Extreme global weather is 'the face of climate change' says leading scientist

[jazz]

If anyone remembers 2007-08, natural gas skyrocked to $7 bucks or something. There was a shortage we were told and it was going to be more and more expensive to find and extract it. At this time, some of the climate hysteria was frothing up.

I was building a house at the time. I decided to do my part for the environment. I used extra insulation around the slab which is the coldest part of the house and installed geothermal heating and cooling for the basement with in floor heating. Idea was to keep the concrete warm in winter which creates a heat sink for the rest of the house and reduce gas costs by about half.

That winter we fired up the system and ran it for the basement. Worked pretty well so we turned it up even higher to try and heat the top level as well. Later that month I got a power bill for $1000. Turns out geothermal uses a electric motor which runs all the time when geothermal is the main heat source. The system will cool too. Tried it in the summer instead of the AC, got another big bill.

System is turned off now. Gas is like $2 bucks or something. That system cost $20,000. I will never recoup the capital costs nor the operating costs.

[grassfarmer]

It is a waste of time preaching to the rest of the converted, and you obviously did not come here with an open mind willing to consider that your opinion may be wrong and that you would allow facts to convince you....... what is the point of wasting time trying to convince you of anything, I hate to guess how much time we have already wasted on this exercise, and I doubt anyone has changed their mind.

I think applies to most of the posters on this forum and how many minds have been changed.

Right out of the climate change playbook. If the facts don't support your argument, attack the opponent personally. Professional ethics are not in the climate change playbook. I'll respond to the rest when I have more time.

I think this also applies to most of the posters on this forum - it's not a "climate change" thing or a "leftist" thing it's the way the forum operates day to day. Accusing only "one side" of operating in this manner in itself is a demonstration of bias.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Sorry to get this back on topic and responding to the original article. Let's assume that the premise is correct, human caused CO2 from burning fossil fuesls is entirely to blame for the stalled jet stream, heat wave, drought and crop failures. In preindustrial times, crop failures would result in mass starvation, price shocks, and civil unrest. Note how grain prices are very nearly at all time inflation adjusted lows. No one in Europe will starve this winter. All thanks to those very same fossil fuels and the energy they contain, the technologies they have facilitated, the worldwide trade they have enabled, the increased yields and drought tolerance higher CO2 levels have caused.

Where is the catastrophic potion of the CAGW?

[MBgrower]

Most of the quoted scientists and their institutions either work for govt or look to govt for research funding (paychecks), it is no wonder most support the theory of man made climate change.

[jazz]

35 yrs ago we had a chance to swing away from FF. It was called nuclear, but guess who shut that industry down?

With nuclear, the waste product is much much smaller and can be contained locally or buried in formations.

The greenies can wear that one as far as I am concerned. They are more responsible for climate change than anyone.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I think applies to most of the posters on this forum and how many minds have been changed.

Yes, that is what I meant, neither side has changed anyones mind. And I highly doubt that insulting the intelligence of the party one is trying to persuade is contributing to changing many minds either.

I think this also applies to most of the posters on this forum - it's not a "climate change" thing or a "leftist" thing it's the way the forum operates day to day. Accusing only "one side" of operating in this manner in itself is a demonstration of bias.

I won't speak for any other posters, but I try very hard to keep it respectable, fact bases and avoid personal attacks or insults. Yes, I call Chuck a socialist, but I expect that is a badge of honour he wears proudly, and I have called you a troll once. But just in one post on this thread, Chuck managed to use the words stupid, extremist nut case, lame, very weak, , all aimed at myself, also suggested that I don't know how to use the internet and a few other insults. It has been my experience that in any debate, when you have the facts on your side, you do not need to resort to such childish antics. If you follow any of Micheal Mann's work and court cases, he operates on the same premise as Chuck, that is why I state that professional ethics do not apply to climate change zealots. Personally, I hold professionals to a higher standard than a bunch of anonymous farmers on an internet forum. I do not know if Chuck is in any way a professional in the climate field, he certainly would give the impression that he is, but his demeanour is on par with the supposed professionals involved in the climate gate emails.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Stupid are your words. I will leave it up to readers to decide if it is true.

So are you prepared to call NOAA, NASA, and all the climate scientist working at various institutions around the world rubbish? If so, you are wasting everyone's time because you are a extremist nut case.

