Suncor CEO slams climate change deniers, politicians who cater to them

Commodity Marketing

Tools

Suncor CEO slams climate change deniers, politicians who cater to them

Oct 18, 2019 | 23:28 1 Steven Williams of Suncor
"Climate change is science. Hardcore science. What we have been talking about here is economics. Science and economics. Both very important subjects, not perfectly understood. Periods of discovery go on forever and we keep getting better and better at those things."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suncor-ceo-slams-climate-change-deniers-1.4694549?fbclid=IwAR07jLwb5wLSPIbyvPjZNsSMpIRYQ3m yzsfFcAKtHCElov3g0byUFbWhNJE Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2019 | 23:31 2
Quote Originally Posted by Integrity_Farmer View Post
Steven Williams of Suncor
"Climate change is science. Hardcore science. What we have been talking about here is economics. Science and economics. Both very important subjects, not perfectly understood. Periods of discovery go on forever and we keep getting better and better at those things."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suncor-ceo-slams-climate-change-deniers-1.4694549?fbclid=IwAR07jLwb5wLSPIbyvPjZNsSMpIRYQ3m yzsfFcAKtHCElov3g0byUFbWhNJE
Lol , looking for federal funding..... change your handle .. that’s embarrassing lol Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Oct 19, 2019 | 01:51 3 https://youtu.be/epwUTVUwB7A

    Till you eat the babies, you aren't doing enough to fight climate change. The batshit crazies are taking over and this crusade is losing credibility Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Oct 19, 2019 | 06:00 4 So I did read the the article and I’m pretty sure most people agree that the climate is changing and we all should strive for energy efficiency.

    big deal it’s not a news flash, if the climate wasn’t changing we’d have a mile of Ice above us or maybe palm trees.

    The climate is changing and it’s going to keep changing long after we’re all gone. Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Oct 19, 2019 | 07:19 5 The Full article

    Suncor CEO slams climate change deniers, politicians who cater to them


    'I hope some of those politicians get brave enough to stand up and take some different positions,' CEO says
    David Bell · CBC News · Posted: Jun 06, 2018 1:43 PM MT | Last Updated: June 6, 2018

    'It is a matter of profound disappointment to me that science and economics have taken on some strange political ownership,' Suncor president and CEO Steve Williams told the audience at a sold-out event Wednesday in Calgary. (Jeff McIntosh/Canadian Press)

    The head of Canada's largest oil company says climate change is backed by science, and deniers, including politicians, need to do a U-turn and accept it.

    Suncor Energy Inc. president and chief executive officer Steve Williams — speaking on a panel during the event in Calgary titled Bridging Divides: In Search of Sound Public Policies for Energy and Environment in Canada — said he's unhappy with how the debate on climate change has become so polarizing.

    "It is a matter of profound disappointment to me that science and economics have taken on some strange political ownership. Why the science of the left-wing is different than the science of the right-wing. Why it's not possible for, certainly within Canada for conservatives, to take a conversation about, 'Hey, it's just a fact. Let's get some facts out on the table,'" Williams told the crowd at the sold-out event.

    "Climate change is science. Hardcore science. What we have been talking about here is economics. Science and economics. Both very important subjects, not perfectly understood. Periods of discovery go on forever and we keep getting better and better at those things."

    Williams said conservation is a no-brainer.

    "It makes sense to consume things sensibly. Common sense is not a big part of the conversation that normally goes on on this thing," he said.

    "Energy efficiency, the sensible use of what is a finite resource. My belief is that we will run out of these things in the not too distant future, 100 or 200 years, so we better use them very wisely."

    Williams didn't hold back on politicians who aim their rhetoric at deniers.

    "I find it scary. And I find the current politics of it — where if you want to vote this side of the politics or that side of the politics, you have to be a believer or not a believer — is complete nonsense, and we shouldn't allow that framing of the debate," Williams said.

