Global Warming WTF??

Commodity Marketing

Tools

Global Warming WTF??

Feb 6, 2018 | 15:40 61
Quote Originally Posted by fjlip View Post
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!
A fjlip you have always had such a rosy outlook on life. What happened? Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2018 | 15:47 62
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!
No, the only way either side wins is when enough time has elapsed for the temperature record to prove one side or the other correct. At this point, both sides think they have enough evidence already, so I'd say we are not quite there yet. That said, the past couple of decades have not been as helpful to the warmist side as they had hoped and promised they would be. Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2018 | 15:48 63 So Chucky do you believe that Michael Mann's hockey stick diagram is accurate?


Strait yes or no answer please. No copy and paste please. Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2018 | 17:10 64 Its a sad day when Scott Adams (Dilbert) is more honest than our Prime Minister. Unfortunately the AGW climate scam has a lot of momentum and there is a huge herd whose livelihood depends on keeping the train running. Its frightening when you start watching the bad decisions that are being made in the name of carbon. The carbon tax is just one of hundreds of bad policy decisions that are driven by the false AGW narrative. I wonder how much carbon tax we'll have to pay on the Mary J that we're going to be allowed to smoke? Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2018 | 17:31 65
Quote Originally Posted by seldomseen View Post
So Chucky do you believe that Michael Mann's hockey stick diagram is accurate?


Strait yes or no answer please. No copy and paste please.
Yes.

And here is why:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
"Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

A critique of the hockey stick was published in 2004 (McIntyre 2004), claiming the hockey stick shape was the inevitable result of the statistical method used (principal components analysis). They also claimed temperatures over the 15th Century were derived from one bristlecone pine proxy record. They concluded that the hockey stick shape was not statistically significant.

An independent assessment of Mann's hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Wahl 2007). They reconstructed temperatures employing a variety of statistical techniques (with and without principal components analysis). Their results found slightly different temperatures in the early 15th Century. However, they confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick - that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years." Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2018 | 17:42 66 I forgot to mention that if you are still doubtful about whether global warming is real and don't believe the science go look at the glaciers between Jasper and Banff. There are signs that show since 1843 the Athabaska glacier has shrunk 1.5 kilometres. Does that indicate warming or cooling? Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2018 | 18:32 67
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
I forgot to mention that if you are still doubtful about whether global warming is real and don't believe the science go look at the glaciers between Jasper and Banff. There are signs that show since 1843 the Athabaska glacier has shrunk 1.5 kilometres. Does that indicate warming or cooling?
That indicates the continuation of a trend which is been ongoing for over 12,000 years. With various setbacks and fits and starts along the way. Offers hope for humanity that the trend will continue. And in no way is indicative of human causes.
A reasonable person can understand that climate is changing/warming and not believe humans are entirely to blame or that it would have a negative net result. Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2018 | 19:15 68 like i said , wasting our breath Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2018 | 19:40 69 Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2018 | 20:55 70
Quote Originally Posted by caseih View Post
like i said , wasting our breath
Your right Case I could say more but what would be the point. Reply With Quote
farmaholic's Avatar Feb 6, 2018 | 22:42 71 A Tesla in space......what was the environmental foot print of this, but we will need to look for a new planet to inhabit while we ironically destroy the one we live on now. Kinda hypocritical Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018 | 00:58 72
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?
Chuck, first and foremost I am a farmer. If you had read my posts you would find I specifically asked if farming in Canada would become less competitive with a carbon tax. As a rule higher oil prices and the resulting increase in fuel prices is generally felt by our competitors and therefore doesn't create an advantage or disadvantage. But a Canadian applied carbon tax will increase our cost of production and make us less competitive, do you not agree Chuck? My other question which niether you or DML will address is would you tax methane and nitrous oxide? If not why are you so gung-ho to tax C02 but not the C02 equivelent of other greenhouse gases? Are you willing to pay a $200 a tonne carbon(the level of tax considered necessary by the federal Liberal's to change behaviour) and do you think farming in Canada would still be viable in Canada with that level of tax? Last question that niether you or Dml will address, do you believe Justin Trudeau's carbon tax will lower the world's temperature? Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018 | 04:55 73 Most people can understand what a cost to benefit ratio is.

So whats the cost to benefit ratio of the Canadian "Carbon tax"?.

