BS Chuck.

[dmlfarmer]

Nice distraction AF5. Not a single rebuttal on the information presented in the article. Instead you respond with your typical personal attack on Chuck. If you are so underwhelmed you would have thought you would have at least pointed out where you disagreed with what was written and ideally provided actual scientific evidence of that what was claimed in the article was false. To argue that a commentary is only valid if new information is presented will sure make a lot of your commenting on climate change shorter as you also regurgitate the same denial arguments over and over.

To answer your question however, the article was not intended to present any new data, evidence or research. It was a recap of existing evidence of global warming and a rebuttal of oft repeated climate denial claims.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

What about the article would you like me to rebut? I already asked you to point out what you want to discuss within the article.
You and Chuck seem to have a lot of spare time at this busiest time of year for most of us, you take the initiative. I personally don't have time for a dissertation disproving the entire article, but if you could narrow it down to what you consider irrefutable evidence that disproves what I have been claiming, I would gladly take the time to discuss it with you.
I didn't see anything that hasn't already been rehashed to death here and elsewhere.
I saw nothing that adressed the two questions I have been asking of you two.

Actually, I will start.
The article claims we have 150 years of accurate climate data. So if we both agree to accept that fact, can we also agree that 150 years of both climate data and CO2 records should be enough to finally empirically establish the relationship between CO2 and temperature ( Charney sensitivity) 42 years after it was first postulated? Why are we still relying on models to estimate this relationship when the definitive answers to the big questions in the article indicates we could be using actual reliable data instead?

[dmlfarmer]

Actually, I will start.
The article claims we have 150 years of accurate climate data. So if we both agree to accept that fact, can we also agree that 150 years of both climate data and CO2 records should be enough to finally empirically establish the relationship between CO2 and temperature ( Charney sensitivity) 42 years after it was first postulated? Why are we still relying on models to estimate this relationship when the definitive answers to the big questions in the article indicates we could be using actual reliable data instead?

No we can't agree on that. Answers based in science cannot be scheduled and there is no time limit after which science has failed.

Glyphosate was patented 51 years ago and science cannot yet even agree on the cancer risk it poses. IARC says it poses significant risk but the EPA says there is little risk. And this is the a risk poses to an individual, not nearly the complex question of the effect of CO2 on the global climate.

But if science truly should be able to figure anything out in a set period of time why are we even worrying about glyphosate. A better question is why has science not found the cure for cancer. Cancer was documented in Egypt back in 1600BC. In 1910 President Taft pledged to cure cancer in 5 years. In 1971 President Nixon ordered a campaign to find a cure for cancer (50 years ago) and billions of dollars later people are still dying of cancer.

Which brings up the question of what happens when you die? Back in 1907 Dr MacDougall tried to determine the weight of the human soul by placing dying people on a scale. He came up with 21 grams. So is this right? It is the average of the best 4 tests he made, just as the Charney number was the best average of the estimates at in 79. Do you agree that the soul weighs 21 grams, or are there factors that the science of MacDougall did not take into consideration, just like there are climatic feedback loops that were not accounted for in the Charney estimate, and there are likely more that we have not even thought of?

In 1758 Carl Linnaeus created the taxonomy order so all species could be classified. (kingdom, class, order, species etc) Since that time, 1.5 million species have been recorded. But how many species of life are on this planet? Science estimates only 15% of species found on earth have been identifed. How can it be that in 2 and a half centuries we have not been able to identify all life on this planet if you think we should be able to know the exact impact of CO2 on the entire global climate?

You claim to believe in science yet your claim because we do not have an exact Charney number somehow proves that climate change is not real is as unscientific as it gets. It ranks right up there with the anti vax rants on this site.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Thanks for the long winded reply dml.
Since this thread is dedicated to Chuck, I will respond in true Chuck style, by putting words in your mouth.

So, what you are saying is that global warming is a non-falsibiable hypothesis. No amount of real world data and no amount of failed predictions can ever disprove the theory. If 150 years of tandem data, 42 years since James Hansen first proclaimed the emergency, 50 years of climate models, aren't enough to at least narrow down the relationship, if there is one, then what would it take?

You claim to believe in science yet your claim because we do not have an exact Charney number somehow proves that climate change is not real is as unscientific as it gets. It ranks right up there with the anti vax rants on this site.

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I have never claimed to Believe in science. Quite the opposite, I have been defending the integrity scientific method and insisting that it does not require belief, it requires evidence. You possibly have me confused with Chuck, he insists science is a religion ( a democratic one at that, requiring consensus) based strictly on belief.
Stating that science relies on belief is as unscientific as it gets.

Not knowing the exact Charney sensitivity does not prove climate change isn't real, and I've never claimed that it isn't.

