Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Bob Armstrong]

Farming

Part II of 2; Part I above




B. “Non-Carnivore-Directed” Farming & Climate Change

1. Organic Farming - Anti-Negative Climate Change

How do farmers help climate change?

Organic farming prohibits most synthetic inputs, which means reduced GHG emissions, as well as cleaner soil, water, and food. Furthermore, organic and sustainable techniques bring additional benefits for farmers, such as increased soil health and fertility, which leads to additional climate-friendly benefits.

https://foodwise.org/articles/10-way...limate-change/

2. Non-Carnivore Directed Farming

Global elimination of meat production could save the planet

https://news.berkeley.edu/2022/02/01...ave-the-planet

3. Agriculture & CO2

I. Greenhouse gas emissions and agriculture

10% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions are from crop and livestock production, excluding emissions from the use of fossil fuels or from fertilizer production.
The main gases emitted by agricultural activities are:

• Carbon dioxide
• Methane
• Nitrous oxide

Conversely, agriculture helps slow climate change by storing carbon on agricultural lands. Storing, or sequestering, carbon in soil as organic matter, perennial vegetation, and in trees reduces carbon dioxide amounts in the atmosphere.

https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/env...eenhouse-gases

II. The Carbon Cycle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNLUzqW8IuA

III. Generally Accepted:

Carbon is the primary component of all fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) that we burn to create power. Our growing use of energy has increased the volume of carbon dioxide (CO₂) in the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels. [ There is controversy over whether the amount of CO2 generated by man has a "significant" effect on Climate Change and rising temperature. The Anthropogenicists claim that man is increasing the air CO2 at a rate that is accelerating any "natural" warming of the Earth, due to a current warming cycle we are in.]

4. Farming & Methane

13 nations – many of them major cattle and food-producing states led by the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Spain – have signed onto a commitment to place farmers under new restrictions intended to reduce emissions of methane gas.

(Above link)


5. Farming & Food Security

Non-Carnivore Directed Farming can produce enough food to feed many more than are currently populating the Earth.


But to maximize productivity, and to maintain fairness, carnivore-directed farming must be stopped from gobbling up tremendously more production resources than non-carnivore-directed farming. Have you heard of any problem in the Amazon and the rain forests, due to the headlong rush for profit of the Brazilian cattle ranching industry? No? Google "Deforestation - South America"! But this transition is not happening.........why?.........Carnivore-directed farmers, as a force in the world, are quite influential, and backed by whole industries based on the products of carnivore-directed farming. This lobby works hard at justification to the public of this unfairness, and its gambling with food security, which is best maintained by non-carnivore-directed farming......there are many articles on the great disparity between the two types of farming.

Again, it is going to be up to the elector to elect parties that are not beholden to this lobby, and who will pass laws to achieve full food security.

6. Elimination of All Farming is Not On

In our researching, all emphasis is on greater productivity in farming, given climate change, and how farming can reduce its carbon footprint and other negative factors. There is almost nothing we have found supporting the total elimination of farming.

Many articles are very misleading on this point (https://www.eutimes.net/2023/06/13-n...ve-the-planet/). The headline reads "Abolishing Farming" - this is significant false reporting! "New restrictions" is not "abolishing". This is scare-mongering. The article deals with farming and the methane gas generation. It does not propose the elimination of either carnivore-directed farming nor any other kind of farming.

The REAL News (TRN – 23/8/8)

Copyright – TRN (23/8/6)

[Bob Armstrong]

Farming

Part I of 2

Farmers are undergoing severe pressure across the globe to change their methods. Criticisms abound: cruelty to farm animals; clear-cutting of forests; use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and the list goes on.

Let's delve a bit deeper into the topic.



A. “Organic” Farming

1. Viable

a. Small rice farming in India

file:///C:/Users/Bob/Downloads/sustainability-10-04424.pdf

b. Organic farming in Nepal: A viable option for food security and agricultural sustainability

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/335017097.pdf

2. Sustainable

a. Organic farming - widely considered to be the far more sustainable alternative when it comes to food production.

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/20...r-environment/

Definition of Sustainable Agriculture (Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs: https://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english...cts/15-023.htm"):

The efficient production of safe, high-quality agricultural product, in a way that protects and improves the natural environment, the social and economic conditions of the farmers, their employees and local communities, and safeguards the health and welfare of all farmed species.


There was a time when farmers recognized that the land had to be sustainably used. Thus crop fields, having had much of the nutrients removed from a number of years of use, rotated leaving one field "fallow" for one year's regeneration. Green fertilizers, such as clover, were sown during that year, and in the late summer/fall, were "mulch cut" in order to have organics deteriorate in the field and rejuvenate that one field. Done in rotation, the system was sustainable.

Chemical fertilizers do increase both yield and profit (But humans, in many areas, destroy what they have in the headlong rush after the "Sacred Dollar"; big profits come, and the problem of "sustainability" falls off the radar; the capitalist system demands that you maximize your profit, and we see all over the place that the negative consequences of such headlong rush to "wealth" are ignored, until the chickens (Farm animals!) come home to roost). Their effect on the environment and health of all is generally thought to be negative; however it has been argued that certain types of fertilizer, properly applied, are neutral re the environment and human health (And the health of our co-resident species)

Aside: Have you seen "chicken farming" that maximizes egg production and minimizes expenses, and is cruel and unusual treatment of one of our co-resident species on this planet ?

