Global Warming WTF??

[Robertbarlage]

that's ones persons theory on it and the others is a meteor so which is it?

[MBgrower]

Very true. Except every weather event is being used to justify the existence of global warming. Somehow the opposite cannot be used. It would be fair if we all played by the same rules.

that is so true.

[Hamloc]

LiDAR surveys of Guatemalan rainforest has revealed 60,000 Mayan structures previous unknown. Also shows wide, elevated roadways, massive water reservoirs and extensive irrigation system for an estimated 19 million Mayans living in this region. We know this civilization rivalled the ancients Greeks and Chinese for their knowledge of science, math, astronomy, language and art. Yet the civilization disappeared in about 100 years because of severe droughts caused in part by deforestation of the rainforests which resulted in 3 to 5 degree increase in temperature and 30% decrease in rainfall. It was enough to doom an advanced civilization who likely believed they could do what ever they wanted to the environment without any impact or at least they could adapt. Why do we think we are any less at risk than the Mayans? I suggest we are at even greater risk. It is the not climate change alone but the consequences that result down the road from drought, hunger, displacement of people, wars etc, etc, etc,

Instead of complaining about the weather, take the time to read what climate change has done to civilizations in the past including the Mayans. Time to learn from history instead of hiding your heads in the sand of time.

I have a couple of thoughts Dml. First I did read about this latest discovery of a never known Mayan settlement. The first thing I would question about your logic is that the localized deforestation by the Mayan's wouldn't in my opinion be large enough in area to affect the worlds temperature. It could however affect local weather patterns. How does this relate to today's belief that elevated C02 levels as a result of fossil fuel use are raising the earths temperature? Now I can certainly agree that the rapid use of fossil fuels is short sighted and is bound to have some affect. What I can't agree with is that governments in a few countries can change the environment of the world by imposing C02 taxes on its citizens. If you want to change the culture use incentives not taxes. Besides let's be realistic this is more a war on capitalism than on pollution!!!!

[bobofthenorth]

Every Lieberal, large "L" or small "l" has never met a problem that another tax won't solve, the carbon tax is just the latest example. There's no doubt the climate is warming - we're recovering from an ice age ferchrisake. The question is whether man is causing the warming and the science on that question is by no means settled, no matter what chucky or grassy or their lying buddies Al and David would like us to believe. There's also no doubt that an increase in CO2 is net positive for agriculture and a warming through the Great Plains of North America benefits western Canada.

So from the cheap seats where I watch this sh**show there's nothing that my actions are going to do to change a trend that's been in place for roughly 50,000 years. And even if I was foolish enough to believe there was something I could do, the net impact of warming is positive for my area. None of which says that I should soil my nest, even a pig knows enough not to do that. So I'll continue to recycle to avoid filling up the local landfill, I'll take my waste oil to a collection facility and I'll plant the occasional tree. As far as the rest of the AGW driven bullcrap, count me out.

[dmlfarmer]

that's ones persons theory on it and the others is a meteor so which is it?

And some say aliens were responsible too. Show me the proof of a meteorite and I will consider it. Until then I will use the best hypothesis of science which is that it was caused by extreme drought. And we have proof of that drought through sediment deposits. I also by the argument of deforestation and resultant climate change considering millions of people lived and built in a tropical rainforest which simply as forest could not support that many people.

To argue it is just a theory without considering the validity of the theory, puts you in the same group that says modern agriculture is bad, vaccines are bad etc etc etc.

[dmlfarmer]

I have a couple of thoughts Dml. First I did read about this latest discovery of a never known Mayan settlement. The first thing I would question about your logic is that the localized deforestation by the Mayan's wouldn't in my opinion be large enough in area to affect the worlds temperature. It could however affect local weather patterns. How does this relate to today's belief that elevated C02 levels as a result of fossil fuel use are raising the earths temperature? Now I can certainly agree that the rapid use of fossil fuels is short sighted and is bound to have some affect. What I can't agree with is that governments in a few countries can change the environment of the world by imposing C02 taxes on its citizens. If you want to change the culture use incentives not taxes. Besides let's be realistic this is more a war on capitalism than on pollution!!!!

If 19 million people living in a small area of the world can effect weather patterns, why do you not believe that 9 billion people can not have an effect on world weather? And the deforestation is not my theory, it is well supported by scientific evidence through sediment layers.

Second according toEinstein — ‘Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another. Burning of fossil fuels for mechanical use is not 100% efficient. So tell me hamloc, we have converted millions of years of storage of energy in the form of fossil fuels to mechanical energy as well as probably 75% waste heat. Where has all that waste heat gone? Can't be out to space or the planet would have been a frozen snowball before fossil fuel use.

And it is really sad for someone to argue that everyone else is doing it so it is okay for us to continue to do it. So lets not worry about what we leave our kids because we do not have to clean up our act if no one else is.

[sumdumguy]

All scientists believe in acceletated climate change.Your right not to believe. But then most every drug chemical and syntheic material was created with help of scientits.Not sure you can pick and choose.

Do you think they really believe? What choice do they have when six figures are attached to "believing".

[sumdumguy]

If 19 million people living in a small area of the world can effect weather patterns, why do you not believe that 9 billion people can not have an effect on world weather? And the deforestation is not my theory, it is well supported by scientific evidence through sediment layers.

Second according toEinstein — ‘Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another. Burning of fossil fuels for mechanical use is not 100% efficient. So tell me hamloc, we have converted millions of years of storage of energy in the form of fossil fuels to mechanical energy as well as probably 75% waste heat. Where has all that waste heat gone? Can't be out to space or the planet would have been a frozen snowball before fossil fuel use.

