Remember me
▼ Content

Man-Made Causes



Page 3 of 6<12345>>>
30-03-2017 19:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9164)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
That doesn't seem to match the evidence. Looking at various countries, those with the lowest crime rates tend to be those with low income inequality (e.g. Scandinavian countries) and/or strong central government (e.g. Singapore). The highest crime rates are typically in countries with large income differentials and weak central government.


Really? Singapore? Where it's mandatory death by hanging for 14g of heroin.

Why do you suppose strong central gov is associated with poverty?

Eh? Singapore is one of the richest (per capita) countries in the world, as well as having a low crime rate.


WRONG.

The United States is the richest in the world, both per capita and total.

Hmm, you appear to be illiterate as well as signed up to every conspiracy theory under the sun.


Any idiot can go look this stuff up. You might try it sometime, idiot.


The Parrot Killer
30-03-2017 20:07
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
That doesn't seem to match the evidence. Looking at various countries, those with the lowest crime rates tend to be those with low income inequality (e.g. Scandinavian countries) and/or strong central government (e.g. Singapore). The highest crime rates are typically in countries with large income differentials and weak central government.


Really? Singapore? Where it's mandatory death by hanging for 14g of heroin.

Why do you suppose strong central gov is associated with poverty?

Eh? Singapore is one of the richest (per capita) countries in the world, as well as having a low crime rate.


WRONG.

The United States is the richest in the world, both per capita and total.

Hmm, you appear to be illiterate as well as signed up to every conspiracy theory under the sun.


Any idiot can go look this stuff up. You might try it sometime, idiot.

Oh, FFS.
1) I did not claim that Singapore was the richest country in the world, either per capita or total. I said ONE OF the richest countries in the world. Learn to read!
2) While the US is indeed the richest country in the world in total, it is not the richest country per capita. It is usually in about 10th place, depending on the methodology used. This recent list puts the US in 13th place, for example.
30-03-2017 20:55
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
That doesn't seem to match the evidence. Looking at various countries, those with the lowest crime rates tend to be those with low income inequality (e.g. Scandinavian countries) and/or strong central government (e.g. Singapore). The highest crime rates are typically in countries with large income differentials and weak central government.


Really? Singapore? Where it's mandatory death by hanging for 14g of heroin.

Why do you suppose strong central gov is associated with poverty?

Eh? Singapore is one of the richest (per capita) countries in the world, as well as having a low crime rate.


WRONG.

The United States is the richest in the world, both per capita and total.

Hmm, you appear to be illiterate as well as signed up to every conspiracy theory under the sun.


Any idiot can go look this stuff up. You might try it sometime, idiot.

Oh, FFS.
1) I did not claim that Singapore was the richest country in the world, either per capita or total. I said ONE OF the richest countries in the world. Learn to read!
2) While the US is indeed the richest country in the world in total, it is not the richest country per capita. It is usually in about 10th place, depending on the methodology used. This recent list puts the US in 13th place, for example.


Don't worry about it. As I said before,the man ingested too much lead as a child.
30-03-2017 21:12
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Today 40% of US corn is used to make fuel. This, and the rest of the biofuel industry, has increased the price of basic food by 30% to 70%. This is causing the deaths of, I estimate, 20 million people per year. I think that's very bad.
[/color]


Great point, just want to also point out that this is due to poor legislation and not because of warming.


This poor legislation came about because of perceived dangers of tetraethyl lead, used as a fuel moderator. Alcohol can also moderate fuel, and we used it during the shortages of WW2. Unfortunately, alcohol is hygroscopic, and absorbs moisture from the air. This effectively puts water IN the fuel and can rust fuel system and engine parts. The gaskets used must be compatible with it also, since alcohol dissolves the cork gaskets used on a lot of older cars and aircraft.

The fear of lead spewing from tailpipes (it actually helps to lubricate the engine!) is what scared people, because they didn't realize that lead naturally occurs in the soil anyway.

The salting of lead is so low that you could still eat the dirt beside the freeways in the sixties and not be harmed any lead that was in it.

Lead is not plutonium. But then, a lot of people misunderstand plutonium too, thanks to idiots like Carl Sagan.

I would like to return to tetraethyl lead. It is not hygroscopic, it helps to lubricate the engine, and the amount of lead put out the tailpipe is really not a problem. It does poison the catalytic converter though. THAT device was required by government due to anti-pollution laws, even though they do not reduce pollution.


Returning to tetra ethyl lead is not a good idea for a variety of health reasons summarized below:


http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/lead-exposure-gasoline-crime-increase-children-health


Lead in gasoline never affected the children or anybody else. Like I said, lead is a known component in the soil anyway. It's always been there naturally.

What causes crime today is simple: poverty, drugs, welfare programs that enable it, catch and release programs for criminals, and the release of mentally ill people on the streets.


Here are some more references on the fact that lead poisoning affects children's IQ :

...deleted California propaganda 'study'...
...deleted NPR propaganda...
...deleted fake news site...
...deleted reference to Time magazine...

I could cite more, but you get the idea. Sometimes I think some of the respondents on this blog encountered lead as a child.


You can cite liberal crap all day long. It doesn't make it true.


Truth is not a scientific term. I am referencing scientific studies, not political (liberal/conservative) babel.
30-03-2017 23:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9164)
Frescomexico wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Today 40% of US corn is used to make fuel. This, and the rest of the biofuel industry, has increased the price of basic food by 30% to 70%. This is causing the deaths of, I estimate, 20 million people per year. I think that's very bad.
[/color]


Great point, just want to also point out that this is due to poor legislation and not because of warming.