Consider:

"Few people think about the chicken as intelligent, however. In recent years, though, scientists have learned that this bird can be deceptive and cunning, that it possesses communication skills on par with those of some primates and that it uses sophisticated signals to convey its intentions.

The Startling Intelligence of the Common Chicken"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...mmon-chicken1/

The definition of “Sustainable Agriculture” is not only supportive of organic farming, but can as well apply to non-organic farming done properly.

b. There have been failures in transition – Sri Lanka

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/05...arming-crisis/


3. More Profitable than non-organic farming

https://www.dal.ca/faculty/agricultu...itability.html

4. Challenges for Organic Farming can be Overcome

"...organic farming presents its own unique set of challenges, from pests and diseases that can damage crops to lack of access to water and other resources. Here we will explore some of the biggest challenges faced by organic farmers and offer some possible solutions."

https://ryansproduce.com/the-challen...overcome-them/


5. Some Negatives to Organic Farming

Organic food is more expensive because farmers do not get as much out of their land as conventional farmers do. Production costs are higher because farmers need more workers. Marketing and distribution is not efficient because organic food is produced in smaller amounts.

https://byjus.com/ias-questions/what...ganic-farming/

6. Organic Food Really Is Better for Human Health/the Environment

The gradual shift towards organic farming has been mainly because we as consumers have become increasingly concerned about the health impacts of accidentally consuming pesticides and chemical fertilizers. During the 1990s, the USDA first standardized the meaning of the term “organic” — basically, farmers do not use any form of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, or fungicides to grow their produce.

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/20...r-environment/

7. Growing World Population & Food Security - Organic Farming is the Answer

Problem - producing enough food for a population that could reach 10 billion by 2050, without the extensive deforestation and harm to the wider environment.
Solution - Organic agriculture occupies only 1% of global agricultural land, making it a relatively untapped resource for [future food security], one of the greatest challenges facing humanity.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...e-world-hunger

Part II below

The REAL News (TRN - 23/8/8)

Copyright – TRN (23/8/6)

[Sid Belzberg]

Here is what happened to the Genocidal WEF leftist Government of Sri Lanka when Bob's dream of a Nitrogen Fertilizer ban was implemented.


With Country Facing Crisis, World Economic Forum Deletes Post on Making Sri Lanka 'Rich by 2025'


Rebecca Downs | July 13, 2022 11:30 AM
AP Photo/Eranga JayawardenaLast weekend, the Sri Lanka president and prime minister resigned in wake of protesters storming their residences, and the president has since fled the country. It was an instance of so-called "green" policies gone terribly wrong, as Bob Barr laid out in a column for Townhall, which involved a catastrophic fertilizer ban.

As an editorial from National Review on Tuesday that highlighted the "Collapse of Sri Lanka Is a Failure of Leftism," pointed out, what happened "are the real-world consequences of government central planning."

"Sri Lanka, under the leadership of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, decided in April 2021 to become the world’s first all-organic country," the editors wrote. "The government banned the use of chemical fertilizers and banned their importation. The move was pitched as creating a self-reliant economy on the island nation and hailed as a great experiment in green policy-making."

With such an embarrassing failure that Sri Lanka turned out to be, it looks like the World Economic Forum (WEF) is trying to cover its tracks. Tucker Carlson, who discussed the turmoil on his Monday night episode of "Tucker Carlson Tonight," shared that the WEF appears to have deleted an article dated August 29, 2018 from Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, "This is how I will make my country rich by 2025."
Recommended


Former Fox News Reporter Takes a Blow Torch to Dem's Pathetic Defense of Hunter BidenMatt Vespa
As of Wednesday morning, the link is still broken, but archives show the link was working as recently as Monday morning.

There is only the briefest of mentions about the policies that drove the Sri Lankan people to revolt, with added emphasis:

We have also played a constructive role in promoting international and regional initiatives in many areas, ranging from the environment and climate change to maritime security and migration. It is our commitment to use the strategic potential of the country, including its vibrant maritime connectivity, for enhancing friendly cooperation with all partners while reaping the economic benefits for all our peoples.

Stunningly, on Monday, amidst the turmoil in Sri Lanka, WEF published a piece on how "Transitioning to green energy is key to both tackling climate change and creating sustainable economies. Here's why." Recommended reading includes a piece from June 20 about "Why the global energy transition must be just and equitable."

The World Bank has a page up on "Vision 2025: Sri Lanka’s Path to Prosperity," from October 17, 2017. There is no mention of buzz words such as "environment" or "climate change" or "green."

