29
Comments (67)
sorted by:
3
dogemaster 3 points ago +3 / -0

Really? Buy in bulk idiots, there are literally millions of cattle In This country. Or start hunting.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
Hail_Brad_Wall 1 point ago +1 / -0

When Cargill was losing $200 a head the government started writing them cheques. Now they are making $1000 a head fuck them if you get corporate socialism when your losing you should have to pay bigtime when your gouging.

-19
tuchodi -19 points ago +4 / -23

It should be "Nearly 50 per cent of Canadians say they can’t afford meat the way the used to"

From the article: "nearly 50 per cent said they’d bought fewer meat products in the previous six months"

Noticed it getting warmer lately? Droughts? Fires? Deaths from heat waves? Relevant: "Meat accounts for nearly 60% of all greenhouse gases from food production" https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/13/meat-greenhouses-gases-food-production-study

29
throwaway152 29 points ago +29 / -0

So Canada, which organically, has a declining population, should encourage it's citizens to eat less meat so some guy in the third world can have their 11th child? Get fucked.

-16
tuchodi -16 points ago +4 / -20

some guy in the third world can have their 11th child

Not seeing that connection. I was thinking more like so the woods don't burn up and crops don't fail, Greenland and Antarctica's ice doesn't all melt, and so on. Noticed any changes in the weather lately?

If you have the time have a look at Table 1 "Top Six Areas of Climate Change Risk Facing Canada" in this report: https://cca-reports.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Report-Canada-top-climate-change-risks.pdf

9
Pegases 9 points ago +9 / -0

and increased risks from marine accidents due to increased marine traffic and reduced summer sea-ice extent.

Hahahaha. This is a serious report? All the northern Native communities gonna be running each other down with their canoes?

-10
tuchodi -10 points ago +2 / -12

Don't know much about the North, eh?

7
Pegases 7 points ago +7 / -0

you mean where I live? nah.

FYI the northern communities use either ice roads, trains, or planes to travel long distances.

where is my increased risk of tractor accidents because the growing season will get longer? The logic is very stupid

-5
tuchodi -5 points ago +2 / -7

FYI the northern communities use either ice roads, trains, or planes to travel long distances

Ice roads require ice, which forms later and melts earlier in the places where the rivers still freeze properly. Trains don't get half way to the top of Canada but even so they - and a lot of the air strips further north - rely on permafrost, which is disappearing, for stability.

You may not be far enough north: not many canoes where the summer sea-ice lives.

5
BritPedeMEGA 5 points ago +5 / -0

Let’s do what if.

  1. What’s so bad about a warmer earth?
  2. What’s so bad about the polar ice caps melting?
  3. What’s so bad about co2 rising to 2000ppm over 400?
2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
-7
tuchodi -7 points ago +2 / -9

Internet search engines are your friends.

Or perhaps you have something you want to say?

1
BritPedeMEGA 1 point ago +1 / -0

One doesn’t need search engines to be aware of basic records of ancient geology and past climate averages.

Q 1. What’s so bad about a warmer earth? A. Going from prior geological records, nothing, unless one is arguing boiling seas levels of heat, and that isn’t likely to happen for about 4bn years.

The Cambrian period and other prior periods were way, way warmer than it is today, and some had large amounts of ppm Co2 and life was abundant & earth greened.(however high co2 and earth temp has little to no correlation over geological time frames)

The Roman and both medical warm periods also brought advances in civilisations because it’s easier to flourish in warmer climates than it is colder. The medieval warm period was warmer than it is today.

Q.2 what’s so bad about the ice caps melting? a. Nothing terrible. They melted and weren’t formed for long geological periods with no harm, it’s patently common sense that artic animals would prefer and thrive in a warmer ice free continent than a brutally cold one.

Some of the richest varied fish and coral life is found in the hottest waters. Coral loves warmer water and warmer is better for many species of ocean life.

Q3. What’s so bad about rising co2 levels? To say 2000ppm? a. Nothing. It’s been higher than that in the past, in fact, the current level, 400ppm is close to the ‘death zone’ of plants being viable.

