Carbon drought ..

[furrowtickler]

typical response. You cannot argue my point so personal attack against me! I watched the propaganda you posted and made one point out of a number of omissions I saw and you claim I just did a 2 min flyby. How come you did not pick up on the point I made if you did such an extensive study of it? Better yet how am I wrong in the point I made if you know so much about it? That that is something to laugh about.

Personal attack.... lol , get a life lol
What point is that ? I am not here to argue , just pointing out there is always two sides to every story .
Take a breath , it’s spring , seeding on our doorstep , the world will not end tomorrow or even in 12 years . Don’t end up a climate change fanatic..... chill
You got your self all worked up lol
Go get ready to seed your crop .

[chuckChuck]

Name one Candian political leader, premier that says human caused climate change is a hoax or a conspiracy and not happening? You can't.

Every Premier including Scott Moe, Jason Kenney, Doug Ford, Brian Palister and Andrew Scheer all agree human caused climate change is real and the science to support that conclusion is sound.

They may not want a carbon a carbon tax but they all have some sort of plan to reduce carbon emissions.

Saskatchewan of all places even has an ambitious plan to have 50% renewable electricity by 2030.

While in power, Steven Harper signed a G7 agreement that Canada would stop using fossil energy by 2100.

Politicians of all stripes are ignoring your irrational attacks on climate science. Time to face the reality that no one is listening.

[jazz]

Politicians of all stripes are ignoring your irrational attacks on climate science. Time to face the reality that no one is listening.

They cant say it and wont say it because climate change is the new racism. A horde of self righteous socialist and media sympathizers line up to immediately shame them. So they cant even debate it. They are forced to go along with it. But people on the ground who know a thing or two can see it for the sham it is especially with a carbon tax added to the hysteria.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck, now you are invoking a consensus of politicians, yet again. Now applying your logic that only climate scientists (who also agree with the UN) are permitted to have an opinion, how many of those politicians are climate scientists? Why is their non scientific and politically motivated opinion worth anything in your mind? And why do you keep bringing consensus into the argument? I thought we were past that.

[recapped]

"Carbon taxes raised can be used to lower income taxes and other taxes."

Chuck, What is the point of it then?

[fjlip]

They cant say it and wont say it because climate change is the new racism. A horde of self righteous socialist and media sympathizers line up to immediately shame them. So they cant even debate it. They are forced to go along with it. But people on the ground who know a thing or two can see it for the sham it is especially with a carbon tax added to the hysteria.

Totally accurate jazz! People are voting Carbon/C02 taxes out, just Fed Libs to go! The lies/BS is NOT resonating, just the bought and paid for media and scared politicians.

[chuckChuck]

"Carbon taxes raised can be used to lower income taxes and other taxes."

Chuck, What is the point of it then?

There is still an incentive to use less carbon and be more efficient because you get to keep the carbon savings in your pocket and still get the lower income taxes. If you use less carbon you will pay less tax overall.

The reality is carbon tax is only one tool and we will need several tools to reduce carbon emissions. Preston Manning has been supportive of a carbon tax over regulation.

[fjlip]

Way before dreaming up solutions people need to grasp the insignificance of Canada. Great quotes from Patrick Moore, all one needs is a brain and reasoning to see the silly solutions are garbage!

"When a Global Warming faithful can honestly prove that a 4th tax on gasoline with a rebate to 0.005% of world’s population is a legitimate climate action plan that will change the weather is when I will stop thinking it’s a cult.

Why I know Global Warming is a cult 1. Earth is 4,200,000,000 yrs old 2. I critically think 3. Language keeps changing 4. Hollywood hypocrites jumped on 5. Politicians see tax opportunities 6. They use children to sell 7. They use bullying not dialogue 8. Started at UN

I challenge anyone in the “climate crisis crowd” to: 1. Prove to me that the 1.1C global temperature over past 150 yrs. is harmful. I say it’s beneficial. 2. Prove human CO2 emissions are the cause of the 1.1C rise in global temperature over the past 150 yrs. I say it’s natural.

Earths temperature varies -100F to +150F= 250 degree range. Climate alarmists (worried about .8C change) ramping up cult are: -Taxing -scaring kids to death -using $T of GVT $ and resources away from needs of citizens Earth in 4.2B yrs temperature range was in 1000s F Madness

[Radical]

We know scientists lie for there own gain, we know the U.N. agenda is, we know scientists predictions the last hundred years were wrong, we know they set the monitors in wrong places up north to get there hits, how many studies over the years are wrong because the first question is how do u want the study to go. We seen what Gerald Butts did to Ontario, governments are failures, these are fact so why is there 4 pages of this.

[furrowtickler]

Amazing to see over 6000 views in less than 48 hrs lol

[Guest]

yes , the sheeple are waking up, coming out of their listless , self induced coma , as the blue tsunami sweeps across the country .

[AlbertaFarmer5]

No, and neither do you. So throwing those questions out proves your denials are religion dogma.

So I will ask you again, give me the name of just one recognized scientific body national or international that denies man is a factor in climate change.

No, I throw those questions out because I have researched the answers, and according to the IPCC and other science denying organizations who you support, after decades of research, they still don't know what the climate sensitivity to CO2 is. They offer a range of between 1.5 and 4.5 C per doubling of CO2(with some outliers being lower than that, or even higher), and have been unable to narrow that range down in all this time, with all the money spent. The high estimate is 3 times the low estimate, and all of them (so far), exceed the actual measured results. That is like taking all the available evidence in late August, and stating that the Canadian canola crop will be somewhere between 15 and 45 bushels to the acre, plus or minus another 10 bushels, and expecting to be taken seriously. So if the IPCC can not conclusively tell us how much warming there will be, how can all of the other adherents be so certain? That is not religious dogma on my part, that is called reviewing the available science.

There is lots of good research on what the ideal levels of CO2 for plant growth are.

For obvious political reasons, there are scant studies about the ideal temperature of the earth for maximum productivity, but they do exist.

As for what level CO2 becomes a pollutant, if you combine the results of the above two, and the fact that the greenhouse effect is logarithmic, therefore has very little effect at higher levels (as we are seeing in recent decades), you will find that CO2 will start to become net detrimental at around 10,000 ppm, but unfortunately( or fortunately, depending on your perspective), we don't have enough fossil fuels to ever reach that level.

So, you are right, no one knows what the sensitivity is, hardly anyone wants to do the work to establish the ideal temperature, since the results don't fit the agenda, and realistically, CO2 will never reach levels where it would be considered a pollutant, so that definition is purely academic.