As lengthy and comprehensive as an explainer from Reuters may seem, there is still very little about the disastrous "green" policies, with more of an emphasis on "economic mismanagement" and how leaders stalled talks with the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

"Anti-government protesters angry over power blackouts, shortages of basic goods and rising prices have long demanded that [President Gotabaya] Rajapaksa steps down," the explainer reads at one point. It fails to delve into why such blackouts occurred though, which are already coming to the United States, especially in the case of deeply liberal California, which Gov. Gavin Newsom has sought to turn into a progressive oasis of sorts but has really become more of a wasteland.



As Spencer wrote in a column last month about these coming blackouts:

Across America, millions of citizens facing forecasts of "above-average season temperatures" are at elevated risk of "forced outages for generation and some bulk power system equipment." That means, as the NERC assessment explains, "elevated or high risk of energy shortfalls this summer." Those grim findings on the crisis that looks set to plunge Americans into darkness during the hottest summer months have already been confirmed by power officials in Texas and California, another mismanaged jurisdiction where Golden State residents have been told they'll face "blackouts every summer for another four years."

Californians, plus millions more Americans who find themselves in the elevated risk zone — nearly everyone living west of the Mississippi River — face energy emergencies during what NERC calls "extreme conditions" such as droughts, heatwaves, and wildfires. Americans in the high risk zone — including Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and portions of Michigan, Illinois, Arkansas, and Louisiana — face power disruptions during both extreme conditions as well as normal summer conditions. That is, pretty much any time that summer temperatures put a strain on the power grids on which millions of Americans rely.

...

But, as with other crises that developed on Biden's watch, many have seen and warned of the threat. Still, the Biden administration has done basically nothing to address the threat of blackouts across the country. Like California's failed Democratic leaders, the Biden administration continues to allow risks to go unmitigated and warnings remain unheeded.

Biden's apparent solution, as seen in his executive orders and dubious use of the Defense Production Act, is to continue down his leftist-inspired "transition" away from reliable fossil fuels to falsely named "green" energy. But NERC's report also contains warnings that such policies and energy sources have already jeopardized America's electrical grid and led to the foreboding predictions for this summer.

It's not just President Joe Biden's policies we have to worry about, as Spencer highlighted in his column. Tucker Carlson also warned that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), pointing out that the turmoil "is what the Green New Deal looks like in Sri Lanka." He also shared he wished he had her cell phone number, so that he could text her footage of the unrest there. "I would text her those videos and say, 'The Green New Deal comes to Sri Lanka. Are you psyched?'"

Conclusion:
It is always better to learn from other people's mistakes, not your own!

[Sid Belzberg]

Farming & Use of Fertilizers

One negative environmental effect - growth of algae

"An algal bloom affects the whole ecosystem.

Consequences range from the benign feeding of higher trophic levels to more harmful effects like blocking sunlight from reaching other organisms, causing a depletion of oxygen levels in the water, and, depending on the organism, secreting toxins into the water.

Algal blooms are the result of a nutrient, like nitrogen or phosphorus from various sources (for example fertilizer runoff or other forms of nutrient pollution), entering the aquatic system and causing excessive growth of algae."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algal_bloom...

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

So let's stop using nitrogen fertilizers altogether and repeat the results of Sri Lanka's 2022 humanitarian disaster on a global; scale? Are you nuts?


All kinds of tactics can be deployed to ameliorate the problem of dealing with nutrient runoff and leaching without banning Nitrogen-based fertilizers. Here are several strategies and practices that can help mitigate the problem:

1. Precision Agriculture: Modern technology can assist farmers in applying the exact amount of fertilizer needed by the crops, at the right time, and in the right place. This reduces the chance of excess nitrogen being available for runoff or leaching.
2. Buffer Strips and Riparian Zones: Vegetative buffer strips can be planted between agricultural fields and water bodies. These strips can capture and absorb any runoff, reducing the amount of nitrogen that enters rivers, lakes, or streams.
3. Cover Crops: Planting cover crops after the main crop's harvest season can help absorb leftover nitrogen in the soil. This prevents the nitrogen from leaching into groundwater or being washed away into surface water bodies.
4. No-Till or Reduced Tillage Farming: Tilling the soil can increase erosion and nutrient runoff. By reducing or eliminating tillage, the soil remains more intact, and its capacity to hold onto nutrients increases.
5. Contour Farming and Terracing: These practices can reduce the speed of water runoff, allowing more time for the soil to absorb and hold onto its nutrients.
6. Improved Irrigation: Over-irrigation can increase the risk of nutrient leaching. Efficient irrigation systems, like drip irrigation, apply water only where and when it's needed, reducing nutrient losses.
7. Constructed Wetlands: Wetlands can be constructed or restored in strategic locations to act as filters for agricultural runoff. The plants in these wetlands can take up a significant amount of the nutrients before they reach larger water bodies.
8. Manure Management: If animal manure is a primary source of nutrients, proper storage, treatment, and application techniques can reduce the risk of nutrient runoff.
9. Education and Training: Ensuring that farmers and agricultural workers are educated about the risks of nutrient pollution and the techniques available to reduce it is crucial

[Bob Armstrong]

Farming & Use of Fertilizers

One negative environmental effect - growth of algae

"An algal bloom affects the whole ecosystem.