    "And I hope some of those politicians get brave enough to stand up and take some different positions on it." Reply With Quote
    Oct 19, 2019 | 07:30 6 Suncor angling for some govt funds. Reply With Quote
  • 3 Likes


  • Oct 19, 2019 | 07:38 7
    Quote Originally Posted by TSIPP View Post
    So I did read the the article and I’m pretty sure most people agree that the climate is changing and we all should strive for energy efficiency.

    big deal it’s not a news flash, if the climate wasn’t changing we’d have a mile of Ice above us or maybe palm trees.

    The climate is changing and it’s going to keep changing long after we’re all gone.
    True, the climate will keep changing on its own very slowly, unless a a giant volcano erupts or an asteroid hits.

    But its a cop out to suggest that humans have no impact, or that rising CO2 levels are not causing the greenhouse effect which is just basic physics. There is no disagreement on the science of increasing CO2 levels and rising temperatures.

    Its not just the change, it is the speed of change and the possibility that this change triggers a positive feedback that takes the earth into an uncontrollable rise in temperatures.

    Much of the increases in earth's current temperature has been absorbed by the oceans. The oceans are acidifying because of the absorption of CO2. Acidification has all kinds of consequences for the oceans life systems which are very negative. Warming ocean temperatures kill coral reefs which are the habitat for a lot of other species. Oceans have a huge impact on weather and life on the planet.

    Ignoring science and the impact humans have on the planet is a big mistake.

    Do you ignore science that shows cigarettes cause cancer? Shit no. Everyone agrees cigarettes cause cancer. In the beginning the only ones who disagreed with the science for obvious reasons, were the tobacco companies who sold cigarettes.
    Last edited by chuckChuck; Oct 19, 2019 at 07:50.
    Reply With Quote
    Oct 19, 2019 | 07:47 8 calling someone a climate change denier , is about as illogical as calling someone a sun rises in the east denier

    No one has ever denied that the climate is changing, or has changed, or will change. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Oct 19, 2019 | 07:49 9
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    True, the climate will keep changing on its own very slowly, unless a a giant volcano erupts or an asteroid hits.

    But its a cop out to suggest that humans have no impact, or that rising CO2 levels are not causing the greenhouse effect which is just basic physics. There is no disagreement on the science of increasing CO2 levels and rising temperatures.
    Chuck, I hate having to destroy you daily. Hopefully you will eventually get the picture. CO2 makes up less than 1% of our atmosphere. There is no correlation between CO2 and Temp otherwise our planet would have burned up long ago and life would have never even started on this planet.

    Name:  EETqIAEUYAE7rmF.jpg
Views: 592
Size:  95.6 KB Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Oct 19, 2019 | 07:56 10 Go ahead call NASA and tell them their science is all wrong! LMAO.

    https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

    The Causes of Climate Change
    A layer of greenhouse gases – primarily water vapor, and including much smaller amounts of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide – acts as a thermal blanket for the Earth, absorbing heat and warming the surface to a life-supporting average of 59 degrees Fahrenheit (15 degrees Celsius).

    A simplified animation of the greenhouse effect. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

    Scientists attribute the global warming trend observed since the mid-20th century to the human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1 — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.

    Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases that remain semi-permanently in the atmosphere and do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change. Gases, such as water vapor, which respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are seen as "feedbacks."

    Gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect include:
    Link

    Water vapor. The most abundant greenhouse gas, but importantly, it acts as a feedback to the climate. Water vapor increases as the Earth's atmosphere warms, but so does the possibility of clouds and precipitation, making these some of the most important feedback mechanisms to the greenhouse effect.

    Carbon dioxide (CO2). A minor but very important component of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change.

    Methane. A hydrocarbon gas produced both through natural sources and human activities, including the decomposition of wastes in landfills, agriculture, and especially rice cultivation, as well as ruminant digestion and manure management associated with domestic livestock. On a molecule-for-molecule basis, methane is a far more active greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but also one which is much less abundant in the atmosphere.

    Nitrous oxide. A powerful greenhouse gas produced by soil cultivation practices, especially the use of commercial and organic fertilizers, fossil fuel combustion, nitric acid production, and biomass burning.

    Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Synthetic compounds entirely of industrial origin used in a number of applications, but now largely regulated in production and release to the atmosphere by international agreement for their ability to contribute to destruction of the ozone layer. They are also greenhouse gases.

    Not enough greenhouse effect: The planet Mars has a very thin atmosphere, nearly all carbon dioxide. Because of the low atmospheric pressure, and with little to no methane or water vapor to reinforce the weak greenhouse effect, Mars has a largely frozen surface that shows no evidence of life.
    Not enough greenhouse effect: The planet Mars has a very thin atmosphere, nearly all carbon dioxide. Because of the low atmospheric pressure, and with little to no methane or water vapor to reinforce the weak greenhouse effect, Mars has a largely frozen surface that shows no evidence of life.
    Too much greenhouse effect: The atmosphere of Venus, like Mars, is nearly all carbon dioxide. But Venus has about 154,000 times as much carbon dioxide in its atmosphere as Earth (and about 19,000 times as much as Mars does), producing a runaway greenhouse effect and a surface temperature hot enough to melt lead.
    Too much greenhouse effect: The atmosphere of Venus, like Mars, is nearly all carbon dioxide. But Venus has about 154,000 times as much carbon dioxide in its atmosphere as Earth (and about 19,000 times as much as Mars does), producing a runaway greenhouse effect and a surface temperature hot enough to melt lead.

    On Earth, human activities are changing the natural greenhouse. Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). This happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon with oxygen in the air to make CO2. To a lesser extent, the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities has increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.

    The consequences of changing the natural atmospheric greenhouse are difficult to predict, but certain effects seem likely:

    On average, Earth will become warmer. Some regions may welcome warmer temperatures, but others may not.

    Warmer conditions will probably lead to more evaporation and precipitation overall, but individual regions will vary, some becoming wetter and others dryer.

    A stronger greenhouse effect will warm the oceans and partially melt glaciers and other ice, increasing sea level. Ocean water also will expand if it warms, contributing further to sea level rise.

    Meanwhile, some crops and other plants may respond favorably to increased atmospheric CO2, growing more vigorously and using water more efficiently. At the same time, higher temperatures and shifting climate patterns may change the areas where crops grow best and affect the makeup of natural plant communities.

    The Role of Human Activity

    In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet.

    The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.

    The panel's full Summary for Policymakers report is online at https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf.
    Solar Irradiance
    solar irradiance with branding
    The above graph compares global surface temperature changes (red line) and the Sun's energy that Earth receives (yellow line) in watts (units of energy) per square meter since 1880. The lighter/thinner lines show the yearly levels while the heavier/thicker lines show the 11-year average trends. Eleven-year averages are used to reduce the year-to-year natural noise in the data, making the underlying trends more obvious.

    The amount of solar energy that Earth receives has followed the Sun’s natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs with no net increase since the 1950s. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past half-century. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

    It's reasonable to assume that changes in the Sun's energy output would cause the climate to change, since the Sun is the fundamental source of energy that drives our climate system.

    Indeed, studies show that solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity coupled with an increase in volcanic activity is thought to have helped trigger the Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when Greenland cooled from 1410 to the 1720s and glaciers advanced in the Alps.

    But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the Sun:

    Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly.

    If the warming were caused by a more active Sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.

    Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.

    References

    IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, 2014

    United States Global Change Research Program, "Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States," Cambridge University Press, 2009

    Naomi Oreskes, "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Science 3 December 2004: Vol. 306 no. 5702 p. 1686 DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618

    Mike Lockwood, “Solar Change and Climate: an update in the light of the current exceptional solar minimum,” Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 2 December 2009, doi 10.1098/rspa.2009.0519;

    Judith Lean, “Cycles and trends in solar irradiance and climate,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, vol. 1, January/February 2010, 111-122. Reply With Quote
    Oct 19, 2019 | 07:58 11 "The head of Canada's largest oil company says climate change is backed by science, and deniers, including politicians, need to do a U-turn and accept it." Reply With Quote
    Oct 19, 2019 | 08:01 12 https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
    Name:  x203_co2-graph-061219.jpg.pagespeed.ic.pYMrAljctp.jpg
Views: 561
Size:  86.3 KB Reply With Quote
    Oct 19, 2019 | 08:10 13
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    "The head of Canada's largest oil company says climate change is backed by science, and deniers, including politicians, need to do a U-turn and accept it."
    "Because there is a $200 million pot of money for 'green advancement' in oilsands and Big Papa Suncor Daddy needs a new Ferrari, another Caribbean estate and some new hot bittches." Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Oct 19, 2019 | 08:15 14 Oh believe me NASA already knows but got to have something to do with their cries for govt funds.

