"Save" the planet; starve an African
0BZN0
Mark Steyn:
The biofuels debacle is global warm-mongering in a nutshell:
The first victims of poseur environmentalism will always be developing
countries.
In order for you to put biofuel in your Prius and feel good about
yourself for no reason, real actual people in faraway places have to
starve to death.
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"If scientists say they are 100% sure, or that they are absolutely
certain about the cause and effect and ignore variables which might show
that they could be wrong, they are practicing junk science. Junk science
happens when scientists believe something based on just some of what
they see."
Fran
> April 29, 2008 at 06:27pm
>
> Mark Steyn:
>
> The biofuels debacle is global warm-mongering in a nutshell:
>
The ignorant deissembling and opportunistic response from the fossil
fuel lobby is denialism in a nutshell. Grab any factoid, and turn it
into an argument for protecting the interests of global polluters.
> The first victims of poseur environmentalism will always be
developing
> countries.
>
Actually, the first victims of poseur humanitarianism will be
developing countries, in the unlikely event anyone of substance is
silly enough to pay attention to them
> In order for you to put biofuel in your Prius and feel good about
> yourself for no reason, real actual people in faraway places have to
> starve to death.
A claim which, predictably, Mar Steyn makes no attempt to logically
support. For the GPC spruikers, it's the canard de jour.
Fran
Poetic Justice
> On Apr 30, 2:37 pm, "0BZN0" <0B...@ddo.com> wrote:
>> April 29, 2008 at 06:27pm
>>
>> Mark Steyn:
>>
>> The biofuels debacle is global warm-mongering in a nutshell:
>>
>
> The ignorant deissembling and opportunistic response from the fossil
> fuel lobby is denialism in a nutshell.
There is no real Warming to deny. I am waiting for you to prove your
hypothesis.
Fran
Dog.com> wrote:
> Fran wrote:
> > On Apr 30, 2:37 pm, "0BZN0" <0B...@ddo.com> wrote:
> >> April 29, 2008 at 06:27pm
>
> >> Mark Steyn:
>
> >> The biofuels debacle is global warm-mongering in a nutshell:
>
> > The ignorant deissembling and opportunistic response from the fossil
> > fuel lobby is denialism in a nutshell.
>
> There is no real Warming to deny.
Of course there is. That isn't even a theory. It's observable data.
Most of the deniers admit that the planet has warmed but want to argue
the toss about the causes or whether it's worth doing anything about
it.
> I am waiting for you to prove your
> hypothesis.
>
>
The theory that GHGs are driving a warming climate has been very well
established. You needn't await my response. Just take a look at the
IPCC reports. The onus is on you to come up with a theory for the
warming that fits the data better than GHG-forcing.
Irradiance and cosmic rays don't fit.
I note that you say nothing on the central claim made in this post
though.
Fran
Poetic Justice
> On Apr 30, 3:19 pm, Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-
> Dog.com> wrote:
>> Fran wrote:
>>> On Apr 30, 2:37 pm, "0BZN0" <0B...@ddo.com> wrote:
>>>> April 29, 2008 at 06:27pm
>>>> Mark Steyn:
>>>> The biofuels debacle is global warm-mongering in a nutshell:
>>> The ignorant deissembling and opportunistic response from the fossil
>>> fuel lobby is denialism in a nutshell.
>> There is no real Warming to deny.
>
> Of course there is. That isn't even a theory. It's observable data.
> Most of the deniers admit that the planet has warmed but want to argue
> the toss about the causes or whether it's worth doing anything about
> it.
>
10 years of flat to cooling temperature.
>> I am waiting for you to prove your
>> hypothesis.
>>
>>
>
> The theory that GHGs are driving a warming climate has been very well
> established. You needn't await my response. Just take a look at the
> IPCC reports. The onus is on you to come up with a theory for the
> warming that fits the data better than GHG-forcing.
>
Better? It's either it or it's not. Instead of showing what it isn't...
simply show the information that proves it to be absolute.
> Irradiance and cosmic rays don't fit.
Just because (A) doesn't fit, doesn't make (B) the correct answer.
Fran
Dog.com> wrote:
> Fran wrote:
> > On Apr 30, 3:19 pm, Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-
> > Dog.com> wrote:
> >> Fran wrote:
> >>> On Apr 30, 2:37 pm, "0BZN0" <0B...@ddo.com> wrote:
> >>>> April 29, 2008 at 06:27pm
> >>>> Mark Steyn:
> >>>> The biofuels debacle is global warm-mongering in a nutshell:
> >>> The ignorant deissembling and opportunistic response from the fossil
> >>> fuel lobby is denialism in a nutshell.
> >> There is no real Warming to deny.
>
> > Of course there is. That isn't even a theory. It's observable data.
> > Most of the deniers admit that the planet has warmed but want to argue
> > the toss about the causes or whether it's worth doing anything about
> > it.
>
> 10 years of flat to cooling temperature.
>
Take out the 1998 El Nino (worth about 0.3 degrees C and will happen
again soon enough) and you get a steady upward progression.
> >> I am waiting for you to prove your
> >> hypothesis.
>
> > The theory that GHGs are driving a warming climate has been very well
> > established. You needn't await my response. Just take a look at the
> > IPCC reports. The onus is on you to come up with a theory for the
> > warming that fits the data better than GHG-forcing.
