Extreme global weather is 'the face of climate change' says leading scientist

[binthere]

Good for you chuck. You have made a step in the right direction. Notice for a while you have quit referring to normal climate change as man made global warming.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Population growth could account for increasing carbon emissions. Per capita what was the growth in BC? What would the rise in emissions be without the carbon tax?

So energy costs in the USA are generally lower because of lower fuel taxes already. There are numerous factors that affect competitiveness with the FX exchange rate being very important. It is almost impossible for us to have the same costs as anywhere else in the world. How are we surviving when we are already have significant advantages and disadvantages. Fuel costs and taxes are only a small part of a bigger picture.

Yes, but it is one of the only parts that we potentially have control of, unlike weather, FX, foriegn tariffs, subsidies, trade wars, and most importantly, climate.
So instead, our economically illiterate (perhaps ignorant would be a better term). Purposefully chose to saddle Canadians with yet one more burden to make us less competitive in the world markets. They cannot see the connection with all of the manufacturing businesses fleeing our high cost environment, and their treasonous policies.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Are you talking about Ontario? That might be true in Ontario but to make a generalized statement like that is meaningless. The world is a big place and you didn't put your statement into any context.

We all know the winds of politics change and governments come and go. So you need to look at the big picture and not only focus on Lacombe's weather records or Ontario's politics.

Saskatchewan under a Conservative government is still building wind mills and solar plants. 50% renewables by 2030 is the plan. That doesn't seem to fit with your argument.

Please, Do your self a favor and perform some research on the subject. You will need to check sources outside of your usual comfort zone. You might even find that the world is a bigger place than the single tree that Michael Mann used to rewrite history.

[seldomseen]

Chuck why keep preaching? As farmers what more can we do?

We have south facing windows and a well insulated house. We burn wood as much as we can so I don't have to use propane and produce as much of our own food as we can. Our vehicles are as fuel efficient as we can get by with and we don't make any unnecessary trips anywhere. I only run the tractors over the fields when I have to and use auto steer to make that pass as efficient as I can. My highest fuel consumptions season is harvest and I don't know how to make it any more efficient. I use fertilizer go grow as good of crop as I can and try to never waste anything.

If you are doing more tell me what and if you are not doing more stop preaching!

[furrowtickler]

Chuck wants to punish successfull farms under the guise of climate change .

How many Teir4 engines with DEF on your farm chucky ? I asked this question to another poster on here ..... crickets . But they are the first to slam modern agriculture and what they consider evil big farms .
Like someone else mentioned on here , “Do as I say.... not as I do”

[chuckChuck]

Yes, but it is one of the only parts that we potentially have control of, unlike weather, FX, foriegn tariffs, subsidies, trade wars, and most importantly, climate.
So instead, our economically illiterate (perhaps ignorant would be a better term). Purposefully chose to saddle Canadians with yet one more burden to make us less competitive in the world markets. They cannot see the connection with all of the manufacturing businesses fleeing our high cost environment, and their treasonous policies.

Treasonous policies? That is a load of crap. You may disagree with a carbon tax or a climate change plan but a democratically elected government making a tax policy change is not treason!

Would you then characterize the Saskatchewan government's plan to have 50% renewables by 2030 as treason?

It is matter of opinion and debate whether it is a burden or an advantage. If Canada becomes a leader or source of technology or research towards a lower carbon world, then there can be significant economic gain in selling the technology to the world. That is the Saskatchewan government's reason for investing in carbon capture and storage (CCS) because on the face of it, a carbon tax is a cheaper and more efficient alternative than CCS and lets industry and utilities decide on which technology is better at reducing carbon emissions.

We also subsidize the fossil fuel industry directly and indirectly with tax and royalty policy. So why should we not provide incentives or tax policies to encourage renewables? Why the double standard? You like to focus on the cost of green energy, but you say little about the downside of the oil industry or the cost to taxpayers and environmental costs which are hidden.

What happen to the economy in BC< Alberta or other countries that introduced a carbon tax?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-alberta-bc-lead-provinces-in-gdp-growth/
Alberta, B.C. lead provinces in GDP growth
Bloomberg News
Published May 2, 2018
Updated May 2, 2018

Western Canada retook its lead in the country’s growth tables last year, with Alberta recording the fastest expansion among the 10 provinces and British Columbia posting its strongest pace in more than a decade.

Gross domestic product grew by 4.9 percent in Alberta, with the oil-producing province recovering from two straight years of falling output following the collapse of oil prices. British Columbia’s economy expanded by 3.9 percent, the fastest pace for that province since 2005.

It’s a return to normal for Canada -- Western provinces have outpaced central Canada in growth for much of the past 15 years until the oil price slump. But it was no reflection of any weakness in other parts of the country last year.

Canada’s economy in 2017 had one of its most broad-based expansions ever, with no region recording a deterioration and GDP rising in every province for the first time since 2011.

Quebec’s economy grew 3.1 percent in 2017, the strongest pace for that province since 2000 and twice its rate of growth in 2016. Ontario’s GDP rose 2.8 percent in 2017.

Nationally, Canada’s economy expanded 3.3 percent in 2017, according to the release, which is based on industry data. That’s slightly higher than the 3 percent pace recently reported by Statistics Canada under a different expenditure-based measure. Typically those two measures will converge following revisions."


How can BC and Alberta be leaders in GDP growth if the carbon tax is such a burden?