    Using selective evidence just discredits your view point. The chart says historically we are in the lowest period of CO2 on this planet.

    But we have real data too. Here is your NOAA friends data. There is no correlation between temp and CO2.

    Name:  AA.jpg
Views: 551
Size:  82.8 KB Reply With Quote
    Oct 19, 2019 | 09:19 15 Where is this chart from? Without a link or a reference it is out of context and kind of useless unless you are a meterologist or climate scientist.

    400mb is near the upper level of the troposphere and does not represent temperature at the surface which is around the 1000 mb (SEA LEVEL). mb stands for pressure in millibars. 300mb is at 9000 meters. Jet stream level. So you would be dead at that level without enough oxygen.



    http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/77/
    It is important to have an understanding of the average height of each of these important levels. 1000 mb is near the surface (sea level), 850 mb is near 1,500 meters (5,000 ft), 700 mb is near 3,000 meters (10,000 ft), 500 mb is near 5,500 meters (18,000 ft), 300 mb is near 9,300 meters (30,000 ft). All of these values are in geopotential meters; Zero geopotential meters is near sea level. The height of these pressure levels on any given day depends on the average temperature of the air and whether the air is rising or sinking (caused by convergence / divergence). If a cold air mass is present, heights will be lower since cold air is denser than warm air. Denser air takes up a smaller volume, thus heights lower toward the surface. Rising air also decreases heights. This is because rising air cools. Rising air could be the result of upper level divergence. Upper level divergence lowers pressures and heights because some mass is removed in the upper troposphere from that region. This causes the air to rise from the lower troposphere and results in a cooling of the air. If the average temperature of a vertical column of air lowers, the heights will lower (trough). Reply With Quote
    Oct 19, 2019 | 09:42 16 Want to know where Suncor is coming from. They are building 400MW 96 turbine wind farm a few miles from me. It was arranged with the NDP government of the time at very lucrative terms. Talking to one of their security people he said each turbine was costing 10 million. This doesn't exactly agree with the numbers I have seen in print but you get the idea. They will make money where ever they can and of course they are going to milk this cow if they can. Saying the science was bad would be shooting their latest investments in the foot...……. Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Oct 19, 2019 | 10:13 17
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    400mb is near the upper level of the troposphere and does not represent temperature at the surface which is around the 1000 mb (SEA LEVEL). mb stands for pressure in millibars. 300mb is at 9000 meters. Jet stream level. So you would be dead at that level without enough oxygen.
    So climate change is just reserved for a few hundred feet at the surface. A localized effect from a global phenomenon. Not likely

    Use some logic chuck. CO2 and other pollutants are trapped in the troposphere. The point where energy enters the system from the sun and encounters the captured heat from CO2 should be the point where warming is most evident, not the surface.

    And testing at the troposphere level will negate the modelling error that NASA is encountering with low level cloud cover.

    Think man, don't just drink koolaid. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Oct 19, 2019 | 10:15 18
    Quote Originally Posted by pgluca View Post
    Want to know where Suncor is coming from. They are building 400MW 96 turbine wind farm a few miles from me. It was arranged with the NDP government of the time at very lucrative terms. Talking to one of their security people he said each turbine was costing 10 million. This doesn't exactly agree with the numbers I have seen in print but you get the idea. They will make money where ever they can and of course they are going to milk this cow if they can. Saying the science was bad would be shooting their latest investments in the foot...…….
    This was exactly what happened in Europe, the socialist green cult became so strong that people and companies just gave into it. Farmers stopped trying to make a profit on family farms and just gave land up for windmills and bio reactors and took the subsidy. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Oct 19, 2019 | 10:47 19
    Quote Originally Posted by jazz View Post
    So climate change is just reserved for a few hundred feet at the surface. A localized effect from a global phenomenon. Not likely

    Use some logic chuck. CO2 and other pollutants are trapped in the troposphere. The point where energy enters the system from the sun and encounters the captured heat from CO2 should be the point where warming is most evident, not the surface.

