You think it's bad now?

Commodity Marketing

Tools

You think it's bad now?

May 14, 2018 | 19:48 1 What will it be like once Butt's puppet sock boy signs us onto the latest U.N. enviro-hysterics charade:

"Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot, and author of the new book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change,” charged that, “This new global environmental pact will have more teeth and cover more aspects of human civilization than the U.N.-Paris climate pact. This new environmental pact is looking to be the U.N. Paris agreement on steroids because they are making it binding, and it appears even wider in scope.”

One United Nations diplomat told Fox News that, “the unknowing and uncertainty is what makes us so nervous, because you just never know where this can go and it could open up a Pandora’s Box.”

That Pandora’s Box, critics fear, includes fears over national sovereignty and new regulations and costs on businesses."

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/05...ental-law.html Reply With Quote
May 14, 2018 | 22:42 2 Like him or not , Trump knew this fiasco was coming and ditched it Reply With Quote
SASKFARMER3's Avatar May 15, 2018 | 05:44 3 I know lots who voted for the dip shit most have realized they screwed up big time and he is a true idiot.

But funny two who always since we were young voted liberal and talking to them is like hitting your head against a wall over and over and over.

THey hate Trump they hate the USa they hate the Isreal and they love Alah, they love All the middle east and love to save the planet. And not work very hard.

If this world order happens i think were F#$Ked as a country Reply With Quote
May 15, 2018 | 06:25 4 Last year every Conservative MP except 1 voted in the house of commons to support the Paris Climate accord. https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/06/07/cheryl-gallant-paris-agreement_n_16988700.html

The government of Saskatchewan which opposes a carbon tax, but still has a plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions, clearly accepts the science that humans are causing climate change. https://www.saskatchewan.ca/business/environmental-protection-and-sustainability/climate-change-policy

Climate change deniers in Canada don't have any support from their elected representatives for their extremist positions.

Fox is not a source of news. It is a source of one sided opinion that is starting to look like it is a state run broadcaster pumping out propaganda for Trump.
Last edited by chuckChuck; May 15, 2018 at 06:33.
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2018 | 07:06 5
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
Last year every Conservative MP except 1 voted in the house of commons to support the Paris Climate accord. https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/06/07/cheryl-gallant-paris-agreement_n_16988700.html

The government of Saskatchewan which opposes a carbon tax, but still has a plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions, clearly accepts the science that humans are causing climate change. https://www.saskatchewan.ca/business/environmental-protection-and-sustainability/climate-change-policy

Climate change deniers in Canada don't have any support from their elected representatives for their extremist positions.

Fox is not a source of news. It is a source of one sided opinion that is starting to look like it is a state run broadcaster pumping out propaganda for Trump.
So here is my question Chuck2, at present Canada produces 1.6% of the world's GHG's, if we cut our emissions the amount we agreed to in the Paris Climate accord we will then be producing 1.2% of the world's GHG's, do you believe this will make a quantifiable difference to the world's climate? Please just answer the question yourself without multiple paragraphs of cut and paste that I never read! Reply With Quote
SASKFARMER's Avatar May 15, 2018 | 08:21 6 He can’t its to simple question for him. Reply With Quote
May 15, 2018 | 08:34 7 The journey of 1000 miles begins with 1 step. Carbon taxes don't reduce green house gas the but reductions in use does .
Fines and penalty reduce speeding and law breaking in general, so why won't penalties reduce the waste of carbon producing activities. Reply With Quote
May 15, 2018 | 08:45 8
Quote Originally Posted by Horse View Post
The journey of 1000 miles begins with 1 step. Carbon taxes don't reduce green house gas the but reductions in use does .
Fines and penalty reduce speeding and law breaking in general, so why won't penalties reduce the waste of carbon producing activities.
Sure bankrupt the middle income family and penalize the farmers. Great solution!
Last edited by biglentil; May 15, 2018 at 08:50.
Reply With Quote
fjlip's Avatar May 15, 2018 | 08:47 9 Why not give credits/carrots for reduced use rather than BEAT US with a TAX stick like dumb shits? Farmers reducing tillage should ALL get a bonus years ago. Any improved insulation happened years ago saving heating fuel. We have done our part. We are a COLD thinly populated country, we NEED to drive long distances, transport commodities over mountains thousands of miles! Too COLD 5 months a year.
Last edited by fjlip; May 15, 2018 at 08:51.
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2018 | 08:56 10
Quote Originally Posted by biglentil View Post
Sure bankrupt the middle income family and penalize the farmers. Great solution!
If the middle income are causing the problem as you suggest why not make them pay Just because you have the income so you don't care doesn't make it your rite to polute as you please.. Reply With Quote
May 15, 2018 | 09:11 11
Quote Originally Posted by fjlip View Post
Why not give credits/carrots for reduced use rather than BEAT US with a TAX stick like dumb shits? Farmers reducing tillage should ALL get a bonus years ago. Any improved insulation happened years ago saving heating fuel. We have done our part. We are a COLD thinly populated country, we NEED to drive long distances, transport commodities over mountains thousands of miles! Too COLD 5 months a year.
You are right on all counts but don't you receive a bonus for what you do. Insulation ? when you look at the new houses with 10 gables,75 corners, no concern for anything but looks,i think there is room for improvement. We have gone from 1 Tons hauling to the elevators 5/10 miles away to super Bs hauling hundreds of miles, not sure that can be called an improvement.
Need is the mother of invention so we never know what will be next. I know I for one look at driving that 20 mi to town for any little thing,i try to make a list and not go as often, will that save the world I doubt it but if each of us used 100 less litres per yr it would add up to something. Reply With Quote
May 15, 2018 | 09:28 12
Quote Originally Posted by Horse View Post
If the middle income are causing the problem as you suggest why not make them pay Just because you have the income so you don't care doesn't make it your rite to polute as you please..
Ahhh there it is , the ave tax paying Joe gonna pay .
Meanwhile every single talking head politician and celebrity and scientist jet set around , have a fleet of gas guzzlers, 2-3 mansions ..... telling the rest of us the smarten up .
Yup we are the problem 🙄 Reply With Quote
SASKFARMER's Avatar May 15, 2018 | 09:29 13 Horse you have no clue. As a farmer we’re middle class and the carbon tax hoax doesn’t help us slow use of diesel it’s a tax. Now 37 years direct seeding has done huge amounts yet. NO mention.