This poor legislation came about because of perceived dangers of tetraethyl lead, used as a fuel moderator. Alcohol can also moderate fuel, and we used it during the shortages of WW2. Unfortunately, alcohol is hygroscopic, and absorbs moisture from the air. This effectively puts water IN the fuel and can rust fuel system and engine parts. The gaskets used must be compatible with it also, since alcohol dissolves the cork gaskets used on a lot of older cars and aircraft.

The fear of lead spewing from tailpipes (it actually helps to lubricate the engine!) is what scared people, because they didn't realize that lead naturally occurs in the soil anyway.

The salting of lead is so low that you could still eat the dirt beside the freeways in the sixties and not be harmed any lead that was in it.

Lead is not plutonium. But then, a lot of people misunderstand plutonium too, thanks to idiots like Carl Sagan.

I would like to return to tetraethyl lead. It is not hygroscopic, it helps to lubricate the engine, and the amount of lead put out the tailpipe is really not a problem. It does poison the catalytic converter though. THAT device was required by government due to anti-pollution laws, even though they do not reduce pollution.


Returning to tetra ethyl lead is not a good idea for a variety of health reasons summarized below:


http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/lead-exposure-gasoline-crime-increase-children-health


Lead in gasoline never affected the children or anybody else. Like I said, lead is a known component in the soil anyway. It's always been there naturally.

What causes crime today is simple: poverty, drugs, welfare programs that enable it, catch and release programs for criminals, and the release of mentally ill people on the streets.


Here are some more references on the fact that lead poisoning affects children's IQ :

...deleted California propaganda 'study'...
...deleted NPR propaganda...
...deleted fake news site...
...deleted reference to Time magazine...

I could cite more, but you get the idea. Sometimes I think some of the respondents on this blog encountered lead as a child.


You can cite liberal crap all day long. It doesn't make it true.


Truth is not a scientific term. I am referencing scientific studies, not political (liberal/conservative) babel.


Then why did you use liberal babble for your sources?

Science isn't 'studies'.

I don't think you're aware of how much lead is all around you...right now.


The Parrot Killer
RE: Into the Night's Mistake31-03-2017 01:11
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
I think you are mistaking the messenger for the message. The messengers are NPR, Time, State of California, etc. which you can call liberal or whatever you like. The messages are referenced in most of those publications, and are scientific, but I don't suppose you read them. Those are the sources that you should try to criticize, if you can understand them.
31-03-2017 02:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9164)
Frescomexico wrote:
I think you are mistaking the messenger for the message. The messengers are NPR, Time, State of California, etc. which you can call liberal or whatever you like. The messages are referenced in most of those publications, and are scientific, but I don't suppose you read them. Those are the sources that you should try to criticize, if you can understand them.


There is no such thing as a 'scientific' reference other than the theory of science itself or its formalization into mathematics.

NPR and Time Magazine are well known liberal propaganda sources.

California...well let's just say they don't call it the 'left' coast for nothing.

NONE of these sources are 'scientific' or even science.

I realize you MUST attempt to redefine 'science' to include this information as a matter of practicing your Religion. It is also obvious to me that you are completely unaware how much lead is around you right now.


The Parrot Killer
31-03-2017 04:51
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
I think you are mistaking the messenger for the message. The messengers are NPR, Time, State of California, etc. which you can call liberal or whatever you like. The messages are referenced in most of those publications, and are scientific, but I don't suppose you read them. Those are the sources that you should try to criticize, if you can understand them.


There is no such thing as a 'scientific' reference other than the theory of science itself or its formalization into mathematics.

NPR and Time Magazine are well known liberal propaganda sources.

California...well let's just say they don't call it the 'left' coast for nothing.

NONE of these sources are 'scientific' or even science.

I realize you MUST attempt to redefine 'science' to include this information as a matter of practicing your Religion. It is also obvious to me that you are completely unaware how much lead is around you right now.


Man, you are a piece of work.
1. A scientific reference is a referral to something scientific. Duh!
2. Of course those "sources" are not scientific. They are not even sources. The sources are referenced in those periodicals and bulletins. Duh!
3. I don't see how it is obvious but yes I am unaware of how much lead is around me right now. I don't suppose you know either. This is immaterial. What is important is what lead ingestion does to children, and what we should try to do about it.

Tell me that you are some kind of contrarian clown and I'll stop trying to have a dialogue with you.
31-03-2017 22:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9164)
Frescomexico wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
I think you are mistaking the messenger for the message. The messengers are NPR, Time, State of California, etc. which you can call liberal or whatever you like. The messages are referenced in most of those publications, and are scientific, but I don't suppose you read them. Those are the sources that you should try to criticize, if you can understand them.


There is no such thing as a 'scientific' reference other than the theory of science itself or its formalization into mathematics.

NPR and Time Magazine are well known liberal propaganda sources.

California...well let's just say they don't call it the 'left' coast for nothing.

NONE of these sources are 'scientific' or even science.

I realize you MUST attempt to redefine 'science' to include this information as a matter of practicing your Religion. It is also obvious to me that you are completely unaware how much lead is around you right now.


Man, you are a piece of work.
1. A scientific reference is a referral to something scientific. Duh!

