SARM is an embrassment with CO2 resolution!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Do you know what else is embarrassing?
Chuck keeps using the anti scientific argument that the majority of elected officials who are not doctors or scientists support covid vaccines, mandates and climate change initiatives, therefore they must be right and anyone who disagrees with that is wrong.
So here we have a 95% consensus of equally qualified members taking the other side, and somehow they don't want to apply the same logic.
No hypocrisy whatsoever.

[kANOLA]

wow ! its getting to be an embarassment living in Sask.

I am wintering in Panama and it’s full of earth muffins here. It’s not the locals but expats all over the world. I think you would fit in ,let me know if you like to move in with your people.

[WiltonRanch]

wow ! its getting to be an embarassment living in Sask.

Then gtfo and don’t let the door hit you in the butt. Good God!

[chuckChuck]

Well at least SARM didn't vote to say human caused climate change is not real and is a commie plot!

Not like the Conservative party! Then when pressed, Pierre Poilievre had to tell them and the media it is real. Just so they don't look like a bunch of fools.

But give them another chance and SARM will probably start saying human caused climate change is not real and more CO2 and a warming planet will be good for us! Is that just like more hotter and dryers summers will be good for us too?

Of course SARM wouldn't want to admit that modern agriculture is completely dependent on science! But any science that they disagree with they ignore and is wrong?

And no one is only targeting "natural" CO2 emissions. And to suggest that is ridiculous.

And if you learned any science in school at all you would know that there is a natural carbon cycle that was more or less in equilibrium for the last few thousand years.

But SARM ignores the fact that the fossil fuels have contribute massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that warms the planet.

But SARM doesn't make any mention of the plans to reduce nitrous oxide and methane emissions, both of which are significant greenhouse gases in agriculture?

It was just another case of political SARM nonsense and distraction from rural councilors who don't know the science.

SARM should stick to running good local governments and providing good roads and services, instead of embarrassing SARM with resolutions in areas that they don't understand.

[sumdumguy]

We know Chuck, you understand, everyone else is a moron. You are mentally inept.

[WiltonRanch]

Well at least SARM didn't vote to say human caused climate change is not real and is a commie plot!

Not like the Conservative party! Then when pressed, Pierre Poilievre had to tell them and the media it is real. Just so they don't look like a bunch of fools.

But give them another chance and SARM will probably start saying human caused climate change is not real and more CO2 and a warming planet will be good for us! Is that just like more hotter and dryers summers will be good for us too?

Of course SARM wouldn't want to admit that modern agriculture is completely dependent on science! But any science that they disagree with they ignore and is wrong?

And no one is only targeting "natural" CO2 emissions. And to suggest that is ridiculous.

And if you learned any science in school at all you would know that there is a natural carbon cycle that was more or less in equilibrium for the last few thousand years.

But SARM ignores the fact that the fossil fuels have contribute massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that warms the planet.

But SARM doesn't make any mention of the plans to reduce nitrous oxide and methane emissions, both of which are significant greenhouse gases in agriculture?

It was just another case of political SARM nonsense and distraction from rural councilors who don't know the science.

SARM should stick to running good local governments and providing good roads and services, instead of embarrassing SARM with resolutions in areas that they don't understand.

You gotta take a step back and take a break sometimes before you spiral out into oblivion.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

You gotta take a step back and take a break sometimes before you spiral out into oblivion.

Are you sure this event hasn't already occurred?

[chuckChuck]

Take a step back? When are you going to take a step back?

I just don't agree with the flat earth anti science bull shitters on agrisilly and SARM who aren't far behind!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

more CO2 and a warming planet will be good for us! ...

in areas that they don't understand.

Speaking of topics people don't understand.

In all the years we have been discussing this topic, you have yet to find even a single example of additional CO2, or a warmer world being a net negative for anything.
Are you sure you are in any position to judge anyone else's unqualified opinion on this?

[WiltonRanch]

Take a step back? When are you going to take a step back?

I just don't agree with the flat earth anti science bull shitters on agrisilly and SARM who aren't far behind!

Shit your last post was almost incoherent rabble. We were having some more civil discussions here and then you gotta go on another fricking tirade. Calm your tits sister.

[fjlip]

""No one has ever shown that human emissions of CO2 drive global warming…

And if it could be shown, then you would have to show that the 97% of emissions which are natural, do not drive global warming." Or climate change of course.?"

Explain, someone you believe must be able to?

How does the 97% NOT drive global climate, but 3% does?

[chuckChuck]

You are completely wrong and I am not sure why you keep repeating your anti science bullshit!

[url]https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide[/url]

Carbon dioxide is Earth’s most important greenhouse gas a gas that absorbs and radiates heat. Unlike oxygen or nitrogen (which make up most of our atmosphere), greenhouse gases absorb heat radiating from the Earth’s surface and re-release it in all directions—including back toward Earth’s surface. Without carbon dioxide, Earth’s natural greenhouse effect would be too weak to keep the average global surface temperature above freezing. By adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, people are supercharging the natural greenhouse effect, causing global temperature to rise. According to observations by the NOAA Global Monitoring Lab, in 2021 carbon dioxide alone was responsible for about two-thirds of the total heating influence of all human-produced greenhouse gases.?
([url]https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-annual-greenhouse-gas-index[/url])

Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂₎ in parts per million (ppm) for the past 800,000 years based on ice-core data (light purple line) compared to 2022 concentration (bright purple dot). The peaks and valleys in the line show ice ages (low CO₂) and warmer interglacials (higher CO₂). Throughout that time, CO₂ was never higher than 300 ppm (light purple dot, between 300,000 and 400,000 years ago). The increase over the last 60 years is 100 times faster than previous natural increases. In fact, on the geologic time scale, the increase from the end of the last ice age to the present (dashed purple line) looks virtually instantaneous. Graph by NOAA Climate.gov based on data from Lüthi, et al., 2008, via NOAA NCEI Paleoclimatology Program.?