And it is really sad for someone to argue that everyone else is doing it so it is okay for us to continue to do it. So lets not worry about what we leave our kids because we do not have to clean up our act if no one else is.

But it doesn't end there. I couls care less what "they" believe. Now they want to end fossil fuel use and tax us so that we are non-competitive. Ridiculous! I love Carbon and my life depends on its contribution to photosynthesis, that I know, unless these bozos can refute that too. 👎

[Hamloc]

If 19 million people living in a small area of the world can effect weather patterns, why do you not believe that 9 billion people can not have an effect on world weather? And the deforestation is not my theory, it is well supported by scientific evidence through sediment layers.



And it is really sad for someone to argue that everyone else is doing it so it is okay for us to continue to do it. So lets not worry about what we leave our kids because we do not have to clean up our act if no one else is.

Ok now this is fun. If 19 million people without burning fossil fuels raised the temperature 3-5 degrees shouldn't 9 billion have raised the temperature what 30-50 degrees? And if you read my post I did not say we were having no affect.

Secondly where did I say if everyone else is doing it, it was ok to do it? What I said was a C02 tax would have no effect on the earths temperature!!!!

[dmlfarmer]

Ok now this is fun. If 19 million people without burning fossil fuels raised the temperature 3-5 degrees shouldn't 9 billion have raised the temperature what 30-50 degrees? And if you read my post I did not say we were having no affect.

Secondly where did I say if everyone else is doing it, it was ok to do it? What I said was a C02 tax would have no effect on the earths temperature!!!!

I am willing to bet you believe in the heat island effect of cities adding a few degrees to global temperature readings. Therefore if you expect an answer to your ridiculous suggestion you will have to tell me why global temperatures are not 30-50 degrees higher since cities are hotter

So if man is contributing to climate change that will have some negative impacts yet you feel a carbon tax is not an answer. What should we do?

[dmlfarmer]

[QUOTE=Hamloc;369589If you want to change the culture use incentives not taxes. Besides let's be realistic this is more a war on capitalism than on pollution!!!![/QUOTE]

Another question I have is you want to use incentives instead of taxes. Where does the money for incentives come from? Income tax? And why do you think it is more fair everyone should have to pay to incentivize a polluter rather than having the polluter pay. Taxing the populous so gavernments can support a certain business is even less capitalistic than taxing those companies whose product is adding costs to society

[Hamloc]

I am willing to bet you believe in the heat island effect of cities adding a few degrees to global temperature readings. Therefore if you expect an answer to your ridiculous suggestion you will have to tell me why global temperatures are not 30-50 degrees higher since cities are hotter

So if man is contributing to climate change that will have some negative impacts yet you feel a carbon tax is not an answer. What should we do?

In your post you state that deforestation of rain forests caused a temperature increase of 3-5 degrees. Today Brazil has a population of over 200 million, unfortunately deforestation continues, if their theory was correct about the rise in temperature from deforestation why has that not occurred today at a far more accelerated rate due to a much higher world population and I would assume on a world wide scale a higher rate of deforestation. Plus you have the much stated increased impact of C02 emissions. Over the last 100 years the average temperature has increased just over 1 degree, do you not see the discrepancy between the rapid rise in the temperature during the time of the Mayans and what we are experiencing today?

[Hamloc]

Another question I have is you want to use incentives instead of taxes. Where does the money for incentives come from? Income tax? And why do you think it is more fair everyone should have to pay to incentivize a polluter rather than having the polluter pay. Taxing the populous so gavernments can support a certain business is even less capitalistic than taxing those companies whose product is adding costs to society

I am going to attempt to look at this from your point of view. The majority of C02 emissions are created when the consumer burns a carbon based fuel. When we heat our homes, drive our cars, use electricity, even when I turn on my tablet which is encased in plastic. Therefore in a modern society a lot of what we do is by definition polluting. Assuming your a farmer, here is my question. If you are hellbent on taxing the polluter how far are you willing to go on the farm? Nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas. In growing crops N02 is released. Would this be taxed? Methane fron livestock, would that be taxed? Our commodity prices are determined by world markets, not in Canada, our largest competitors do not pay a carbon tax, if all polluters must pay in Canada how would you compete? Would we import all our food eventually? To truly change consumption habits it has been speculated a carbon tax of $200 a tonne would be necessary, are you willing to pay this high of a tax? Just some questions.

[Guest]

most proponents of global warming , carbon tax , etc. are in it for the money ,i.e. al gore $200 million net worth, david suzuki (QMI Agency has learned that Suzuki, who's made a name for himself fighting for the environment and against development, owns four homes, including one property he co-owns with a fossil fuels company. His primary abode is a sprawling mansion in the Kitsilano neighbourhood of Vancouver, worth approximately $8.2 million.Oct 10, 2013)and on and on and on ......its simple , follow the money . do you think these self proclaimed savers of the environment give a flying **** about the environment?? these are the assholes activists are fighting for, while people that actually work for a living can pay more tax ? how far do you think the people can be pushed ? wake up ffs.

[checking]

What I find difficult to understand is how weather change in one region, or ten thousand regions is difficult to impossible to get right from one day to the next with much accuracy, but climate change, the result of all those weathers over decades is for sure going result in a temperature rise. Boggling, really, for anyone to be that confident!

As to what happened to the Mayans, even the authors of the report state that more study is required to determine what caused their society to collapse. Multiple factors could have been at play, and likely were. To be so definitive takes a big set.