Global Warming WTF??

[Blaithin]

but we had 2 or 3 of the coldest harvests that we have had the 3 years prior . anyways as the scientists on here tell me , thats just weather , same as the 35 degrees we had this harvest . can't have it both ways ?
i don't think anyone on here disputes that man is giving the earth a hard time , thats a given. but saying a stupid carbon tax that will put canada at a disadvantage while india and china build more coal fired generators , is beyond stupid! and shutting down perfectly good coal fired generators here before alternatives are found is even stupider. paying money into trudeaus play fund and calling it a carbon tax is the problem . i and probably most on here are all for cleaning up pollution , air and environmental . thats not what this carbon tax bullshit is about . proof is all around you when you see millions of lights left on 24-7 in the cities , a $7M ARTIFICIAL ice arena in between the parliament buildings and the rideau canal(longest ice skating area in the world) that trudeau couldn't use because it was too COLD!!!! trudeau taking largest party ever to paris accord? make no mistake , none of these so called activists give a shit about any of it . i guess they have never heard of WEBEX , none of these bullshit holiday free for alls are necessary in this digital age , at our expense. meanwhile farmers have been doing their part , def systems, zero till , efficiencies in most aspects of farming . make no mistake , the only meatheads are the sheeple that are buying this hook, line and sinker ? nearly every farmer i know are very environmentally friendly , too bad we couldn't say the same about our city cousins . the waste in the cities blows my mind . we don't even leave our yard lights on , other than when we are working at night in the yard . when you fly over a city , that is criminal , seeing the entire city , buildings and all , lit up like daylight .

I think you've hit the nail fairly close on the head here.

These are two distinct issues.

1. Human's impact effecting the Earth in various ways.

2. Potential ways to mitigate said effects.

Many people seem to think vehemently denying we have any effect on the planet/climate is the appropriate method. But I really don't see how this can be denied. Especially in agriculture where we make our livings manipulating the environment to gain a profit. It's naive to think all the manipulations result in only positive and good things. Now it's hard to prove anything from prehistoric times but there's numerous mass extinctions on various continents that are closely linked with the arrival of Homo sapiens in those areas. Coincidence? If we can cause mass extinctions with spears and atlatls then why not climate issues with gasses? Is one easier to believe simply because you can more easily see it happening while the other tends to be invisible fumes?

If you deny the fact that climate change happens, I think you're a moron. If you deny humans have any impact on it, I think you're being obtuse. End of first issue.

But the second issue, that's all going to come down to perspective and individual opinion.

What should be done to lessen our impact and maybe even improve it? Right now the global consensus seems to be that a Carbon Tax is the best approach. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Like all things it has it's pros and cons and like all political legislation, there's room for improvement in it. Would it be nicer for us if the government gave out grants or rebates for people to sequester carbon and lower greenhouse gases? Absolutely! But we should all know that governments prefer to make money via taxation than give it away.

There's various ways we can help the environment: Recycling, planting trees, low energy bulbs and appliances, don't litter, etc. A carbon tax is just another potential tool. If people don't like it, that's fine, but maybe think of ulterior methods instead of straight up denying theres even an issue. Or playing the blame game. "Well China isn't doing anything so why should we." That just sounds like an elementary school student LOL

Say you don't like the idea of a carbon tax. Say you don't think it will work or be as effective as other methods. That's all fine. But backing it up with "Because climate change doesn't exist/because humans don't impact climate" is not an acceptable reason to me.

[seldomseen]

Think back to the beginning of all this global warming bull. I think I remember predictions that because of global warming the world was going to face mass starvation by now. What do we have instead? The world is awash in grain! There is hardly reason to plant a crop this year.

[Guest]

I think you've hit the nail fairly close on the head here.

These are two distinct issues.

1. Human's impact effecting the Earth in various ways.

2. Potential ways to mitigate said effects.

Many people seem to think vehemently denying we have any effect on the planet/climate is the appropriate method. But I really don't see how this can be denied. Especially in agriculture where we make our livings manipulating the environment to gain a profit. It's naive to think all the manipulations result in only positive and good things. Now it's hard to prove anything from prehistoric times but there's numerous mass extinctions on various continents that are closely linked with the arrival of Homo sapiens in those areas. Coincidence? If we can cause mass extinctions with spears and atlatls then why not climate issues with gasses? Is one easier to believe simply because you can more easily see it happening while the other tends to be invisible fumes?

If you deny the fact that climate change happens, I think you're a moron. If you deny humans have any impact on it, I think you're being obtuse. End of first issue.

But the second issue, that's all going to come down to perspective and individual opinion.

