Congratulations Sask on achieving number 1

[grassfarmer]

Might I point out the absurdity of arguing about who is sequestering the most beneficial gas out of the atmosphere? Yes, I realize that building(keeping) Carbon in the soil is very beneficial, but it is not in any farmers interest to lower CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Come on, you're smarter than that. You know that C02 % in the atmosphere is the controller of temperature and that we can not warm the earth too much without having catastrophic effects. Grow extra plants is fine but how does that work for you when we get into a severe drought? Oops, not enough growth to sequester the increased C02 so the warming accelerates and creates more drought. If you can't acknowledge that basic fact you really don't have a part to play in the discussion.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Come on, you're smarter than that. You know that C02 % in the atmosphere is the controller of temperature and that we can not warm the earth too much without having catastrophic effects. Grow extra plants is fine but how does that work for you when we get into a severe drought? Oops, not enough growth to sequester the increased C02 so the warming accelerates and creates more drought. If you can't acknowledge that basic fact you really don't have a part to play in the discussion.

Coming from anyone else, I would take that as sarcasm. But, typical of the warmist side, anyone who disagrees cannot be part of the discussion. I'm not sure if one could even consider that to be a discussion, if only those who agree are permitted to participate.

[grassfarmer]

Really though? you post some of the smartest things on here and seem to have a very good understanding of things scientific - yet you seemingly don't believe there is any upper level on the amount of C02 we can have in the atmosphere before it has detrimental effect. That just doesn't make any sense to me.

[fjlip]

Apparently CO2 has been much higher for millions of years, and humans caused ZERO of it... and we had nothing to do with TAXING it lower...

[BreadWinner]

How come CO2 emissions are figured on a per capita basis. When your producing food for millions maybe the system should figure on a per area basis instead. We are supposedly the worst climate polluters in the world but it seems we live in one of the cleanest environments.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Really though? you post some of the smartest things on here and seem to have a very good understanding of things scientific - yet you seemingly don't believe there is any upper level on the amount of C02 we can have in the atmosphere before it has detrimental effect. That just doesn't make any sense to me.

Quite the opposite, I understand full well that the benefits of CO2 do not increase linearly, ( neither do any potential negative unintended consequences). Which is to say that increases in the level of atmospheric CO2 have diminishing returns, and by that logic, it does make sense to ration our release of this vital gas, to reap the maximum benefit from it over the longest possible period of time. When we no longer burn fossil fuels ( for whatever reason) all the additional CO2 we have released will eventually be sequestered( gone from the atmosphere in only 4 years, much longer to end up back in rocks), and the slow decline in CO2 levels will once again continue its relentless march downwards. As will crop yields, grass yields, and the health and vigor of everything that performs photosynthesis, or anywhere else in the food chain above them( which incidentally includes virtually all living things). At that time, humanity will wish they would have had the foresight to release just enough to maximize both the benefits and the duration of those benefits.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Really though? you post some of the smartest things on here and seem to have a very good understanding of things scientific - yet you seemingly don't believe there is any upper level on the amount of C02 we can have in the atmosphere before it has detrimental effect. That just doesn't make any sense to me.

You failed to address my comment regarding those with dissenting opinions not being allowed to voice their opinions. Perhaps I could recommend reading some history about regimes where this ideology towards open discussion was the status quo, and how that typically ended up.

[grassfarmer]

You failed to address my comment regarding those with dissenting opinions not being allowed to voice their opinions.

I never said you weren't allowed to voice an opinion, I implied that if you didn't grasp this basic principle you wouldn't have much to bring to the discussion table. As I suspected from your reply you do understand the implications of too much C02 and see the need to ration it's release.

Fjlip, those are nice graphs you posted. I wonder though why someone who doesn't believe that man could accurately record the earth's temperatures over the last 100 years believes that they could accurately record atmospheric C02 levels 570 million years ago!

[SASKFARMER3]

"I implied that if you didn't grasp this basic principle you wouldn't have much to bring to the discussion table."

Wow Grass you must think your some high and mighty Expert from Scotland.

Your a expert on weather in Canada with no real knowledge of what has happened in this country over the last 100 years.

[Hamloc]

Come on, you're smarter than that. You know that C02 % in the atmosphere is the controller of temperature and that we can not warm the earth too much without having catastrophic effects. Grow extra plants is fine but how does that work for you when we get into a severe drought? Oops, not enough growth to sequester the increased C02 so the warming accelerates and creates more drought. If you can't acknowledge that basic fact you really don't have a part to play in the discussion.

Why is it that the proponents of catastrophic climate change always have this attitude? My personal thought is there is no point in debating climate change because dissenting opinions aren't allowed(which doesn't mean I believe that humans aren't influencing the planet). What is worth debating is how we are going to adapt to higher C02 levels in the atmosphere and the possibility of increasing temperatures. If you are a disciple of climate change you realize that the amount of C02 being produced combined with what is in the atmosphere already has locked in a temperature increase even if all fossil fuel consumption stopped tomorrow. Until a cost competitive energy source is discovered fossil fuel use will continue. So let's not pretend that giving more tax money to Trudeau and Notley et al is going to change the world's temperature curve. Instead let's spend money on research into new energy sources, adapting food production systems to a potentially warmer environment, decide how best to protect coastal populations that could be affected by a potential increase in ocean levels. My thought is pretending that putting solar panels on a few thousand homes and shutting down pipeline construction is going to save the world is foolhardy, it will only put a lot of Canadians out of work imo.