Since you claim such. Please state the theory of science being referenced, not the magazine or blog.
Frescomexico wrote:
2. Of course those "sources" are not scientific. They are not even sources. The sources are referenced in those periodicals and bulletins. Duh!
What theory of science are you using?
Frescomexico wrote:
3. I don't see how it is obvious but yes I am unaware of how much lead is around me right now. I don't suppose you know either. This is immaterial. What is important is what lead ingestion does to children, and what we should try to do about it.
You just stated that you are trying to solve a problem different than the one you originally stated.

Want to stop children from ingesting lead? Fine. Don't paint cribs and toys with leaded paint, keep their room and environment reasonably free of it, and teach them that eating dirt is bad for you.

Be sure to teach them that eating guns, ammunition, cars, computers, TV sets, cellphones, etc is bad for you. Mr. Yuck sells stickers.

Frescomexico wrote:
Tell me that you are some kind of contrarian clown and I'll stop trying to have a dialogue with you.


No, it is YOU living in fear and panic over what is a very manageable issue. It is YOU that wants to ban lead from everything because it has the evil word 'lead' in it because you don't understand what lead is, what it does, or where it occurs.


The Parrot Killer
31-03-2017 23:21
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
I think you are mistaking the messenger for the message. The messengers are NPR, Time, State of California, etc. which you can call liberal or whatever you like. The messages are referenced in most of those publications, and are scientific, but I don't suppose you read them. Those are the sources that you should try to criticize, if you can understand them.


There is no such thing as a 'scientific' reference other than the theory of science itself or its formalization into mathematics.

NPR and Time Magazine are well known liberal propaganda sources.

California...well let's just say they don't call it the 'left' coast for nothing.

NONE of these sources are 'scientific' or even science.

I realize you MUST attempt to redefine 'science' to include this information as a matter of practicing your Religion. It is also obvious to me that you are completely unaware how much lead is around you right now.


Man, you are a piece of work.
1. A scientific reference is a referral to something scientific. Duh!

Since you claim such. Please state the theory of science being referenced, not the magazine or blog.
Frescomexico wrote:
2. Of course those "sources" are not scientific. They are not even sources. The sources are referenced in those periodicals and bulletins. Duh!
What theory of science are you using?
Frescomexico wrote:
3. I don't see how it is obvious but yes I am unaware of how much lead is around me right now. I don't suppose you know either. This is immaterial. What is important is what lead ingestion does to children, and what we should try to do about it.
You just stated that you are trying to solve a problem different than the one you originally stated.

Want to stop children from ingesting lead? Fine. Don't paint cribs and toys with leaded paint, keep their room and environment reasonably free of it, and teach them that eating dirt is bad for you.

Be sure to teach them that eating guns, ammunition, cars, computers, TV sets, cellphones, etc is bad for you. Mr. Yuck sells stickers.

Frescomexico wrote:
Tell me that you are some kind of contrarian clown and I'll stop trying to have a dialogue with you.


No, it is YOU living in fear and panic over what is a very manageable issue. It is YOU that wants to ban lead from everything because it has the evil word 'lead' in it because you don't understand what lead is, what it does, or where it occurs.


You may recall that this dialogue started with your saying that we should return to using leaded gasoline. You said "Lead in gasoline never affected the children or anybody else" I cited numerous references on why we shouldn't return to leaded gasoline. You cited nothing but your contrarian mentality. Thanks, you've indicated what kind of clown you are. Enjoy your monologue.
03-04-2017 17:35
Wake
★★★★★
(4027)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Given that all informed investors realise this no bank will leand to farmers in the Sahell. With such a massive disensentive to invest the agriculture of the world cannot develope and thus the economy of the poorest cannot develope, whilst it is at the whim of US/EU policy.


Well you have me at a loss. Corn subsidies are in the US only and while it is possibly the most idiotic idea possible, I can't see any connection with Nigeria other than reducing the cost of corn which is not a staple there.
03-04-2017 20:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9164)
Frescomexico wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
I think you are mistaking the messenger for the message. The messengers are NPR, Time, State of California, etc. which you can call liberal or whatever you like. The messages are referenced in most of those publications, and are scientific, but I don't suppose you read them. Those are the sources that you should try to criticize, if you can understand them.


There is no such thing as a 'scientific' reference other than the theory of science itself or its formalization into mathematics.

NPR and Time Magazine are well known liberal propaganda sources.

California...well let's just say they don't call it the 'left' coast for nothing.

NONE of these sources are 'scientific' or even science.

I realize you MUST attempt to redefine 'science' to include this information as a matter of practicing your Religion. It is also obvious to me that you are completely unaware how much lead is around you right now.


Man, you are a piece of work.
1. A scientific reference is a referral to something scientific. Duh!

Since you claim such. Please state the theory of science being referenced, not the magazine or blog.
Frescomexico wrote:
2. Of course those "sources" are not scientific. They are not even sources. The sources are referenced in those periodicals and bulletins. Duh!
What theory of science are you using?
Frescomexico wrote:
3. I don't see how it is obvious but yes I am unaware of how much lead is around me right now. I don't suppose you know either. This is immaterial. What is important is what lead ingestion does to children, and what we should try to do about it.
You just stated that you are trying to solve a problem different than the one you originally stated.

Want to stop children from ingesting lead? Fine. Don't paint cribs and toys with leaded paint, keep their room and environment reasonably free of it, and teach them that eating dirt is bad for you.

Be sure to teach them that eating guns, ammunition, cars, computers, TV sets, cellphones, etc is bad for you. Mr. Yuck sells stickers.