What should be done to lessen our impact and maybe even improve it? Right now the global consensus seems to be that a Carbon Tax is the best approach. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Like all things it has it's pros and cons and like all political legislation, there's room for improvement in it. Would it be nicer for us if the government gave out grants or rebates for people to sequester carbon and lower greenhouse gases? Absolutely! But we should all know that governments prefer to make money via taxation than give it away.

There's various ways we can help the environment: Recycling, planting trees, low energy bulbs and appliances, don't litter, etc. A carbon tax is just another potential tool. If people don't like it, that's fine, but maybe think of ulterior methods instead of straight up denying theres even an issue. Or playing the blame game. "Well China isn't doing anything so why should we." That just sounds like an elementary school student LOL

Say you don't like the idea of a carbon tax. Say you don't think it will work or be as effective as other methods. That's all fine. But backing it up with "Because climate change doesn't exist/because humans don't impact climate" is not an acceptable reason to me.

if we didn't have climate change , you would be under a glacier . keep buying all your clothes that are made in China or India , almost everything we buy now . they need to clean their act up , but it's full steam ahead . one day you will wake up and nothing will be going on here , some people don't realize that things still have to get done . thanks but I will stay in the moron camp , doesn't matter to me . like seldom said , we should all have burnt up by now , according to the "global warming experts" and for what it's worth , farmers do more for the earth. than people that sit on their ass and preach, while they are jet setting around the world

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Think back to the beginning of all this global warming bull. I think I remember predictions that because of global warming the world was going to face mass starvation by now. What do we have instead? The world is awash in grain! There is hardly reason to plant a crop this year.

Very good point. At some point this debate has to go from being based solely on theoretical future projections to present day evidence based science. 30, even 40 years have elapsed since the early dire global warming projections came out. Yet there are NO measurable negative consequences(please prove me wrong). Food production being the most obvious, there is no possible way we should be burdened by food surpluses 40 years into an era of catastrophic global warming, yet here we are. Not only are we warmer than 40 years ago, but also doing better by all other measures, food security, poverty, life expectancy, economically, resource security etc.
I tried to bring this up in a discussion with dmlfarmer and others in a previous thread. No one could provide any real life proof of measurable negative consequences of global warming 40 years later. All they could provide was more projections of future calamities, same as has been happening for decades already.

However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results

[bucket]

It's called critical thinking....

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I think you've hit the nail fairly close on the head here.

These are two distinct issues.

1. Human's impact effecting the Earth in various ways.

2. Potential ways to mitigate said effects.

Many people seem to think vehemently denying we have any effect on the planet/climate is the appropriate method. But I really don't see how this can be denied. Especially in agriculture where we make our livings manipulating the environment to gain a profit. It's naive to think all the manipulations result in only positive and good things. Now it's hard to prove anything from prehistoric times but there's numerous mass extinctions on various continents that are closely linked with the arrival of Homo sapiens in those areas. Coincidence? If we can cause mass extinctions with spears and atlatls then why not climate issues with gasses? Is one easier to believe simply because you can more easily see it happening while the other tends to be invisible fumes?

If you deny the fact that climate change happens, I think you're a moron. If you deny humans have any impact on it, I think you're being obtuse. End of first issue.

But the second issue, that's all going to come down to perspective and individual opinion.

What should be done to lessen our impact and maybe even improve it? Right now the global consensus seems to be that a Carbon Tax is the best approach. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Like all things it has it's pros and cons and like all political legislation, there's room for improvement in it. Would it be nicer for us if the government gave out grants or rebates for people to sequester carbon and lower greenhouse gases? Absolutely! But we should all know that governments prefer to make money via taxation than give it away.

There's various ways we can help the environment: Recycling, planting trees, low energy bulbs and appliances, don't litter, etc. A carbon tax is just another potential tool. If people don't like it, that's fine, but maybe think of ulterior methods instead of straight up denying theres even an issue. Or playing the blame game. "Well China isn't doing anything so why should we." That just sounds like an elementary school student LOL

Say you don't like the idea of a carbon tax. Say you don't think it will work or be as effective as other methods. That's all fine. But backing it up with "Because climate change doesn't exist/because humans don't impact climate" is not an acceptable reason to me.

You bring up some excellent well presented points. But there are many more than two distinct issues which need to be resolved, and need to be resolved in order, we have skipped most of these.

1. Is the earth warming
Most definitely, on some time scales

2. Is the net result of warming a net negative or net positive to earth's ability to sustain all ecosystems
Thus far, it has been a net positive based on all available evidence
3. What are all of the causes of the warming

4. After solving #3, we can then project if the warming is likely to continue, and at what rate. Judging by the failure of models to predict future trends so far, it seems that we have not solved #3 completely yet.

5. After solving #4, we can then project if the resulting future warming will continue to be net positive or net negative.

