U.S. Report Says Humans Cause Climate Change, Contradicting Top Trump Officials

Commodity Marketing

Tools

U.S. Report Says Humans Cause Climate Change, Contradicting Top Trump Officials

Nov 6, 2017 | 14:41 31
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
Higher average temperatures are great in winter, but what happens if higher average summer temperatures come with higher evaporation rates and less growing season precipitation which creates more drought?

Will you still be happy?

Check out the predictions at http://prairieclimatecentre.ca/2017/10/the-prairie-climate-atlas-making-climate-science-meaningful/
My two biggest limiting factors Are excess moisture and lack of heat units. In my selfish self-centered greedy way bring it on please. Reply With Quote
blackpowder's Avatar Nov 6, 2017 | 15:08 32 "This will be a long transition. You and I will be long gone before it is 1/2 way done."

Another intelligent concession by chuck.
So if the policies of today aren't right, lets make them better. Because the how and why of what were doing now is stupid. Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2017 | 16:15 33 A few tibits .....

This climate change blame , ie "Humans Cause Climate Change" is about guilting the average Joe (the Middle class) into accepting blame for the air pollution on earth , ie paying carbon tax schemes for wealth distribution. This will not effect the wealth one bit of the fox's running the hen house .....
Carbon tax's will drain disposable income from farms dramatically through indirect costs as many have stated here with absolutely no way to pass those costs on.

If they want wealth distribution go after all the wealth of those in the paradise papers and give that money to the poor lol. Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2017 | 16:18 34 Not interested at all in Chuck's BS. Braindead at best! Reply With Quote
fjlip's Avatar Nov 6, 2017 | 17:42 35 Thanks Furrow, I have never doubted the TOTAL BS and LIES.
Shame on you that swallow the SHIT they spew!
Hitler... the bigger the lie the easier to SELL.... Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2017 | 19:32 36
Quote Originally Posted by furrowtickler View Post
A few tibits .....

This climate change blame , ie "Humans Cause Climate Change" is about guilting the average Joe (the Middle class) into accepting blame for the air pollution on earth , ie paying carbon tax schemes for wealth distribution. This will not effect the wealth one bit of the fox's running the hen house .....
Carbon tax's will drain disposable income from farms dramatically through indirect costs as many have stated here with absolutely no way to pass those costs on.

If they want wealth distribution go after all the wealth of those in the paradise papers and give that money to the poor lol.
Just so everyone knows Furrowtickler's quotes are from Cfact.org which has a climate change denial position. It's not a climate science organization. Many of their climate change denial articles are written by a David Wojick Ph. D who is a Civil Engineer and a has Phd in Philosophy. He has no training in climate science. He was a science advisor for a large coal industry association. More on him in another post.

This is from Cfact.org climate summary page:

Summary

"Earth’s climate changes frequently, sometimes beneficially, sometimes disastrously (as during repeated glacial periods and the Little Ice Age of 1350-1850), as a result of shifting and interacting solar, cosmic, oceanic, atmospheric and other forces that we are only beginning to understand. While some continue to insist that human “greenhouse gas” emissions are causing potentially catastrophic changes in climate and weather, growing numbers of scientists say nature, not man, rules the climate and causes changes of varying extent and significance every few decades, centuries and millennia.

Humans, plants and wildlife have survived and even prospered during past climate changes – and will continue to do so. Indeed, our technology and wealth will make people and civilizations much better able to prepare for and adapt to most climate changes, although another Pleistocene-scale ice age would devastate northern cities, decimate agricultural production, and drive human and species migrations.

Computer models are helpful for improving our understanding of how weather and climate systems work and change over time. However, because they are based on poor data and false, questionable or simplistic premises, they are useless in forecasting future climate and weather. Moreover, actual temperature and weather data demonstrate that alarmist warnings of dangerous global warming are not supported by reality. Regulating carbon dioxide may be profitable for certain industries and governments, but will impose enormous costs on society – while having no effect on our weather and climate.

Today, the real danger is laws and policies implemented in a misplaced belief that humans can control or prevent climate change. These policies raise energy costs, kill jobs, impose especially heavy burdens on poor families, and make it hard for still impoverished nations to develop, provide affordable energy, create jobs, and improve lives and living standards. Moreover, even drastic reductions in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions will mean nothing globally, because China, India and other developing nations are now emitting far more CO2 than the United States could eliminate even by shutting down its economy."

