Carbon drought ..

[dmlfarmer]

Hmmmmm
Not a word from chuck or DML on my second video...... hmmmmm
Any other climate scarecrows care to chip in .... or you simply can’t ? 🤔

You want a word. It is easy to baffle some people with BS. First section looking at solar flares and claiming they are not mathematically accounted for therefore is inflating human impact on climate. The announcer makes a mistake by admitting this natural phenomena has been happening for the last 140 years. Therefore the only way this would have a significant impact on climate is if the flares are getting stronger or more frequent. If not, it would not be influencing the long term temperature trend line and would be accounted for. But no mention of frequency or strength so misleading argument. Pure misdirection.

[furrowtickler]

You want a word. It is easy to baffle some people with BS. First section looking at solar flares and claiming they are not mathematically accounted for therefore is inflating human impact on climate. The announcer makes a mistake by admitting this natural phenomena has been happening for the last 140 years. Therefore the only way this would have a significant impact on climate is if the flares are getting stronger or more frequent. If not, it would not be influencing the long term temperature trend line and would be accounted for. But no mention of frequency or strength so misleading argument. Pure misdirection.

You would not hold a candle to this guy .. ever . Do a bit more research than a 2 min fly by lol

[tmyrfield]

Just saw this posted by a person working up north...typical example of the CORRUPT WORTHLESS data being used...

The CBC JUST PUT OUT A LEAKED REPORT SAYING THE NORTH IS WARMING AT TEMPERTURES 2.5 TIMES GREATER THAN THE REST OF THE WORLD.... THIS IS WHAT I PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS IN THE ARCTIC...The air quality monitoring stations that were installed after 2000 are a point of faulty data collection. The person who installed them (i helped them find locations for the ones in Inuvik and Yellowknife) were placed in locations to to get 'hits' ... when I asked the person in charge why he wanted them in locations where it would obvious give high readings he told me they want 'hits' so they can get more funding. I thought that was bad science so I would only approve a site that was average air quality for the town of Inuvik by a soccer pitch and no buildings or traffic near it... since they are going to use that single point to represent the surrounding 500 km I felt that was best... the person complained to the SAO and Mayor ... but I held firm on my assertion that the location away from direct sources of pollution was a better location to collect a representative sample. Since I moved away they moved the air quality station next to the boiler end on one of the larger buildings in Inuvik (Midnight Sun Rec Center) obviously to get 'hits' ... the air quality monitoring station in Yellowknife (see pictures) is next to one of the larger sewage lift stations (think pig barn) in the city... I would get calls a couple times a year from environment Canada asking about a high numbers...LOL! so the data from any of these sources are suspect... not because I don't believe data... quite the opposite ... I collect and analyze data professionally... there are serious problems when the data is collected to get 'hits'... the report 'leaked' by CBC has been fixed with 20 years of manipulated data... we are being miss-lead.
If this is happening on Canadas Arctic... where else has the data collected been placed so the monitoring system will get 'hits'?

reminds me of the saying ...just imagine how stupid the average person is, now think that half the population is even stupider

[AlbertaFarmer5]

[ATTACH]4165[/ATTACH]

reminds me of the saying ...just imagine how stupid the average person is, now think that half the population is even stupider

Thanks for posting the headlines, I'm going to save that and reuse it. And the science deniers wonder why we make fun of their math abilities...

[AlbertaFarmer5]

No question CO2 is essential to life. But like everything, too much can create problems. Nitrogen fertilizers are important to plant growth, but it also becomes a pollutant if it runs off into water courses because of improper application or over application for soil holding capability. Same with phosphates. Great as fertilizer, not so good in water courses. Even water is critical for all life as we know it but too much drowns plants and people.

Nor will I admit climate change is a religion. It is based on the best science we have at this time. I am still waiting for anyone to name even one scientific body that denies man made climate change.

Do you know what the ideal level of CO2 is, or was or should be? Do you know what the range of temperature sensitivity to doubling CO2 is estimated to be? At what level does it cease to be beneficial, and becomes a pollutant?

