So History Repeats Itself - Gerald Pilger Conutry Guide

[farmaholic]

AGCO RECENTLY built a prototype RoGator with a 650v generator to power motors that drive the wheels. Called the ElectRoGator, the vehicle is based on a RoGator 1386 high-clearance applicator and is equipped with a 311-hp engine. The electric-drive system saves 20% in fuel and results in 30% more power to the ground. Machinery manufacturers like AGCO are exploring electric systems to take the place of hydraulics and run auxiliary systems like fans and air conditioning. See video of the machine atfarmindustrynews.com/tv.

[Hopalong]

Going back to tractor-horse analogy, Canada and United States had similar tax policy on mechanized eguipment. There was no special tax to discourage use of horses.
Considering potential environmental and economic damage from warmer climate and rising sea levels, we might expect other countries to go first in limiting greenhouse gas emissions..
Carbon tax would have been more acceptable in Canada if United States had gone along.
Continued success of Trump economic policy will put pressure on Trudeau government to adopt a more integrated approach on emission limits.

[chuckChuck]

Gerald Pilger's article in Country Guide told one story about the resistance to moving to tractors from horses. Many people don't like change.

I don't think any of us are able to see what the future will hold for new technology. There are still many farmers and farm families that don't use computers at all or very much.

The reality is renewable energy sources are getting much cheaper and will likely replace a lot of old technology. How much and how fast is still an open question.

As Pilger pointed out it doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not the world is moving on.

[blackpowder]

That is true, the world is always moving on. I just dont believe we can quite yet predict the future. And I'm not sure I follow the future that has been preordained for me by the experts.
The Country Guide is free because it is worth that. An editorial in the Scientific American tells me that "climate deniers" rank with the 911 conspiracy theorists etc. I will admit I dont know. But that really tells me that academia has closed the book and is moving on. To graduate school, sell a magazine, or get elected you have to SAY you believe.
I say again, I dont know. I admit I cannot know the future. I am not convinced current common knowledge "knows" the answer either. An interesting, never before attempted social experiment, is about to unfold over the next century. I dont think anyone can see where it will take us. Except of course those of us who know everything already.

[chuckChuck]

So if we don't use peer reviewed science from experts in their field who focus their careers on knowing what is going on, what is the alternative? Do you think farmers at the coffee shop or on Agriville can understand the science of climate change better than climate change scientist? Do you think you know more than your Doctor about disease and medicine?

Do you really think non experts without this detailed education and experience can make good decisions without relying on the experts?

Science evolves as knowledge and technology evolves. Without advanced mathematics, physics, and chemistry and biology most of the modern world as you and I know it would not exist. You and I would not likely be here as our ancestors would have died from infection or malnutrition.

[seldomseen]

Well I believe Tim Ball who has a Ph.D. in climatology and I don't believe the people that try to change history like the "Medieval Warm Period" in a attempt to force a United Nations political agenda on the world.

I would wonder who understands weather better a University Professor that lives in the middle of a huge city and spends his days in a building never knowing what the weather is doing or a Farmer who's whole life is controlled by weather!

[chuckChuck]

Tim Ball does not have a Phd in Climatology and has not published peer reviewed research on climate change. Also see wikipedia's section showing that Ball is controversial. He is essentially is paid by big oil to be a climate change denier. A shit disturber in other words.
Timothy F. Ball (Tim Ball)
Credentials

Ph.D. (Doctor of Science), University of London, England, 1982.
M.A., University of Manitoba, 1971.
B.A., University of Winnipeg, 1970.

Source: [1], [2]
Background

Tim Ball was a professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1988 to 1996. He is a prolific speaker and writer in the skeptical science community. [2]

He has been Chairman to the now-defunct Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP), “Consultant” to the Exxon-funded Friends of Science (FoS), senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy (FCPP), and has connections to numerous other think tanks and right-wing organizations. [3], [4], [1]

Tim Ball is member of Climate Exit (Clexit), a climate change denial group formed shortly after the UK’s decision to leave the EU. According to Clexit's founding statement (PDF), “The world must abandon this suicidal Global Warming crusade. Man does not and cannot control the climate.” [5], [6]
NRSP Denier Connections

The NRSP's past list of “scientific advisors” has also included prominent deniers Tim Patterson, Tad Murty and Sallie Baliunas, all of which are also listed as advisors to the FOS. [3], [7]

DeSmog previously noted that two of the three directors on the board of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project were at one time senior executives of the High Park Advocacy Group, a Toronto-based lobby firm that specializes in “energy, environment and ethics.” [8]
First PhD in Climatology?