The summary starts off with usual "the climate has changed before" argument.

Below is the scientific rebuttal found at https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

Climate Myth...

Climate's changed before
Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. (Richard Lindzen)

Science has a good understanding of past climate changes and their causes, and that evidence makes the human cause of modern climate change all the more clear. Greenhouse gasses – mainly CO2, but also methane – have been implicated in most of the climate changes in Earth’s past. When they were reduced, the global climate became colder. When they were increased, the global climate became warmer. When changes were big and rapid (as they are today), the consequences for life on Earth were often dire – in some cases causing mass extinctions.
So why is the myth wrong?
Last edited by chuckChuck; Nov 6, 2017 at 20:43.
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2017 | 19:32 37 The myth is wrong for two reasons:

First, to infer that humans can't be behind today's climate change because climate changed before humans is bad reasoning (a non-sequitur). Humans are changing the climate today mainly via greenhouse gas emissions, the same mechanism that caused climate change before humans.
Second, to imply we have nothing to fear from today's climate change is not borne out by the lessons from rapid climate changes in Earth's past.

Third rock from the Sun – why we’re not deep frozen.

A rocky planet this far from the sun should be frozen solid and lifeless at an average temperature of -18°C (0°F). The fact that it isn’t is due to greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, mainly CO2. These atmospheric gasses have been in a delicate balance with the Earth’s oceans, the biosphere, and even the geosphere (all the rocks and sediments). Whether it was frigid ice ages or the steamy climates of the Eocene and the age of the dinosaurs, every change in the Earth (like a decrease in the rate of tectonic plate subduction or an increase in the rate of mountain building) caused a proportional change in CO2 in the atmosphere and in the oceans, and every change in atmospheric CO2 caused a proportional reaction in global temperatures, climate and ocean chemistry.
Ice ages

Scientists have shown that CO2 and climate moved in lock-step throughout the Pleistocene ice ages. The ice ages were actually many pulses of cold glacial phases interspersed with warmer interglacials. These pulses had a distinct regularity caused by wobbles in Earth’s orbit around the Sun (Milankovitch cycles). When Earth’s orbit reduced the intensity of sunlight in the northern hemisphere, the Earth went into a glacial phase. When the orbital cycle brought increased the intensity of insolation in the northern hemisphere, ice sheets melted and we went into a warm interglacial. Because warmer oceans can dissolve less CO2, the CO2 levels see-sawed extremely closely with Earth’s temperature. It was a slow pace of change, taking tens to hundreds of thousands of years, and yes as the myth states, in the last million years the biggest orbit-induced cycles were every 100,000 years.

But we know these orbital changes are not behind today's global warming. In fact our orbit dictates we should be cooling now, not warming.

The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD. But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions.

Greenhouse gas levels and temperature in lock-step throughout the most recent ice ages (Centre for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen). Greenhouse gasses and Temperature moved in lock-step through the Pleistocene Ice Ages, controlled by Earth's orbit around the Sun (Centre for Ice and Climate, University of Copenhagen). Arrows show where levels were a few years ago, on the same scale.
CO2 doesn’t lag behind temperature

Until 2012, Antarctic ice core data suggested CO2 may have lagged behind the warming trend by hundreds of years. This was used by skeptics to question the link between CO2 and climate. More recent studies, with much more precise correlation between ice cores and global temperature records, have shown that temperature and CO2 changed synchronously in Antarctica during the end of the last ice age, and globally CO2 rose slightly before global temperatures.
Palm-fringed Arctic and balmy dinosaurs

It’s true that at times in Earth's past the climate has been as warm or even warmer than temperatures projected for the end of this century and beyond. Aside from some warm interglacials, the average climate was last as warm as we expect in 2100 during the Pliocene epoch – before the emergence of the genus Homo which includes you and me. In that time, summer Arctic temperatures were 3°C (5°F) warmer than today, with CO2 levels similar to today’s and sea levels were 15-25m (50-82ft) higher than today. Rain-drenched forests fringed the Arctic Ocean at the time.