Consequences range from the benign feeding of higher trophic levels to more harmful effects like blocking sunlight from reaching other organisms, causing a depletion of oxygen levels in the water, and, depending on the organism, secreting toxins into the water.

Algal blooms are the result of a nutrient, like nitrogen or phosphorus from various sources (for example fertilizer runoff or other forms of nutrient pollution), entering the aquatic system and causing excessive growth of algae."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algal_bloom...

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Bob Armstrong]

Negative Climate Change

[Part III of 3; Parts I & II above]

Statement # 8 (Proposed)

If farming has an effect on global negative climate change (Whether it does will be dealt with in another Statement, if possible), then any negative effect will be mitigated to some extent by the farming industry becoming “sustainable”. Sustainable agriculture is the efficient production of safe, high-quality agricultural product, in a way that protects and improves the natural environment, the social and economic conditions of the farmers, their employees and local communities, and safeguards the health and welfare of all farmed species.(Definition by Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs: https://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/busdev/facts/15-023.htm").

Challenge - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1603 - 23/8/7

Executive Summary by Bob (As Group Secretary) - Organic Farming has been tried and failed. Also, farming has no effect on global negative climate change.

Defence - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1606 - 23/8/7

The definition of sustainable agriculture used does not explicitly say that this involves necessarily only organic farming. The definition leaves open the possibility that Non-Organic farming could be "sustainable". You yourself have argued that used correctly, certain fertilizers have no effect on health or the environment (With which I happen to disagree).

Secondly, the statement does not take any position on whether or not farming DOES have a negative effect on climate. It is clear that this requires an entirely new separate statement, if any version can gain general acceptability.


5. CT'ers Immediate Task

CT'ers of all stripes are now invited to propose amended statements, for the majority to choose between. You can also just post confirmation that you believe the particular statement to be true.

Take a hand at drafting "critical scientific statements"!

6. CT'ers' Local Action: Promotion of the Conversation on Negative Climate Change

You can do something! Promote the discussion on Negative Climate Change!

a. When you like one of this thread's links on an aspect of climate change, spread the news by posting it to your social media accounts and other Websites/Discussion Boards you participate in!

b. You can also re-post the tentative STATEMENTS above.

~ Bob A. (Anthropogenicist)

[Bob Armstrong]

Negative Climate Change

[Part II of 3 – see Part I above]

4. Negative Climate Change: The “Conversation” Project

All sides have been trying to come up with accurate statements on climate change that will gain general acceptance....we are using the "Conversation Format" protocol.

Under "The Conversation Format" protocol we have adopted in this thread, a proposed statement is given the benefit of the doubt that it is "generally accepted" when originally proposed. If not challenged during one week, then the Statement joins the other generally accepted Statements, without any discussion, nor Secretary ruling.

Should a proposed Statement be challenged, with reasons, then the originator of the Statement, and any other CT'ers here, must defend the Statement's truth. As well, the onus is on the Challenger to muster CT'er support for his/her challenge, to confirm that s/he is not the only challenger. The discussion will generally have one week to run from the date of the defence to the first Challenge.

The goal is not “unanimity”, though that would be nice. We only seek a substantial majority for a Statement to be “generally accepted

We have reached now 8 STATEMENTS in various stages of acceptance (See below).

All are a work-in-progress, though for some, there are no outstanding proposed revisions, and so they currently stand unchallenged, or challenges have previously been defeated. So, for this forum, a number of the statements are now “generally accepted” as “fact”.

"Generally-Accepted Statements on Negative Climate Change (Layman's Terms)"

(Following a "Conversation Format" protocol)

Statement # 1

Solar Activity is the main driver of climate change. It is heat from the sun that is the "source" of the rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth.

Support - Bob Armstrong (Post # 1453 – 23/7/20 - slightly edited) - "Our new Commonly Accepted Statement # 1 does not play one way or another as to whether the rise in temperature is a “problem”. It merely states the fact that Naturalists agree with - their fact is that the average rising temperature is about .5 degrees C every 100 years.....that is "rising" temperature."

Statement # 2

Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will likely continue to rise for some time in the future.

Support 1 – Bob Armstrong – Post # 1485 – 23/7/22 [Lightly Edited]

“The post of Sid Belzberg (Post # 1296 – 23/4/29) "supports" Statement # 2! He asserts evidence that the average rate of increase is ".5 degrees every 100 years" over a 300 year period. This confirms "the temperature is now rising, and has been for some time".

Arguably, if it has been rising for 300 years, and you look at all the human problems arising from this rising heat (See Statement # 3), then heat is going to "likely continue to rise for some time in the future". We, of course, at this point in developing our Statements, have not taken on the issue, yet, of whether this trend of .5 degrees per 100 years is the expected increase for the future.”

Support 2 – Bob Armstrong – Post # 1523 – 23/7/27

“The New Warming Climate State/Multi-Century Temperature Periods

Scientists concluded a few years ago that Earth had entered a new climate state not seen in more than 100,000 years. As fellow climate scientist Nick McKay and I recently discussed in a scientific journal article, that conclusion was part of a climate assessment report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2021.