Remember that anything less than 1.0 is depleting that particular account. Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018 | 05:24 74 Well folks, Pay attention to the two previous posts, by Hamloc and Oneoff - they expose the heart of the Liberal talking points.

If their questions remain unanswered, completely and satisfactorily, it will show that the entire "progressive" stance of, and response to the AGW hypothesis is a charade.

Which we already know it is, but it will be fun to watch the "useful idiots" bury themselves.

Answer the questions that you invited, boys. Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018 | 09:46 75 Surely someone has done a economic study on the impact of a carbon tax, as 9 provinces already have agreed to one.

Since oil and gas prices were already much higher than they are now we should have a pretty good idea what the impact on the economy is of increasing energy costs.

Only the USA out of 195 countries has said they will pull out of the Paris agreement to try to keep global temperatures from rising 2 degrees above pre industrial levels. The only other countries not signatories to Paris were Syria and Nicaragua.

Many USA states are acting on their own to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

There are leaders and laggards in the world. Norway is also a northern oil producing nation and has aggressively invested in reducing greenhouse gases. Canada is a laggard by comparison.

There is a cost to not doing anything. One of the costs will be being left behind in the innovation and development of new technology.

Some of you seem to think that there is going to be less economic activity if we reduce greenhouse gasses and adopt increases in efficiency and new technology. I think you are wrong.

It is going to be a transition over many decades, not an abrupt change.

There will be jobs created in new technology that will replace old jobs.

Suncor is killing 400 jobs to increase efficiency with the adoption of driver less trucks in the oil sands.

Farmers have been cutting jobs for decades as well.

So we cant rely on the extractive industries to maintain all their jobs.

New technology is replacing them. Are farmers opposed to new technology and increasing efficiency?

It doesn't seem like it. Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018 | 11:53 76
Quote Originally Posted by burnt View Post
Well folks, Pay attention to the two previous posts, by Hamloc and Oneoff - they expose the heart of the Liberal talking points.

If their questions remain unanswered, completely and satisfactorily, it will show that the entire "progressive" stance of, and response to the AGW hypothesis is a charade.

Which we already know it is, but it will be fun to watch the "useful idiots" bury themselves.

Answer the questions that you invited, boys.
Very solid questions by Hamloc and Oneoff.
It will tell us a lot if these important questions go unanswered. Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018 | 12:00 77
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
Surely someone has done a economic study on the impact of a carbon tax, as 9 provinces already have agreed to one.

Since oil and gas prices were already much higher than they are now we should have a pretty good idea what the impact on the economy is of increasing energy costs.

Only the USA out of 195 countries has said they will pull out of the Paris agreement to try to keep global temperatures from rising 2 degrees above pre industrial levels. The only other countries not signatories to Paris were Syria and Nicaragua.

Many USA states are acting on their own to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

There are leaders and laggards in the world. Norway is also a northern oil producing nation and has aggressively invested in reducing greenhouse gases. Canada is a laggard by comparison.

There is a cost to not doing anything. One of the costs will be being left behind in the innovation and development of new technology.

Some of you seem to think that there is going to be less economic activity if we reduce greenhouse gasses and adopt increases in efficiency and new technology. I think you are wrong.

It is going to be a transition over many decades, not an abrupt change.

There will be jobs created in new technology that will replace old jobs.

Suncor is killing 400 jobs to increase efficiency with the adoption of driver less trucks in the oil sands.

Farmers have been cutting jobs for decades as well.

So we cant rely on the extractive industries to maintain all their jobs.

New technology is replacing them. Are farmers opposed to new technology and increasing efficiency?

It doesn't seem like it.
Just cut out the bull$#!? and answer the questions. Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018 | 12:10 78 I'm really ticked with Prime Minister Sock Boy's invention of the word " #peoplekind " - he blew Don Cherry's "cuckaloos" right out the door!

Cuckaloo: A person who believes in man made climate change (Al Gore green scam!) as opposed to natural climate conditions based on the earth's natural processes that have been going on since the beginning of time. Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018 | 14:44 79 Here are some of the economic assumptions that are being used on the economic impact of carbon pricing.

