Global Warming WTF??

Commodity Marketing

Tools

Global Warming WTF??

Feb 5, 2018 | 12:29 31
Quote Originally Posted by checking View Post
What I find difficult to understand is how weather change in one region, or ten thousand regions is difficult to impossible to get right from one day to the next with much accuracy, but climate change, the result of all those weathers over decades is for sure going result in a temperature rise. Boggling, really, for anyone to be that confident!

As to what happened to the Mayans, even the authors of the report state that more study is required to determine what caused their society to collapse. Multiple factors could have been at play, and likely were. To be so definitive takes a big set.
Agreed
One thing for certain it was not cause by burning fossil fuels ... Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2018 | 13:01 32
Quote Originally Posted by furrowtickler View Post
Agreed
One thing for certain it was not cause by burning fossil fuels ...
Surely you can't believe that climate changed (for better or worse) before fossil fuels. I've seen Micheal Mann's hockey stick graph with my own eyes, climate was completely steady, in a perpetual state of utopia before we started burning fossil fuels. No little ice age, no medieval warm period, just goldilocks temperatures for 2000 years. Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2018 | 13:07 33
Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
Surely you can't believe that climate changed (for better or worse) before fossil fuels. I've seen Micheal Mann's hockey stick graph with my own eyes, climate was completely steady, in a perpetual state of utopia before we started burning fossil fuels. No little ice age, no medieval warm period, just goldilocks temperatures for 2000 years.
now , now , mustn't bring up facts , lol Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2018 | 15:01 34 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVS6TWIU8AAYX6K.jpg

Name:  tempx.jpg
Views: 411
Size:  35.5 KB Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2018 | 15:29 35 Burnt, That graph is obviously fake news. It has wiggly lines long before the fossil fuel Era, Which we all know could not have happened because it does not fit the agenda, please go back and repost the hockey stick grap, Be for this corrupts any of the simple minds. Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2018 | 16:21 36 https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=434&p=2

B]Climate Myth...
Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
Even if the warming were as big as the IPCC imagines, it would not be as dangerous as Mr. Brown suggests. After all, recent research suggests that some 9,100 of the past 10,500 years were warmer than the present by up to 3 Celsius degrees: yet here we all are. (Christopher Monckton)[/B]

Confusing Greenland warming vs global warming

What the science says...

This argument uses temperatures from the top of the Greenland ice sheet. This data ends in 1855, long before modern global warming began. It also reflects regional Greenland warming, not global warming.

This argument is based on the work of Don Easterbrook who relies on temperatures at the top of the Greenland ice sheet as a proxy for global temperatures. That’s a fatal flaw, before we even begin to examine the use of the ice core data. A single regional record cannot stand in for the global record — local variability will be higher than the global, plus we have evidence that Antarctic temperatures swing in the opposite direction to Arctic changes. Richard Alley discussed that in some detail at Dot Earth last year, and it’s well worth reading his comments. Easterbrook, however, is content to ignore someone who has worked in this field, and relies entirely on Greenland data to make his case.

Most of the past 10,000 [years] have been warmer than the present. Figure 4 shows temperatures from the GISP2 Greenland ice core. With the exception of a brief warm period about 8,200 years ago, the entire period from 1,500 to 10,500 years ago was significantly warmer than present.

This is Easterbrook’s Fig 4:

easterbrook_fig41.jpg

It’s a graph he’s used before, in various forms, almost certainly copied and altered from the original (click image below to see source: the NOAA web page for Richard Alley’s 2000 paper The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland, though DE credits it as “Modified from Cuffy and Clow, 1997″, misspelling Kurt Cuffey’s name in the process:

Easterbrook continues:

Another graph of temperatures from the Greenland ice core for the past 10,000 years is shown in Figure 5. It shows essentially the same temperatures as Cuffy and Clow (1997) but with somewhat greater detail. What both of these temperature curves show is that virtually all of the past 10,000 years has been warmer than the present.

This is his Fig 5:

easterbrook_fig5.png

Easterbrook plots the temperature data from the GISP2 core, as archived here. Easterbrook defines “present” as the year 2000. However, the GISP2 “present” follows a common paleoclimate convention and is actually 1950. The first data point in the file is at 95 years BP. This would make 95 years BP 1855 — a full 155 years ago, long before any other global temperature record shows any modern warming. In order to make absolutely sure of my dates, I emailed Richard Alley, and he confirmed that the GISP2 “present” is 1950, and that the most recent temperature in the GISP2 series is therefore 1855.