Frescomexico wrote:
Tell me that you are some kind of contrarian clown and I'll stop trying to have a dialogue with you.


No, it is YOU living in fear and panic over what is a very manageable issue. It is YOU that wants to ban lead from everything because it has the evil word 'lead' in it because you don't understand what lead is, what it does, or where it occurs.


You may recall that this dialogue started with your saying that we should return to using leaded gasoline. You said "Lead in gasoline never affected the children or anybody else" I cited numerous references on why we shouldn't return to leaded gasoline. You cited nothing but your contrarian mentality. Thanks, you've indicated what kind of clown you are. Enjoy your monologue.


You cited nothing but your religious dogma.

That doesn't make it true.

Obviously, you wish to simply ignore the amount of lead around you right now and how it doesn't affect you (or anybody else).

Perhaps you believe in the government spraying the population using contrails, too.


The Parrot Killer
03-04-2017 22:40
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Given that all informed investors realise this no bank will leand to farmers in the Sahell. With such a massive disensentive to invest the agriculture of the world cannot develope and thus the economy of the poorest cannot develope, whilst it is at the whim of US/EU policy.


Well you have me at a loss. Corn subsidies are in the US only and while it is possibly the most idiotic idea possible, I can't see any connection with Nigeria other than reducing the cost of corn which is not a staple there.


The price of basic food stuffs is 30% to 70% more than it should be.

This is true for all foods.

This is true for maize or any other food. Hungry people are not fussy as to what they eat. Plenty of bread is eaten in Nigeria.
03-04-2017 22:52
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1382)
There is currently 8.6 billion bushels of surplus corn and 1.7 billion bushels of soybeans. That is some serious piles of grain going into a new growing season. Grain prices are as low as they're going to get. Any lower is at a loss.

Not arguing with your claim of 30-70%....just wondering how do you figure this?
03-04-2017 23:30
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
There is currently 8.6 billion bushels of surplus corn and 1.7 billion bushels of soybeans. That is some serious piles of grain going into a new growing season. Grain prices are as low as they're going to get. Any lower is at a loss.

Not arguing with your claim of 30-70%....just wondering how do you figure this?

Tim doesn't figure things. He simply invents numbers to suit his argument.
04-04-2017 00:27
Wake
★★★★★
(4027)
GasGuzzler wrote:
There is currently 8.6 billion bushels of surplus corn and 1.7 billion bushels of soybeans. That is some serious piles of grain going into a new growing season. Grain prices are as low as they're going to get. Any lower is at a loss.

Not arguing with your claim of 30-70%....just wondering how do you figure this?


He uses the word "Maize" which most of the rest of the world uses. It is of Spanish origin and corn is not a particularly heavily grow crop over most of the world. Surpluses of this grain would merely make that single product cheaper.

I can't remember but it seems to me that the corn grown for ethylene production is different than that eaten.

If memory serves the corn stalk that we know isn't what they have in the rest of the world. It is a short bushy plant.
04-04-2017 00:38
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1382)
They can use the same kernel for ethanol and cattle feed by removing the starch portion for fuel. There is no waste.
04-04-2017 15:33
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" gushed:
They can use the same kernel for ethanol and cattle feed by removing the starch portion for fuel. There is no waste.

Adding just 10% ethanol to 100% 87 octane gasoline, reduces mpg in 87 octane gasoline engines, by 8%, 8%, 7%-8%, 7% & 5%. Using (not burning efficiently) octane 114 ethanol in 87 octane gasoline engines, IS A WASTE.
04-04-2017 21:22
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
GasGuzzler wrote:
There is currently 8.6 billion bushels of surplus corn and 1.7 billion bushels of soybeans. That is some serious piles of grain going into a new growing season. Grain prices are as low as they're going to get. Any lower is at a loss.

Not arguing with your claim of 30-70%....just wondering how do you figure this?


Just what I read out of the OECD I think..

If grain prices are at the lowest they are ever going to be why do you think the farmers want this to continue?

Just stop diverting food from the starving to this drivel. Stop waisting taxes. Stop killing people.
04-04-2017 22:05
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1382)
Not a farmer but do live in Iowa...Major farm country, so I'm around it and here's what I've gathered.

We've sold our technology...seed genetics, fertilizers, farming techniques, and equipment...to Brazil, Argentina, and India. India can bring 3 crops to maturity per year given the weather.
There is so damn much grain out there in storage right now, farmers are actually hoping for a bad growing year. It would drive up the cash market so they can move some grain. Why they keep doing it? I don't know, except for the guys that have been doing for a lifetime know that eventually things have always turned around. They are making some money if they own the land. If they are paying rent or mortgage payments, they're in trouble. What i don't understand is how they are getting loans when the markets are in the toilet and supply is so high that the market can't possibly get better any time soon. Back in the day, 1930s-1970s, may gandad farmed 260 acres and made a nice living and retired in 1976. Today, if your not farming more than 5,000 acres it's nothing more than a hobby.

About food prices related to grain prices...grain prices are high, but at or below input costs. One major factor is seed traits. So much R&D has gone into seed. I believe seed cost is around 1,000 per acre, depending on population. The seed is actually incredible. 2012 we had a long overdue drought. The statewide corn yield average was still around 145 bushels/acre. I remember my dad saying when he was a kid on the farm, 125 B/A was a perfect bin buster bumper crop.

Also driving grain prices down is the ability to now dissect and use (I didn't say good use) every single part of that kernel of corn.