Again you make these generalized arguments that are not backed up by evidence.
Your arguments are mostly political rhetoric.

[chuckChuck]

Please, Do your self a favor and perform some research on the subject. You will need to check sources outside of your usual comfort zone. You might even find that the world is a bigger place than the single tree that Michael Mann used to rewrite history.

I asked you to present peer reviewed science that counters NASA, NOAA, and numerous other climate change researchers around the world and you have failed to produce any.

If you are going to spout the usual climate change denial BS then back it up.

[furrowtickler]

Back up how a carbon tax will do anything to effect climate ....
even the heads of the UN have stated that the carbon tax has nothing to do with climate but is being implemented to create wealth distribution.
That’s my number one issue with this whole climate change fiasco. Is it happening, jury still out in my mind . But zero proof ever that carbon tax will change anything.

[chuckChuck]

Back up how a carbon tax will do anything to effect climate ....
even the heads of the UN have stated that the carbon tax has nothing to do with climate but is being implemented to create wealth distribution.
That’s my number one issue with this whole climate change fiasco. Is it happening, jury still out in my mind . But zero proof ever that carbon tax will change anything.

If the price of energy goes up for any reason whether by market forces or taxation, consumption goes down. If fossil energy consumption goes down, emissions go down. If taxes and revenues are used to encourage the development of clean technology and implementation then we will replace fossil energy.

Remember Steven Harper signed a G7 agreement that Canada would stop using fossil energy by 2100.

Toyota has a plan to have zero emissions on all its cars and production facilities by 2050.

The transition is well underway and we will all be long dead before it is complete. This is a long term issue, your life will be mostly unaffected unless you were born in the last few years.

[chuckChuck]

Please, Do your self a favor and perform some research on the subject. You will need to check sources outside of your usual comfort zone. You might even find that the world is a bigger place than the single tree that Michael Mann used to rewrite history.

On Michael Mann
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
"More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions."

You haven't got the Mann story correct either. Where is your peer reviewed science showing his graph was wrong?

Climate change deniers seize on this because they have no other arguments to use. This is from the climate change denial play book. Discredit the science and cast doubt by whatever means.

The tobacco industry used the same tactics to deny that cigarettes caused cancer.

[jazz]

I can dispel the science by simply looking at the models. To model a chaotic system such as the atmosphere is NOT possible. The same way that your 3 day forecast is always off. Its the same inputs plus dozens more applied to a longer time scale.

The models need to account for hundreds of variables including stuff we cant even measure, like subsea vulcanism, forest fires and carbon sinks in deep waters etc. There are dozens of other variables we have no hope of even estimating like carbon release from tectonic plates colliding. So without proper input data, the models would run forever and never converge. So what do they do - make guesses, or assumptions, whatever you call it, it adds a degree of uncertainty to the output.

The entire climate narrative relies on 2 deg. Past 2 deg warming, its game over we all die. But the models cannot provide that sort of resolution. What if its 1 deg? Basically we have had 1 deg of warming in the past 20 yrs when they predicted 4 deg. The models have not provided any verifiable predictions yet and they should not be fully relied on.

Is there manmade CO2 -absolutely, but there is a lot of natural stuff around too. Is it increasing - probably. Is it a catastrophe in the making that we need to go back living in caves - not established.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Jazz, stop encouraging him. 1 degree of warming is over the entire temperature instrument record, not the past 20 years, which have seen no significant warming. And that info is right from the alarmists. Actually, they only claim 0.95C since 1880, not a full degree.

[tmyrfield]

On Michael Mann
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
"More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions."

You haven't got the Mann story correct either. Where is your peer reviewed science showing his graph was wrong?

Climate change deniers seize on this because they have no other arguments to use. This is from the climate change denial play book. Discredit the science and cast doubt by whatever means.

The tobacco industry used the same tactics to deny that cigarettes caused cancer.

Ask and you shall receive, However |I am breaking my own rules by debating with an anonymous coward who doesn't have to courage of his convictions, who also by his own admission doesn't follow what he preaches. I hear guys like this at the coffee shop all the time which is why I rarely go. As I am getting older and hopefully wiser |I chose my battles and this is one that will be very difficult to win. I Dare you to read this.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

[shtferbrains]

The BC economy is indeed growing very quickly Charlie.

Where did all those people come from?

Did they bring money with them?

Hongcouver is now an Asian city.

300000 people show up in Surrey to for Punjabi new year.

They love the place, IN SPITE OF the highest gas prices in North America.

Maybe they have connections to import solar panels from China.

Or maybe they will just keep buying real estate and let it sit empty while they capitalize on the appreciation due to the shortage of housing.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

On Michael Mann
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
"More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions."

You haven't got the Mann story correct either. Where is your peer reviewed science showing his graph was wrong?

Climate change deniers seize on this because they have no other arguments to use. This is from the climate change denial play book. Discredit the science and cast doubt by whatever means.

The tobacco industry used the same tactics to deny that cigarettes caused cancer.

Did you bother to read what you posted? So in 2008, Mann did a subsequent reconstruction which supported the one which Mann had done in 1998. And that constitutes evidence? I often agree with myself too... And of course, Wikipedia is the most reliable possible source of information, as we all know. Why are you held to a different standard, you demand that I have to post peer reviewed papers, while you post Wikipedia articles, edited by anyone with a pulse and an agenda?