Stelmach And The Alberta Government Make Huge Costly Mistake

[Guest Sundancefisher]

And here Stelmach has just committed $2 Billion to this totally useless exercise when we desparately need health and education funding.

 

To all those who question the need for CO2 sequestering .....read on

 

Attached is a Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Food & Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) website dealing with the benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production in greenhouses. I don't think I ever heard David Suzuki or Al Gore tell us that by raising CO2 levels from 340 ppm (ambient atmospheric concentration) to 1000 ppm you can increase photosynthesis and subsequent plant growth by 50% !!......apparently this is why greenhouses are so profitable........but Suzuki and his Eco-alarmists want us to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels to a more comfortable 200 ppm level ........ the greenhouse operators will tell us that at these levels you significantly reduce the rate of photosynthesis and plant growth ..... just what we need in a world starving for cheap food!

Why exactly are we spending millions of dollars trying to sequester CO2 underground when it would help us all grow more food if we just release it back into the atmosphere where it belongs?

 

 

 

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

 

 

For those of you wanting scientific evidence of the CO2 farce...here it is plain and simple. CO2 is not a poisonous gas, without it we all starve.

 

Imagine how many doctors, nurses, buses, trains, schools could be built!

 

What a dam shame...

 

Sun

[adc]

You're right on..........The whole CO2 thing is more *hit than substance..........Beneficial, yes, and to the extent that reductions of manmade will prevent climate change, well, come on!!..........This issue along with biofuels will ultimatley result in a far worse disaster upon the earth than pending climate change..........We're spenidng trillions$$ that could actually be spent helping people have clean water or food to eat and the impact will be negligible if any...........What a crime........ :$*%&:

[kungfool]

Well on a cold day lots of people will tell you global warming is a myth too. It takes more research than just reading newspapers, magazines, internet articles, and watching T.V. to make an informed response. None of us should ever forget that each of the these sources mentioned (which is more sources than most will ever investigate to make their mind up for them btw) are simply some other persons, or groups opinions and findings who likely have their own agendas.

 

It's a lot of work and dedication to think for yourself, thats why most of us are too lazy to do it. Simply human nature.

 

I'm not making a personal stab at you guys, so please don't get upset.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

You are bang on. People need to think for themselves but unfortunately they get a ton of misinformation and bias from politicians to the media.

 

I was at Mount Kidd last weekend and they did an interpretive talk on woodpeckers. They stated that while mountain pine beetles are natural they have been going out of control due to global warming. They said Alberta has been getting steadily warmer for the past 10 years. In fact this is not true. We have been actually getting cooler for most of the last 10 years. Super cold years needed to kill the beetles just happen infrequently.

 

People hear this and take the show as fact without looking up the information. That expands the problem. Spending $2 billion on health care, medicine, education, infrastruture will go a long ways.

 

Right now we will just throw away $2 billion dollars puring on computer model science.

 

The scientist's model said we should be in a warming period. The cooling trend happened. They rejiggered the model to then show a drop before a rise and said to the world...the model still fits.

 

Please don't waste my money. Waste your own if you want. Spend $2 billion on planting trees and crops that adsorb CO2 will at least give you something tangible in return.

[firefrog]

Hello

Sorry to rain on the parade but this is another example of creative interpretation of data. We've all seen studies that 'indicate' this or that. Another 'expert' will come along and use the same data and come to a different conclusion.

As far as plants needing CO2 to grow - yes, of course. Problem is at night and when they die, they give off almost all of that CO2 back to the atmosphere. Having more plants is part of the solution, but they don't contribute enough to solve a global increase in CO2. Also, to suggest burning fuels yields CO2, which increases plant growth, and is therefore not so harmful, is quite a stretch. Combustion is simply not a good source of CO2 because of the other byproducts - CO and NOx just to name a couple. Obtaining those fuels is not a harmless process, either.

Before you cry foul, I'm not a supporter of the global warming scare and the CO2 control scheme. I DO, however, support efforts and thinking that aim to reduce the destruction of our environment - that includes reducing all air pollution. We do our part when fishing to reduce our footprint on nature. We should certainly do so in our everyday lives as well.

This is going to be expensive. There are some good plans and some hairbrained, money-wasting fiascos as well. Which ones are which? I don't have all the wisdom or information to know and even if I did, would I be able to convince others that I'm right? The problem with beliefs is that they are almost impossible to change.

It's pretty much a given that governments efforts will be inefficient and be taken advantage of by opportunists. It's also obvious that indivduals, even collectively, have only made a small dent. We all have to keep plugging away at this.

Cheers

[reevesr1]

This is going to be expensive. There are some good plans and some hairbrained, money-wasting fiascos as well. Which ones are which? I don't have all the wisdom or information to know and even if I did, would I be able to convince others that I'm right? The problem with beliefs is that they are almost impossible to change.

 

I think I'm finally smart enough to stay out of this argument, but I did like the quote above. People don't have "opinions" on Global Warming, it is part of their belief system. You can change someone's opinion, but like firefrog said, changing their belief is near impossible. I certainly include myself in that.

[Castuserraticus]

I think I'm finally smart enough to stay out of this argument, but I did like the quote above. People don't have "opinions" on Global Warming, it is part of their belief system. You can change someone's opinion, but like firefrog said, changing their belief is near impossible. I certainly include myself in that.

 

The psychological term is "confirmational bias". Social, intellectual, and financial behaviour is ruled by this. People are attracted to people who agree with their existing belief system. We think that person is smarter because they confirm our beliefs. It's nearly impossible to get an unbiased opinion.

 

I've read scientific papers with strong positions on either side of the global warming issue. I think both extremes are wrong - doing no harm vs the world is ending. Humans have an impact but nature has absorbed much bigger hits in the geologic past and life has found a way.

[reevesr1]

How often is the term "confirmation bias" read on a fishing web site. Love it!

[Guest JayVee]

What a lot of people seem to forget when discussing the state of Global Warming is that climatic change, extinctions and other phenonoma have been going on since the beginning of time (whatever that is), long before man was around to influence such things. Just because climate change is happening right now doesn't necessarily mean that we are to blame. But everyone seems to believe that we are totally at fault for this and that this would not be occuriing right now if we hadn't influenced it. I'm not entirely convinced that this is true. Granted, since the industrial revolution, we have been contributing to increased levels of carbon dioxide and other substances like never before. But Mother Nature has her agenda also. Only 10,000 years ago most of North America was covered in ice. Man had nothing to do with that. Might we be blamed when the next ice age occurs??

 

My 2 cents

 

-N-

[Lundvike]

I think that stating C02 is not a posionous gas is a little misleading if not flat out incorrect. Not to step on any toes but in high enough concentrations CO2 is toxic or fatal. It doesn't however exist in our atmosphere at anywhere near toxic levels and even the increases you mentioned wouldn't even come close, however before anyone goes out and starts inhaling concentrated CO2 and dies this needs to be said.

 

Government spending large amounts of money on anything should be heavily scrutinized and I agree there are better ways of spending this money.