Herbicide/pesticide costs are also huge. Many yield robbing weeds have mutated become Glysophate resistant.

I'm not a fan of ethanol, but here's the question.
You have piles and piles of corn and beans....do you give it to the poor/starving or sell it to the
ethanol company...
04-04-2017 22:19
Wake
★★★★★
(4027)
Tim the plumber wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
There is currently 8.6 billion bushels of surplus corn and 1.7 billion bushels of soybeans. That is some serious piles of grain going into a new growing season. Grain prices are as low as they're going to get. Any lower is at a loss.

Not arguing with your claim of 30-70%....just wondering how do you figure this?


Just what I read out of the OECD I think..

If grain prices are at the lowest they are ever going to be why do you think the farmers want this to continue?

Just stop diverting food from the starving to this drivel. Stop wasting taxes. Stop killing people.


If the farm subsidies for production of ethanol are stopped, the production of corn will drop. And the farmers will simply renew growing more profitable crops. That won't reduce farm profits or feed any starving people.

While I'm in agreement with you that farm subsidies should be stopped and I also commiserate with you about the starving people of the world, these are two separate issues.

It would be FAR more effective to put scientific knowledge to use to learn how to produce crops in the more arid parts of the world. To supply cheap transportation in the form of bicycles and tricycles to enable people to travel moderate distances with less effort (calories out necessitate more calories in) to get clean water and farm produce or to take produce to market. To put in reasonably smooth roads so that it is less of a burden for people to move about.
05-04-2017 08:32
samijafri
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
Into the Night wrote:
samijafri wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
samijafri wrote:
Don't you think that humans are the main reason behind Global Warming?


How do we know there is any global warming at all?

We don't have sufficient instrumentation to get any idea of global temperature to any degree of useful accuracy.


Dynamic change in climate, melting of glaciers aren't the signs of global warming?
Can't you see that there are billions of cars all over the world which use gasoline and diesel(burning of fossil fuels) which results in Carbon Emissions. There are many example from which we can relate global warming.


There is no global climate. Climate is also not a thing that can 'change'. There is no unit to describe such a change by, since 'climate' refers to unspecified times and regions.

We don't know which glaciers are melting, growing, or just staying the same. No one is recording that, except for a very few glaciers.

Fossils don't burn. Burning oil products like gasoline produces carbon dioxide and water. So what? No one yet has provided a 'greenhouse gas' theory that doesn't violate physical laws. Perhaps you would care to try? What is your theory for how carbon dioxide magickally warms the surface? Do you favor the Magick Blanket theory, or the Magick Bouncing Photon theory?


somehow you are right but cant you see the climate is changing from past 5-10 years?
the heat wave in summers causes heat stroke which caused many causalities in Asia and Africa, and extreme cold weather in Canada and Artic region isn't the sign of climate change?
05-04-2017 15:23
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1382)
samijafri wrote:
and extreme cold weather in Canada and Artic region isn't the sign of climate change?


How? Why?


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
05-04-2017 17:27
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Not a farmer but do live in Iowa...Major farm country, so I'm around it and here's what I've gathered.

We've sold our technology...seed genetics, fertilizers, farming techniques, and equipment...to Brazil, Argentina, and India. India can bring 3 crops to maturity per year given the weather.
There is so damn much grain out there in storage right now, farmers are actually hoping for a bad growing year. It would drive up the cash market so they can move some grain. Why they keep doing it? I don't know, except for the guys that have been doing for a lifetime know that eventually things have always turned around. They are making some money if they own the land. If they are paying rent or mortgage payments, they're in trouble. What i don't understand is how they are getting loans when the markets are in the toilet and supply is so high that the market can't possibly get better any time soon. Back in the day, 1930s-1970s, may gandad farmed 260 acres and made a nice living and retired in 1976. Today, if your not farming more than 5,000 acres it's nothing more than a hobby.

About food prices related to grain prices...grain prices are high, but at or below input costs. One major factor is seed traits. So much R&D has gone into seed. I believe seed cost is around 1,000 per acre, depending on population. The seed is actually incredible. 2012 we had a long overdue drought. The statewide corn yield average was still around 145 bushels/acre. I remember my dad saying when he was a kid on the farm, 125 B/A was a perfect bin buster bumper crop.

Also driving grain prices down is the ability to now dissect and use (I didn't say good use) every single part of that kernel of corn.

Herbicide/pesticide costs are also huge. Many yield robbing weeds have mutated become Glysophate resistant.

I'm not a fan of ethanol, but here's the question.
You have piles and piles of corn and beans....do you give it to the poor/starving or sell it to the
ethanol company...


Yes to all that. That is why the farmers have reached out to the government to drive the prices up.

So what? I do not have a God given right to get money from the world. Just because they have become so good at growing food it has driven the price down should not stop some or even a lot of them going out of business.

The farmers I have met have all been the best negotiators ever. They are the best at claiming to be financial trouble when they are not.
05-04-2017 17:31
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
There is currently 8.6 billion bushels of surplus corn and 1.7 billion bushels of soybeans. That is some serious piles of grain going into a new growing season. Grain prices are as low as they're going to get. Any lower is at a loss.

Not arguing with your claim of 30-70%....just wondering how do you figure this?


Just what I read out of the OECD I think..

If grain prices are at the lowest they are ever going to be why do you think the farmers want this to continue?

Just stop diverting food from the starving to this drivel. Stop wasting taxes. Stop killing people.