This is Easterbrook’s main sleight of hand. He wants to present a regional proxy for temperature from 155 years ago as somehow indicative of present global temperatures. The depths of his misunderstanding are made clear in a response he gave to a request from the German EIKE forum to clarify why he was representing 1905 (wrongly, in two senses) as the present. Here’s what he had to say:

The contention that the ice core only reaches 1905 is a complete lie (not unusual for AGW people). The top of the core is accurately dated by annual dust layers at 1987. There has been no significant warming from 1987 to the present, so the top of the core is representative of the present day climate in Greenland.

Unfortunately for Don, the first data point in the temperature series he’s relying on is not from the “top of the core”, it’s from layers dated to 1855. The reason is straightforward enough — it takes decades for snow to consolidate into ice.

And so to an interesting question. What has happened to temperatures at the top of Greenland ice sheet since 1855? Jason Box is one of the most prominent scientists working on Greenland and he has a recent paper reconstructing Greenland temperatures for the period 1840-2007 (Box, Jason E., Lei Yang, David H. Bromwich, Le-Sheng Bai, 2009: Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Air Temperature Variability: 1840–2007. J. Climate, 22, 4029–4049. doi: 10.1175/2009JCLI2816.1). He was kind enough to supply me with a temperature reconstruction for the GRIP drilling site — 28 km from GISP2. This is what the annual average temperature record looks like (click for bigger version):

GRIPtempBox480.png

I’ve added lines showing the average temperatures for the 1850s (blue) and the last 10 years (red), and the difference between those is a warming of 1.44ºC. I’ve also added the two most recent GISP2 temperature data points (for 1847 and 1855, red crosses). It’s obvious that the GRIP site is warmer than GISP2 (at Summit Camp). The difference is estimated to be 0.9ºC on the annual average (Box, pers comm).

Let’s have ago at reconstructing Easterbrook’s Fig 5, covering the last 10,000 years of GISP2 data. It looks like this (click for bigger version):

GISP210k480.png

The GISP2 series — the red line — appears to be identical to Easterbrook’s version. The bottom black line shows his 1855 “present”, and it intersects the red line in the same places as his chart. I’ve added a grey line based on the +1.44ºC quantum calculated from the GRIP temperature data, and two blue crosses, which show the GISP2 site temperatures inferred from adjusted GRIP data for 1855 and 2009.

Two things are immediately apparent. If we make allowance for local warming over the last 155 years, Easterbrook’s claim that “most of the past 10,000 [years] have been warmer than the present” is not true for central Greenland, let alone the global record. It’s also clear that there is a mismatch between the temperature reconstructions and the ice core record. The two blue crosses on the chart show the GISP site temperatures (adjusted from GRIP data) for 1855 and 2009. It’s clear there is a calibration issue between the long term proxy (based on ∂18O measurement) and recent direct measurement of temperatures on the Greenland ice sheet. How that might be resolved is an interesting question, but not directly relevant to the point at issue — which is what Don Easterbrook is trying to show. Here’s his conclusion:

So where do the 1934/1998/2010 warm years rank in the long-term list of warm years? Of the past 10,500 years, 9,100 were warmer than 1934/1998/2010. Thus, regardless of which year ( 1934, 1998, or 2010) turns out to be the warmest of the past century, that year will rank number 9,099 in the long-term list. The climate has been warming slowly since the Little Ice Age (Fig. 5), but it has quite a ways to go yet before reaching the temperature levels that persisted for nearly all of the past 10,500 years. It’s really much to do about nothing.

1855 — Easterbrook’s “present” — was not warmer than 1934, 1998 or 2010 in Greenland, let alone around the world. His claim that 9,100 out of the last 10,500 years were warmer than recent peak years is false, based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of data.

The last word goes to Richard Alley, who points out that however interesting the study of past climate may be, it doesn’t help us where we’re heading:

"Whether temperatures have been warmer or colder in the past is largely irrelevant to the impacts of the ongoing warming. If you don’t care about humans and the other species here, global warming may not be all that important; nature has caused warmer and colder times in the past, and life survived. But, those warmer and colder times did not come when there were almost seven billion people living as we do. The best science says that if our warming becomes large, its influences on us will be primarily negative, and the temperature of the Holocene or the Cretaceous has no bearing on that. Furthermore, the existence of warmer and colder times in the past does not remove our fingerprints from the current warming, any more than the existence of natural fires would remove an arsonist’s fingerprints from a can of flammable liquid. If anything, nature has been pushing to cool the climate over the last few decades, but warming has occurred. Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2018 | 16:34 37 Give up! Only one Conservative MP voted against supporting the Paris accord last June.

