for those additional jobs, unless of course they work for 1/7th the cost of an energy industry worker. Yet in her mind, this was a positive for her industry, not a detriment.

[chuckChuck]

No doubt there are going to be issues and challenges.

But if you remember when our dollar was so high because of high oil prices, manufacturing jobs were lost that will never return because Mexico, China, India all have a competitive advantages. How are you going to change that?

All this doom and gloom about the economy is often overstated and political in nature as it is used as an argument against change.

Yep we know the oil industry is worried so are the workers whose jobs are threatened by low commodity prices, automation, and changing consumer demand.

Continued growth based on non-renewable energy was never an option because sooner or later it was going to run out anyway. Now we have climate change which also has severe costs that need to be accounted for.

So you dont like a carbon tax? Are you prepared to pay the taxes necessary to fix the problems caused by climate change?

Neither you are I are qualified enough, have enough inforamtion or have enough time to go over the details. So lets just agree to disagree and move on.

[Sharecropper]

No doubt there are going to be issues and challenges.

But if you remember when our dollar was so high because of high oil prices, manufacturing jobs were lost that will never return because Mexico, China, India all have a competitive advantages. How are you going to change that?

All this doom and gloom about the economy is often overstated and political in nature as it is used as an argument against change.

Yep we know the oil industry is worried so are the workers whose jobs are threatened by low commodity prices, automation, and changing consumer demand.

Continued growth based on non-renewable energy was never an option because sooner or later it was going to run out anyway. Now we have climate change which also has severe costs that need to be accounted for.

So you dont like a carbon tax? Are you prepared to pay the taxes necessary to fix the problems caused by climate change?

Neither you are I are qualified enough, have enough inforamtion or have enough time to go over the details. So lets just agree to disagree and move on.

Why is climate change a bad thing for Canada? Why is it necessary to tax our small contribution to climate change out of existence? I would think Canadian farmers would love to have higher average temps.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Why is climate change a bad thing for Canada? Why is it necessary to tax our small contribution to climate change out of existence? I would think Canadian farmers would love to have higher average temps.

Exactly, the entire scheme is based on the fallacy of catastrophic global warming. Keyword being catastrophic. Therefore all research is proving that global warming will be negative no one is looking at the positives. A recent quirks and quarks episode showed that life will grow bigger and faster in Antarctica with temperature rise. Then proceeded to decide that increased life must be a bad thing not a good thing.

[chuckChuck]

Why is climate change a bad thing for Canada? Why is it necessary to tax our small contribution to climate change out of existence? I would think Canadian farmers would love to have higher average temps.

Higher average temperatures are great in winter, but what happens if higher average summer temperatures come with higher evaporation rates and less growing season precipitation which creates more drought?

Will you still be happy?

Check out the predictions at http://prairieclimatecentre.ca/2017/10/the-prairie-climate-atlas-making-climate-science-meaningful/

[Klause]

Higher average temperatures are great in winter, but what happens if higher average summer temperatures come with higher evaporation rates and less growing season precipitation which creates more drought?

Will you still be happy?

Check out the predictions at http://prairieclimatecentre.ca/2017/10/the-prairie-climate-atlas-making-climate-science-meaningful/

You mean like 50 and 100 year droughts?


We've had those on the prairies before.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Higher average temperatures are great in winter, but what happens if higher average summer temperatures come with higher evaporation rates and less growing season precipitation which creates more drought?

Will you still be happy?

Check out the predictions at http://prairieclimatecentre.ca/2017/10/the-prairie-climate-atlas-making-climate-science-meaningful/

My two biggest limiting factors Are excess moisture and lack of heat units. In my selfish self-centered greedy way bring it on please.

[blackpowder]

"This will be a long transition. You and I will be long gone before it is 1/2 way done."

Another intelligent concession by chuck.
So if the policies of today aren't right, lets make them better. Because the how and why of what were doing now is stupid.

