Trump's Speech on Paris Accord

[burnt]

For those of you thinking the motivation behind Trumps decision to drop out of the Paris Accord was doing what's best for the USA should take your blinders off. By dropping out of the Paris Accord Trump did what was best for him, and that was keeping his voter base happy nothing else. His adviser Ivanka was against daddy's move, not to mention countless CEO's of major USA companies but, Steve Bannon and Reince Priebus have Trumps ear.

Well the USA now has another thing in common with Syria and Nicaragua other than having USA bombs on their soils!! What a group to be lumped in with, how many of you on here have ancestors from either of those two countries or gone for a visit to them?

Well what a novel concept - a democratically elected leader who is responsive to those who voted for him!!

I know, I know, you and the other Justin-from-Canada sycophants prefer a China-type, basic dictatorship where the leader can arbitrarily act in the perceived best interest on the economy, or climate, or latest gulag writ.

Terrence Corcoran has a good piece in the Financial Post. Makes a lot of sense if one understands basic economics and possesses even an elementary grasp of science...

[URL="http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/terence-corcoran-trump-calls-out-the-global-control-agenda-of-the-paris-deal-but-canada-remains-oblivious"]http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/terence-corcoran-trump-calls-out-the-global-control-agenda-of-the-paris-deal-but-canada-remains-oblivious[/URL]

[chuckChuck]

Chuck one quick point. NASA started collecting this data in 1978. So 39 years of data in which they conclude a temperature rise of .14 degrees Celsius per decade. Hard to believe you can determine in such a short time beyond any possible doubt that an Eco-system which has existed for millions of years in being changed by it's inhabitants.

Science is based on cumulative and shared knowledge. There are hundreds of climate scientists researching around the world, sharing data and drawing conclusions based on evidence. There is overwhelming evidence that shows a direct correlation between rising CO2 levels and a warming planet.

There is physical and dramatic evidence right here in Canada. The retreating glaciers in the Rocky Mountains. The very warm temperatures in the arctic. The declining arctic sea ice making the northwest passage navigable.

Hamloc when you question the science it makes you look ignorant and foolish. Because neither you or I or any Agriville poster are qualified to dispute the science.

The debate about what is causing rapid climate change is over.

What is up for debate is what do we do about adapting and how should we reduce carbon emissions. Is a carbon tax the best or regulations? What technologies will replace carbon based energy? Those are the questions that need to be answered.

[burnt]

There is overwhelming evidence that shows a direct correlation between rising CO2 levels and a warming planet.

Glad to see that you know the word "correlation".

Now, you only need to understand the difference between correlation and causation.

And therein, my friend, is the difference.

[Hamloc]

Let's look at this another way. In the Paris agreement Canada agreed to cut our C02 emissions roughly 30%. If I look at my in the big scheme of things short 35 years of farming these are the trends I see. There were many small beef herds of 30 or 40 or 50 cows. Now those who are left it starts at 150 for the small producers and goes up from there. There used to be 4 or 5 small feedlots now there are none. We used to think 50-60 lbs of N coming from anhydrous was a lot. Now I put 90 lbs of N on my canola and I talk to neighbors that put on 100 or even 110. What I am interested in is on the farm how do we realistically reduce our GHG output by 30%? Now I rent a good portion of what I farm, I could cut my acres by 30% but somebody else would rent it, that wouldn't work. I could get rid of 30% of my cows but would every cow-calf producer be willing to do this? Can we cut 30% of the fertilizer we use? How much would this lower yields?

In Alberta's much touted climate leadership plan a cap of 100 mega tonnes of C02 was placed on the oil sands which is I believe 30 mega tonnes above where we are now. C02 production isn't expected to level off until 2030. This plan shows how politicians suck and blow at the same time. Everybody is belittling Trump for basically telling the truth. All the billions required to be payed into the world green fund by developed countries is in Trump's opinion a bad deal for the USA. He is probably right. Obama has been held up as the great green poster child. When he was first elected the U.S. produced about 4 million barrels of oil. By the time he left that had more than doubled, the other day I read that the USA could be producing 10 million barrels a day by the end of the year. Yet Obama is good Trump is bad. I have come to the conclusion it is not what you do it is what you say. Look at Justin Trudeau everybody in the world thinks he is wonderful for the environment. Slap on a carbon tax and start building pipelines and LNG infrastructure. Will this really lower GHGs? Doubtful but it will get him elected again. My conclusion is with human nature we all think cutting back is great as long as somebody else is willing to do it or pay for it! Enjoy your Sunday :-)

[blackpowder]

"
Hamloc when you question the science it makes you look ignorant and foolish. Because neither you or I or any Agriville poster are qualified to dispute the science.*

The debate about what is causing rapid climate change is over.*"

All I can say is Wow. People like chuck sometimes make me ok with not going to university.

[fjlip]

Settled alright...lies and BS

[burnt]

...I have come to the conclusion it is not what you do it is what you say...

Enjoy your Sunday :-)

Bingo. In its entirety, best post of the day.

As others have said, "When the leaders start acting like there is a crisis, then I might start believing that there is a crisis."

[mustardman]

To Burnt and all other deniers , forage and grassfarmer and myself have time and time again shown PEER reviewed Evidence of climate change. your response is to find some wingnut who talks of Expanding Ice Caps and other Bullshit from Fake News websites With Absolutely NO Review from Peers.

What ****in year is this , my god you guys are frickin Unbelievable

[burnt]

... forage and grassfarmer and myself ...
What ****in year is this , my god you guys are frickin Unbelievable

Case closed - the 3 stooges have spoken! LOL!

[Hamloc]

To Burnt and all other deniers , forage and grassfarmer and myself have time and time again shown PEER reviewed Evidence of climate change. your response is to find some wingnut who talks of Expanding Ice Caps and other Bullshit from Fake News websites With Absolutely NO Review from Peers.

What ****in year is this , my god you guys are frickin Unbelievable

Mustardman I challenge you to show in my last post where I said anything about denying climate change. What I was attempting to point out is that what the politicians are proposing and doing is absolute BS. I was also indirectly challenging posters on Agriville to explain how they would cut their GHG emisions by 30% in correlation with the Paris agreement. So Mustardman let's hear your proposals and retiring doesn't count.