Why waste your time discussing climate change science which you know almost nothing about. It is all fake news anyway and all scientists are wrong and probably socialists too!

Just admit even if humans are causing climate change you don't want to do anything about it because you will be dead and it will be someone else's problem. You are only interested in the here and now and who cares if it fucks up the planet and rising oceans flood many coastal cities. You don't like liberal city dwellers anyway. Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2018 | 16:38 38
Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
Burnt, That graph is obviously fake news. It has wiggly lines long before the fossil fuel Era, Which we all know could not have happened because it does not fit the agenda, please go back and repost the hockey stick grap, Be for this corrupts any of the simple minds.
LIKE a lot !! Reply With Quote
blackpowder's Avatar Feb 5, 2018 | 17:59 39 Your starting to use some common sense Chuckchuck. Good for you.
No one would advocate waste or harmful pollution. CO2 is somewhere else on the scale.


https://www.prageru.com/videos/can-climate-models-predict-climate-change

Now, I know some will instantly discredit the source as there is bias in all places.
But if one side can speak then another should be able to without being burned at the stake.

I don't spend time going on cuckaloo websites to bang my head against the wall.
Maybe some should rethink their resources spent on farm marketing websites with a preponderance of libertarian independent business people.
Perhaps some website devoted to the class war they seem to support would happily take both their time and their money.

The lowering of our standard of living for what seems guilt purchase reasons, so far has made a few light bulb and windmill makers wealthy. Doesn't sound like its gonna stop Mother Nature whichever way she goes. Peoplekind (thanks Trudope) has better places for betterment investing.
Last edited by blackpowder; Feb 5, 2018 at 18:21.
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2018 | 18:17 40
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
Give up! Only one Conservative MP voted against supporting the Paris accord last June.

Why waste your time discussing climate change science which you know almost nothing about. It is all fake news anyway and all scientists are wrong and probably socialists too!

Just admit even if humans are causing climate change you don't want to do anything about it because you will be dead and it will be someone else's problem. You are only interested in the here and now and who cares if it fucks up the planet and rising oceans flood many coastal cities. You don't like liberal city dwellers anyway.
Chuck if you read my posts I was not saying the temperature did not change. What I did ask is if we are all polluters how would you apply the tax, keeping in mind that methane has 25 times the greenhouse effect of C02 and nitrous oxide 300 times the effect of C02. Would we then become uncompetitive? Do you think with carbon taxes in Canada we can compete with other grain producing countries with no tax? Do you not realize once the genie is out of the bottle that taxes will only escalate? Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2018 | 18:44 41 See, I told you it was fake news. And chuck came along just in time to prove that it is fake news with another cut and paste. Nothing to see here folks, Just believe in the hockey stick everything else is obviously fake news. The ice ages never happened, that was never farming on Greenland, Glaciers in the Alps never contracted and expanded, Societies never failed due to climate variations.

Thanks Chuck, I know I can count on you to prove my point every time. Reply With Quote
Blaithin's Avatar Feb 5, 2018 | 21:18 42 I find it almost distressing that people who rely so much on the weather and climate seem to have little actual understanding of it.

Yes, we have had cold days. It is winter after all, it's to be expected. Anyone having issues with rusty's in their wheat btw?

They're having a blast here because the wheat was 40^ going into the bin at harvest. Smoking hot harvest that it was here. Then there's the fact that rusty's are incredibly cold tolerant. What's the fact sheet on them on the Sask ag website say... takes 12 weeks at a grain temp of -5 to kill them. A week of -20. They're still alive and kicking here unless the grains been treated. I keep hearing farmers say they've never had bug issues like this.

Must not be as cold or as cold for as long as we seem to think when we feel it on our cheeks.

Similar weather patterns are what lead to the pine beetle taking off.

Perhaps if you don't want to believe the scientists and find that Polar Bear documentaries can be faked, you should look no farther than pests you have to deal with.