If the farm subsidies for production of ethanol are stopped, the production of corn will drop. And the farmers will simply renew growing more profitable crops. That won't reduce farm profits or feed any starving people.

While I'm in agreement with you that farm subsidies should be stopped and I also commiserate with you about the starving people of the world, these are two separate issues.

It would be FAR more effective to put scientific knowledge to use to learn how to produce crops in the more arid parts of the world. To supply cheap transportation in the form of bicycles and tricycles to enable people to travel moderate distances with less effort (calories out necessitate more calories in) to get clean water and farm produce or to take produce to market. To put in reasonably smooth roads so that it is less of a burden for people to move about.


The removal of food from the market obviously drives up prices. To argue that it does not is just silly.

Yes, providing bicycles and decent roads is a good idea. Better is getting a decent governance going. ALthough we have a very poor record in doing that. i think the places we have had the least involvement in are generally doing the best.
05-04-2017 17:51
Wake
★★★★★
(4027)
samijafri wrote: somehow you are right but cant you see the climate is changing from past 5-10 years? the heat wave in summers causes heat stroke which caused many causalities in Asia and Africa, and extreme cold weather in Canada and Artic region isn't the sign of climate change?


sami - don't mistake what you see in your short lifespan as signs of something bigger. What we are seeing is nothing more than natural weather variations.

Remember that in the 1500 - 1700 we had the Little Ice Age. What do you suppose the True Believers would say about that today? "We're ALL GOING TO DIE AND IT'S THE FAULT OF ANYONE OTHER THAN ME".
05-04-2017 17:56
Wake
★★★★★
(4027)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
There is currently 8.6 billion bushels of surplus corn and 1.7 billion bushels of soybeans. That is some serious piles of grain going into a new growing season. Grain prices are as low as they're going to get. Any lower is at a loss.

Not arguing with your claim of 30-70%....just wondering how do you figure this?


Just what I read out of the OECD I think..

If grain prices are at the lowest they are ever going to be why do you think the farmers want this to continue?

Just stop diverting food from the starving to this drivel. Stop wasting taxes. Stop killing people.


If the farm subsidies for production of ethanol are stopped, the production of corn will drop. And the farmers will simply renew growing more profitable crops. That won't reduce farm profits or feed any starving people.

While I'm in agreement with you that farm subsidies should be stopped and I also commiserate with you about the starving people of the world, these are two separate issues.

It would be FAR more effective to put scientific knowledge to use to learn how to produce crops in the more arid parts of the world. To supply cheap transportation in the form of bicycles and tricycles to enable people to travel moderate distances with less effort (calories out necessitate more calories in) to get clean water and farm produce or to take produce to market. To put in reasonably smooth roads so that it is less of a burden for people to move about.


The removal of food from the market obviously drives up prices. To argue that it does not is just silly.

Yes, providing bicycles and decent roads is a good idea. Better is getting a decent governance going. ALthough we have a very poor record in doing that. i think the places we have had the least involvement in are generally doing the best.


There have been governments in Africa and India for a long time. Have they improved the live's of their people?

Let me repeat - MOST farms that grow corn do so because of government subsidies that give them false profits. Take away subsidies and you do NOT expect these farms to stop growing food do you? They simply change to more profitable crops.

But VERY few crops are more than local. So stopping production in the USA isn't going to change the problems in India or Africa.
05-04-2017 18:48
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
There is currently 8.6 billion bushels of surplus corn and 1.7 billion bushels of soybeans. That is some serious piles of grain going into a new growing season. Grain prices are as low as they're going to get. Any lower is at a loss.

Not arguing with your claim of 30-70%....just wondering how do you figure this?


Just what I read out of the OECD I think..

If grain prices are at the lowest they are ever going to be why do you think the farmers want this to continue?

Just stop diverting food from the starving to this drivel. Stop wasting taxes. Stop killing people.


If the farm subsidies for production of ethanol are stopped, the production of corn will drop. And the farmers will simply renew growing more profitable crops. That won't reduce farm profits or feed any starving people.

While I'm in agreement with you that farm subsidies should be stopped and I also commiserate with you about the starving people of the world, these are two separate issues.

It would be FAR more effective to put scientific knowledge to use to learn how to produce crops in the more arid parts of the world. To supply cheap transportation in the form of bicycles and tricycles to enable people to travel moderate distances with less effort (calories out necessitate more calories in) to get clean water and farm produce or to take produce to market. To put in reasonably smooth roads so that it is less of a burden for people to move about.


The removal of food from the market obviously drives up prices. To argue that it does not is just silly.

Yes, providing bicycles and decent roads is a good idea. Better is getting a decent governance going. ALthough we have a very poor record in doing that. i think the places we have had the least involvement in are generally doing the best.


There have been governments in Africa and India for a long time. Have they improved the live's of their people?

Let me repeat - MOST farms that grow corn do so because of government subsidies that give them false profits. Take away subsidies and you do NOT expect these farms to stop growing food do you? They simply change to more profitable crops.

But VERY few crops are more than local. So stopping production in the USA isn't going to change the problems in India or Africa.


Here in the UK we import grain from Russia to make diesel out of.

The grain that goes into the biofuel in the USA might well not be grown so much if the price was lower. But the price would still be lower and the price of bread in Egypt would be lower. Egypt, like most of the world, imports lots of food.