We need more co2, not less. Co2 is the gas of life- it makes plants flourish. If co2 was “toxic” or a “pollutant” commercial greenhouses wouldn’t pump the gas into their greenhouses to thousands of ppm. (Natural gas burners basically)Even then you need at least 10,000ppm for co2 to start to have an effect on humans.

Even the miniscule rise in co2 levels has done wonders for some areas of the planet.

I’m any case. Even if mankind tried to burn all the fuels economically viable to extract as quickly as possible, there wouldn’t be enough fuel in the ground to raise it another 400ppm or so (conservatively) or 2600ppm at the top end to get to the 12c the IPCC claims to be at the top end of their predictions.

End of the day, there’s a simple answer to power generation that removes the co2 hysteria completely. Nuclear Power.

1
BritPedeMEGA 1 point ago +1 / -0

So if greenlands and Antarctic ice does melt…So what? Greenland is called Greenland becuase it used to be green. Greenland used to vary between 50F to about 1F.

The woods “burn up”? How do the woods “burn up” by simply having the average temperature increase by say. 3c? No. The cause of most forest and wild fires is lightning, not ambient temperature. Lightning will start a forest fire no matter if it’s 5c or 50c.

Higher co2 means better and thicker leaf growth and faster tree repopulation. Fire is a vital part of mother nature’s forest cleaning and renewal ecosystem and fires raged in the forest long before mankind came on the scene and interfered. Canada’s jack pine needs the heat of fire nearby to germinate. Can we reduce forest fires by clearing away undergrowth and having fire breaks? Yes. If we don’t, like California, Mother Nature will do it for us. The recent media hysteria of forest fires in BC were surreal. The fires should have been left alone to burn out, whilst protecting populated areas.

-3
tuchodi -3 points ago +2 / -5

if greenlands and Antarctic ice does melt…So what?

Rising sea levels. The consequences do not lend themselves to short OmegaCanada posts. National Geographic summarizes things fairly well: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/sea-level-rise-1

The cause of most forest and wild fires is lightning, not ambient temperature.

Lightning starts them. Climate change produces more lightning. How well they burn is firmly linked to climate change.

https://blogs.egu.eu/divisions/np/2021/09/01/forest-fires/

Higher co2 means better and thicker leaf growth and faster tree repopulation.

This is the logical equivalent of saying "Raising the speed limit in cities to 100 miles per hour will allow people to get where they're going faster." True, but not a good idea given everything else it means.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/

1
BritPedeMEGA 1 point ago +1 / -0

Rising sea levels. Exactly. So what? Might sound like a flippant question but if one keeps asking ‘what if?’ And ‘so what?’ one can get further along. I looked at the article. The usual stuff about lowland flooding, people having to move inward, loss of habitat etc. Ok and? Whilst these things can be tragic if affecting humans or animals, the world has been through worse before. Humans and animals will move inland as before.

The seas will not boil and none of us are going to fry alive on the surface of the planet for the next 1000 years.

What about the opposite? During the ice age? Humans had to move south, many no doubt perished.

Greenland and Antarctica had no ice for long periods, much much warmer than it is now. Imagine Antarctica with no ice and it being not brutally cold/windy. I’m sure the penguins and polar bears would much prefer huddling together at -80c and walking for miles in the biting blizzards to have their young.

If ‘climate change’ and rising sea levels is so pressing and urgent (‘12 years’) why do so many politicians buy real estate on the coast?

Let’s say that there is more lighting. And it starts more fires, again, so what? We get more fires. The co2, nitrates and particulates released into the air wash down with rain and are re absorbed into nature.

If one is that concerned about things generating co2 then perhaps cutting co2 production with power generation would be a start?

Get the whole world to convert to nuclear power. Done. No more co2 production through power. Problem solved. Should offset cows farting no?

-1
tuchodi -1 points ago +3 / -4

I agree that our species will probably survive. For a while, at least. I hope we evolve past this notion that we can do whatever we want.

1
BritPedeMEGA 1 point ago +1 / -0

That I posit everyone will support!

Odd question: what vehicle if any, do you operate for work or home?

1
BritPedeMEGA 1 point ago +1 / -0

Oh the highway thing. Yes. The faster traffic moves the better, if done safely. Speed doesn’t kill. It’s hitting other things that are going way slower or stationary that does. If speed killed, Germany’s autobahn would be a daily bloodbath.