Yea real special tax Reply With Quote
May 15, 2018 | 09:30 14 Horse,

I would agree with you on out and out pollution, but since when is CO2 pollution? Reply With Quote
May 15, 2018 | 09:35 15
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
Last year every Conservative MP except 1 voted in the house of commons to support the Paris Climate accord. https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/06/07/cheryl-gallant-paris-agreement_n_16988700.html

The government of Saskatchewan which opposes a carbon tax, but still has a plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions, clearly accepts the science that humans are causing climate change. https://www.saskatchewan.ca/business/environmental-protection-and-sustainability/climate-change-policy

Climate change deniers in Canada don't have any support from their elected representatives for their extremist positions.

Fox is not a source of news. It is a source of one sided opinion that is starting to look like it is a state run broadcaster pumping out propaganda for Trump.

Hi there, chucky boy - there's a question in another thread that I believe still awaits an answer from you. (Why are you hiding on that one?)

And as for the "one" Conservative - well it's good to know that there is a least one parliamentarian that's brave enough to vote according to their conscience...

But meanwhile, here's another one for you - do you know that CNN really stands for "Clinton News Network"?

And did you know that their highest rating happened when the world tuned in to watch them cry into their lattes as they warbled out the news that Hillary lost, a 99% impossibility?

LOL! Reply With Quote
May 15, 2018 | 12:42 16
Quote Originally Posted by Horse View Post
You are right on all counts but don't you receive a bonus for what you do. Insulation ? when you look at the new houses with 10 gables,75 corners, no concern for anything but looks,i think there is room for improvement. We have gone from 1 Tons hauling to the elevators 5/10 miles away to super Bs hauling hundreds of miles, not sure that can be called an improvement.
Need is the mother of invention so we never know what will be next. I know I for one look at driving that 20 mi to town for any little thing,i try to make a list and not go as often, will that save the world I doubt it but if each of us used 100 less litres per yr it would add up to something.
Mother of invention you say. So here is my thoughts on newer tech. Bought a 2014 4wd this spring, nice tractor but was a bit disappointed in pulling power and fuel consumption. So I call up my favourite Diesel engine programmer. He came out we made a few mods and threw in a tune, now we are easily pulling one gear higher at 250 rpms less and using between 150-200 litres less diesel a day. Is this the type of contribution your referring to? Reply With Quote
May 15, 2018 | 13:31 17
Quote Originally Posted by Hamloc View Post
So here is my question Chuck2, at present Canada produces 1.6% of the world's GHG's, if we cut our emissions the amount we agreed to in the Paris Climate accord we will then be producing 1.2% of the world's GHG's, do you believe this will make a quantifiable difference to the world's climate? Please just answer the question yourself without multiple paragraphs of cut and paste that I never read!
195 countries signed on to the Paris climate accord. All parties including the CPC voted to support the agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emmisions. If all the signatories work towards reducing greenhouse gases then Canada's contribution is significant. Further, our per capita emissions are some of the highest in the world. Investments in reducing carbon emissions are going on here and around the world whether you believe it is futile or not. It will be a long transition that will still be going on when you and I are dead. The costs of doing nothing are very high. Reply With Quote
May 15, 2018 | 13:35 18

Only a few years away if the environment alarmists have their way Reply With Quote
May 15, 2018 | 13:40 19
Quote Originally Posted by checking View Post
Horse,

I would agree with you on out and out pollution, but since when is CO2 pollution?
When it rises to levels that cause irreversible or long term climate change that costs billions to pay for the adverse effects.