The revolution in agriculture has allowed us to grow spectacular amounts of food in the developed nations of the world. This has happened largely due to ideas of self suficiency after the second world war and rationing. Lots of money has been invested in R+D and all other ways of making our farming more productive.

There has not been the combination of money, expertese, stability and political will to do this in the tropics.

That we do supply, well mostly the USA does, lots of food to the poor world is a good thing. That it and the EU are artificially reducing the amount we supply and hiking the price for the benefit of rich western farmers in a crime against humanity.
05-04-2017 18:50
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1382)
Interesting to note that AGW freikists claim that there will be food shortages due to global warming. Yet, here we are in the "warmest years on record".
Too much grain the the problem is how to get it to those who need it most.

A couple quotes from TTP
So what? I do not have a God given right to get money from the world. Just because they have become so good at growing food it has driven the price down should not stop some or even a lot of them going out of business.


i think the places we(government) have had the least involvement in are generally doing the best.

Tim? I've seen you say you generally lean liberal. Don't sound like it to me. I wholeheartedly agree with the above statements.

The farmers I have met have all been the best negotiators ever. They are the best at claiming to be financial trouble when they are not.


Mmmm...I do see a lot of brand new $60,000 pickup trucks on these farms, never thought much of it when it's parked next to a $600,000 combine. But then you look at the farmhouse and it's falling down.
05-04-2017 19:12
Wake
★★★★★
(4027)
Tim the plumber wrote:Here in the UK we import grain from Russia to make diesel out of.

The grain that goes into the biofuel in the USA might well not be grown so much if the price was lower. But the price would still be lower and the price of bread in Egypt would be lower. Egypt, like most of the world, imports lots of food.

The revolution in agriculture has allowed us to grow spectacular amounts of food in the developed nations of the world. This has happened largely due to ideas of self suficiency after the second world war and rationing. Lots of money has been invested in R+D and all other ways of making our farming more productive.

There has not been the combination of money, expertese, stability and political will to do this in the tropics.

That we do supply, well mostly the USA does, lots of food to the poor world is a good thing. That it and the EU are artificially reducing the amount we supply and hiking the price for the benefit of rich western farmers in a crime against humanity.


Why are you running around in circles? Grains and beans are products that can be shipped around the world. But these are not large scale FOOD STUFFS. They do not contain the vitamins and minerals. Exactly WHY do you think that the average size of the world's people is improving? Grain fed animals and fresh vegetables.

I'm 72 and have the heart rate and lung capacity of a 30 year old. I have no problems riding my bike on an 80 mile ride and could extend that to 100 miles with only a sore butt to show for it. I can do 50 mile rides with no food or water.

I'll repeat - if you want to stop world hunger develop drought resistant food plants. Water in a large part of the world is the limiting factor for people to produce their own food.

Transportation also it a major problem and we HAVE the technology to solve that problem overnight.

But what are you talking about? Corn subsidies when your own diesel fuel comes from corn from Russia. They do NOT subsidize corn production.
06-04-2017 11:45
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:Here in the UK we import grain from Russia to make diesel out of.

The grain that goes into the biofuel in the USA might well not be grown so much if the price was lower. But the price would still be lower and the price of bread in Egypt would be lower. Egypt, like most of the world, imports lots of food.

The revolution in agriculture has allowed us to grow spectacular amounts of food in the developed nations of the world. This has happened largely due to ideas of self suficiency after the second world war and rationing. Lots of money has been invested in R+D and all other ways of making our farming more productive.

There has not been the combination of money, expertese, stability and political will to do this in the tropics.

That we do supply, well mostly the USA does, lots of food to the poor world is a good thing. That it and the EU are artificially reducing the amount we supply and hiking the price for the benefit of rich western farmers in a crime against humanity.


Why are you running around in circles? Grains and beans are products that can be shipped around the world. But these are not large scale FOOD STUFFS. They do not contain the vitamins and minerals. Exactly WHY do you think that the average size of the world's people is improving? Grain fed animals and fresh vegetables.

I'm 72 and have the heart rate and lung capacity of a 30 year old. I have no problems riding my bike on an 80 mile ride and could extend that to 100 miles with only a sore butt to show for it. I can do 50 mile rides with no food or water.

I'll repeat - if you want to stop world hunger develop drought resistant food plants. Water in a large part of the world is the limiting factor for people to produce their own food.

Transportation also it a major problem and we HAVE the technology to solve that problem overnight.

But what are you talking about? Corn subsidies when your own diesel fuel comes from corn from Russia. They do NOT subsidize corn production.


Grain, the stuff you make flower out of to make bread is normally called food.

The artyificial boosting of the price of grain by taking loads of it out of the market is a form of subsidy of agricultural income.

Dear God, how basic????
06-04-2017 20:21
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1382)
The artificial boosting of the price of grain by taking loads of it out of the market


I still don't understand this point. Who is doing this and how?
06-04-2017 22:22
Wake
★★★★★
(4027)
GasGuzzler wrote:
The artificial boosting of the price of grain by taking loads of it out of the market


I still don't understand this point. Who is doing this and how?


The US Government has been controlling the price of wheat and other staples by ordering farmers to destroy anything the government decides is over-production.

This is not new. They have been doing this since 1940.
06-04-2017 23:50
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1382)
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
The artificial boosting of the price of grain by taking loads of it out of the market


I still don't understand this point. Who is doing this and how?


The US Government has been controlling the price of wheat and other staples by ordering farmers to destroy anything the government decides is over-production.