The faster people can go, the faster they get off the roads and the faster someone else can get on and off. Slow traffic destroys productivity. The difference between cruise control a modern car at highway speeds (say 70mph) and fuel efficiency is hardly better than a car from 1994.

2020 Ford Taurus ecoboost 2.7/3.5) weighing about 4400lbs is about 16/24MPG. Ancient 1994 caddy fleetwood at 4400, Big primitive pushrod 5.7 350V8 18/26Mpg. Dodge caravan 2020 3.6 80-90mph for a few hours gets about 9litres/100km. At about 70mp it’s more or less same.

In any case, the US, Canadian and UK administrations have publicly stated they plan to outlaw sales of all new cars and light trucks by 2030, so you won’t have to worry about that. Better save up for a bicycle.

-2
tuchodi -2 points ago +2 / -4

faster traffic moves the better

I see we're leaving day-to-day practicality behind

outlaw sales of all new cars and light trucks by 2030

Nope.

1
BritPedeMEGA 1 point ago +1 / -0

Leaving practicality behind how.

I was 5 years off the new car/truck ban. Point still stands. Good luck getting around in high level Alberta at -45c if you need to buy a new car.

https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/canada-to-ban-sale-of-new-fuel-powered-cars-and-light-trucks-from-2035.

3
BritPedeMEGA 3 points ago +3 / -0

How does the article or perhaps yourself consider a “greenhouse” gas? Methane? Co2?

-5
tuchodi -5 points ago +2 / -7

"Greenhouse effect is produced by greenhouse gasses (GHG) like water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxides (NxO) and ozone (O3)."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5837998/

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
BritPedeMEGA 1 point ago +1 / -0

No I’m not saying that water vapour is bad, it’s the main ‘greenhouse gas’. But also that the greenhouse effect isn’t a bad thing. We need water vapour and an even higher co2 level. As you say, co2 is an amazing gas of life! More co2 please!

-4
tuchodi -4 points ago +2 / -6

If you honestly believe that CO2 in the atmosphere is not contributing to climate change then we might be too far apart to have a conversation. But I'm curious: is any attempt made to prevent the CO2 you're talking about being released into the atmosphere?

1
BritPedeMEGA 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ok well since water vapour is the main greenhouse gas/effect.

Ok fine. The greenhouse effect is an important part of keeping the earth habitable. Greenhouse gas in and of itself is neither good nor bad. It’s just a natural phenomenon.

Wether there’s “too much” or “too little” of it is the issue, too much, and you get a warmer earth. Too little and earth is colder. Ok so: what’s so bad about a warmer earth? Geological history shows us past very warm periods happened with abundant life nothing terrible was a result. What’s so bad about a colder earth? Well we all know how that turned out. Ice ages.

-3
tuchodi -3 points ago +2 / -5

what’s so bad about a warmer earth?

Mostly the people who have died and will die from the storms, fires, heat waves, floods, droughts, starvation from crop failures...

Don't take my word for it. Do your own research.

1
BritPedeMEGA 1 point ago +1 / -0

Are we talking localised crop failures or global record crop failures in average?

Because the global average main crop tonnage has increased from aboit 1.5Bn tonnes in ‘88 to about 3bn today.

Re droughts and storms. Relatively little now. Tree ring data going back to the 12th century show droughts back then to be way worse than the piffling amounts now. ( ref Tree-ring reconstructed megadroughts over North America since A.D. 1300 Stahl et al 2007) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-006-9171-x )

-3
tuchodi -3 points ago +2 / -5

the global average main crop tonnage has increased from aboit 1.5Bn tonnes in ‘88 to about 3bn today.

And you will stake your reputation as an expert in the field on the prediction that going forward climate change will not disrupt this steady increase.

12th century

When there were less than half a million humans on the planet, as opposed to almost 8 billion, most of whom depend on food from far away. You would argue that there is no chance of that production & supply chain being affected by unreliable weather.

1
BritPedeMEGA 1 point ago +1 / -0

Weather has always been unreliable. Meteorologists can barely predict 2 weeks out let alone 20 years. Averages year over year? Sure.