    And testing at the troposphere level will negate the modelling error that NASA is encountering with low level cloud cover.

    Think man, don't just drink koolaid.
    Where is the link and reference so we can see what this means. How do we know its not fabricated from a denier site? If you are not able to provide a link or a reference it is garbage.

    And you and I have no way to know what it means when you are comparing temperatures at seal level or at 400mb in the troposphere. Let alone to know if this is significant when it comes to climate change.

    You credit NOAA but NOAA is certain that humans are causing climate change. So explain the obvious contradiction.

    First provide the link or reference so we can put it into context. Reply With Quote
    Oct 19, 2019 | 10:57 20
    Quote Originally Posted by pgluca View Post
    Want to know where Suncor is coming from. They are building 400MW 96 turbine wind farm a few miles from me. It was arranged with the NDP government of the time at very lucrative terms. Talking to one of their security people he said each turbine was costing 10 million. This doesn't exactly agree with the numbers I have seen in print but you get the idea. They will make money where ever they can and of course they are going to milk this cow if they can. Saying the science was bad would be shooting their latest investments in the foot...…….

    Suncor has total assets of $77 billion. They are investing about 1 billion in wind energy according to your figures. So do you really think they would want to agree with the climate science that proves human caused climate change that puts their $77 billion dollars worth of oil and gas assets at risk just to protect their $1billion of wind assets? Where is the logic from a management point of view?

    The simpler explanation is they want to diversify into other forms of energy to plan for the low carbon emission future which is what many investors are doing. Reply With Quote
    Oct 19, 2019 | 11:11 21 Jazz Quote
    "Use some logic chuck. CO2 and other pollutants are trapped in the troposphere. The point where energy enters the system from the sun and encounters the captured heat from CO2 should be the point where warming is most evident, not the surface."

    Oh is that for sure or are you just guessing? LOL You have a meterology degree or degree in climate science? LOL

    CO2 level have never been this high (over 400) since human life evolved. How many irrelevant eras do you want to go back through and then claim that we are a historical low ?

    The chart is very clear in showing it rising exponentially in the last 150 years way above levels seen in 800,000 years and way above any interglacial period in 800,000 years. Its pretty clear it is alarming and unprecedented.
    Last edited by chuckChuck; Oct 19, 2019 at 11:14.
    Reply With Quote
    Oct 19, 2019 | 11:25 22
    Steven Williams of Suncor
    "Climate change is science. Hardcore science. What we have been talking about here is economics. Science and economics. Both very important subjects, not perfectly understood. Periods of discovery go on forever and we keep getting better and better at those things."
    ..the sad state of the cbc....if you don't read the headline and the journalisming its a rorschach ink blot test and..

    Name:  external-content.duckduckgo.com.jpg
Views: 447
Size:  60.3 KB Reply With Quote
    Oct 19, 2019 | 11:33 23 i wish there was a way to find out if Steven williams thinks his views were accurately represented
    Last edited by A990; Oct 19, 2019 at 11:34. Reason: sp
    Reply With Quote
    Oct 19, 2019 | 20:55 24 Jazz don’t waste your time with Chucky. He controls the sun so he is the all powerful and mighty. These climate morons are so pissed at NASA that they haven’t figured out how to control the sun and now it’s blowing their climate change fiasco all to shit. Chuck why don’t u ask yourself Why u don’t take holidays in the Arctic? Why do u cook your food? Do u take cold showers or warm ones? Do u keep your house at freezing temps? Why is warm so bad when most people gravitate in that direction. Quit the cut and paste and use your god damn brain. Oh ya and if u are a real farmer do u appreciate it when it freezes your crops or do u prefer it warm so they produce something that u can eat? Reply With Quote