Ball and the organizations he is affiliated with have repeatedly made the claim that he is the “first Canadian PhD in climatology.” Ball himself claimed he was “one of the first climatology PhD's in the world.” [9], [10]

Many have pointed out that there have been numerous PhD's in the field prior to Ball. [11]

Ball was a former professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1988 to 1996. The University of Winnipeg never had an office of Climatology. His degree was in historical geography and not climatology. [12]

From Wikipedia
Controversies and lawsuits

Ball claimed, in an article written for the Calgary Herald, that he was the first person to receive a PhD in climatology in Canada, and that he had been a professor for 28 years,[44] claims he also made in a letter to then-prime minister of Canada, Paul Martin.[45] Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at the University of Lethbridge, countered his claim on April 23, 2006, in a letter to the Herald stating that when Ball received his PhD in 1983, "Canada already had PhDs in climatology," and that Ball had only been a professor for eight years, rather than 28 as he had claimed. Johnson, however, counted only Ball's years as a full professor.[46] In the letter, Johnson also wrote that Ball “did not show any evidence of research regarding climate and atmosphere.”[39]

In response, Ball filed a lawsuit against Johnson. Ball's representation in the case was provided by Fraser Milner Casgrain.[47] Johnson's statement of defense was provided by the Calgary Herald, which stated that Ball "...never had a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming," and that he "...is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."[45] In the ensuing court case, Ball acknowledged that he had only been a professor for eight years, and that his doctorate was not in climatology but rather in geography,[39] and subsequently withdrew the lawsuit on June 8, 2007.[45][48]

In February 2011, it was reported that climate scientist Andrew J. Weaver had sued Ball over an article Ball wrote for the Canada Free Press, an article which was later retracted. In the article, Ball described Weaver as lacking a basic understanding of climate science and stated, incorrectly, that Weaver would not be involved in the production of the IPCC's next report because he had concerns about its credibility.[49][50] Ball contended that the lawsuit was nothing more than an attempt to silence him because of his skeptical position on global warming, despite Ball's own 2006 defamation lawsuit against Dan Johnson.[51]

Ball found himself at the center of controversy again later that year, when he told an anonymous interviewer that Michael E. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, "should be in the State Pen, not Penn State," due to Mann's role in the Climatic Research Unit email controversy.[52] Mann then sued Ball for libel, and stated that he was seeking punitive damages and for the article to be removed from the Frontier Centre for Public Policy's website, on which it was originally published.[53] James Taylor, senior fellow of the Heartland Institute, defended Ball, arguing that what he had said about Mann was merely a "humorous insult."[54] Fred Singer made a similar argument in a 2012 article, saying that what Ball had written was written as a joke and that Mann was "improvidently" suing him.[55]

[Braveheart]

Lol, chuckChuck, you calling anyone a shit disturber is classic pot calling the kettle black.

[chuckChuck]

Well I believe Tim Ball who has a Ph.D. in climatology and I don't believe the people that try to change history like the "Medieval Warm Period" in a attempt to force a United Nations political agenda on the world.

I would wonder who understands weather better a University Professor that lives in the middle of a huge city and spends his days in a building never knowing what the weather is doing or a Farmer who's whole life is controlled by weather!

Seldom. Your last statement about farmers knowing more than climate change scientists about weather proves exactly what I have been saying. You don't understand the science, or the difference between the weather and climate change.

How would a farmer know anything about 1000s of years of weather data and climate change on a global level just because he worked outside on his little farm in a very small part of the world watching the weather in his short lifetime?

[sumdumguy]

Seldom. Your last statement about farmers knowing more than climate change scientists about weather proves exactly what I have been saying. You don't understand the science, or the difference between the weather and climate change.

How would a farmer know anything about 1000s of years of weather data and climate change on a global level just because he worked outside on his little farm in a very small part of the world watching the weather in his short lifetime?

Manufactured data and hypothesis from guys who are on the take - yep I believe, why shouldn't I? when I know CO2 is Mother Nature's way of producing food and oxygen and there is legitimate proof that CO2 increases growth and yield. Oh yeh, you can believe them and give them all your money. I'll put my money on common sense.

