Oh Oh Kenney got caught

[Horse]

Mother nature threw a real f$&k into the plans of the scammers this winter . Pretty hard to blame one of the coldest winters on record on global warming ,although they did try ! Its falling down all around them , fun to watch!

Just in enviroment ca says dec,jan,feb averaged.2 above normal ,dec 7 above jan 6 above feb 7 below. So dont know where you get 1 of the coldest on record,so who is right you or them??

Mother nature threw a real f$&k into the plans of the scammers this winter . Pretty hard to blame one of the coldest winters on record on global warming ,although they did try ! Its falling down all around them , fun to watch!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

There is nothing about a trend I want you to see. There is nothing objective about counting tornadoes, or hurricanes or other extreme weather(for example) or measuring sea level. The official information is out there as compiled by national agencies, all you have to do is look it up, could even compile it, analyse and chart it for yourself to ensure you are not being influenced by someone else's confirmation bias ( not basis).

Otherwise, as I stated, not going to go through this all over again. At this point, it is becoming obvious that thanks to mother nature, the science is winning over sensationalism, and given enough time science will prevail. All we need to do is ensure that no rogue groups cause irreparable harm through geoengineering, and bide our time until common sense prevails or the next emergency (real or imagined) displaces this one.

[dmlfarmer]

You are a smart guy, with access to the internet, you can do you own research to see the trends in tornadoes, hurricanes, sea level rise acceleration(remember that acceleration is the key word, the rise part was never in question), droughts, wind, pine beetles, forest fires etc. You might be surprised at the results vs. the rhetoric we hear everyday.

I was just suggesting that for the sake of credibility, that you don't try to justify the war on CO2 by trying to confuse CO2 with actual harmful pollutants, most independent thinking people are now informed enough to differentiate between the two, and no longer fall for such tactics, and tune out once that is part of the message.

AF5, I have no doubt that within a minute or two of searching I could find a site that would provide the trend you want ME to see and believe for any of the factors you mention. No matter what the topic, there is likely sites both pro and con. Anti-vaxer sites make great cases for avoiding vaccinations and I doubt an anti-vaxer would be swayed by a science based pro vax site. In fact I suspect most anti-vaxers probably don't spend time reading a site promoting vaccinations simply because of CONFIRMATION BASIS - the tend only to look for and believe what already supports our existing position.

Who is right, Food Babe or Farm Babe? Both have internet sites and link to other sites that provide "stats" that support their position. How many people read both before making a decision on a position either of these persons state or do people simply follow one or the other based on existing values and beliefs?

How many times are sites quoted on this forum which turn out not to be actual research or news but rather an opinion piece written by a columnist rather than a researcher? Before posting a link on this site, how many posters actually look at the credibility of the site they are promoting in terms of the author and research or do they post it simply because it confirms their personal basis's?

Never once did I mention CO2 and agree fully it is a critical atmospheric gas needed for plant growth. Water is also critical and needed for ALL life as we know it. But too much water creates problems and people can even drown in water even though it is critical to their living. I dare you to tell Nebraskans right now that too much water is never a problem. Hell even SF3 has said repeatedly that drought is better than too much rain. What is the tipping point where CO2 goes from being a critical gas to a problem? I don't know. But I do know that in the last 800,000 years, through natural cycles, ice ages, and warm periods C02 has never exceeded 300 ppm until a hundred years ago and is currently over 400ppm. We are in uncharted territory as far as mankind and society living in an environment with this much CO2 in the atmosphere and I base my position on what I feel is the best possible scientific evidence from the most credible atmospheric scientists after listening and discussing this issue with "experts" from both sides.

.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Okay AF I will bite and answer your question.
IF science is right and a global warming will lead to more and bigger forest fires because of drought, winds, and diseased and dead trees from unchecked insect infestations, then you tell those who lost family and property and had to live through the smoke this past summer in California, BC, Colorado, and Alberta that hey, those forest fires are not nearly as bad as if you had to live in the smog of China.

IF science is right and we will see bigger hurricanes and more tornados, then you tell the people of Puerto Rico, and the Carolinas that hey so there is some destruction and you had no power for a few months and a lot of pig farm lagoons overflowed or washed out but hey that is nothing compared to living in the pollution in India.

IF science is right and we will see more intense storm systems such as Nebraska just experienced, then tell the farmers there that they should not complain about livestock deaths, lost farm yards, grain in store etc because it is actually just fresh water and it is not like if you lived in Flint where you can't drink the water.