  • Oct 19, 2019 | 21:02 25
    Quote Originally Posted by jazz View Post
    This was exactly what happened in Europe, the socialist green cult became so strong that people and companies just gave into it. Farmers stopped trying to make a profit on family farms and just gave land up for windmills and bio reactors and took the subsidy.
    And then they all starved to death,end of story. Reply With Quote
    fjlip's Avatar Oct 19, 2019 | 21:18 26
    Quote Originally Posted by FarmJunkie View Post
    Jazz don’t waste your time with Chucky. He controls the sun so he is the all powerful and mighty. These climate morons are so pissed at NASA that they haven’t figured out how to control the sun and now it’s blowing their climate change fiasco all to shit. Chuck why don’t u ask yourself Why u don’t take holidays in the Arctic? Why do u cook your food? Do u take cold showers or warm ones? Do u keep your house at freezing temps? Why is warm so bad when most people gravitate in that direction. Quit the cut and paste and use your god damn brain. Oh ya and if u are a real farmer do u appreciate it when it freezes your crops or do u prefer it warm so they produce something that u can eat?
    Totally AGREE! Slap all the Climate Cultists with those scenarios, and NOT a F CKING one will say they want it COLDER! Screw COLD, COLD =DEATH! Go to hell with your TOO HOT BULLSHIT you totally MORON! Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Oct 19, 2019 | 21:27 27
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Jazz Quote
    "Use some logic chuck. CO2 and other pollutants are trapped in the troposphere. The point where energy enters the system from the sun and encounters the captured heat from CO2 should be the point where warming is most evident, not the surface."

    Oh is that for sure or are you just guessing? LOL You have a meterology degree or degree in climate science? LOL

    CO2 level have never been this high (over 400) since human life evolved. How many irrelevant eras do you want to go back through and then claim that we are a historical low ?

    The chart is very clear in showing it rising exponentially in the last 150 years way above levels seen in 800,000 years and way above any interglacial period in 800,000 years. Its pretty clear it is alarming and unprecedented.
    You do realize that planet intake of C02 is not linear? Reply With Quote
    blackpowder's Avatar Oct 19, 2019 | 21:38 28 Well, I for one get tired of Chuck's journalism talents.
    Reading the CEOs quotes.
    He says climate changes and waste is bad. Fossil fuels could be gone in 1-200 years. Attacks of common sense wrong.
    An economic issue at the same time.

    Agree. Where does he suggest what we're actually doing.
    Perhaps we need a Major in English to even participate on here. I don't have one.
    This is getting like a religious discussion.
    Christ, can I just get the fn crop off??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • blackpowder's Avatar Oct 20, 2019 | 00:55 29 I mean, for fs sake I come on here to catch up on how guys are doing and what they're doing. Like minded, same interest folk.
    It's become a never ending depressive headache.
    No one I know wants or makes sense of half of the made up issues I hear.
    Safety??????? Climate, guns, .... gender, whatever???
    Jeezus, more people need to talk to
    Holocaust or Holomodor survivors to understand safety.
    The bloody world is ending??????
    We live in the only gdamn region of the world that has never had to fear a group of teenagers in uniform.
    Quit buying favor with fear.
    Your a disgrace to your ancestors.
    Give everything you have back to the First Nations and leave the rest of us alone.

    In case your eyes are as bloodshot as mine and this is unclear, please just f off. Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Oct 20, 2019 | 08:11 30 If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

    There are plenty of other threads to discuss the weather and how bad harvest is. I have been farming long enough to experience all kinds of bad weather. and crazy harvests.

    But when posters post charts with no links and no references out of context and make arguments which they can't back up with evidence, then I am not going to back down.

    I make every effort to post links and references from credible sources.

    A lot of the responses we get on Agriville, are just rhetorical bluster. Make your case and provide evidence to back it up.

    If you can't do that, just talk about the weather. Reply With Quote