[seldomseen]

Well chucky I would believe a bunch of farmers before I would believe a bunch of political bureaucrats with an agenda at the IPCC.

[blackpowder]

Well, E=mc2 was a hypothetical theory proven only by mathematics, hypothesis and known measurements. When the first atom bomb was detonated scientists at the time did not have concensus on the result. Because they didnt know.
Now, all the benefits of the scientific process of proof that chuck mentions had clear proof through the scientific process. Hypothesis' could be proven or disproven. Mostly on the scale of lab work. Penicillin worked before our eyes. Theorys on prehistory, be it Neandertal life or the dinosaur extinction or the birth of the solar system have changed constantly with new evidence. Evidence that can only add or detract from a theory. Not show immediate, controllable, measurable results.
If the science of climate were so we could predict the weather better. How and why the weather over 4 billion years was the way it was is theory. What it will be 500 years from now is theory. Saying atmospheric carbon is the Holy Grail is theory.
Halting temperature rise forever by extinguishing the human race is lunacy. Lets embrace change because it will one way or the other. Stopping it at 2° by stopping all fossil fuel usage is, I believe, naive.
Is being called a Denier another way of saying contrarian? That would be fine. But it has become a way of saying ignorant.
And I will fight that.
We should all fight the real and immediate economic peril we are being given by these theorys.
A Doctorate is not insurance against being wrong. It is sometimes only proof that you answered all the questions on the test correctly as per the current wisdom.
Telling us we are completely wrong and know nothing because we didnt go to the right schools places chuck and kind, to me, in the same league as any other group of politicaly aligned bullies in history. I will not follow your blind faith.
I cannot Prove you completely wrong. But I cannot allow you to say you are completely right.
This is an assault on our economic status. Not by a foreign power. Not by worldwide depression. Not by a new technology that the world is buying with real dollars. But by political will from within based on theory being paid for by our own money taken by law. For a "war" that will be measured in centurys.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Well, E=mc2 was a hypothetical theory proven only by mathematics, hypothesis and known measurements. When the first atom bomb was detonated scientists at the time did not have concensus on the result. Because they didnt know.
Now, all the benefits of the scientific process of proof that chuck mentions had clear proof through the scientific process. Hypothesis' could be proven or disproven. Mostly on the scale of lab work. Penicillin worked before our eyes. Theorys on prehistory, be it Neandertal life or the dinosaur extinction or the birth of the solar system have changed constantly with new evidence. Evidence that can only add or detract from a theory. Not show immediate, controllable, measurable results.
If the science of climate were so we could predict the weather better. How and why the weather over 4 billion years was the way it was is theory. What it will be 500 years from now is theory. Saying atmospheric carbon is the Holy Grail is theory.
Halting temperature rise forever by extinguishing the human race is lunacy. Lets embrace change because it will one way or the other. Stopping it at 2° by stopping all fossil fuel usage is, I believe, naive.
Is being called a Denier another way of saying contrarian? That would be fine. But it has become a way of saying ignorant.
And I will fight that.
We should all fight the real and immediate economic peril we are being given by these theorys.
A Doctorate is not insurance against being wrong. It is sometimes only proof that you answered all the questions on the test correctly as per the current wisdom.
Telling us we are completely wrong and know nothing because we didnt go to the right schools places chuck and kind, to me, in the same league as any other group of politicaly aligned bullies in history. I will not follow your blind faith.
I cannot Prove you completely wrong. But I cannot allow you to say you are completely right.
This is an assault on our economic status. Not by a foreign power. Not by worldwide depression. Not by a new technology that the world is buying with real dollars. But by political will from within based on theory being paid for by our own money taken by law. For a "war" that will be measured in centurys.

Some very good points. And further to that, I think the biggest benefit to come from the AGW debate, is that humans from all disciplines and all aspects of society have now taken an interest in climate and the weather, historical, future and present. From this information, I expect that we can develop some much more accurate long term weather trend forecasting tools. Most things in the world are cyclical, and with enough information, enough minds and enough computing power, maybe we can tease out the cycles within the cycles that give us the weather. Then we can prepare for it, we can know if we need to develop crops needing more or less heat units, drought or flood tolerant.

Meanwhile we will waste billions, and untold resources and time fighting AGW, but at least some god will come from all the research into climate.