Global Warming WTF??

[chuckChuck]

Hope you freeze you ASS off ! **** your politicians! You can not prove a god dam thing 50 years into the future. It's an AGENDA, wake the hell up!

A fjlip you have always had such a rosy outlook on life. What happened?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So your only response is it is a bunch of lies, bullshit and a giant conspiracy! Hahahahahah.

If that is the best you can come up with, then there is not a snowball chance in hell you will ever win this.

Everybody else including all the federal Conservative MPs except one don't buy your way out there conspiracy theories!

Give up!

No, the only way either side wins is when enough time has elapsed for the temperature record to prove one side or the other correct. At this point, both sides think they have enough evidence already, so I'd say we are not quite there yet. That said, the past couple of decades have not been as helpful to the warmist side as they had hoped and promised they would be.

[seldomseen]

So Chucky do you believe that Michael Mann's hockey stick diagram is accurate?


Strait yes or no answer please. No copy and paste please.

[bobofthenorth]

Its a sad day when Scott Adams (Dilbert) is more honest than our Prime Minister. Unfortunately the AGW climate scam has a lot of momentum and there is a huge herd whose livelihood depends on keeping the train running. Its frightening when you start watching the bad decisions that are being made in the name of carbon. The carbon tax is just one of hundreds of bad policy decisions that are driven by the false AGW narrative. I wonder how much carbon tax we'll have to pay on the Mary J that we're going to be allowed to smoke?

[chuckChuck]

So Chucky do you believe that Michael Mann's hockey stick diagram is accurate?


Strait yes or no answer please. No copy and paste please.

Yes.

And here is why:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
"Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

A critique of the hockey stick was published in 2004 (McIntyre 2004), claiming the hockey stick shape was the inevitable result of the statistical method used (principal components analysis). They also claimed temperatures over the 15th Century were derived from one bristlecone pine proxy record. They concluded that the hockey stick shape was not statistically significant.

An independent assessment of Mann's hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Wahl 2007). They reconstructed temperatures employing a variety of statistical techniques (with and without principal components analysis). Their results found slightly different temperatures in the early 15th Century. However, they confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick - that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years."

[chuckChuck]

I forgot to mention that if you are still doubtful about whether global warming is real and don't believe the science go look at the glaciers between Jasper and Banff. There are signs that show since 1843 the Athabaska glacier has shrunk 1.5 kilometres. Does that indicate warming or cooling?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I forgot to mention that if you are still doubtful about whether global warming is real and don't believe the science go look at the glaciers between Jasper and Banff. There are signs that show since 1843 the Athabaska glacier has shrunk 1.5 kilometres. Does that indicate warming or cooling?

That indicates the continuation of a trend which is been ongoing for over 12,000 years. With various setbacks and fits and starts along the way. Offers hope for humanity that the trend will continue. And in no way is indicative of human causes.
A reasonable person can understand that climate is changing/warming and not believe humans are entirely to blame or that it would have a negative net result.

[Guest]

like i said , wasting our breath

[furrowtickler]

[seldomseen]

like i said , wasting our breath

Your right Case I could say more but what would be the point.

[farmaholic]

A Tesla in space......what was the environmental foot print of this, but we will need to look for a new planet to inhabit while we ironically destroy the one we live on now. Kinda hypocritical

[Hamloc]

Its not just questioning the science of climate change. It is the complete denial that humans and greenhouse gasses have any role in climate change and global warming.

It is difficult to have a conversation with someone who completely dismisses the vast amount of science showing global warming is occurring and then claims global cooling is occurring.

If you remember in 2015 Steven Harper agreed with the G7 on a target to eliminate fossil energy use by the year 2100. Why?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-commits-to-ending-fossil-fuel-use-by-2100/article24844340/

So why are you blaming socialists? Is Harper a socialist?

So if Conservative Prime Ministers are in agreement that we need to stop using fossil energy then it is pretty obvious we need to use a lot of different tools to get there.

A carbon tax is one option and is widely supported as an efficient market based solution that reduces the need for government regulations and encourages industry and consumers to reduce waste and find their own solutions.

Regardless of what Trump says,and he has said he may stay with the Paris Accord. Many US states are moving forward with reducing greenhouse gases.

When the price of oil was high and the loonie was very high I don't remember many posts on Agriville that were concerned about the impact of a high loonie was having on the manufacturing sector and making Canadian products less competitive.

So a carbon tax may have some impact but there are numerous other factors affecting competitiveness.

Trump is quite happy to put tarrifs on imports which is another competitiveness factor that can be much more significant.

So where is your data and study that is showing that Canada is losing it competitive advantage in every industry because of the proposed carbon tax?

Chuck, first and foremost I am a farmer. If you had read my posts you would find I specifically asked if farming in Canada would become less competitive with a carbon tax. As a rule higher oil prices and the resulting increase in fuel prices is generally felt by our competitors and therefore doesn't create an advantage or disadvantage. But a Canadian applied carbon tax will increase our cost of production and make us less competitive, do you not agree Chuck? My other question which niether you or DML will address is would you tax methane and nitrous oxide? If not why are you so gung-ho to tax C02 but not the C02 equivelent of other greenhouse gases? Are you willing to pay a $200 a tonne carbon(the level of tax considered necessary by the federal Liberal's to change behaviour) and do you think farming in Canada would still be viable in Canada with that level of tax? Last question that niether you or Dml will address, do you believe Justin Trudeau's carbon tax will lower the world's temperature?

[oneoff]

Most people can understand what a cost to benefit ratio is.

So whats the cost to benefit ratio of the Canadian "Carbon tax"?.

Remember that anything less than 1.0 is depleting that particular account.

[burnt]

Well folks, Pay attention to the two previous posts, by Hamloc and Oneoff - they expose the heart of the Liberal talking points.

If their questions remain unanswered, completely and satisfactorily, it will show that the entire "progressive" stance of, and response to the AGW hypothesis is a charade.

Which we already know it is, but it will be fun to watch the "useful idiots" bury themselves.

Answer the questions that you invited, boys.

[chuckChuck]

Surely someone has done a economic study on the impact of a carbon tax, as 9 provinces already have agreed to one.

Since oil and gas prices were already much higher than they are now we should have a pretty good idea what the impact on the economy is of increasing energy costs.

Only the USA out of 195 countries has said they will pull out of the Paris agreement to try to keep global temperatures from rising 2 degrees above pre industrial levels. The only other countries not signatories to Paris were Syria and Nicaragua.

Many USA states are acting on their own to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

There are leaders and laggards in the world. Norway is also a northern oil producing nation and has aggressively invested in reducing greenhouse gases. Canada is a laggard by comparison.

There is a cost to not doing anything. One of the costs will be being left behind in the innovation and development of new technology.

Some of you seem to think that there is going to be less economic activity if we reduce greenhouse gasses and adopt increases in efficiency and new technology. I think you are wrong.

It is going to be a transition over many decades, not an abrupt change.

There will be jobs created in new technology that will replace old jobs.

Suncor is killing 400 jobs to increase efficiency with the adoption of driver less trucks in the oil sands.

Farmers have been cutting jobs for decades as well.

So we cant rely on the extractive industries to maintain all their jobs.

New technology is replacing them. Are farmers opposed to new technology and increasing efficiency?

It doesn't seem like it.