AF, you can downplay the effects of climate change all you want and say its effects will not be dangerous and should not be compared to other man made problems, but I will counter that you are already paying for real problems that science says are effects of climate change like higher taxes to fight bigger and more forest fires and if you buy any insurance, premiums have gone up after each natural disaster whether you are to accept climate change has played a role or not, and that includes not only for property loss but even crop insurance.

And you and your children will be paying a lot more in the future but monetarily and socially IF science is right and we do see ocean levels rise and displace those living in low lying coastal areas. Already Miami is raising sea wall heights in a number of areas and New York is looking at spending 10 billion to build a sea wall to protect lower Manhattan. Think immigration demand is bad now? I wonder what it will be like if ocean level rise and storm surge increase displace the hundreds of millions living in third world deltas.

You are a smart guy, with access to the internet, you can do you own research to see the trends in tornadoes, hurricanes, sea level rise acceleration(remember that acceleration is the key word, the rise part was never in question), droughts, wind, pine beetles, forest fires etc. You might be surprised at the results vs. the rhetoric we hear everyday.

I was just suggesting that for the sake of credibility, that you don't try to justify the war on CO2 by trying to confuse CO2 with actual harmful pollutants, most independent thinking people are now informed enough to differentiate between the two, and no longer fall for such tactics, and tune out once that is part of the message.

[Robertbarlage]

[Robertbarlage]

Funny all the third world country’s I’ve been to the ocean has not gone up in 100 years the beaches have always been the same? Only 1st world problems? Fires **** in California 20 years ago there wasn’t any houses on the hills and there were fires no one cared

[dmlfarmer]

Why do you bring up actual physical, dangerous, poisonous, harmful pollution as an argument for supporting climate change? I realise that confusing the two is a well worn tactic that works very well in most circles, but I expected more from you, you are typically very reasonable in your arguments on this topic.

Okay AF I will bite and answer your question.
IF science is right and a global warming will lead to more and bigger forest fires because of drought, winds, and diseased and dead trees from unchecked insect infestations, then you tell those who lost family and property and had to live through the smoke this past summer in California, BC, Colorado, and Alberta that hey, those forest fires are not nearly as bad as if you had to live in the smog of China.

IF science is right and we will see bigger hurricanes and more tornados, then you tell the people of Puerto Rico, and the Carolinas that hey so there is some destruction and you had no power for a few months and a lot of pig farm lagoons overflowed or washed out but hey that is nothing compared to living in the pollution in India.

IF science is right and we will see more intense storm systems such as Nebraska just experienced, then tell the farmers there that they should not complain about livestock deaths, lost farm yards, grain in store etc because it is actually just fresh water and it is not like if you lived in Flint where you can't drink the water.

AF, you can downplay the effects of climate change all you want and say its effects will not be dangerous and should not be compared to other man made problems, but I will counter that you are already paying for real problems that science says are effects of climate change like higher taxes to fight bigger and more forest fires and if you buy any insurance, premiums have gone up after each natural disaster whether you are to accept climate change has played a role or not, and that includes not only for property loss but even crop insurance.

And you and your children will be paying a lot more in the future but monetarily and socially IF science is right and we do see ocean levels rise and displace those living in low lying coastal areas. Already Miami is raising sea wall heights in a number of areas and New York is looking at spending 10 billion to build a sea wall to protect lower Manhattan. Think immigration demand is bad now? I wonder what it will be like if ocean level rise and storm surge increase displace the hundreds of millions living in third world deltas.

[blackjack]

Hey horse I’m not going to change your mind I get it your happy paying the bureaucrats of Alberta the highest wages of any jurisdiction in Canada.She is only 40 billion in the hole as of now in 4 years if your ok with that what can one say . Some people love socialism I for believe in those Albertans that helped grow Alberta in the past century to one of most envious places in the world to live.

[Horse]

That’s interesting horse I’ve kind of thought the media has let Notley and her merry band of thieves have a free ride.

Im not sure what media you got your news from but all I hear is kenny,kenny,kenny,thats from edmonton station dont know what kind of a lovein is going on in calgary,
Please tell me what the nds have done that is so bad ? Min wage,why shouldnt some one get 15$/hr to serve coffee to some kid driving a company pickup in the oil field looking at wells getting $40/hr.
Wages are high thanks to the previous gov,the nds havent raised the wages to any civel servant yet, but teachers 100 grand nurses,not sure but doing ok, what should the nds have done cut wages,staff???
Carbon tax ,well a tax is a tax,should have mabey put in sales tax,very much the same results,but wouldnt have made anyone happy either,not sure where you would get funding to run gov,cant take from the rich,the poor dont have any,corporations will leave if take from them???? oil workers want big money everyone wants gov to provide but noone wants to pay. Please tell me your solution. I sure hope you dont think putting the same old boys club back in is the answer.