What it does however do is completely destroy the current narrative that there is certainty that we are facing an existential climate crisis. While the media, the politicians, the activists, all present the global warming story as if there is absolute certainty. The science is settled, the debate is over, 97% agree, always giving the indication that there is no room for uncertainty.
That is absolutely NOT what the science says. Even the IPCC readily admits the vast uncertainties. This is only one of them, but it is fundamental to the entire theory. We aren't talking about quibbling over a few percent, the accepted values have a range of 300% from smallest to largest. And the entire range is from 0 to 10, and that is right out of Chuck's article, I'm not making it up. Other sources postulate that the relationship is negative based on the geologic record.

[Spyguy]

Doesn’t matter who does or doesn’t believe in science. The truth of the matter is we can’t compete paying 170.00 per ton on carbon taxes when other countries won’t follow. Puts us at a horrible disadvantage on the world front. Nobody will pay us more for our grain then they can buy it from other countries that have no carbon tax. Canada puts out 1.6 percent of the world carbon and even if we cut it in half who will notice with the likes of Russia, China, India not having any notion of doing anything. If you google how much money Canada has collected on carbon tax it comes up with a number real quick but google how the money collected is being used to reduce emissions and the old wheel spins forever. Collecting money from polluters does nothing to reduce the carbon. If carbon is so bad then why not pay us for capturing it like the usa does. I really don’t know who is telling the truth but it is quite obvious that the liberals have used a scare tactic and very successfully to tax households to pay for there reckless spending. Have you ever listened to you people talk about global warming. They have no idea who when where and what is going on other then we have to do something. Ask them where they got there information from and they say the news. Well the news isn’t news anymore. All it is now is paid advertising for political parties after generous contributions from political parties. Why don’t they make appliance companies double there warranties to 10 years on appliances that fill the landfill sites. They can easily make the appliances last longer. I still have a 1960’s fridge and deep freeze. Good thing science helped them build a failure point in. How about Goodyear implement tire. They all fail in 3-5 years from cracking. They never wear out they fail from a compound or lack of a compound designed to make them fail. Why do other tire companies have better implement tires. Maybe the Governent should make manufacturers use other brands. Lots of carbon when making tires. Why are the cement plants in Quebec exempt. Easy because it is votes for the pm. Everything has a horrible political agenda and some us us can see the agenda on carbon tax. It ain’t about the world environment. If we all stopped burning fuel in Canada science couldn’t detect that if nobody followed suit.
Point being that governments could easily pick apart lots of carbon polluting sectors but the Trudeau liberals are hammering western Canada. His dad hated us and he is way worse. That is why we must go.
Now rumours are spinning about nitrogen fertilizer being a target. I guess people don’t want to afford food anymore. Once all the farms are run by Governent or chemical countries you will not be able to afford your grocery bill.
It is very evident that if western Canada wants to survive then it will have to be on our own. We must sever ties with the east and soon. I hear a west separatist party is forming in Alberta and I can’t wait. We must and will break away from the nonsense. After all is said and done with lies and scandals we all have to eat. That is a right we all have taken for granted. This is total insanity the attacks the Ottawa liberals have been dishing out to western Canada. I hope the lier’s fan club all move east when the crap hits the fan and Canada is split. People will only take so much and that point is here.

[Guest]

Even old sleepy joe knows it won’t work ?
Only this imbecile believes , and really he doesn’t , it’s about shitting on the west , putting them back in their place

[furrowtickler]

Doesn’t matter who does or doesn’t believe in science. The truth of the matter is we can’t compete paying 170.00 per ton on carbon taxes when other countries won’t follow. Puts us at a horrible disadvantage on the world front. Nobody will pay us more for our grain then they can buy it from other countries that have no carbon tax. Canada puts out 1.6 percent of the world carbon and even if we cut it in half who will notice with the likes of Russia, China, India not having any notion of doing anything. If you google how much money Canada has collected on carbon tax it comes up with a number real quick but google how the money collected is being used to reduce emissions and the old wheel spins forever. Collecting money from polluters does nothing to reduce the carbon. If carbon is so bad then why not pay us for capturing it like the usa does. I really don’t know who is telling the truth but it is quite obvious that the liberals have used a scare tactic and very successfully to tax households to pay for there reckless spending. Have you ever listened to you people talk about global warming. They have no idea who when where and what is going on other then we have to do something. Ask them where they got there information from and they say the news. Well the news isn’t news anymore. All it is now is paid advertising for political parties after generous contributions from political parties. Why don’t they make appliance companies double there warranties to 10 years on appliances that fill the landfill sites. They can easily make the appliances last longer. I still have a 1960’s fridge and deep freeze. Good thing science helped them build a failure point in. How about Goodyear implement tire. They all fail in 3-5 years from cracking. They never wear out they fail from a compound or lack of a compound designed to make them fail. Why do other tire companies have better implement tires. Maybe the Governent should make manufacturers use other brands. Lots of carbon when making tires. Why are the cement plants in Quebec exempt. Easy because it is votes for the pm. Everything has a horrible political agenda and some us us can see the agenda on carbon tax. It ain’t about the world environment. If we all stopped burning fuel in Canada science couldn’t detect that if nobody followed suit.
Point being that governments could easily pick apart lots of carbon polluting sectors but the Trudeau liberals are hammering western Canada. His dad hated us and he is way worse. That is why we must go.
Now rumours are spinning about nitrogen fertilizer being a target. I guess people don’t want to afford food anymore. Once all the farms are run by Governent or chemical countries you will not be able to afford your grocery bill.
It is very evident that if western Canada wants to survive then it will have to be on our own. We must sever ties with the east and soon. I hear a west separatist party is forming in Alberta and I can’t wait. We must and will break away from the nonsense. After all is said and done with lies and scandals we all have to eat. That is a right we all have taken for granted. This is total insanity the attacks the Ottawa liberals have been dishing out to western Canada. I hope the lier’s fan club all move east when the crap hits the fan and Canada is split. People will only take so much and that point is here.

