Who got snow

[furrowtickler]

I am just hoping him and others are kinda quiet lately trying to comprehend the video on climate forcing and collecting their thoughts lol

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I am just hoping him and others are kinda quiet lately trying to comprehend the video on climate forcing and collecting their thoughts lol

That would require an open mind. Nothing more needs to be said.

I expect he might have realized that his timing was poor, and was likely to result in a mob with pitchforks and torches showing up at his door while no is able to combine anyways due to snow anyways.

[Blaithin]

Is there irony in the fact that people who are dead set in their beliefs say that others with opposing beliefs are close minded?

The definition of Open Minded is willing to consider new ideas. Unprejudiced.

I’m sorry AlbertaFarmer, but your posts don’t lend the image of you fitting that definition either 😂😂

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Is there irony in the fact that people who are dead set in their beliefs say that others with opposing beliefs are close minded?

The definition of Open Minded is willing to consider new ideas. Unprejudiced.

I’m sorry AlbertaFarmer, but your posts don’t lend the image of you fitting that definition either 😂😂

On the topic of global warming, I read every single cut and paste that Chuck puts up( and I expect I am the only one), and I follow a number of alarmists elsewhere, I look at the raw data for myself, I read many papers on both sides. I started out quite hopeful that they were right, and AGW was real and went looking for evidence to support that, and as I always do, I also look for evidence to refute what I want to be true, to avoid confirmation bias, unfortunately, when you weigh the evidence from both sides from a dispassionate academic perspective, the alarmists case falls apart. I am still looking for that glimmer of hope, and Chuck is generous enough with his time, to gather multiple sources and bring them to our attention, I do thank him for that. Being open minded is what brought me to the perspective I have now. I do take this issue very seriously, because me entire business model and virtually everything we have invested is dependent our climate either improving, or at very least not getting any colder, so I am keeping a very open mind. This isn't about what I want to believe, it has real implications for us, and requires taking appropriate measures before it is too late, whichever direction it goes. Forewarned is forearmed.

I have asked Chuck multiple times what is his line in the sand on this issue. Is there a certain temperature that has to be crossed by a certain date, or any other definable, quantifiable metric that if it doesn't occur, would cause him to rethink his "belief" in CAGW. I have mine, and am prepared to change my opinion if the evidence changes, he claims there is no need. If there is no piece of evidence that could cause one to rethink their "belief" in something, then that is the definition of an close minded ideologue, not an open minded pragmatist.

Ask Chuck how many of the articles, papers, links etc. that other posters have taken the time to post for him, has he read and critiqued for us? Every single time, he shoots the messenger and that is as far as he gets.

How about yourself, how do you ensure that you are not guilty of confirmation bias on this or any other issue?

[WiltonRanch]

On the topic of global warming, I read every single cut and paste that Chuck puts up( and I expect I am the only one), and I follow a number of alarmists elsewhere, I look at the raw data for myself, I read many papers on both sides. I started out quite hopeful that they were right, and AGW was real and went looking for evidence to support that, and as I always do, I also look for evidence to refute what I want to be true, to avoid confirmation bias, unfortunately, when you weigh the evidence from both sides from a dispassionate academic perspective, the alarmists case falls apart. I am still looking for that glimmer of hope, and Chuck is generous enough with his time, to gather multiple sources and bring them to our attention, I do thank him for that. Being open minded is what brought me to the perspective I have now. I do take this issue very seriously, because me entire business model and virtually everything we have invested is dependent our climate either improving, or at very least not getting any colder, so I am keeping a very open mind. This isn't about what I want to believe, it has real implications for us, and requires taking appropriate measures before it is too late, whichever direction it goes. Forewarned is forearmed.

I have asked Chuck multiple times what is his line in the sand on this issue. Is there a certain temperature that has to be crossed by a certain date, or any other definable, quantifiable metric that if it doesn't occur, would cause him to rethink his "belief" in CAGW. I have mine, and am prepared to change my opinion if the evidence changes, he claims there is no need. If there is no piece of evidence that could cause one to rethink their "belief" in something, then that is the definition of an close minded ideologue, not an open minded pragmatist.

Ask Chuck how many of the articles, papers, links etc. that other posters have taken the time to post for him, has he read and critiqued for us? Every single time, he shoots the messenger and that is as far as he gets.