Economic analysis of the Pan-Canadian Framework

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-action/economic-analysis.html

http://climatechange.gc.ca/Content/6/4/7/64778DD5-E2D9-4930-BE59-D6DB7DB5CBC0/WG_Report_Carbon%20Pricing_e_v4.pdf
4.2.3

Estimated Economic Impacts
Fully assessing the economic impacts of carbon pricing is complicated. In addition to estimating the costs that pricing will impose on various parts of the economy, it is important to account for the benefits of reducing GHG emissions (including the avoided costs of climate change), certainty of cost of emission for businesses planning investment, long-term financial benefits of transitioning to a cleaner economy, and the potential benefits that mayflow from innovations driven by carbon pricing.
Any assessment of the economic impacts of carbon pricing also needs to account for the uncertainties inherent in future economic projections and modelling. Model-based estimates depend on a wide range of assumptions, including a projection of the future economy. Thus, to the extent that underlying assumptions are uncertain or future economic performance differs from the projections embedded in the models used by the working group, the actual economic impacts of carbon pricing will differ from the estimated impacts presented in this section. In particular, while the economic growth projections in the working group’s modelling are consistent with the integrated energy, emissions and economic baseline in Canada’s Second Biennial Report on Climate Change, different economic assumptions, when projected out to 2030, can result in level values having significant variation (as shown by the range of Canada’s projected emissions profile in Figure 1).
Each of the modelled scenarios outlined in this section projects that real GDP will continue to grow over the projection period, albeit at a slower pace than in the absence of carbon pricing. While GDP (in $2011) rises to about $2.6 trillion in 2030 in the baseline, the model estimates that carbon pricing could reduce that by about $7 billion (at $30/tonne) to about $24 billion (at $90 per tonne). This translates into the average yearly growth rate between 2018 and 2030 slowing by 0.02, 0.03 and 0.08 per cent respectively for the different price scenarios. These estimated impacts are below the average revision to GDP growth year over year or the potential effect of fluctuations in world oil prices. Furthermore, these impacts are small compared to the alternative economic assumptions consistent with the high and low emissions scenarios from Figure 1 (where GDP ranges from $2.4 to $2.9 trillion).
Actual economic impacts will be sensitive to the design of the policy. For example, impacts will vary depending on how revenues are recycled. The illustrative carbon pricing scenarios described above assume that revenues are recycled to the household as lump-sum transfers in the jurisdiction where the revenues were collected. If revenues were instead recycled such that 1/3 are used to reduce labour taxes, 1/3 are used to reduce capital taxes and the remaining 1/3 are transferred to households, real GDP impacts from the 30/90 scenario would fall from $24 billion to $17 billion in 2030.
The estimated economic impacts do not take into account the benefits that will result from clean growth policies, including through investments in infrastructure and the development of new green technology sectors. As well, carbon pricing will provide business certainty and help create and attract investment opportunities in Canada and enable export growth of clean tech and services solutions. These positive impacts are not addressed in our models, but can be expected to sustain growth.
Finally, these estimates do not consider the cost of global inaction on climate change. The National Roundtable of Energy and the Environment in its 2011 “Paying the Price” report 17
found that global failure to address climate change could have significant economic impacts for Canada. Its analysis showed that impacts “could range from $21 billion to $43 billion per year by 2050, equivalent to 0.8% to 1% of GDP, depending upon what future global emissions occur and how Canada grows in the meantime.” Economic impacts will likely differ across regions just as differences in the economic structure of jurisdictions led to emissions impacts differing across jurisdictions. Jurisdictions with a relatively large amount of emissions-intensive industries or relatively emission-intensive household sectors will tend to have relatively larger economic impacts than other jurisdictions or ones that already have carbon pricing systems in place.
17 For more information, see: http://nrt-trn.ca/climate/climate-prosperity/the-economic-impacts-of-climate-change-for-canada Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018 | 15:08 80 Chuck, I attempted to read your cut and paste, but it lost all credibility within the first paragraph including the avoided costs of climate change

See this interactive website from Stanford University about the economic impacts of climate change: https://web.stanford.edu/~mburke/climate/map.php

Canada's GDP stands to grow by 247% by 2100 under current climate models.

Even the most ardent adherents of Carbon Dioxide Taxes admit that the potential impacts on climate are less than negligible on any measurable time line. yet they have the audacity to claim that avoided costs of climate change will offset the costs of a carbon dioxide tax? Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018 | 15:29 81
Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
Chuck, I attempted to read your cut and paste, but it lost all credibility within the first paragraph including the avoided costs of climate change

See this interactive website from Stanford University about the economic impacts of climate change: https://web.stanford.edu/~mburke/climate/map.php

Canada's GDP stands to grow by 247% by 2100 under current climate models.