6. If #5 establishes that action is required, we can then implement the mitigation plans. Regardless of cause, even if #3 establishes that the warming is entirely non-human caused, but #5 establishes that it will have net negative consequences, we would still need to act.

7. Evaluate the ongoing results/evidence, do they continue to confirm what was predicted in the first steps.
We got part way through solving #1, then skipped #2 completely, only considered one option for #3, failed miserably at #4, ignored #5, and jumped right into #6 headfirst. And avoided #7 at all costs.

Come to think of it, this sounds a lot like a concept called the scientific method...

[AlbertaFarmer5]

It's called critical thinking....

And the mantra of the left seems to be criticize anyone who doesn't think like they have been brainwashed into thinking. Perhaps they just misunderstood the concept.

[farming101]

Average Monthly High temperature for Battleford SK going back to 1885.
The record is complete except for 6 months that were borrowed from neighboring stations at Glaslyn(5) and PA (1). There were also a few instances in which estimates for a day or two within a month were recorded. All data was taken from Environment Canada records.
The black line is the linear trend over the time period of 132 years.
It seems to indicate that Battleford on average is not experiencing hotter temperatures.
Hottest monthly average recorded at Battleford was July 1894. 30.2C
Coldest monthly average high Jan 1950. -27.4C

[farming101]

Same data set showing the average monthly low temperature.
Overnight lows were the warmest during the period in July 1886. 13.4C
Overnight lows were the coldest in February 1936. -36.7C
The trendline is moving a little higher showing that overnight lows are warmer over the time period at Battleford.

[Hamloc]

Why do you continue to debate whether the earth's temperature is rising? The majority of governments in Canada have already decided that it is. Now as far as governments go there is some hope on the horizon, we have Jason Kenney, we have 2 out of the 3 candidates of the Ontario P.C. Party coming out against a carbon tax, the new Premier of Saskatchewan the same. If the Ontario P.C.'s win and Jason Kenney wins the debate could get interesting in Canada.

But for now I am concerned about how I will compete against my largest competitors, the U.S. And countries like Russia or the Ukraine or Argentina or Brazil. These countries have no carbon tax and as far as I know no plan to implement one. So you can keep debating a topic that to great extent has been decided, that being climate change or why not debate how we can continue to compete with government imposed cost increases like carbon taxes and lack of export infrastructure? Oh Chuck are you ever going to answer my question or are you going to continue to deflect? Would you apply the tax only to C02 or would it also apply to methane and N02? How high of a carbon tax are you willing to pay? How will you continue to be competitive against countries with no carbon tax?

[chuckChuck]

Why do you continue to debate whether the earth's temperature is rising? The majority of governments in Canada have already decided that it is. Now as far as governments go there is some hope on the horizon, we have Jason Kenney, we have 2 out of the 3 candidates of the Ontario P.C. Party coming out against a carbon tax, the new Premier of Saskatchewan the same. If the Ontario P.C.'s win and Jason Kenney wins the debate could get interesting in Canada.

But for now I am concerned about how I will compete against my largest competitors, the U.S. And countries like Russia or the Ukraine or Argentina or Brazil. These countries have no carbon tax and as far as I know no plan to implement one. So you can keep debating a topic that to great extent has been decided, that being climate change or why not debate how we can continue to compete with government imposed cost increases like carbon taxes and lack of export infrastructure? Oh Chuck are you ever going to answer my question or are you going to continue to deflect? Would you apply the tax only to C02 or would it also apply to methane and N02? How high of a carbon tax are you willing to pay? How will you continue to be competitive against countries with no carbon tax?

A carbon tax is one tool as CO2 is the primary driver of climate change. Other gases are also important but regulations, and technological change would be a better option to reduce these gases.

In order to decide whether canadian farmers are at a competitive disadvantage to other producers wouldn't you have to do that on a case by case basis with each crop or commodity in each country?

There are a lot of different factors affecting competitive advantage. Currency, cost of inputs, cost of land, tarrifs, subsidies etc. Carbon tax will be a small factor compared to all the other factors.

I am willing to change my fossil energy usage. I have already made major changes that reduce energy consumption.

A carbon tax will provide incentives to reduce further. If I use less energy and become more efficient then my costs go down which nullifies the additional carbon tax costs.

Take nitrogen fertilizer. It is the highest energy user in most crop farming. Many farmers are over applying N and it is often being wasted and lost. Using exactly the right amount is more efficient. Same for P.

How many farmers are looking at every practice they use from the perspective of energy usage? Very few. Can energy efficiency be increased on most farms? Yes.

[SASKFARMER3]

Chuck your idea is great in Disney world we’re everything is make believe but as a farmer direct seeding since 1981 I’m tapped with all the Mickey Mouse programs to save the world.