Earth was already more than 1 degree Celsius (1.8 Fahrenheit) warmer than preindustrial times, and the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were high enough to assure temperatures would stay elevated for a long time.

https://theconversation.com/is-it-re...=pocket-newtab “

Support 3 – Bob Armstrong – Post # 1526 23/7/27

“This [July] Looks Like Earth’s Warmest Month. Hotter Ones Appear to Be in Store.

July is on track to break all records for any month, scientists say, as the planet enters an extended period of exceptional warmth.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/27/c...d396a4debfd6ce “

Statement # 3

Bob Armstrong (As Group Secretary) – Post # 1548 - 23/7/31

“The term “Record-Breaking” is sometimes loosely/wrongly used in the Main Stream Media re Earth's currently rising temperature. Cities across the globe may have unique geographic and meteorological characteristics that determine current temperature variations. Fact checking may be necessary.”

Status re Processing: If unchallenged for one week, our protocol is that the Statement is “generally accepted”. Deadline is 23/8/7 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

Statement # 4:

Currently rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth is a problem for humanity.

Support 1 - Bob Gillanders (Post # 1468 – 23/7/19)

"Seems crazy and very hard to believe that they [Texas Governor, Greg Abbot,] would have to legislate employers to allow such breaks from a scorching heat work environment, but apparently that is the case. The water breaks since 2010 that Governor Abbott now wants to take away has reduced the death toll on workers significantly."

Support # 2 - Fred Harvey (Post # 1470 - 23/7/19)

"I have lived in the same town for 50 plus years (how dull...not). Amongst other things, I have seen the tomato growing season go from 2.5 months to 4 months. For 35 years we lived without air-conditioning....now not so much. Them's two facts that suggest significant warming."

Support # 3 - Bob Armstrong (Post # 1451 - 23/7/11)

"I, for one, believe we see "problems" for human living all around us every day, the world over, from rising heat levels (Regardless of arguing over why the heat is rising or the rate at which it is rising)."

Statement # 5

Since the year 1650 (200 years before the Industrial Revolution [Started: 1850], which is the earliest global temperature recording), the Earth's mean temperature has been rising naturally (Earth has been in a natural warming cycle; it has gone through various cooling and warming cycles before this current warming one). There is surface temperature data for the period 1650 to 1850, and beyond, from the records of the UK Meteorological Observatory. Some propose that they are sufficient to use to analyze our increasing temperature problem.

Support - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 (23/4/29)

"Given that heart of the early Industrial Revolution started in the UK, where manmade CO2 emissions were significant, it is an excellent platform to analyze the data.”

Statement # 6

For 650,000 years, CO2 in Earth's atmosphere never rose beyond 300 parts per million (to 1949). In 1950, 100 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution [1850], the percentage of the air/atmosphere that is CO2 had spiked dramatically to 380 parts per million. Since 1950, we have now had another 75 years of the Industrial Revolution. We are seeking a source for the 2023 count for CO2 parts per million.
[Note: The significance of CO2, and the Industrial Revolution, as factors in negative climate change is hotly debated. But it is necessary to include a factual finding on these two items, to have some common factual statement concerning them, for future Statements & debate.]

Challenge: Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 (23/4/29)

"What is the source of your data and methodology concerning Co2 concentrations PPM in the atmosphere for the last 650,000 years? The data you refer to in statements 1 & 2 shows that rate of temp. Increase is a modest (.5 degrees per century) before and after manmade CO2 emissions.)

Statement # 7

It is essential to have alternate sources of energy; it is good that this transition is now underway; our options include renewables (solar panels, tidal, water turbines, windmills) and nuclear. Traditionally used fossil fuels, including coal, are finite, though more plentiful than commonly thought.

Support # 1 - Bob Gillanders (Post # 1415 – 23/7/2)

“Scientists have been warning us about climate change (global warming) for decades. The science is very complicated, but we now have 50 years of data to support the premise that burning fossil fuels is the primary cause. We need to free ourselves from our dependence on fossil fuels. Our options include renewables (solar panels, windmills) and nuclear.”

Support # 2 - Dilip Panjwani (Post # 1417 – 23/7/2)

“It is essential to have alternate sources of energy, as fossil fuels, including coal, won't last for very long.”

Support # 3 – Sid Belzberg (Post # 1419 – 23/7/2)

“In theory, this is a finite resource, but it is not scarce and likely would take several hundred years to deplete entirely.”

Support # 4 – Bob Armstrong (Post # 1423 – 23/7/2)

“Please note that I have introduced ....... including in renewables, "tidal" & "water turbines".”

[See Part III Below; Parts I & II are above]

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Bob Armstrong]

ChessTalk

Negative Climate Change (NCC) Thread

(Started: 21/12/9)



Overview & Update

[Part I of 3 – see Parts II & III/3 below]

1. Weekly Stats:

Week # 31 (23/7/31 – 23/8/6: 7 days)

Views
.....................................................2023 Average.... 2022 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day..........Views/Day
Views/Day........Views/Day.............(31 wks.)___________

........55...................86.........................33....................44

Responses (Posts)

......................................................2023 Average.........2022 Average

....Last Week's.....Prior Week's......Responses/Day......Responses/Day

Responses/Day....Resp./Day............ (31wks.)__________________

.............8.......................7.......................3............................5.


Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week's stats continue to be well ahead of the 2023 average so far. There is much more “response” activity, though viewership is down a bit.

There remains here, a steady interest in the critical issue of negative climate change. All sides of the issue are free to post material they claim to be in support (Though this thread was started by an Anthropogenicist). CT'ers are getting a good sampling of all that is out there. You decide!

Climate Change Thread “Responses”

There are lots of climate change articles out there, both on negative anthropogenic climate change, and negative natural climate change.

This thread encourages CT'ers on all sides to re-post here, as responses, the climate change posts of interest they see elsewhere. Overall, ChessTalker's have been quite active here in posting “responses” and it seems that chessplayers across Canada are wanting information on climate change, a challenge unlike any our species has ever faced before.

Note:

1. The goal of this thread is not to woodshed an opposing view into submission. Every position is entitled to post as it sees fit, regardless of the kind of, and amount of, postings by other positions. What is wanted is serious consideration of all posts........then you decide.
2. I personally, as the thread originator, am trying to post a new response at least every 2^nd day, but admit my busy schedule means I am sometimes falling short on this. So it is great that a number of other CT'ers are posting responses here somewhat regularly.

2. The Anthropogenicist Position

The Pressing Climate Change Issue

The core issue:

Building a sense of URGENCY on this issue in society. We must realize that we cannot kick it down the road any longer!

The public is aware of the climate change issue.......

BUT.....

climate activists must find strategies to “AWAKEN” the public to the “urgency”.

It is expected, though somewhat disheartening, to see other negative issues of the day climb immediately to the top of the public's agenda, with climate change being sometimes substantially downgraded in importance. We will all pay for this.........

The Time Line

Nature's Tipping point is estimated to be, on current trajectory, only 8 years away (Around Jan. 1, 2031). Capping the temperature rise at only 1.5 degrees Celsius (the original international target) before then is now impossible (UN Climate Change Panel's most recent report in March, 2023). Their position is that the problem at this time is mostly due to human activity, not just “natural” warming, and that radical change in our method of living is the only way to avoid this rising, very problematic, temperature. UNCCP noted that current government deadlines were totally insufficient to solve the problem. CO 2 must be capped by 2025 since it is the main contributor to the problem! Methane is another greenhouse gas of concern, with some maintaining it contributes more to the problem than CO2. The extent of involvement in the greenhouse effect of water vapour is somewhat controversial.

Also, it has now become necessary to add in the process of CO 2 “removal”, along with “eliminating” the spewing of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere by human activity.

Our window of opportunity is fast closing.

The Large Picture Solutions

Can we come up with at least one viable suggestion of some impressive, radical thing that might wake up the public, that we could then put out there to other concerned climate activists?


3. The Naturalists' Position

Negative “Natural” Climate Change

This thread has had a number of CT'ers arguing for Natural Climate Change, and arguing that the human economic activity contribution to negative climate change is negligible. We are just in one of Nature's long warming cycles.

We would encourage everyone to consider the materials being presented, and then see whether they in any way change your perspective, if you are an adherent of negative Anthropogenic climate change. Whether you change anything, or not, your assessment of the evidence would be most welcome in this thread.

[See Part II below]

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statement 2A (Proposed)

Bob Armstrong (As Group Secretary) – Post # 1548 - 23/7/31

“The term “Record-Breaking” is sometimes loosely/wrongly used in the Main Stream Media re Earth's currently rising temperature. Cities across the globe may have unique geographic and meteorological characteristics that determine current temperature variations. Fact checking may be necessary.”

Processing Status: The proposed Statement 2A has been unchallenged for one week.

Conclusion: Our protocol is that the Statement is now “generally accepted”.

Statement Renumbering

The list of Statements are now renumbered, and set out below (Without the Supports normally attached):

Statement # 1

Solar Activity is the main driver of climate change. It is heat from the sun that is the "source" of the rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth.

Statement # 2

Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will likely continue to rise for some time in the future.

Statement # 3

“The term “Record-Breaking” is sometimes loosely/wrongly used in the Main Stream Media re Earth's currently rising temperature. Cities across the globe may have unique geographic and meteorological characteristics that determine current temperature variations. Fact checking may be necessary.”

Statement # 4

Currently rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth is a problem for humanity.

Statement # 5

Since the year 1650 (200 years before the Industrial Revolution [Started: 1850], which is the earliest global temperature recording), the Earth's mean temperature has been rising naturally (Earth has been in a natural warming cycle; it has gone through various cooling and warming cycles before this current warming one). There is surface temperature data for the period 1650 to 1850, and beyond, from the records of the UK Meteorological Observatory. Some propose that they are sufficient to use to analyze our increasing temperature problem.