[furrowtickler]

A few tibits .....

This climate change blame , ie "Humans Cause Climate Change" is about guilting the average Joe (the Middle class) into accepting blame for the air pollution on earth , ie paying carbon tax schemes for wealth distribution. This will not effect the wealth one bit of the fox's running the hen house .....
Carbon tax's will drain disposable income from farms dramatically through indirect costs as many have stated here with absolutely no way to pass those costs on.

If they want wealth distribution go after all the wealth of those in the paradise papers and give that money to the poor lol.

[sumdumguy]

Not interested at all in Chuck's BS. Braindead at best!

[fjlip]

Thanks Furrow, I have never doubted the TOTAL BS and LIES.
Shame on you that swallow the SHIT they spew!
Hitler... the bigger the lie the easier to SELL....

[chuckChuck]

A few tibits .....

This climate change blame , ie "Humans Cause Climate Change" is about guilting the average Joe (the Middle class) into accepting blame for the air pollution on earth , ie paying carbon tax schemes for wealth distribution. This will not effect the wealth one bit of the fox's running the hen house .....
Carbon tax's will drain disposable income from farms dramatically through indirect costs as many have stated here with absolutely no way to pass those costs on.

If they want wealth distribution go after all the wealth of those in the paradise papers and give that money to the poor lol.

Just so everyone knows Furrowtickler's quotes are from Cfact.org which has a climate change denial position. It's not a climate science organization. Many of their climate change denial articles are written by a David Wojick Ph. D who is a Civil Engineer and a has Phd in Philosophy. He has no training in climate science. He was a science advisor for a large coal industry association. More on him in another post.

This is from Cfact.org climate summary page:

Summary

"Earth’s climate changes frequently, sometimes beneficially, sometimes disastrously (as during repeated glacial periods and the Little Ice Age of 1350-1850), as a result of shifting and interacting solar, cosmic, oceanic, atmospheric and other forces that we are only beginning to understand. While some continue to insist that human “greenhouse gas” emissions are causing potentially catastrophic changes in climate and weather, growing numbers of scientists say nature, not man, rules the climate and causes changes of varying extent and significance every few decades, centuries and millennia.

Humans, plants and wildlife have survived and even prospered during past climate changes – and will continue to do so. Indeed, our technology and wealth will make people and civilizations much better able to prepare for and adapt to most climate changes, although another Pleistocene-scale ice age would devastate northern cities, decimate agricultural production, and drive human and species migrations.

Computer models are helpful for improving our understanding of how weather and climate systems work and change over time. However, because they are based on poor data and false, questionable or simplistic premises, they are useless in forecasting future climate and weather. Moreover, actual temperature and weather data demonstrate that alarmist warnings of dangerous global warming are not supported by reality. Regulating carbon dioxide may be profitable for certain industries and governments, but will impose enormous costs on society – while having no effect on our weather and climate.

Today, the real danger is laws and policies implemented in a misplaced belief that humans can control or prevent climate change. These policies raise energy costs, kill jobs, impose especially heavy burdens on poor families, and make it hard for still impoverished nations to develop, provide affordable energy, create jobs, and improve lives and living standards. Moreover, even drastic reductions in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions will mean nothing globally, because China, India and other developing nations are now emitting far more CO2 than the United States could eliminate even by shutting down its economy."

The summary starts off with usual "the climate has changed before" argument.

Below is the scientific rebuttal found at https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

Climate Myth...

Climate's changed before
Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. (Richard Lindzen)

Science has a good understanding of past climate changes and their causes, and that evidence makes the human cause of modern climate change all the more clear. Greenhouse gasses – mainly CO2, but also methane – have been implicated in most of the climate changes in Earth’s past. When they were reduced, the global climate became colder. When they were increased, the global climate became warmer. When changes were big and rapid (as they are today), the consequences for life on Earth were often dire – in some cases causing mass extinctions.
So why is the myth wrong?