Going further back to the Eocene, the world then was very warm and humid – on average 10°C (18°F) warmer than today. Lush swamp forests fringed the Arctic, inhabited by turtles, alligators, primates, tapirs, and the hippo-like Coryphodon (just as the myth claims). Lowland Antarctica was warm and covered in near-tropical vegetation, and London was a mangrove swamp as rainforests spread across much of the planet. Going back even further to the age of the dinosaurs, life flourished in a time of high CO2 and generally warm average temperatures with high sea levels. Even Antarctica was forested and supported a healthy population of dinosaurs.
CO2 and Climate Changes in the last 400 million years

CO2 and Climate Changes in the last 400+ million years (note all human existence fits under the right-hand vertical axis line). CO2 proxy data from Dan Breeker, U.Texas, originally published here. Greenhouse events in part from Kravchinsky 2012.
Sudden vs slow change
Life flourished in the Eocene, the Cretaceous and other times of high CO2 in the atmosphere because the greenhouse gasses were in balance with the carbon in the oceans and the weathering of rocks. Life, ocean chemistry, and atmospheric gasses had millions of years to adjust to those levels.


But there have been several times in Earth’s past when Earth's temperature jumped rapidly, in much the same way as they are doing today. Those times were caused by large and rapid greenhouse gas emissions, just like humans are causing today. In Earth's past the trigger for these greenhouse gas emissions was often unusually massive volcanic eruptions known as “Large Igneous Provinces,” with knock-on effects that included huge releases of CO2 and methane from organic-rich sediments. But there is no Large Igneous Province operating today, or anytime in the last 16 million years. Today’s volcanoes, in comparison, don’t even come close to emitting the levels of greenhouse gasses that humans do.

Those rapid global warming events were almost always highly destructive for life, causing mass extinctions such as at the end of the Permian, Triassic, or even mid-Cambrian periods. The symptoms from those events (huge and rapid carbon emissions, a big rapid jump in global temperatures, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, widespread oxygen-starved zones in the oceans) are all happening today with human-caused climate change. The outcomes for life on Earth were often dire. The end Permian extinction saw around 90% of species go extinct, and it left tropical regions on the planet lethally hot, too hot for complex life to survive. The Triassic extinction was another, one of the 5 biggest mass extinctions in the geological record. Even in the end Cretaceous extinction, in which dinosaurs were finally wiped out by an asteroid impact, a major global-warming extinction event was already underway causing a major extinction within 150,000 years of the impact. That global warming 66 million years ago was due to catastrophic eruptions in India, which emitted a pulse of CO2 that sent global temperatures soaring by 7°C (13°F).

So yes, the climate has changed before, and in most cases scientists know why. In all cases we see the same association between CO2 levels and global temperatures. And past examples of rapid carbon emissions offer no comfort at all for the likely outcome from today’s climate change.

Intermediate rebuttal written by howardlee Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2017 | 19:33 38 David E. Wojick
Credentials

Ph.D. “The Logic of Science”, specializing in Mathematical Logic and Conceptual Analysis, University of Pittsburgh (1974).
B.S., Civil Engineering, Carnegie-Mellon University (1964).

Source: [1], [2]
Background

Wojick is a journalist and policy analyst. He holds a doctorate in epistemology, specializing in the field of Mathematical Logic and Conceptual Analysis.

Wojick was a “scientific advisor” for a now-defunct Greening Earth Society, a group created by the Western Fuels Association, a large US coal industry association.

In his role as a “policy analyst,” Wojick's client list includes AES Corporation, one of the largest electrical generation companies, with much of that in the form of coal, and Allegheny Energy, a company that generates 95% of its power from coal.

Wojick is the owner and operator of Climatechangedebate.org, a listserv discussing Climate Change. In this capacity, Wojick injects discussion and information highlighting climate change as a non-issue.

He has been a columnist for the “Electricity Daily,” a now-defunct electrical industry trade magazine.

From 1976 - 1981, Wojick was head of Adams & Wojick Associates, which worked on federal regulations for industry and government.
Stance on Climate Change

“The problem is that the earth is very large and the temperature is always changing, everywhere, so how can we possibly tell if overall it is a mere half-degree warmer today than it was around 1902? The origin of the theory of global warming (for it is just a theory) lies in taking the thermometer readings we happen to have from the last 100 years and massaging them in various ways. Some places have clearly warmed, others have clearly cooled. Many have gone up and down but with little apparent trend. To get a global result requires a lot of statistical manipulation.