Statement # 6

For 650,000 years, CO2 in Earth's atmosphere never rose beyond 300 parts per million (to 1949). In 1950, 100 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution [1850], the percentage of the air/atmosphere that is CO2 had spiked dramatically to 380 parts per million. Since 1950, we have now had another 75 years of the Industrial Revolution. We are seeking a source for the 2023 count for CO2 parts per million.
[Note: The significance of CO2, and the Industrial Revolution, as factors in negative climate change is hotly debated. But it is necessary to include a factual finding on these two items, to have some common factual statement concerning them, for future Statements & debate.]

Challenge: Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 (23/4/29)

"What is the source of your data and methodology concerning Co2 concentrations PPM in the atmosphere for the last 650,000 years? The data you refer to in statements 1 & 2 shows that rate of temp. Increase is a modest (.5 degrees per century) before and after manmade CO2 emissions.)

Defence - none yet entered - Challenge just stands until someone defends the statement, but it is noted that it is always noted that it is under challenge. Once the statement is "defended", then the one-week processing will start. CT'ers can then choose the option they agree with, and post with reasons.

Statement # 7

It is essential to have alternate sources of energy; it is good that this transition is now underway; our options include renewables (solar panels, tidal, water turbines, windmills) and nuclear. Traditionally used fossil fuels, including coal, are finite, though more plentiful than commonly thought.

Statement # 8 (Proposed)

If farming has an effect on global negative climate change (Whether it does will be dealt with in another Statement, if possible), then any negative effect will be mitigated to some extent by the farming industry becoming “sustainable”. Sustainable agriculture is the efficient production of safe, high-quality agricultural product, in a way that protects and improves the natural environment, the social and economic conditions of the farmers, their employees and local communities, and safeguards the health and welfare of all farmed species.(Definition by Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs: https://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/busdev/facts/15-023.htm").

Challenge - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1603 - 23/8/7

Defence - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1606 - 23/8/7


I, personally, as Participant, accept all 8 Statements (2 of which are under Challenge).

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Sid Belzberg]

Sid - try for a generally accepted Statement # 8 that farming has no effect on climate change, neither beneficial nor harmful. Of course it will be Challenged, and then you, and others of your opinion can try to defend the Statement...just a suggestion since you obviously feel your position is unassailable.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

I am more interested in waking people up and exposing the dangerous steaming pile of dogshit you have spent three years pushing here. If you
can disprove any of my positions on methane and nitrous oxide go for it, I am all ears. Just do it instead of yapping about it and putting up ridiculous statement
polls that no one reads and few participate in.

You called the UK meteorological data "horsecrap" but have offered nothing to disprove that the average temp within this data set rose on average .5 degrees every 100 years with or without industrial carbon emissions.

Here we are with other unassailable facts on Methane and Nitrous Oxide and so far ZERO to disprove these two papers.

However, we have finally got to the heart of the matter as to what the motivation of the climate scam is.

The Global War on Farmers, and Push to ‘Eat the Bugs’

https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/...56851457212416











ROMAN BALMAKOV
FACTS MATTER: UNCOVERING TRUTHS, REPORTER AND HOST OF ‘FACTS MATTER’ AT THE EPOCH TIMES

There are currently MAJOR schemes being hatched behind-the-scenes that will affect you and YOUR FAMILY’S lives. These “Green Policies” at the international level (the UN, the EU, the World Economic Forum) are billed as necessary to “save the planet”—and are now starting to GO INTO EFFECT around the world … including right here in AMERICA. These policies sound beautiful on paper: save the planet, end hunger, and have gender equality. But in practice, they undermine our food security, and represent a true EXISTENTIAL risk to our liberties as FREE citizens.

We traveled the WORLD to figure out what’s behind the GLOBAL war on farmers, as well as the truth behind the push to get people to EAT THE BUGS. If you want to find out about the coming Global Food Crisis and what you can do about it, don’t miss this episode.


https://www.theepochtimes.com/epocht...ideawake_media

[Bob Armstrong]

Sid - try for a generally accepted Statement # 8 that farming has no effect on climate change, neither beneficial nor harmful. Of course it will be Challenged, and then you, and others of your opinion can try to defend the Statement...just a suggestion since you obviously feel your position is unassailable.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Sid Belzberg]

Secondly, the statement does not take any position on whether or not farming DOES hurt climate. It is clear that this requires an entirely new separate statement, if any version can gain general acceptability.

The above statement answered my initial question in the following post with a tacit no.https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...137#post228137

[Bob Armstrong]

Proposed Generally Accepted Statement # 7 (On Farming)

If farming has an effect on global negative climate change (Whether it does will be dealt with in another Statement, if possible), then any negative effect will be mitigated to some extent by the farming industry becoming “sustainable”. Sustainable agriculture is the efficient production of safe, high-quality agricultural product, in a way that protects and improves the natural environment, the social and economic conditions of the farmers, their employees and local communities, and safeguards the health and welfare of all farmed species.(Definition by Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs: https://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/busdev/facts/15-023.htm").

Challenge - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1603 - 23/8/7

Executive Summary by Bob (As Group Secretary) - Organic Farming has been tried and failed. Also, farming has no effect on global negative climate change.
Sid - please amend this Challenge if it is not suitable.