But not Not I, as an expert. Just relaying what the data is. Weather or ‘climate’ related deaths (storms, floods, droughts, wildfires etc’ have fallen by 99% since 1920. Here: OFDA/CRED international disaster database- https://www.humanprogress.org/the-collapse-of-climate-related-deaths-2/

Re crop failures. Assuming that ‘global warming’ has been going on since the 1800s- the industrial Revolution and increasing generation of c02 - climate change will not disrupt this steady increase, if it is, it’s doing a bad job, let’s go back to US corn production records to 1866. 20 bushels an acre. Now? About 170bu/acre. Flat production until about 1940 then co2 generation rising to 10bn tons today from 1bn back in 1940.

Correlation doesn’t equal causation of course, but hey… plants do love some co2 to eat, more co2 means faster crop growth. Is some of this due to better Agro tech and machinery? Sure. All of it? You decide folks. Even if it was, bumper crops are outpacing anu failures.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
-6
tuchodi -6 points ago +2 / -8

Climate change is man made but not how you describe it. We have government managed cloud seeding programs to create rainfall for farming in the US and Canada.

Your link describes experiments that produced a tenth of a milimetre of snow., or 0.004 (four one thousandths) of an inch. If you think that's the source of the floods, fires, and storms of the last few years, well, you might be the only one.

The UN uses the resultant change in temps from those programs to justify global warming.

Nope. https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/what-is-climate-change

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
-4
tuchodi -4 points ago +2 / -6

most marked top secret

How do you know about them?

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
-3
tuchodi -3 points ago +2 / -5

You said

We have government managed cloud seeding programs to create rainfall for farming in the US and Canada.

How about you back that up...

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
BritPedeMEGA 1 point ago +1 / -0

Your first question by the way. Noticed it’s getting warmer lately?

Hmm. Not where I choose to live. It’s been as cold or colder. 2015 IIRC was record levels of wind chill in Edmonton and Calgary. A good -35 every winter in Calgary and Edmonton for years. We could do with some of that global warming they keep talking about (incessantly since 1910 or so)

-3
tuchodi -3 points ago +2 / -5

On the one hand we have you looking out your window. On the other we have people with thermometers writing data down over a period of decades:

"Since 1950, almost every part of the province has experienced significant increases in winter temperature (from +0.5 to +1oC per decade) and decreases in the frequency of cold days, heating degree-days, and the proportion of winter precipitation falling as snow. Over half of the province has also experienced significant increases in summer temperature (from +0.1 to +0.3oC per decade), and some parts have also seen significant increases in warm days over 25 and 30oC."

https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/89a69583-a11b-4e31-a857-b311ab6563cc/resource/17ce2d24-ba7b-466c-acd9-33a2cf6beb69/download/aep-alberta-climate-report-arc.pdf

1
BritPedeMEGA 1 point ago +1 / -0

If it is increasing, then I am glad it is. Warmer civilisations are thriving civilisations.

What’s so bad about a warmer earth? Would be nice to have Canada 2c on average warmer.

-3
tuchodi -3 points ago +2 / -5

Make sure your grandchildren know you feel this way.

1
BritPedeMEGA 1 point ago +1 / -0

They do. And with any luck with the Maunder Minimum coming we can dump enough Co2 into the atmosphere to head off another cold epoch and my grandkids won’t face mini ice ages like the founding fathers did around 1750.

Is a colder earth better for civilisations? Or a warmer earth? Or is the current average temp just right?

Should we have lower co2 than we do now? If so, how many ppm on average?

-3
tuchodi -3 points ago +2 / -5

So you're one of the few who believe there's a causal relationship between the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum despite the former starting before the latter. Time will tell, and within the next few decades, I guess.

1
BritPedeMEGA 1 point ago +1 / -0

I have no idea if the maunder min causes or contributes to ice ages. I’d have to look at the data. I don’t really fancy the sun reducing in power. How that can’t make the earth just a tad cooler.

Think of the positive, if the ice caps melt all that extra warm land to build, replace any flooded land by area and discover and we can finally settle the debate on all the weird chambers and geological hot springs under the ice.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0