“…even if the earth has warmed a little bit there is still the very real possibility that this warming is natural, that the models are no good, that warming is beneficial, etc.” [3]
Key Quotes

“In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG hypothesis does not do this.” [4]

Key Deeds

July, 2003

Wojick participated in shaping the Strategic Plan for the Climate Change Program (SPCC) final report in July, 2003. In his presentation to representatives of CCSP (The Climate Change Science Program) he “made the case for uncertainty.” [5]

His report, “Key Uncertainties, Milestones and Issues in the CCSP,” was originally available on the American Petroleum Institute's website, but has since been removed. DeSmog hosts the file here.
Affiliations

Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP) — Past “Allied Expert.” The NRSP is now defunct. [6]

Greening Earth Society — Past “Scientific Advisor.” The Greening Earth Society is now defunct. [2]

The Heartland Institute — “Expert.” [7]

Environment & Climate News — Contributing Editor. [9]

Electricity Daily — Past columnist (the magazine is now defunct). [4]

OSTI — Past consultant, in areas of “information and communication science.” [8]

Publications

According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Wojick has not published any research in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of climate change.

According to a search of Google Scholar, Wojick has published 11 articles in peer-reviewed journals, mainly on the subject of epistemology.
Resources
Last edited by chuckChuck; Nov 6, 2017 at 20:44.
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2017 | 20:03 39 Since humans cause climate change, the only logical way to reverse the trend is to have less humans. I say the believers of climate change should be put to the sword first. Perhaps by their monumental sacrifice to save the planet others will follow suit. Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2017 | 23:07 40 Chuck thinks the 1% of Canadian food production (plus or minus a percent or two) contributed by organic farming in Canada will feed all the people who need nutrients to live.

Similarly the 1% or so of Sask electrical production from solar and a little more from wind is of primary importance.

To argue otherwise with others like him is truly a waste of effort. Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017 | 02:58 41
Quote Originally Posted by oneoff View Post
Chuck thinks the 1% of Canadian food production (plus or minus a percent or two) contributed by organic farming in Canada will feed all the people who need nutrients to live.

Similarly the 1% or so of Sask electrical production from solar and a little more from wind is of primary importance.

To argue otherwise with others like him is truly a waste of effort.
Correctemondo, he lacks the ability to think. He depends on propagandists to feed him the crap. The guys in the trough just keep spewing this garbage out and people who hate big oil just gobble it up as gospel. Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017 | 07:04 42 But the hypocrisy of the environmental/man made chemical contamination/health nut/sickness curers crusades etc. has kicked in big time.


The only argument missing in the global message is that the only reasonable solution is getting a handle on the world human population that probably has reached overstretching sustainable scarce resources and creating the waste products inevitably produced.

Its either twice as much (on average of course) to go around if there are half as many bodies to share with ...or...... there's another "doubling" of humans demanding the amenities that everyone covets when they come to know about the relatively extravagant recreation, pleasure, travel and everyday life that a minority now enjoy. Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017 | 07:47 43
Quote Originally Posted by oneoff View Post
But the hypocrisy of the environmental/man made chemical contamination/health nut/sickness curers crusades etc. has kicked in big time.


The only argument missing in the global message is that the only reasonable solution is getting a handle on the world human population that probably has reached overstretching sustainable scarce resources and creating the waste products inevitably produced.

Its either twice as much (on average of course) to go around if there are half as many bodies to share with ...or...... there's another "doubling" of humans demanding the amenities that everyone covets when they come to know about the relatively extravagant recreation, pleasure, travel and everyday life that a minority now enjoy.
I agree reducing the population, slowing resource depletion, and protecting the environment, along with slowing or turning around human caused climate change will be important if we are to survive on this planet. Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017 | 09:19 44
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
I agree reducing the population, slowing resource depletion, and protecting the environment, along with slowing or turning around human caused climate change will be important if we are to survive on this planet.
And how do you propose to reduce the population? Freezing to death due to no fossil fuel energy for heating? Starving to death due to no fossil fuel energy for fertilizer or farm equipment? Or do you advocate more direct methods? And if so, how do you choose who? Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017 | 11:32 45
Quote Originally Posted by sumdumguy View Post
Correctemondo, he lacks the ability to think. He depends on propagandists to feed him the crap. The guys in the trough just keep spewing this garbage out and people who hate big oil just gobble it up as gospel.
As someone recently stated, "Those who can read often make the mistake of counting themselves among those who can think." Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017 | 12:01 46 Hay Chunky, how MUCH is the Liberal Mafia paying you to edumacate us poor dumb hillbillys bout AGW?

Nothing like sexing up another scare story to sell ads, eh?

OTOH, there are still reasonable, knowledgeable people like this guy.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/03/the-media-is-100-wrong-about-this-aspect-of-the-latest-climate-change-report/


Frankly, I'm shocked that the Media Party could possibly wrong about anything, he said sarcastically.
. Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017 | 13:15 47 End of the day chuck ... read the first one I put up .... UN officials are quoted as saying this is about wealth redistribution... that's the point .
You can go on and on and on .... well you do but call it what it is .
Is the climate changing - yup
Do humans partially cause it - debatable . Big industry sure does . But the problem is who pays who , what for and for what end result ??
The wealthiest people on the planet are the ones who run the industries that cause the most pollution. These climate change tax's and policies will not cost them a single dime from their disposable income .... but for the average joe on Agriville and or the middle class consumer it could be dramatic . Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017 | 13:48 48 So is it a myth those UN officials said what they did say as well ??? 🙄 Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017 | 14:21 49
Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
And how do you propose to reduce the population? Freezing to death due to no fossil fuel energy for heating? Starving to death due to no fossil fuel energy for fertilizer or farm equipment? Or do you advocate more direct methods? And if so, how do you choose who?
Inconvenient questions that likely won't be answered by climate alarmists.

It will be interesting to see if some of these loons recommend the North Korea lifestyle to achieve their carbon footprint goals.....NK seems to win Earth Hour every year. 🙈 Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017 | 15:00 50 I wonder if Al Gore (et all ) will have to change their lifestyle to fight climate change ?
Why not an enviro tax offshore holdings ?
Tax lottery / casino winnings like they do in the US? Put that towards climate change and green energy?
Put a larger tax on extreme luxury items that only the ultra rich spend on ?
Why a carbon tax that will only negatively affect those who are already taxed to death ?
If the proposed carbon tax goes through on fertilizer, it will be disastrous to western Canadian farmers already facing a huge disadvantage to most world Ag exporters . Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017 | 15:08 51 One other idea is to have those Canadians listed in the Paradise papers be forced to move all money back to Canada and invest in green technologies here at home to spearhead climate change ? If it's such a great investment in our future why not ? ... lol my guess is that their attitude would change fairly quickly when it affects their pocket book directly. Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017 | 16:13 52
Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
And how do you propose to reduce the population? Freezing to death due to no fossil fuel energy for heating? Starving to death due to no fossil fuel energy for fertilizer or farm equipment? Or do you advocate more direct methods? And if so, how do you choose who?
The process to reduce population growth rates are to reduce the number of births. Natural deaths take care of the rest. Canada's birthrate in 2016 was 1.6. The rate at which a population can replace itself in Canada and the rest of the developed world is 2.1 children per woman of childbearing age.

Immigration is where are population growth has come from. Immigration is as much an economic policy to make sure the economy keeps growing in low birth rate countries, otherwise a declining workforce and population will not be able to pay for all retirees who need income and healthcare. Especially the bulge of baby boomers. Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017 | 16:53 53
Quote Originally Posted by furrowtickler View Post
End of the day chuck ... read the first one I put up .... UN officials are quoted as saying this is about wealth redistribution... that's the point .
You can go on and on and on .... well you do but call it what it is .
Is the climate changing - yup
Do humans partially cause it - debatable . Big industry sure does . But the problem is who pays who , what for and for what end result ??
The wealthiest people on the planet are the ones who run the industries that cause the most pollution. These climate change tax's and policies will not cost them a single dime from their disposable income .... but for the average joe on Agriville and or the middle class consumer it could be dramatic .

Lets make sure the Conservative and Liberals and NDP all work together to shut down tax avoidance schemes for wealthy Canadians and corporations that are costing us billions of dollars in lost tax revenue. That is a good starting point. Are you in agreement?

So you are hanging your hat on one quote from one official in the UN that this is a wealth redistribution program? Except for Iraq and the USA who are not part of the Paris accord every other country on earth has signed on. There are numerous scientific organizations around the world who are in agreement on the science including NASA. Is NASA a socialist organization in a socialist state? I don't think so but they are sounding the alarm on climate change!

In all my posts the only rebuttals to the science articles I post, come from Agrivillers who post from activist climate change denier scientists who work for or have connections to the fossil fuel industry. I wonder why? Is that a coincidence?

So even if it was a wealth redistribution plan and it isn't! You live in a developed country where income taxes which range up to 40 some percent or more of earned income plus all the other taxes that are used to provide roads, hospitals, defense, law and order, healthcare, education, subsidies to agriculture and businesses, seniors income support programs, and other social programs plus many more valuable and necessary programs which you use and benefit from and you are worried about a relatively small additional carbon tax that may be spent by provinces how they decide? In some cases they may lower income taxes and make it revenue neutral.

There area number of wealth transfer programs embedded in all the government programs many of which your family benefits from.

Many of these programs including taxing higher income earners more than lower income earners are a form of wealth transfer. This has been broadly supported by mainstream Conservative governments for decades.

I can list a lot more but health and education are really large transfers of wealth (services) from tax payers to the ill, seniors and children.

1. You don't believe in the science of human caused accelerated climate change.
2. You don't believe the oceans will rise flooding coastal cities which is already happening.
3. You don't believe that the glaciers are melting and retreating which they are. Visit the glaciers between Banff and Jasper to see it yourself. The signs clearly mark it out.
4. You don't believe there is a real threat and cost of climate change.
5. And it is all a big conspiracy to transfer wealth!

If this is what you believe then there is not much to discuss!
Last edited by chuckChuck; Nov 7, 2017 at 17:11.
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017 | 17:23 54 Chucky shouldn't you be doing your govt job instead of being a liberal troll on this site. Typical libtard . Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017 | 18:15 55 I simply don't believe that carbon tax's will change a single thing other than drain already depleted income from the middle class . Is that so hard to understand? Or are you going to carry on with useless information on here ? Reply With Quote
Klause's Avatar Nov 7, 2017 | 18:25 56
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
I can list a lot more but health and education are really large transfers of wealth (services) from tax payers to the ill, seniors and children.

1. You don't believe in the science of human caused accelerated climate change.
2. You don't believe the oceans will rise flooding coastal cities which is already happening.
3. You don't believe that the glaciers are melting and retreating which they are. Visit the glaciers between Banff and Jasper to see it yourself. The signs clearly mark it out.
4. You don't believe there is a real threat and cost of climate change.
5. And it is all a big conspiracy to transfer wealth!

If this is what you believe then there is not much to discuss!
Why post here? You ignore any comments going after your bullshit and unproven economic theories.

To dispute all 5 points.

1.
No. Because I've worked in northern Alberta and seen fossilized palm tree leaves with my own eyes. If it was warm enough for palm trees north of ft Mac once it probably will be again.

2. Oh that'll happen. Maybe we shouldn't have built there... Those waters have never stayed the same.

3. Go read about Lake Agassiz. Glaciers once covered the entire prairies and most of Manitoba was under a lake. Proven science.


4. You can't change it. We need to adapt. Taxes don't adapt people. Environmental stressors do.

5. It is. Read Naomi Klein's book. Or the latest agenda bullcrap from the UN. Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017 | 19:07 57 in Jamaica last year I asked a local 65 year old since you were a kid how much the ocean has risen in his time this was his answer " it has not " . wow that's surprisingly strange lol. this is how pathetic these climate retards are the say the glaciers and ice are going to flood everything meanwhile all fresh water rivers yes rivers run to the ocean every fucking day! Reply With Quote
fjlip's Avatar Nov 7, 2017 | 22:37 58 "If this is what you believe then there is not much to discuss! "
Yes, apparently Chucky all of us, BUT YOU believe that, so please as one famous quote says..."SHUT THE F*CK UP"
It would be great not hear any more "facts/reasons" from your brainwashed mind...

Crops, commodities, marketing only...NO CLIMATE /CARBON BULLSHIT
Last edited by fjlip; Nov 7, 2017 at 22:39.
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2017 | 17:41 59 Wow, nice to see there are a few intelligent individuals out there who don't dispel the science and understand that carbon taxes make sense as do green energy projects which are paid for with such taxes and it's also nice to finally have sensible governments both provincially and federally who lead by example given the morons we currently have to the south of us. Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2017 | 17:57 60 Interesting, looks like the data deniers needed to find some reinforcements. Not surprised, but regardless of how hard they try, they always end up with less.

Hey les, do you also share their sympathies with radical Muslims? Reply With Quote