It is also essential to life on earth. But just like water is not a pollutant, too much of it in the wrong place can flood crops and homes, Reply With Quote
May 15, 2018 | 13:43 20 Hamloc. Conservation is conservation economics are economics but the 2 can work together, or against ,what ever you chose. Reply With Quote
May 15, 2018 | 13:46 21
Quote Originally Posted by checking View Post
Horse,

I would agree with you on out and out pollution, but since when is CO2 pollution?
Simple answer is I guess when we are emitting more than the planet can handle. Reply With Quote
May 15, 2018 | 14:13 22 As Farmers We can't give ourselves too much credit for Saving the planet with Zero till,

When Around here it Looks like the 1970's with everyone Broadcasting Fertilizer !! Spreading it on Snow ,spreading on Wet Ground, Spreading in 30 degree heat with a 50 km wind and no drill around for days to cover it WTF!!

Dont Farmers Know how much LOSS there is with this practice?
When the Urea converts to Ammonia it is 200 Times Worse than C02 as a Greenhouse Gas.

A huge Carbon Tax Needs to be Charged on Every Idiot that Uses this Practice Reply With Quote
May 15, 2018 | 14:49 23
Quote Originally Posted by Horse View Post
Hamloc. Conservation is conservation economics are economics but the 2 can work together, or against ,what ever you chose.
The ironic part Horse is that a good portion of the improvement comes from eliminating the government mandated pollution equipment. Motor run smoother and more efficiently!!!! Reply With Quote
May 15, 2018 | 14:51 24
Quote Originally Posted by mustardman View Post
As Farmers We can't give ourselves too much credit for Saving the planet with Zero till,

When Around here it Looks like the 1970's with everyone Broadcasting Fertilizer !! Spreading it on Snow ,spreading on Wet Ground, Spreading in 30 degree heat with a 50 km wind and no drill around for days to cover it WTF!!

Dont Farmers Know how much LOSS there is with this practice?
When the Urea converts to Ammonia it is 200 Times Worse than C02 as a Greenhouse Gas.

A huge Carbon Tax Needs to be Charged on Every Idiot that Uses this Practice
Add draining wetlands and bulldozing all the trees to the list. Trees and wetlands hold a lot of carbon and provide a lot of ecological services and help protect the soil and recharge aquifers. Reply With Quote
May 15, 2018 | 15:30 25 [QUOTE=chuckChuck;378799]When it rises to levels that cause irreversible or long term climate change that costs billions to pay for the adverse effects.

Or not! Reply With Quote
May 15, 2018 | 16:43 26 So, chucky boy, horse, mustardman and all you other anti-farming types at the back, would you please post for us what the range of variability of CO2 concentrations has been as far back as we are able to trace it?

Seems that knowing those figures would be of fairly great relevance to this discussion. Reply With Quote
May 15, 2018 | 17:43 27 Is the fert they are spreading super U , or have N stabilizer on it ?
If not , I agree . Reply With Quote
May 15, 2018 | 17:48 28 I would bet 99 per cent is from local plant that only has Straight 46-0-0 . They been spreading this all ,fall,winter and now Summer, stupid stupid Farmers Reply With Quote
May 15, 2018 | 18:04 29
Quote Originally Posted by burnt View Post
So, chucky boy, horse, mustardman and all you other anti-farming types at the back, would you please post for us what the range of variability of CO2 concentrations has been as far back as we are able to trace it?

Seems that knowing those figures would be of fairly great relevance to this discussion.
Anti farming type, We probably all make our living from farming, so what's next racist,antisemite,chouvenest. When your argument won't hold water ATTACK, just because we have different opinions than yours docent automatically make us wrong. Reply With Quote
May 15, 2018 | 18:31 30
Quote Originally Posted by Horse View Post
Anti farming type, We probably all make our living from farming, so what's next racist,antisemite,chouvenest. When your argument won't hold water ATTACK, just because we have different opinions than yours docent automatically make us wrong.
Answer the question horse.

"So, chucky boy, horse, mustardman and all you other anti-farming types at the back, would you please post for us what the range of variability of CO2 concentrations has been as far back as we are able to trace it?" Reply With Quote