New Year's Resolution

[malleefarmer]

or try this twitter cant find just a video link

https://twitter.com/huffpost/status/1078731057132986368

[grassfarmer]

That's a good graphic Robertbarlage. There must be something worse than psychopathic delusion going on in my neighbourhood as 4 neighbours, on 3 sides of me are running trackhoes almost constantly - taking out the few remaining trees and bushes we have in this flat, windy part of the world. It's environmental hooliganism of the worst kind.

[grassfarmer]

.....One point you used to defend your support of policies like carbon taxes was that you feel that by supporting environmentalists that they will support the continued production of beef for human consumption, earning social licence......

Hamloc I never said any such thing. I support a carbon tax because it makes sense. I would never indulge in appeasement to further personal gain. I will continue to try to educate people that don't understand the positive regenerative role cattle can have in reversing climate change.

[bucket]

That's a good graphic Robertbarlage. There must be something worse than psychopathic delusion going on in my neighbourhood as 4 neighbours, on 3 sides of me are running trackhoes almost constantly - taking out the few remaining trees and bushes we have in this flat, windy part of the world. It's environmental hooliganism of the worst kind.

Yup these are the guys that farmers talk about ...if we all agreed to a production cut ...they would try to find every last acre to seed....which is why farmers are ****ed.....


even the oil industry gets it.....we don't .....paying a seed tax to produce more while returns per bushel go down.....still waiting for mother nature to stop our own stupidity...

[grassfarmer]

Well that is convenient timing, at least now you won't have to respond to the question about the source of your grossly erroneous CO2 figure in the volcano thread.

Not at all, I checked and yes the source I read that fact on when compared to other sources is clearly wrong - apparently by a factor of 100 so likely a case of having the decimal point in the wrong place. The CO2 impact of the world's volcanos is generally reckoned to be in the 0.8-1% range when compared to man's industrial and automative emissions.

Now by the same token I'd request that you address the factual inaccuracy that you are constantly making when you claim that there is no negative consequence of increasing CO2 on plants or crops.

Here's an article from Scientific American to help you.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/ http://https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Not at all, I checked and yes the source I read that fact on when compared to other sources is clearly wrong - apparently by a factor of 100 so likely a case of having the decimal point in the wrong place. The CO2 impact of the world's volcanos is generally reckoned to be in the 0.8-1% range when compared to man's industrial and automative emissions.

Now by the same token I'd request that you address the factual inaccuracy that you are constantly making when you claim that there is no negative consequence of increasing CO2 on plants or crops.

Here's an article from Scientific American to help you.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/ http://https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/

In keeping with my resolution, I will let someone else debunk the nonsense in the Scientific American article. Actually, as a fellow farmer, you have all the skills and knowledge required, perhaps you should try reading it objectively and point out the errors.

There is an edit button, you could go an correct the gross error in the other thread instead of allowing it to fester in the public domain for other useful idiots who are incapable of math to continue to propagate.

Which is just further proof of the inability of your side to perform even simple math. A source which you apparently consider reliable enough to quote uses a value 2(almost 3, using the most recent estimates) orders of magnitude too large, and an error of that magnitude is simply a case of having the decimal point in the wrong place? No one apparently could be bothered to check if the answer seemed at all reasonable, including yourself. When doing math with my boys, I always stress that they need to ask if the answer seems at all reasonable, and if possible check it in a different way to ensure it makes sense.

Personally, I would question any other information provided by that source. Actually, I question any information provided by any source, especially those which serve to reinforce my own biases. Internet is an amazing tool for fact checking, if you know where to look.

[Hamloc]

Hamloc I never said any such thing. I support a carbon tax because it makes sense. I would never indulge in appeasement to further personal gain. I will continue to try to educate people that don't understand the positive regenerative role cattle can have in reversing climate change.

Grassfarmer I am very curious how you feel the carbon tax makes "sense"? In the case of Justin Trudeau's federal carbon tax he claims that 80% of those who pay the tax will receive back a bigger rebate than they pay in tax. That makes sense? How will farmers in Canada benefit a carbon tax?! Please enlighten me.

[furrowtickler]

Grassfarmer I am very curious how you feel the carbon tax makes "sense"? In the case of Justin Trudeau's federal carbon tax he claims that 80% of those who pay the tax will receive back a bigger rebate than they pay in tax. That makes sense? How will farmers in Canada benefit a carbon tax?! Please enlighten me.

It does make sense ..... 20% of the people that do the work for the other 80% are about to pay and not receive ... farmers will be in that 20% ... fairly straight forward stuff .
No one who supports this carbon tax will admit that for some strange reason .

[grassfarmer]

In keeping with my resolution, I will let someone else debunk the nonsense in the Scientific American article....

Sorry I must have missed your resolution - what was it? To make erroneous claims with no intention of backing them with facts when challenged whilst simultaneously insisting other posters substantiate their claims?

Please enlighten me.

Why would I waste my time? It's all been said before. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

[sumdumguy]

[QUOTE=grassfarmer;398642]I'm not one for making N Y resolutions normally but this time I'm going to try pretty hard. I resolve in the New Year not to post on any more climate change threads. As some other posters have pointed out it's an endless topic and one in which the two sides are so far apart that no-one is convincing anyone from the "other side" to change their views.
The views of the "climate change deniers" are now all over the map. Viewpoints put forward include:

There is no climate change.
It's getting colder not warmer in Western Canada.
Increased CO2 levels boost crop yields.
Increased CO2 levels following volcanic events led to abysmal crop yields and crop failures.
Increased CO2 levels following wildfires increased crop yields this year.
Increased CO2 levels over the last 20 years have led to consistent crop yield increases

Basic Fact : CO2 and sunlight are the essential components of photosynthesis, the creator’s self-sustaining food generation process. To limit this component is no less than insanity. And all for some concocted extortion scheme.

[grassfarmer]

Basic Fact : CO2 and sunlight are the essential components of photosynthesis, the creator’s self-sustaining food generation process. To limit this component is no less than insanity. And all for some concocted extortion scheme.

What about water? it's essential too. You'll be popular on here arguing the more water the better with no upper limit and no point at which it curtails production. The same applies to CO2.

[furrowtickler]

[AlbertaFarmer5]

What about water? it's essential too. You'll be popular on here arguing the more water the better with no upper limit and no point at which it curtails production. The same applies to CO2.

Nothing to do with climate change, purely From an agronomic perspective, at what upper level does CO2 limit crop production? In any of my research, the benefits taper off, and don't continue to increase exponentially, as they do at lower levels, but at no plausible level do they have the opposite effect. Obviously not referring to the lower limits.

[Hamloc]

Why would I waste my time? It's all been said before. There are none so blind as those who will not see.[/QUOTE]

That is really a cop out. What I am interested in is how my farm will become more profitable because of this tax? Will it improve my access to export markets? What changes do you feel western Canadian farmers can and should make to compensate for our increased production costs? As for me being blind I am constantly anylizing where I can be more efficient like sectional control on my drill to reduce fertilizer use or putting new teeth on my drill to better place fertilizer, reprogramming my equipment for better fuel economy. You also did not in any way address what was said in the CBC article!

[furrowtickler]

I am going to hang these as posters in my new gym/bar .....






All are welcome 😎🍺