This is not new. They have been doing this since 1940.


Wake, I've lived in farm country my entire life, (except for one drunken trip to Texas that lasted a year and a half
) and I've never heard of farmers being ordered to destroy anything except for infected cattle and some bad genetic seed corn from Monsanto. Oh, and some bird flu a couple years ago got a lot of turkeys the gas chamber. I've been digging and nothing. Link?


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Edited on 06-04-2017 23:51
07-04-2017 00:22
Wake
★★★★★
(4027)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
The artificial boosting of the price of grain by taking loads of it out of the market


I still don't understand this point. Who is doing this and how?


The US Government has been controlling the price of wheat and other staples by ordering farmers to destroy anything the government decides is over-production.

This is not new. They have been doing this since 1940.


Wake, I've lived in farm country my entire life, (except for one drunken trip to Texas that lasted a year and a half
) and I've never heard of farmers being ordered to destroy anything except for infected cattle and some bad genetic seed corn from Monsanto. Oh, and some bird flu a couple years ago got a lot of turkeys the gas chamber. I've been digging and nothing. Link?


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

If you grew the crops anyway you were ordered to destroy them. The government could or didn't have to pay you for them. As you can see it was eventually ruled unconstitutional but that wasn't the end of it.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/why-does-the-govt-pay-farmers/

https://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/the-dark-agenda-of-s-510-feds-order-destruction-of-wheat-fed-to-chickens/

Today this would be virtually impossible because of social media.
07-04-2017 11:41
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
GasGuzzler wrote:
The artificial boosting of the price of grain by taking loads of it out of the market


I still don't understand this point. Who is doing this and how?


The governements of USA and EU etc are taking grain and other foods stuffs out of the market by using it to bake biofuel.

In simple supply and demand they have greatly increased tha demand for food stuff.

When this happens the price goes up as what is left is competed for by those who would have had easy(cheap) access to it and now will pay what they have to for it.

That is OK for us rich people. For those on $10 a day it is managable. For those on $3 a day it is a problem and the properly poor die lots.
07-04-2017 15:18
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1382)
In simple supply and demand they have greatly increased tha demand for food stuff.


Sure, I get supply and demand, but this is different because supply right now, even with ethanol production, is huge. There is plenty of grain available out there at or below production cost. I think ethanol is stupid, but it's not the driver of food prices right now. Very possible in years past when corn was around $8. You should look at a 20 year history. It really has dropped off sharply the last 3 years.

I think corn was trading yesterday around 3.65.

New report came out yesterday. With many variables, soil quality, rent/own, seed quality purchase, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, equipment rent/own/ ect.....the break even price for producing corn is 3.70.

If the family farm is lost and all the farmland winds up going to huge corporate farms, you think grain prices go up or down?
07-04-2017 17:05
Wake
★★★★★
(4027)
Tim the plumber wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
The artificial boosting of the price of grain by taking loads of it out of the market


I still don't understand this point. Who is doing this and how?


The governments of USA and EU etc are taking grain and other foods stuffs out of the market by using it to bake biofuel.

In simple supply and demand they have greatly increased tha demand for food stuff.

When this happens the price goes up as what is left is competed for by those who would have had easy(cheap) access to it and now will pay what they have to for it.

That is OK for us rich people. For those on $10 a day it is manageable. For those on $3 a day it is a problem and the properly poor die lots.


What gives you the idea that any idea that food is being taken off the market?

Give us an example of where and when. Don't give us a "well I guess" because i know that corn isn't subsidized so that they will grow less but so that they will grow more. In case you missed it the US is trying to feed the world.
07-04-2017 22:08
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
GasGuzzler wrote:
In simple supply and demand they have greatly increased tha demand for food stuff.


Sure, I get supply and demand, but this is different because supply right now, even with ethanol production, is huge. There is plenty of grain available out there at or below production cost. I think ethanol is stupid, but it's not the driver of food prices right now. Very possible in years past when corn was around $8. You should look at a 20 year history. It really has dropped off sharply the last 3 years.

I think corn was trading yesterday around 3.65.

New report came out yesterday. With many variables, soil quality, rent/own, seed quality purchase, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, equipment rent/own/ ect.....the break even price for producing corn is 3.70.

If the family farm is lost and all the farmland winds up going to huge corporate farms, you think grain prices go up or down?


I think that if the govenment get sout of farming the family farm will look like a sensable economic business plan over the dodgy financing of the corperate management structures.

Are you saying that the family farm produces food less well than the corperations?

I don't care who grows the stuff. I care that we should not be driving the price up.

If the price is below production costs then the marginal land will stop being farmed. OK. If we stop driving the price up the only land being farmed will be the most economic to do so given the then even lower price than now. Good thing. Unless you are a farmer.
07-04-2017 22:35
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1382)
Are you saying that the family farm produces food less well than the corperations?


No not at all. I'm saying corporations will have the deeper pockets than a family farm, allowing them to hold and store grain, waiting for high market prices to sell. This will farther drive up grain and food prices.

Agree on marginal land, although there isn't much of that around here where I live.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Page 3 of 6<12345>>>





Join the debate Man-Made Causes:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Man-Made CO2?2630-08-2019 22:36
Florida Man...121-08-2019 20:51
There is no evidence there is global warming, either natural or man made8006-08-2019 19:38
No man can fool god.028-04-2019 18:43
How can hippies beat CO2? CO2 is power of nature? Man is nothing compared to nature.224-02-2019 22:55
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact