SARM is an embrassment with CO2 resolution!

[chuckChuck]

Well at least SARM didn't vote to say human caused climate change is not real and is a commie plot!

Not like the Conservative party! Then when pressed, Pierre Poilievre had to tell them and the media it is real. Just so they don't look like a bunch of fools.

But give them another chance and SARM will probably start saying human caused climate change is not real and more CO2 and a warming planet will be good for us! Is that just like more hotter and dryers summers will be good for us too?

Of course SARM wouldn't want to admit that modern agriculture is completely dependent on science! But any science that they disagree with they ignore and is wrong?

And no one is only targeting "natural" CO2 emissions. And to suggest that is ridiculous.

And if you learned any science in school at all you would know that there is a natural carbon cycle that was more or less in equilibrium for the last few thousand years.

But SARM ignores the fact that the fossil fuels have contribute massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that warms the planet.

But SARM doesn't make any mention of the plans to reduce nitrous oxide and methane emissions, both of which are significant greenhouse gases in agriculture?

It was just another case of political SARM nonsense and distraction from rural councilors who don't know the science.

SARM should stick to running good local governments and providing good roads and services, instead of embarrassing SARM with resolutions in areas that they don't understand.

[sumdumguy]

We know Chuck, you understand, everyone else is a moron. You are mentally inept.

[WiltonRanch]

Well at least SARM didn't vote to say human caused climate change is not real and is a commie plot!

Not like the Conservative party! Then when pressed, Pierre Poilievre had to tell them and the media it is real. Just so they don't look like a bunch of fools.

But give them another chance and SARM will probably start saying human caused climate change is not real and more CO2 and a warming planet will be good for us! Is that just like more hotter and dryers summers will be good for us too?

Of course SARM wouldn't want to admit that modern agriculture is completely dependent on science! But any science that they disagree with they ignore and is wrong?

And no one is only targeting "natural" CO2 emissions. And to suggest that is ridiculous.

And if you learned any science in school at all you would know that there is a natural carbon cycle that was more or less in equilibrium for the last few thousand years.

But SARM ignores the fact that the fossil fuels have contribute massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that warms the planet.

But SARM doesn't make any mention of the plans to reduce nitrous oxide and methane emissions, both of which are significant greenhouse gases in agriculture?

It was just another case of political SARM nonsense and distraction from rural councilors who don't know the science.

SARM should stick to running good local governments and providing good roads and services, instead of embarrassing SARM with resolutions in areas that they don't understand.

You gotta take a step back and take a break sometimes before you spiral out into oblivion.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

You gotta take a step back and take a break sometimes before you spiral out into oblivion.

Are you sure this event hasn't already occurred?

[chuckChuck]

Take a step back? When are you going to take a step back?

I just don't agree with the flat earth anti science bull shitters on agrisilly and SARM who aren't far behind!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

more CO2 and a warming planet will be good for us! ...

in areas that they don't understand.

Speaking of topics people don't understand.

In all the years we have been discussing this topic, you have yet to find even a single example of additional CO2, or a warmer world being a net negative for anything.
Are you sure you are in any position to judge anyone else's unqualified opinion on this?

[WiltonRanch]

Take a step back? When are you going to take a step back?

I just don't agree with the flat earth anti science bull shitters on agrisilly and SARM who aren't far behind!

Shit your last post was almost incoherent rabble. We were having some more civil discussions here and then you gotta go on another fricking tirade. Calm your tits sister.

[fjlip]

""No one has ever shown that human emissions of CO2 drive global warming…

And if it could be shown, then you would have to show that the 97% of emissions which are natural, do not drive global warming." Or climate change of course.?"

Explain, someone you believe must be able to?

How does the 97% NOT drive global climate, but 3% does?

[chuckChuck]

You are completely wrong and I am not sure why you keep repeating your anti science bullshit!

[url]https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide[/url]

Carbon dioxide is Earth’s most important greenhouse gas a gas that absorbs and radiates heat. Unlike oxygen or nitrogen (which make up most of our atmosphere), greenhouse gases absorb heat radiating from the Earth’s surface and re-release it in all directions—including back toward Earth’s surface. Without carbon dioxide, Earth’s natural greenhouse effect would be too weak to keep the average global surface temperature above freezing. By adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, people are supercharging the natural greenhouse effect, causing global temperature to rise. According to observations by the NOAA Global Monitoring Lab, in 2021 carbon dioxide alone was responsible for about two-thirds of the total heating influence of all human-produced greenhouse gases.
([url]https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-annual-greenhouse-gas-index[/url])

Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂₎ in parts per million (ppm) for the past 800,000 years based on ice-core data (light purple line) compared to 2022 concentration (bright purple dot). The peaks and valleys in the line show ice ages (low CO₂) and warmer interglacials (higher CO₂). Throughout that time, CO₂ was never higher than 300 ppm (light purple dot, between 300,000 and 400,000 years ago). The increase over the last 60 years is 100 times faster than previous natural increases. In fact, on the geologic time scale, the increase from the end of the last ice age to the present (dashed purple line) looks virtually instantaneous. Graph by NOAA Climate.gov based on data from Lüthi, et al., 2008, via NOAA NCEI Paleoclimatology Program.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Carbon dioxide is Earth’s most important greenhouse gas .