Defence - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1606 - 23/8/7

The definition of sustainable agriculture used does not explicitly say that this involves necessarily only organic farming. The definition leaves open the possibility that Non-Organic farming could be "sustainable". You yourself have argued that used correctly, certain fertilizers have no effect on health or the environment (With which I happen to disagree).

Secondly, the statement does not take any position on whether or not farming DOES have a negative effect on climate. It is clear that this requires an entirely new separate statement, if any version can gain general acceptability.

Bob A (As Participant)

[Sid Belzberg]

If farming has an effect on global negative climate change (Whether it does will be dealt with in another Statement, if possible)

Do you read much?????

Methane and Climate

https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Methane-and-Climate.pdf

Abstract
Atmospheric methane (CH4 ) contributes to the radiative forcing of Earth’s atmosphere. Radiative forcing is the difference in the net upward thermal radiation from the Earth through a transparent atmosphere and radiation through an otherwise identical atmosphere with greenhouse gases. Radiative forcing, normally specified in Watts per square meter (W m−2), depends on latitude, longitude and altitude, but it is often quoted for a representative temperate latitude and for the altitude of the tropopause, or for the top of the atmosphere. For current concentrations of greenhouse gases, the radiative forcing at the tropopause, per added CH4 molecule, is about 30 times larger than the forcing per added carbon-dioxide (CO2 ) molecule. This is due to the heavy saturation of the absorption band of the abundant greenhouse gas, CO2 . But the rate of increase of CO2 molecules, about 2.3 ppm/year (ppm = part per million), is about 300 times larger than the rate of increase of CH4 molecules, which has been around 0.0076 ppm/year since the year 2008.

So the contribution of methane to the annual increase in forcing is one tenth (30/300) that of carbon dioxide. The net forcing from CH4 and CO2 increases is about 0.05 W m−2 year−1. Other things being equal, this will cause a temperature increase of about 0.012 C year−1. Proposals to place harsh restrictions on methane emissions because of warming fears are not justified by facts


Nitrous Oxide and Climate

https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/...rous-Oxide.pdf

C. A. de Lange1, J. D. Ferguson2, W. Happer3, and W. A. van Wijngaarden4

1Atomic, Molecular and Laser Physics, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1081, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine, USA 3Department of Physics, Princeton University, USA
4Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Canada

November 10, 2022

Abstract

Higher concentrations of atmospheric nitrous oxide (N2O) are expected to slightly warm Earth’s surface because of increases in radiative forcing. Radiative forcing is the difference in the net upward thermal radiation flux from the Earth through a transparent atmosphere and radiation through an otherwise identical atmosphere with greenhouse gases. Radiative forcing, normally measured in W m−2, depends on lati- tude, longitude and altitude, but it is often quoted for the tropopause, about 11 km of altitude for temperate latitudes, or for the top of the atmosphere at around 90 km. For current concentrations of greenhouse gases, the radiative forcing per added N2O molecule is about 230 times larger than the forcing per added carbon dioxide (CO2) molecule. This is due to the heavy saturation of the absorption band of the relatively abundant greenhouse gas, CO2, compared to the much smaller saturation of the absorption bands of the trace greenhouse gas N2O. But the rate of increase of CO2 molecules, about 2.5 ppm/year (ppm = part per million by mole), is about 3000 times larger than the rate of increase of N2O molecules, which has held steady at around 0.00085 ppm/year since the year 1985. So, the contribution of nitrous oxide to the annual increase in forcing is 230/3000 or about 1/13 that of CO2. If the main greenhouse gases, CO2, CH4 and N2O have contributed about 0.1 C/decade of the warming observed over the past few decades, this would correspond to about 0.00064 K per year or 0.064 K per century of warming from N2O.

Proposals to place harsh restrictions on nitrous oxide emissions because of warming fears are not justified by these facts. Restrictions would cause serious harm; for example, by jeopardizing world food supplies.

[Sid Belzberg]

Experts are now predicting even greater hardship in Sri Lanka.

Food inflation, which is currently hovering at about 30 percent, could rise even further.

“Food availability is at a crossroads and food accessibility is at a crossroads,” said Jeewika Weerahewa, professor of agriculture at the University of Peradeniya in Sri Lanka.


Describing Sri Lanka’s food crisis as “a man-made disaster,” she said the country will have “serious problems with respect to childhood malnourishment and malnutrition among pregnant women and lactating mothers”.

She added, “In the next four to six months, I think we will be facing more hardship than what we face right now.”

Back in Walsapugala, farmers said they are worried about the future.

Despite the government reversing its ban on agrochemicals, they said they are unable to find adequate fertiliser supplies or afford the market-rate prices.

“Our lifestyle has been destroyed,” said Ajith Kumar, who like Samarawickrema, grows bananas.

“We are relatively small-scale farmers,” he said. “We don’t have any savings. We sustain ourselves from this land. But because we are unable to afford farming, we now have no way to pay back our loans and no way to pay for our children’s education.

“There’s no hope for us.”