Climate is constantly changing. If you're in denial of that you're a meathead. The only thing you can dispute is if people have an affect on it and how much of an affect that might be. Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2018 | 07:31 43 Some interesting info here, if you are into science -

https://twitter.com/ClimateRealists Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2018 | 08:07 44
Quote Originally Posted by Blaithin View Post
I find it almost distressing that people who rely so much on the weather and climate seem to have little actual understanding of it.

Yes, we have had cold days. It is winter after all, it's to be expected. Anyone having issues with rusty's in their wheat btw?

They're having a blast here because the wheat was 40^ going into the bin at harvest. Smoking hot harvest that it was here. Then there's the fact that rusty's are incredibly cold tolerant. What's the fact sheet on them on the Sask ag website say... takes 12 weeks at a grain temp of -5 to kill them. A week of -20. They're still alive and kicking here unless the grains been treated. I keep hearing farmers say they've never had bug issues like this.

Must not be as cold or as cold for as long as we seem to think when we feel it on our cheeks.

Similar weather patterns are what lead to the pine beetle taking off.


Perhaps if you don't want to believe the scientists and find that Polar Bear documentaries can be faked, you should look no farther than pests you have to deal with.

Climate is constantly changing. If you're in denial of that you're a meathead. The only thing you can dispute is if people have an affect on it and how much of an affect that might be.
but we had 2 or 3 of the coldest harvests that we have had the 3 years prior . anyways as the scientists on here tell me , thats just weather , same as the 35 degrees we had this harvest . can't have it both ways ?
i don't think anyone on here disputes that man is giving the earth a hard time , thats a given. but saying a stupid carbon tax that will put canada at a disadvantage while india and china build more coal fired generators , is beyond stupid! and shutting down perfectly good coal fired generators here before alternatives are found is even stupider. paying money into trudeaus play fund and calling it a carbon tax is the problem . i and probably most on here are all for cleaning up pollution , air and environmental . thats not what this carbon tax bullshit is about . proof is all around you when you see millions of lights left on 24-7 in the cities , a $7M ARTIFICIAL ice arena in between the parliament buildings and the rideau canal(longest ice skating area in the world) that trudeau couldn't use because it was too COLD!!!! trudeau taking largest party ever to paris accord? make no mistake , none of these so called activists give a shit about any of it . i guess they have never heard of WEBEX , none of these bullshit holiday free for alls are necessary in this digital age , at our expense. meanwhile farmers have been doing their part , def systems, zero till , efficiencies in most aspects of farming . make no mistake , the only meatheads are the sheeple that are buying this hook, line and sinker ? nearly every farmer i know are very environmentally friendly , too bad we couldn't say the same about our city cousins . the waste in the cities blows my mind . we don't even leave our yard lights on , other than when we are working at night in the yard . when you fly over a city , that is criminal , seeing the entire city , buildings and all , lit up like daylight . Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2018 | 08:22 45 Caseih, well put. Unfortunately the posters on here are just like politicians, if your question any aspect of climate change you are an idiot and a denier. When you ask any questions about carbon tax levels or structure or what will be taxed or try to have a reasonable conversation about competitiveness all you hear is crickets!!! In a socialist's mind oil is evil and we must tax tax tax!!! Reply With Quote
GDR
Feb 6, 2018 | 08:49 46
Quote Originally Posted by caseih View Post
but we had 2 or 3 of the coldest harvests that we have had the 3 years prior . anyways as the scientists on here tell me , thats just weather , same as the 35 degrees we had this harvest . can't have it both ways ?
i don't think anyone on here disputes that man is giving the earth a hard time , thats a given. but saying a stupid carbon tax that will put canada at a disadvantage while india and china build more coal fired generators , is beyond stupid! and shutting down perfectly good coal fired generators here before alternatives are found is even stupider. paying money into trudeaus play fund and calling it a carbon tax is the problem . i and probably most on here are all for cleaning up pollution , air and environmental . thats not what this carbon tax bullshit is about . proof is all around you when you see millions of lights left on 24-7 in the cities , a $7M ARTIFICIAL ice arena in between the parliament buildings and the rideau canal(longest ice skating area in the world) that trudeau couldn't use because it was too COLD!!!! trudeau taking largest party ever to paris accord? make no mistake , none of these so called activists give a shit about any of it . i guess they have never heard of WEBEX , none of these bullshit holiday free for alls are necessary in this digital age , at our expense. meanwhile farmers have been doing their part , def systems, zero till , efficiencies in most aspects of farming . make no mistake , the only meatheads are the sheeple that are buying this hook, line and sinker ? nearly every farmer i know are very environmentally friendly , too bad we couldn't say the same about our city cousins . the waste in the cities blows my mind . we don't even leave our yard lights on , other than when we are working at night in the yard . when you fly over a city , that is criminal , seeing the entire city , buildings and all , lit up like daylight .