Where is all your evidence that what I post is wrong? Here are a couple recent examples of your lame, very weak responses. Neither of them contained any evidence that would counter the science of human caused global climate change.

1. Your rebuttal on the NOAA website that discussed the science on sea level rise, your response is below. It's almost as if you don't know how to use the internet. NOAA has lots of science on line about sea level rise. Do you need my help finding it or can do your own search? Just asking because its there to back up the NOAA website I posted.

Is NOAA making this up or are you wrong?

Response From Albertafarmer 5:

"Perhaps I am a poor reader, but I don't see any evidence, numbers or graphs quantifying sea level rise acceleration. Just a couple statements in the title and first paragraph, then the remainder is propaganda fluff, completely devoid of facts that in anyway substantiate the title"

I knew you could be counted on to prove my point, that you don't bother responding to anything that doesn't fit your agenda. Just like you didn't respond to that post about sea level rise acceleration, which you purported to use to prove SLR acceleration, I doubt you even read it, just read the alarmist title, then cut and paste, like the masses are expected to do.

2. You recently posted data from Lacombe weather station as presented by Murray Hartman.

So out of all the weather stations in the world are you trying to draw conclusions about global climate change from one station in central Alberta? Because most of the world is covered in oceans and Canada has many rural weather stations.

Do you think that Lacombe is representative of what is happening in Weyburn, Whitehorse, Ottawa, Halifax, or any where else on the planet? Because it is not.

I believe I posted that info in response to a question from Farmaholic, about climate trends, not to disprove global warming, or to draw any conclusions about the broader world, if I indicated so, please present that evidence.
In fact, I am surprised you take offence to that post, considering that it validates that climate change is real and quantifiable, at least in one region. A region which just happens to be close to my backyard, and hosts arguably the most productive land in Alberta, growing potatoes, corn, greenhouses, intensive livestock, field scale vegetables etc.
Since you obviously have much more time than I do( I say obviously, since you had time to research and quote from all of my previous posts while I was busy in a tractor all day), please do some original research and prove me wrong. Environment Canada has data for Weyburn, Whitehorse, Ottawa, Halifax, or any other rural weather station, and data on the rest of the planet is available elsewhere. Plot the same data that Murray did for the locations you listed, and see if any of those locations are becoming less conducive to agriculture due to climate change. I haven't done it, and truthfully, regardless how much climate change we endure, I doubt that Whitehorse is going to be an agricultural center any time soon. But I do look forward to viewing your work on the subject. I study everything I can find about climate, regardless of bias or source, since my livelihood and the entirety of my investments are dependant on it. If I had more time, I would plot other stations. I have tried to do it for my local stations, but found that the records have so many discontinuities and missing data that the results were almost meaningless.

Or, continue with the personal attacks on anyone who dares to disagree with the narrative that you present. I'm sure that will win over far more converts than civil discussion and evidence based responses.

[burnt]

AF5, you have a lot of patience with trolls like chucky.

I could never see the point in discussing the merits of a lie.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

AF5, you have a lot of patience with trolls like chucky.

I could never see the point in discussing the merits of a lie.

I actually enjoy debating the subject with Grassfrmer, dml, Mustard, (my apologies if I've missed any others), but with chuck, it is about as much fun as beating your head against the wall, and less productive.

[burnt]

Using less energy is good investment if it increases your profit and reduces negative effects.

I am interested in solar. But efficiency of the panels keep rising and prices per watt keep falling. And as you know there are endless investments on a farm. Figuring out what to invest in and when is always a challenge.

As I have said the transition to cleaner forms of energy is well underway but it will take a long time. Its not going to happen over night. Sask Power is making investments on our behalf already.

What have you done to lower your carbon footprint?

There was a saying in the former Soviet Union that the Communist is like a radish, red on the outside but white underneath. The were programmed to spout regurgitated Marxist dogmas in public, but knew by observation and repetitive experience (sound scientific principles, no less) that it was an unsustainable, failed ideology.

History proved them right, but it was an extremely costly failure in so many dimensions.

The beauty of chucky's reply here shows that he betrays himself to be a capitalist at heart - he likes the green ideology, but not at a cost to himself.

Thanks chucky boy, for exposing yourself as a hypocrite once again. By your own admission, no less.

Hopefully, one day soon you will find the courage to stand up like a man and distance yourself from the green lie.