Even the most ardent adherents of Carbon Dioxide Taxes admit that the potential impacts on climate are less than negligible on any measurable time line. yet they have the audacity to claim that avoided costs of climate change will offset the costs of a carbon dioxide tax?
So you think there is no cost from numerous flooded coastal cities, more extreme weather events, extended droughts, millions of refugees, etc?

The Pentagon has released a document outlining the risk of climate change and the negative impacts on the US military around the world. The pentagon! (here is a clue) they are not socialist!

Have you got your head in the sand? Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018 | 15:48 82 For you chuck .... before fossil fuels .


Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018 | 16:02 83
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
So you think there is no cost from numerous flooded coastal cities, more extreme weather events, extended droughts, millions of refugees, etc?

The Pentagon has released a document outlining the risk of climate change and the negative impacts on the US military around the world. The pentagon! (here is a clue) they are not socialist!

Have you got your head in the sand?
Chucky, please point out which coastal cities have been flooded. And also, keep in mind that many of us have family or acquaintances who live in coastal cities and have first-hand reports on said flooding.

And please provide concrete documentation that proves the existence of the "millions of refugees" that are the verifiable result of actual anthropogenic climate change.

Or, you wouldn't just be blowing smoke again, would you chucky? Reply With Quote
fjlip's Avatar Feb 7, 2018 | 16:43 84 Wow all those horrific DROUGHTS caused by next to NO POPULATION and ZERO fossil fuels burned! And why? because mankind, sorry for LIBERALS, "peoplekind" DOES NOT MAKE THE EARTH WARMER! HA HA more HOT BS... Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018 | 16:58 85
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
So you think there is no cost from numerous flooded coastal cities, more extreme weather events, extended droughts, millions of refugees, etc?

The Pentagon has released a document outlining the risk of climate change and the negative impacts on the US military around the world. The pentagon! (here is a clue) they are not socialist!

Have you got your head in the sand?
I think you completely missed the context of your article from which I quoted. The premise being that the cost to the Canadian economy of the Carbon tax payed by Canadians would be offset by less economic damage due to climate change. I then posted a link from Stanford University predicting that Canada's economy stands to benefit massively from climate change. So by mitigating future climate change, we are actually lowering our own future economic ability to pay for said CO2 tax.

This context isn't about worldwide impacts, the article was about the effect on Canada's economy. Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018 | 17:06 86 What percent of the millions of refugees are a direct result of religious or resource wars and misguided governments? I don’t know exactly but my guess is by far the majority and has been that way for 2000 plus years .
Climate has played a role , always has .
One always sees the “cost” of natural disasters being more all the time . Well .... the cost of housing and property has gone up dramatically over the past 50 years so..... it is what it is Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018 | 17:46 87 Are Canadian snowbirds who go south every winter Considered to be climate refugees Or just smarter than the rest of us who stay behind in this cold ? Has it ever occurred to any of these people that There will be climate refugees from cooling trend as well. Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2018 | 10:10 88 Pentagon survey details effects of climate change on military sites

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pentagon-survey-details-effects-of-climate-change-on-military-sites/2018/01/29/42a40438-02e1-11e8-9d31-d72cf78dbeee_story.html?utm_term=.1b519ae3610e Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2018 | 10:25 89
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
Pentagon survey details effects of climate change on military sites

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pentagon-survey-details-effects-of-climate-change-on-military-sites/2018/01/29/42a40438-02e1-11e8-9d31-d72cf78dbeee_story.html?utm_term=.1b519ae3610e
Are you familiar with the computing acronym GIGO? Garbage In = Garbage Out? All of these projections are based on the same flawed and fraudulent climate models which are now so far removed from measured temperatures to be completely irrelevant. But if you input garbage temperature projections into an economic or military model, you will get equivalent garbage data out of it. This report is no more evidence of catastrophic global warming and its consequences, than the snow storm on the east coast was. Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2018 | 10:31 90 Forget about Chuck - he is mentally dysfunctional - Big snow storm heading for Calgary and southern Alberta. Reply With Quote