How about yourself, how do you ensure that you are not guilty of confirmation bias on this or any other issue?

Sitting back and not getting my nickers up in a knot on either side of this debate, I have to say you are the most rational and thoughtful person on this forum. I respect you. I consider myself open minded as long as science can back it up but also realize science is only as good as the monkeys collecting and interpreting the data. I hate pollution and waste. I am by no means a large operator and I realize the only way I keep the wolf away from the door is to be as efficient as possible in everything I do. For lack of a more eloquent term I gotta channel my deep Scottish and Irish roots. My dad, grandpa, and previous generations that settled this land made it on a shoestring not wasting a bloody thing. They saved every god damned bit of crap thinking it would have a purpose down the road. I’m not really that old but having an older father than most I have a connection to the older generations and am burdened with that knowledge compared to my peers. Our society has become ****ing wasteful in the last 15 or so years. I blame it on all the cheap crap from China and abroad. All these self righteous pricks can say what they want but they are no better than anyone else as they contribute to the problem too. Clean up your own yard before you bitch at your neighbours.

[malleefarmer]

2 absolutely top posts. Well done guys

[grassfarmer]

Something for you to ponder AB5 when you get over patting yourself on the back for being the "most stable genius" on the forum.

[Hamloc]

[ATTACH]5058[/ATTACH]

Something for you to ponder AB5 when you get over patting yourself on the back for being the "most stable genius" on the forum.

Now that you have basically accused every person that doesn't bow down to the alarmist climate change dogma of being a lunatic Grassfarmer I will give you a few thoughts.

An article in the Western Producer discussing the Green Party's platform on agriculture probably best articulates why I don't support their outlook because it would be supporting and voting for my business's demise. Two quotes from the article, first "A Greem party government in Canada would implement national use standards for nitrogen fertilizer and move away from what it calls industrial livestock production." Second, "Shifting to mostly local, organic production systems for both crops and livestock will reduce climate-changing pollution while increasing the soil's ability to store carbon and retain productivity in the face of climate change." So basically they want to blow up the whole existing agricultural model in Canada. Not everybody is cut out to run a small farm to plate farming operation!

If you look carefully at most of the messaging of climate alarmists like Naomi Klien, Tzeporah Berman, Elizabeth May it is more about attacking capitalism and large corporations and individual wealth than it is about the environment!!! But as you pointed out, I am just another lunatic, enjoy your day!

P.S. I have to be honest Grassfarmer, my first impulse was to tell you to go f#*k yourself, fortunately sanity won out lol.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

[ATTACH]5058[/ATTACH]

Something for you to ponder AB5 when you get over patting yourself on the back for being the "most stable genius" on the forum.

Grassfarmer, you are typically one of the more rational posters on here, and I tend to agree with you more often than not, so it is a big disappointment that you now playing Chucks game of proclaiming that science is decided by consensus as opposed to evidence.

In response, I'll ask the same question as I did of Blaithlin, how do you prove that you keep an open mind on this issue? How many of those 7000 papers have you actually read, and how many papers disagreeing with your bias have you read in the interest of being open minded? By what process did you arrive at your current mindset on this issue, and what is your line in the sand to cause you to reevaluate if you are on the right side?

And more importantly regarding your attachment, science, by definition is not supposed to have anything to do with ones political affiliations. In fact it is quite ironic that supposed libertarians are statistically more likely to support enforcing drastic actions against global warming, which would in turn massively limit their own personal freedoms.

It is unfortunate, and likely is the undoing of the entire movement, that the extreme socialist factions have latched onto what started out as genuine science, and usurped it to further their own political agendas.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Also Grassfarmer, when did the narrative change from Chucks favourite 97%, to now being ALL of the worlds scientists, as is claimed by this twitter post? Have you verified that stat before you posted this? Or did you just repeat it because it agrees with your bias? Do you think there are no scientists ( of any discipline the way it is presented), or no peer reviewed papers by those scientists that disagree with the CAGW narrative as presented? The fact that you posted this would lead one to assume that you cannot be open minded enough to even go looking, or else you you wouldn't have posted something which is so obviously falsifiable. And you do tend to be a stickler for details and facts in most posts.