In your last sentence, you have once again appealed to consensus, after we just finished establishing that consensus is not part of science. Please reread some old threads where we have been educating Chuck about consensus, rather than having to rehash it all over again.

And as for climate change being a religious cult, it actually meets all of the criteria, see the following:

https://medium.com/@hwater84/climate-change-and-the-ten-warning-signs-for-cults-56c181db82c1 https://medium.com/@hwater84/climate-change-and-the-ten-warning-signs-for-cults-56c181db82c1

[dmlfarmer]

Do you know what the ideal level of CO2 is, or was or should be? Do you know what the range of temperature sensitivity to doubling CO2 is estimated to be? At what level does it cease to be beneficial, and becomes a pollutant?

In your last sentence, you have once again appealed to consensus, after we just finished establishing that consensus is not part of science. Please reread some old threads where we have been educating Chuck about consensus, rather than having to rehash it all over again.

And as for climate change being a religious cult, it actually meets all of the criteria, see the following:

https://medium.com/@hwater84/climate-change-and-the-ten-warning-signs-for-cults-56c181db82c1 https://medium.com/@hwater84/climate-change-and-the-ten-warning-signs-for-cults-56c181db82c1

No, and neither do you. So throwing those questions out proves your denials are religion dogma. Saying we should do nothing in spite of SCIENCE showing in the last 100 years we have seen CO2 levels explode to levels not seen in 800,000 years has scientists asking why and what the effect will be. On the other hand we have deniers crying well levels were that high 20 million years ago and there were trees in the artic so it proves it is good. They ignore sea levels that would displace much of the population today, what conditions were like outside the artic, and the fact man was not around 20 million years ago. You claim it higher levels have been good for your farm but science does not measure benefits and detriments based just on your farm. That is religion not science.

And you are trying to confuse people with the term consensus. The 97% level has never indicated that 97% of scientests agree on any single point of climate change. It is based on one study peer reviewed scientific papers and the stance those papers took on climate change. There has been at least 8 more such reviews since that 97% and all reveal over 90% of peer reviewed SCIENTIFIC papers published have finding that indicate man is having an impact on climate change. So there is real science being done and most of it is finding climate change is real and man is a factor in that change.

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.

[dmlfarmer]

[ATTACH]4165[/ATTACH]

reminds me of the saying ...just imagine how stupid the average person is, now think that half the population is even stupider

NEWS FLASH: headlines are not the news. They are there to draw attention, perhaps entice the reader to read the article, or even to deflect attention AWAY from the real story - depending on the political view of the paper.

Researchers do not write the headlines, the publication does, and headlines carry all of the political bias of the publisher, editors, and journalist.

How stupid are people you ask - ever notice the number of tabloid magazines at a grocery store? Do you believe all those headlines?

Britain even has the BAD PRESS awards each year that honor the most misleading headlines.

And yet here you are posting just headlines and asking how stupid people are. And the AF5, the guy that claims science needs to be followed is going to save and use this posting of headlines to make his case in the future. Talk about religious fanatism! It is too funny.

For rational thinkers and those who truly believe in science, I suggest reading the Australian Study Misleading Headlines to see what happens when you only read the headlines. http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/Publications/Ecker.2014IP.JEPA.pdf http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/Publications/Ecker.2014IP.JEPA.pdf

[dmlfarmer]

You would not hold a candle to this guy .. ever . Do a bit more research than a 2 min fly by lol

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.

[jazz]

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.

dml, you clearly don't know jack about science. Science isn't a bunch if research papers sitting around with scientists patting themselves on the back. There is tons of that kind of research in every field just sitting around because it has no application because it has no clear real world evidence backing it. A scientific theory worth it salt makes verifiable predictions. What verifiable prediction has any of the climate models made? Not a single one. Where is that statue of liberty under water calculation? They are still throwing up condos like crazy in S Florida. Havent seen a world wide famine yet.

[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.