Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

OzRitz wrote:

<quoted text>
The UN is all we have, there is nothing else unless the US wants to rule the world. Where there is money and power there will be corruption its been right throughout human history. But it's no excuse to do NOTHING. Doing nothing in this case is a threat to every nation. Science keeps giving us the same answers but you just don't want to believe it. It can't be true, like science blowing apart the bible's concept of creationism. Middleman claims the threat during the cold war was real, so all the paranoia of commies under the bed, bomb shelters, bomb drills at schools was convincing because the government at the time said so! What has changed with conservatives of the 1950's to conservatives now ? Now they don't believe anything the government tells them or is it just the messenger!
You baggers need to be reminded everyday of the complete idiocy of how you reach conclusions not based on rational thinking but by sheer bigotry.

Bigotry is a two way street and there is plenty of bigots on your side. One other thing I am not TP,I am a free man and want the Gov out of our lives. You want Gov to control every aspect of your life. Careful what you wish,the Gov giveth,the Gov most assurdely taketh away.You be the slave,not me.

Mothra wrote:

Doom and Gloom
Perhaps the fact that global harvests of wheat, rice and corn have tripled or quintupled since 1960 in the face of all of this terrible warming teaches us a dire lesson.

The agricultural enterprise worldwide since the 1960s has been one of the tremendous success stories of the 20th Century. Year-on-year, yields have increased by something like two per cent. But they've been increasing by less than that recently, and based on a number of very careful, thorough statistical analyses, researchers are now able to see that for at least two of the world's major food crops, wheat and maize, the increases in yields year-on-year have slowed, partly as a consequence of climate change.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2014/s3975...

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
The agricultural enterprise worldwide since the 1960s has been one of the tremendous success stories of the 20th Century. Year-on-year, yields have increased by something like two per cent. But they've been increasing by less than that recently, and based on a number of very careful, thorough statistical analyses, researchers are now able to see that for at least two of the world's major food crops, wheat and maize, the increases in yields year-on-year have slowed, partly as a consequence of climate change.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2014/s3975...

When you use food for fuel, you have less food.

Mothra wrote:

<quoted text>
When you use food for fuel, you have less food.

Fair Game wrote:

recently, and based on a number of very careful, thorough statistical analyses, researchers are now able to see that for at least two of the world's major food crops, wheat and maize, the increases in yields year-on-year have slowed, partly as a consequence of climate change.

Yield is yield and does not depend on what you do with the crop, eat it or stick it in your tank.

Not that many people do the later outside the US or the EU where most of these studies were carried out.

motheaten wrote:

When you use food for fuel, you have less food.

Also, when you use food for fuel, in a gasoline engine, the "ethanol in gasoline" industry uses more oil than they save..... PLUS, 10% ethanol blends raise fuel consumption by 8% to 5%.

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Yield is yield and does not depend on what you do with the crop, eat it or stick it in your tank.
Not that many people do the later outside the US or the EU where most of these studies were carried out.

" the increases in yields year-on-year have slowed, partly as a consequence of climate change. "

Really? Or is that just the pat answer from the IPCC "expert" interviewed.

>>The world food production has increased substantially in the past century, as has calorie intake per capita. However, in spite of a decrease in the proportion of undernourished people, the absolute number has in fact increased during the current food crisis, to over 963 million. By 2050, population growth by an estimated 3 billion more people will increase food demand.

Increased fertilizer application and more water usage through irrigation have been responsible for over 70% of the crop yield increase in the past. Yields, however, have nearly stabilized for cereals, partly as a result of low and declining investments in agriculture. In addition, fisheries landings have declined in the past decade mainly as a result of overfishing and unsustainable fishing methods.

http://www.grida.no/publications/rr/food-cris...

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
Also, when you use food for fuel, in a gasoline engine, the "ethanol in gasoline" industry uses more oil than they save..... PLUS, 10% ethanol blends raise fuel consumption by 8% to 5%.

Got a source for that?

Fair Game wrote:

increases in yields year-on-year have slowed, partly as a consequence of climate change.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2014/s3975...

Mothra wrote:

Yields, however, have nearly stabilized for cereals, partly as a result of low and declining investments in agriculture.

Not inconsistent.

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Not inconsistent.

Richard Tol, a professor of economics at the University of Sussex in the United Kingdom and an expert on climate change, removed his name from the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. While he considers much of the science sound and supports the underlying purpose of the IPCC, Tol says the United Nations agency’s inflammatory and alarmist claims delegitimize the IPCC as a credible and neutral institution.

“In the SPM [Summary for Policymakers], and much more largely in the media, we see all these scare stories,” Tol tells National Review Online.“We’re all going to die, the four horsemen of the apocalypse ... I felt uncomfortable with the direction [the IPCC report] was going.”

Tol, who has been working with the IPCC since 1994, was the lead author of Chapter 10 of the report, on key economic sectors and services. He was also a contributor to Chapters 17 and 19, on the economics of adaptation to climate change and emergent risks, respectively.

He took his name off of the final summary because he felt the IPCC did not properly account for human technological ingenuity and downplayed the potential benefits of global warming.

“In the current SPM there are a number of statements in there that are widely cited that are just not correct,” Tol says.

One prediction has it that crop yields will begin to fall dramatically, a statement “that is particularly not supported by the chapter itself,” Tol says.“What it completely forgets is technological progress and that crop yields have been going up for as long as we’ve looked at crop yields.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/374986/...

The IPCC "expert" misrepresents his own report. He must have only read the SPM.

Mothra wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, the tougher question is the one you keep avoiding.... given the latest, greatest end of the world "crisis" predictions, will warmists start acting like it is a crisis? and will they start holding their own accountable?