Do you even read this stuff before you post it? Are you at all capable of comprehending the cut and paste you find? Do you have any fact checkers on your team?
Here is a cut and paste from Zeke Housfather of yale, a very high profile climate catastrophist, he seems to disagree with your absurd claim. Water vapor is one of the most important elements of the climate system. A greenhouse gas, like carbon dioxide, it represents around 80 percent of total greenhouse gas mass in the atmosphere and 90 percent of greenhouse gas volume.

Water vapor and clouds account for 66 to 85 percent of the greenhouse effect,

[fjlip]

Answer...How does the 97% natural C02 NOT drive global climate, but 3% man made does?

Can you TELL them apart? They smell different? Different color? Heavier?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Answer...How does the 97% natural C02 NOT drive global climate, but 3% man made does?

Can you TELL them apart? They smell different? Different color? Heavier?

That's easy. Nature can tell them apart, the same way that she can tell the difference between CO2 emitted from the maritimes versus western Canada. That is why they get an exemption from the CO2 tax, and we don't.
Only Western Canadian CO2 causes catastrophic global warming.
In the same way that CO2 from oil imported from the Middle East does not cause catastrophic global warming.
That is also why with a clear conscience, we can send our energy intensive industries to China where they use coal energy, because mother nature knows that CO2 released in China is virtuous and does not cause global warming.

It is a very sneaky little molecule. All that, plus it is responsible for every imaginary problem plaguing humanity and the Earth.

[cropgrower]

They are Increasing carbon tax on april 1st fools day , just too mock the fools that believe in the scam

[chuckChuck]

Do you even read this stuff before you post it? Are you at all capable of comprehending the cut and paste you find? Do you have any fact checkers on your team?
Here is a cut and paste from Zeke Housfather of yale, a very high profile climate catastrophist, he seems to disagree with your absurd claim. Water vapor is one of the most important elements of the climate system. A greenhouse gas, like carbon dioxide, it represents around 80 percent of total greenhouse gas mass in the atmosphere and 90 percent of greenhouse gas volume.

Water vapor and clouds account for 66 to 85 percent of the greenhouse effect,

Yes water vapour is an important factor in climate.

Water vapour amplifies the earths greenhouse effect. But water vapour is not the cause of the greenhouse effect.

Wrong again A5! Are you sure you have an engineering degree?

"Some people mistakenly believe water vapor is the main driver of Earth’s current warming. But increased water vapor doesn’t cause global warming. Instead, it’s a consequence of it. Increased water vapor in the atmosphere amplifies the warming caused by other greenhouse gases.

Earth's water cycle. Credit: NASA


It works like this: As greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane increase, Earth’s temperature rises in response. This increases evaporation from both water and land areas. Because warmer air holds more moisture, its concentration of water vapor increases. Specifically, this happens because water vapor does not condense and precipitate out of the atmosphere as easily at higher temperatures. The water vapor then absorbs heat radiated from Earth and prevents it from escaping out to space. This further warms the atmosphere, resulting in even more water vapor in the atmosphere. This is what scientists call a "positive feedback loop." Scientists estimate this effect more than doubles the warming that would happen due to increasing carbon dioxide alone."

[url]https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3143/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/[/url]

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Yes water vapour is an important factor in climate.

Water vapour amplifies the earths greenhouse effect. But water vapour is not the cause of the greenhouse effect.

Wrong again A5! Are you sure you have an engineering degree?

"Some people mistakenly believe water vapor is the main driver of Earth’s current warming. But increased water vapor doesn’t cause global warming. Instead, it’s a consequence of it. Increased water vapor in the atmosphere amplifies the warming caused by other greenhouse gases.

Earth's water cycle. Credit: NASA


It works like this: As greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane increase, Earth’s temperature rises in response. This increases evaporation from both water and land areas. Because warmer air holds more moisture, its concentration of water vapor increases. Specifically, this happens because water vapor does not condense and precipitate out of the atmosphere as easily at higher temperatures. The water vapor then absorbs heat radiated from Earth and prevents it from escaping out to space. This further warms the atmosphere, resulting in even more water vapor in the atmosphere. This is what scientists call a "positive feedback loop." Scientists estimate this effect more than doubles the warming that would happen due to increasing carbon dioxide alone."

[url]https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3143/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/[/url]

So does this mean that the climatologist Zeke Hausfather I quoted above is now a denier too? He used to be on your team.

This is another example of what I posted elsewhere about you never acknowledging when I do post credible scientific organizations that contradict your agenda.