Very well said ...

[jazz]

It is very evident that if western Canada wants to survive then it will have to be on our own. We must sever ties with the east and soon. I hear a west separatist party is forming in Alberta and I can’t wait. We must and will break away from the nonsense. After all is said and done with lies and scandals we all have to eat. That is a right we all have taken for granted. This is total insanity the attacks the Ottawa liberals have been dishing out to western Canada. I hope the lier’s fan club all move east when the crap hits the fan and Canada is split. People will only take so much and that point is here.

Well said, but just to highlight, the new green ESG movement has gone beyond borders now. It could be one of our customers like the EU that shuts down our exports because it was done with unsustainable methods. They are already targeting Brazillain soybeans and Malaysian palm oil. Maybe we arent knocking down forests to grow our crops but they can think of all sorts of ways to restrict us. Maybe we are farming on stolen land or something.

We might get out from Trudeaus thumb but there are dozens of other countries and big corps getting on board now as well. I dont see how we can dodge that even being our own country.

I think we are better off heading these guys off at the pass before they come than hoping Albertans will vote to seperate. There are lots of commies and liberals in AB now and they wont vote for it because they have no connection to oil and gas or ag. You can easily find people in Calgary who hate oil. I mean Calgary center riding went LPC in 2015.

[dmlfarmer]

Well said, but just to highlight, the new green ESG movement has gone beyond borders now. It could be one of our customers like the EU that shuts down our exports because it was done with unsustainable methods. They are already targeting Brazillain soybeans and Malaysian palm oil. Maybe we arent knocking down forests to grow our crops but they can think of all sorts of ways to restrict us. Maybe we are farming on stolen land or something.

We might get out from Trudeaus thumb but there are dozens of other countries and big corps getting on board now as well. I dont see how we can dodge that even being our own country.

I think we are better off heading these guys off at the pass before they come than hoping Albertans will vote to seperate. There are lots of commies and liberals in AB now and they wont vote for it because they have no connection to oil and gas or ag. You can easily find people in Calgary who hate oil. I mean Calgary center riding went LPC in 2015.

This may be a first, but I agree completely with Jazz. This is the point I have been making ever since I first commented on climate change. Farmers never had and never will have the power to oppose environmental decisions with respect to climate change. I do not like paying the carbon tax, but had it been provincially instituted western farmers would have at least a bigger voice in being compensated for what it costs us. I pushed for years for payments for sequestration of carbon and carbon credits but my calls for such were ignored. Happy to see some people on here, like Bucket, now saying the same thing. Notley had put in a provincial program where Alberta would have had their own carbon pricing scheme and could have controlled and rebates all revenues collected to Albertans but people were suckered by UPC claims that they would win a court challenge of the Carbon tax.

Now the right wing is claiming that if we separate we can get rid of the carbon tax and environmental regulations. Nothing could be further from the truth. Politicians in importing countries will make western Canadian grains a scapegoat for their own inability to meet climate change targets and they will be pressured by consumers and environmentalists to boycott imports of our grains. Furthermore, there are very few global grain traders, and they will not risk catering to a breakaway state which refuses to meet the coming new global standards. In fact they are likely already pushing those same standards because it offers additional profit opportunities for them. Oh they may still buy western grains, but I can guarantee it will be at a discount to world prices. Additionally, we will face additional costs of movement to export position if we do not meet world standards especially now that the US is going green too.

And even if we do separate, western farmers still will not have a voice. We are a small percentage of the population of urban residents. (R)edmonton alone has at least 5 times the vote of all the actual farmers in the 3 western provinces and right there we are silenced. Separation is a fools errand

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Still waiting for dml to respond:

So, what you are saying is that global warming is a non-falsifiable hypothesis. No amount of real world data and no amount of failed predictions can ever disprove the theory. If 150 years of tandem data, 42 years since James Hansen first proclaimed the emergency, 50 years of climate models, aren't enough to at least narrow down the relationship, if there is one, then what would it take?

Please reassure me that climate change science fits the description of an actual science, and can be proven or disproven using the scientific method.