You can bet all the climate action posters on here do their own lil bit. I believe caveman has solar panels ,so do I. I also run fuel efficient vehicles, that's all it takes. For everyone to reduce their carbon footprint by 20%-30% and we just may halt the slide until we come up with complete clean energy sources. That's the goal, then that can keep trimming back with technology advances until we reach carbon neutral. It sure as hell won't happen if you keep drilling or mining fossil fuels without any penalties.

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
Also, when you use food for fuel, in a gasoline engine, the "ethanol in gasoline" industry uses more oil than they save..... PLUS, 10% ethanol blends raise fuel consumption by 8% to 5%.

since you oppose renewables in auto gas and stand for 100% big oil supplied fuels, i'm surprised you're not on the LPG bandwagon, son!

FRACK ON, BABY!!!

LOL

OzRitz wrote:

<quoted text>
The tougher question is when there are climate refugees which could add up into the millions where are they going to go ? And don't try and tell us that won't be the seeds sown for huge conflicts around the planet. But of course none of this will happen according to you deniers we just learn to adapt. Crops and food bowls will never be under threat.

Don't avoid. Humor me. Exactly how many foreign persons would you like to see enter the US (legal and illegal) per year? You must have an opinion.

Los Angeles wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't avoid. Humor me. Exactly how many foreign persons would you like to see enter the US (legal and illegal) per year? You must have an opinion.

Hey what I wish for and what is reality are two different things. I'd love to go to a National Park and not see anyone but it's not going to happen. I'd also love to go shopping like Oprah where celebs visit the store after hours and not share that space with anyone else but it's not going to happen. I'd love to have the roads I travel on all to myself but it's not going to happen.
You may wish for no more foreigners but it's at odds with Capitalism, it needs growth to survive or it falls into taking out the others you share the economic pie with. Growth went mad in the US & in the West post WW2 because of the baby boom. Now those in a higher economic status are not having kids, all the growth is coming from those who can least afford it. Hence the ethnic mix in the US will be much different than it is now in 50 yrs time and you conservatives on the right need to deal with that in what the policy mix should be.
The chance of a higher earning family means the children's chances of college education are also far greater. As it stands now, all the new brain power is being developed in Asia they top the charts in everything. So if you were looking for immigrants those would be the ones you would hope to get a few of. All these things in a tea baggers simple world never even think of. All they are obsessed with is being ruled by a black President and looking for anything they can come up with to get rid of him.

charles in charge wrote:

<quoted text>
More evasions and politicization from Watts and his number-one admirer, apparently.
Not once do you ever offer concrete evidence to support a position - just sneering and mockery a la your typical Denier clown.
Boring, really, after awhile.

No more comments from the peanut gallery,please.

OzRitz wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey what I wish for and what is reality are two different things. I'd love to go to a National Park and not see anyone but it's not going to happen. I'd also love to go shopping like Oprah where celebs visit the store after hours and not share that space with anyone else but it's not going to happen. I'd love to have the roads I travel on all to myself but it's not going to happen.
You may wish for no more foreigners but it's at odds with Capitalism, it needs growth to survive or it falls into taking out the others you share the economic pie with. Growth went mad in the US & in the West post WW2 because of the baby boom. Now those in a higher economic status are not having kids, all the growth is coming from those who can least afford it. Hence the ethnic mix in the US will be much different than it is now in 50 yrs time and you conservatives on the right need to deal with that in what the policy mix should be.
The chance of a higher earning family means the children's chances of college education are also far greater. As it stands now, all the new brain power is being developed in Asia they top the charts in everything. So if you were looking for immigrants those would be the ones you would hope to get a few of. All these things in a tea baggers simple world never even think of. All they are obsessed with is being ruled by a black President and looking for anything they can come up with to get rid of him.

You really did drink the kool-aid. Calm down. I don't mind foreigners. I'm married to one. I'd like to admit 1 million per year. What's your number?

Or do you have no opinion.

litesong wrote
Also, when you use food for fuel, in a gasoline engine, the "ethanol in gasoline" industry uses more oil than they save..... PLUS, 10% ethanol blends raise fuel consumption by 8% to 5%.
//////////
"motheaten" erupted:
Got a source for that?
//////////
litesong wrote:
Don't have sources fer ethanol. Got sources fer 100% gasoline. Sorry, you don't got none, no how, no way......

Los Angeles wrote:

<quoted text>
You really did drink the kool-aid. Calm down. I don't mind foreigners. I'm married to one. I'd like to admit 1 million per year. What's your number?
Or do you have no opinion.

It's not that I don't have an opinion, I don't have the expertise to decide on a number. That is far better approached by the "think tankers" who have all the numbers at their disposal. So for instance if there is a doctor shortage then make it easy for doctors to come in but only practice in a shortage area for a given amount of years as a condition after that they can move to LA to do breast implants. It should always be about skill sets in areas of demand and a certain mix of others on compassionate grounds. But using the same example you wouldn't need 1 million truck drivers to suddenly land looking for work.

[QUOTE who="ratdownthemiddle ","middleofthedownwr onggully"] since you......stand for 100% big oil...[/QUOTE]

My support for 100%(ethanol-free) gasoline(& the elimination of "ethanol in gasoline" industry), that would result in LESS oil burned, most certainly can't be interpreted as "standing for Big Oil". "ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" interprets it as such, showing its lack of science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra & pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.

litesong wrote:

Your Sunday meds are overdue.

OzRitz wrote:

I'd love to go to a National Park and not see anyone......

You can still travel alone in many woods, & plains & even have entire mountains to yourself. Better yet, see hundreds of animals, while people around you, see no animals at all.