Agreed.

The waste on street lights and yardlights is my biggest pet peeve too. Absolutely no need to be lit up like daylight while the world sleeps. We don't keep yardlights on either other than a few weeks at calving time. Reply With Quote
farmaholic's Avatar Feb 6, 2018 | 09:04 47 We have three yard lights....of which two are off when they're not needed....my ego isn't that big...look at me over here, all my lights!! We have two LEDs and an old MercVap. Only one of the LEDs are on. We also try not to idle vehicles needlessly. We don't broadcast fert(farmers will buy just about anything). Emission controls rammed down our throats that compromise engines(egr valves), def that freezes in our climate, DPF junk....all cost us extra to have forced compliance and expensive maintenance. Maybe if everyone exercised some commonsense it wouldn't need to be "legislated". Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2018 | 09:16 48
Quote Originally Posted by Hamloc View Post
Caseih, well put. Unfortunately the posters on here are just like politicians, if your question any aspect of climate change you are an idiot and a denier. When you ask any questions about carbon tax levels or structure or what will be taxed or try to have a reasonable conversation about competitiveness all you hear is crickets!!! In a socialist's mind oil is evil and we must tax tax tax!!!
Its not just questioning the science of climate change. It is the complete denial that humans and greenhouse gasses have any role in climate change and global warming.

It is difficult to have a conversation with someone who completely dismisses the vast amount of science showing global warming is occurring and then claims global cooling is occurring.

If you remember in 2015 Steven Harper agreed with the G7 on a target to eliminate fossil energy use by the year 2100. Why?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-commits-to-ending-fossil-fuel-use-by-2100/article24844340/

So why are you blaming socialists? Is Harper a socialist?

So if Conservative Prime Ministers are in agreement that we need to stop using fossil energy then it is pretty obvious we need to use a lot of different tools to get there.

A carbon tax is one option and is widely supported as an efficient market based solution that reduces the need for government regulations and encourages industry and consumers to reduce waste and find their own solutions.

Regardless of what Trump says,and he has said he may stay with the Paris Accord. Many US states are moving forward with reducing greenhouse gases.

When the price of oil was high and the loonie was very high I don't remember many posts on Agriville that were concerned about the impact of a high loonie was having on the manufacturing sector and making Canadian products less competitive.

So a carbon tax may have some impact but there are numerous other factors affecting competitiveness.

Trump is quite happy to put tarrifs on imports which is another competitiveness factor that can be much more significant.

So where is your data and study that is showing that Canada is losing it competitive advantage in every industry because of the proposed carbon tax? Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2018 | 09:24 49
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
Its not just questioning the science of climate change. It is the complete denial that humans and greenhouse gasses have any role in climate change and global warming.

It is difficult to have a conversation with someone who completely dismisses the vast amount of science showing global warming is occurring and then claims global cooling is occurring.

If you remember in 2015 Steven Harper agreed with the G7 on a target to eliminate fossil energy use by the year 2100. Why?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-commits-to-ending-fossil-fuel-use-by-2100/article24844340/

So why are you blaming socialists? Is Harper a socialist?

So if Conservative Prime Ministers are in agreement that we need to stop using fossil energy then it is pretty obvious we need to use a lot of different tools to get there.

A carbon tax is one option and is widely supported as an efficient market based solution that reduces the need for government regulations and encourages industry and consumers to reduce waste and find their own solutions.

Regardless of what Trump says,and he has said he may stay with the Paris Accord. Many US states are moving forward with reducing greenhouse gases.

When the price of oil was high and the loonie was very high I don't remember many posts on Agriville that were concerned about the impact of a high loonie was having on the manufacturing sector and making Canadian products less competitive.

So a carbon tax may have some impact but there are numerous other factors affecting competitiveness.

Trump is quite happy to put tarrifs on imports which is another competitiveness factor that can be much more significant.

So where is your data and study that is showing that Canada is losing it competitive advantage in every industry because of the proposed carbon tax?
Show me evidence that this carbon tax scam will effect climate change ... proof not b/S Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2018 | 10:21 50 Last 'report' I read stated, "This report warns that the numbers are provisional subject to potentially large revisions because they rely heavily on assumptions". That best describes the fake climate change data that is being gobbled up by leftist masses. They don't realize that this fake science is netting billions and billions to different groups and this hoax can be used to extract untold amounts of wealth from advanced economies - all because people are so friggin gullible. Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2018 | 11:45 51
Quote Originally Posted by furrowtickler View Post
Show me evidence that this carbon tax scam will effect climate change ... proof not b/S
Wall was the only Premier who opposed carbon pricing. Instead he wanted to use other options such as carbon capture on coal fired electrical generation which is the most expensive way to reduce carbon emissions and is another form of carbon pricing.

You should wonder why Wall was prepared to spend 1.2 billion of taxpayers money on reducing carbon emissions if there is no need to do this?

Preston Manning, former Reform Party leader from Alberta is also an advocate for carbon pricing as the best west way to reduce emissions.

Michael Chong former CPC leadership candidate is also in favour of carbon pricing.

Why would high profile Conservatives be in favour of carbon pricing if there was no evidence they work?

Why would Steven Harper sign a G7 agreement to end fossil fuel use by the year 2100 if there is no problem?

As I said before many times last June only one Conservative MP voted against supporting the Paris climate accord to reduce emissions. Why?
Last edited by chuckChuck; Feb 6, 2018 at 11:55.
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2018 | 12:30 52
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
Wall was the only Premier who opposed carbon pricing. Instead he wanted to use other options such as carbon capture on coal fired electrical generation which is the most expensive way to reduce carbon emissions and is another form of carbon pricing.

You should wonder why Wall was prepared to spend 1.2 billion of taxpayers money on reducing carbon emissions if there is no need to do this?

Preston Manning, former Reform Party leader from Alberta is also an advocate for carbon pricing as the best west way to reduce emissions.

Michael Chong former CPC leadership candidate is also in favour of carbon pricing.

Why would high profile Conservatives be in favour of carbon pricing if there was no evidence they work?

Why would Steven Harper sign a G7 agreement to end fossil fuel use by the year 2100 if there is no problem?

As I said before many times last June only one Conservative MP voted against supporting the Paris climate accord to reduce emissions. Why?
Votes ..... plain and simple .
They have brainwashed the average person into believing this wealth transfer scheme .
Again , where is the proof a carbon tax will change the climate ? Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2018 | 13:03 53
Quote Originally Posted by furrowtickler View Post
Show me evidence that this carbon tax scam will effect climate change ... proof not b/S
The only thing it will effect is the amount of $ a farmer retires with.
Will also create bureaucratic and tax collection jobs and transfer some funds from rural to urban.

Is this the desired result? Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2018 | 13:13 54
Quote Originally Posted by furrowtickler View Post
Votes ..... plain and simple .
They have brainwashed the average person into believing this wealth transfer scheme .
Again , where is the proof a carbon tax will change the climate ?
I think we are wasting our breath, furrow. we are just deniers , knuckle dragging apes , idiots , and latest one , "meatheads" . these will be the same type of people that accepted the "science" on big sugar , big tobacco , etc. , until people like us , that didn't follow the herd , questioned them enough to make change and bring out real science . until they have damaged the country , irreparably , they will not change . when that happens , they will be the biggest whiners once the money flow from oil, modern agriculture, etc . has stopped . we will be ok as we have survival skills . anyone that thinks that science is ever settled , has shit for brains . that's the beauty of science , we never quit learning, and never will . this bullshit will pass , a lot of people will get rich like Suzuki and gore , but the average joe will suffer because of it , activist or not . the world will be no better because of it . there will come true change ,alternate energy sources , stuff that hasn't been dreamed of yet , all in good time , but not like this . this carbon tax bullshit will go the way of the do-do same as it did in austrailia . but I guess it will work here because we're so much different that austrailia . too bad arrogant politicians couldn't learn from other people's mistakes . or from the wreck that is going on in Ontario with hydro ? right here , right now . I wonder if any of these people see any reason for a company such as Campbell soup , Brandt , etc. wouldn't want to roll up their rug and move south . there will be a wave of this very soon . I think the damage is done and our children and grandchildren will spend generations cleaning this up.
Last edited by caseih; Feb 6, 2018 at 13:26.
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2018 | 14:46 55 Oh so now having rusty’s in your grain is now more evidence of global warming because some farmers in Alberta combine on hot days and never turn aeration fans on?? 🙈

Reply With Quote
fjlip's Avatar Feb 6, 2018 | 15:05 56
Quote Originally Posted by Oliver88 View Post
Oh so now having rusty’s in your grain is now more evidence of global warming because some farmers in Alberta combine on hot days and never turn aeration fans on?? 🙈

This so FITS all those who swallow hook line and sinker, the TOTAL BS/ lies/ made up "SCIENCE" edited/ adjusted/deleted for an agenda! How can you be so gullible????? Hitler had those same types I guess. SHAME ON YOU! Hope you FREEZE enough to come to your senses! Reply With Quote
fjlip's Avatar Feb 6, 2018 | 15:20 57
Quote Originally Posted by caseih View Post
I think we are wasting our breath, furrow. we are just deniers , knuckle dragging apes , idiots , and latest one , "meatheads" . these will be the same type of people that accepted the "science" on big sugar , big tobacco , etc. , until people like us , that didn't follow the herd , questioned them enough to make change and bring out real science . until they have damaged the country , irreparably , they will not change . when that happens , they will be the biggest whiners once the money flow from oil, modern agriculture, etc . has stopped . we will be ok as we have survival skills . anyone that thinks that science is ever settled , has shit for brains . that's the beauty of science , we never quit learning, and never will . this bullshit will pass , a lot of people will get rich like Suzuki and gore , but the average joe will suffer because of it , activist or not . the world will be no better because of it . there will come true change ,alternate energy sources , stuff that hasn't been dreamed of yet , all in good time , but not like this . this carbon tax bullshit will go the way of the do-do same as it did in austrailia . but I guess it will work here because we're so much different that austrailia . too bad arrogant politicians couldn't learn from other people's mistakes . or from the wreck that is going on in Ontario with hydro ? right here , right now . I wonder if any of these people see any reason for a company such as Campbell soup , Brandt , etc. wouldn't want to roll up their rug and move south . there will be a wave of this very soon . I think the damage is done and our children and grandchildren will spend generations cleaning this up.
I am afraid you are correct...what a shame... Germany is also similarly extremely remorseful/shamed about following Hitlers lies and deceit that ruined a great nation. I bet history will repeat! Reply With Quote
fjlip's Avatar Feb 6, 2018 | 15:24 58
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
Wall was the only Premier who opposed carbon pricing. Instead he wanted to use other options such as carbon capture on coal fired electrical generation which is the most expensive way to reduce carbon emissions and is another form of carbon pricing.

You should wonder why Wall was prepared to spend 1.2 billion of taxpayers money on reducing carbon emissions if there is no need to do this?

Preston Manning, former Reform Party leader from Alberta is also an advocate for carbon pricing as the best west way to reduce emissions.

Michael Chong former CPC leadership candidate is also in favour of carbon pricing.

Why would high profile Conservatives be in favour of carbon pricing if there was no evidence they work?

Why would Steven Harper sign a G7 agreement to end fossil fuel use by the year 2100 if there is no problem?

As I said before many times last June only one Conservative MP voted against supporting the Paris climate accord to reduce emissions. Why?
Typical politicians trying to pander to the DUMMIES/Lemmings like you. Just to get ELECTED. Told them off many times. NO BALLS to say the truth! Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2018 | 15:24 59 So your only response is it is a bunch of lies, bullshit and a giant conspiracy! Hahahahahah.

If that is the best you can come up with, then there is not a snowball chance in hell you will ever win this.

Everybody else including all the federal Conservative MPs except one don't buy your way out there conspiracy theories!

Give up! Reply With Quote
fjlip's Avatar Feb 6, 2018 | 15:27 60
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
So your only response is it is a bunch of lies, bullshit and a giant conspiracy! Hahahahahah.

If that is the best you can come up with, then there is not a snowball chance in hell you will ever win this.

Everybody else including all the federal Conservative MPs except one don't buy your way out there conspiracy theories!

Give up!
Hope you freeze you ASS off ! Fuck your politicians! You can not prove a god dam thing 50 years into the future. It's an AGENDA, wake the hell up! Reply With Quote