>
> Better? It's either it or it's not. Instead of showing what it isn't...
> simply show the information that proves it to be absolute.
>
> > Irradiance and cosmic rays don't fit.
>
> Just because (A) doesn't fit, doesn't make (B) the correct answer.
>
>
That's true, but in this case not only doesn't A fit, but B ticks
enough boxes to be the correct answer, and there are no rival
candidates.
Fran
>
>
>
> > I note that you say nothing on the central claim made in this post
> > though.
>
> > Fran- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Fran
Here's how one source ranks the contributing factors to declining
world food stocks:
|||
Diouf blamed a confluence of recent supply and demand factors for the
crisis, and he predicted that those factors were here to stay. On the
supply side, these include the early effects of global warming, which
has decreased crop yields in some crucial places, and a shift away
from farming for human consumption toward crops for biofuels and
cattle feed. Demand for grain is increasing with the world population,
and more is diverted to feed cattle as the population of upwardly
mobile meat-eaters grows.
To make matters worse, high oil prices have doubled shipping costs in
the past year, putting enormous stress on poor nations that need to
import food as well as the humanitarian agencies that provide it.
Climate specialists say that the vulnerability will only increase as
further effects of climate change are felt. "If there's a significant
change in climate in one of our high production areas, if there is a
disease that effects a major crop, we are in a very risky situation,"
said Mark Howden of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organization in Canberra.
Already "unusual weather events," linked to climate change - such as
droughts, floods and storms - have decreased production in important
exporting countries like Australia and Ukraine, Diouf said.
In Southern Australia, a significant reduction in rainfall in the past
few years led some farmers to sell their land and move to Tasmania,
where water is more reliable, said Howden, one of the authors of a
recent series of papers in the Procedings of the National Academy of
Sciences on climate change and the world food supply.
"In the U.S., Australia, and Europe, there's a very substantial
capacity to adapt to the effects on food - with money, technology,
research and development," Howden said. "In the developing world,
there isn't."
The recent scientific papers concluded that farmers could adjust to 1
degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) to 3 degrees Celsius (5.4
degrees) of warming by switching to more resilient species, changing
planting times, or storing water for irrigation, for example.
But that after that, "all bets are off," said Francesco Tubiello, of
Columbia University Earth Institute. "Many people assume that we will
never have a problem with food production on a global scale, but there
is a strong potential for negative surprises."
In Europe, officials said they were already adjusting policies to the
reality of higher prices. The European Union recently suspended a "set-
aside" of land for next year - a longstanding program that essentially
paid farmers to leave 10 percent of their land untilled as a way to
increase farm prices and reduce surpluses. Also, starting in January,
import tariffs on all cereal will be eliminated for six months, to
make it easier for European countries to buy grain from elsewhere. But
that may make it even harder for poor countries to obtain the grain
they need.
In an effort to promote free markets, the European Union has been in
the process of reducing farm subsidies and this has accelerated the
process.
"It's much easier to do with the new economics," said Michael Mann a
spokesman for the EU agriculture commission. "We saw this coming to a
certain extent, but we are surprised at how quickly it is happening."
But he noted that farm prices the last few decades have been lower
than at any time in history, so the change seems extremely dramatic.
Diouf noted that there had been "tension and political unrest related
to food markets" in a number of poor countries this year, including
Morocco, Senegal and Mauritania. "We need to play a catalytic role to
quickly boost crop production in the most affected countries," he
said.
Part of the current problem is an outgrowth of prosperity. More people
in the world now eat meat, diverting grain from humans to livestock. A
more complicated issue is the use of crops to make biofuels, which are
often heavily subsidized. A major factor in rising corn prices
globally is that many farmers in the United States are now selling
their corn to make subsidized ethanol.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/17/europe/food.php
|||
He does mention biofuels along with cattle feed, but one does wonder
why the GPC are focusing on the former rather than the latter, and why
the fact that crude oil has gone up from about $US 33 BBL in March
2003 to about $US115 now doesn't get a mention from the fossil fool
lobby.
The cost of fossil fuels is an important component in producing food.
Corn to ethanol is of course, stupid, and should not be subsidised In
the US it has to be subsidised because sugar is protected and too
pricey to use to make ethanol. If it wasn't, then Brazilian ethanol
and sugar would depress prices but really, this is a red herring. The
principal factors are rising demands for meat, crop failures related
to climate change, rising fuel prices, and even to some extent,
attempts to support farmers in the develoiping world grow food in ways
that underpin prices, precisely so as to bring about greater equity.
Fran
desm...@uku.co.uk
the number we should be at -desmosus
MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE
> The biofuels debacle is global warm-mongering in a nutshell:
>
> The first victims of poseur environmentalism will always be developing
> countries.
>
> In order for you to put biofuel in your Prius and feel good about
> yourself for no reason, real actual people in faraway places have to
> starve to death.
LIBs are at WAR with Reality itself.
The fact that Life Requires effort disgusts them;
this is reinforced by an underlying more which compells
them to seize the undeserved, to demand to be ceded the unearned.
This is why LIBs hold up celebrities as the model of the Ideal self,
no real talent, no real daily effort, just a never ending parade of
paparazzi, restaurants, and late night lounge appearances to make.
Listen to what CTHILLARY is proposing.
Nothing short of extorting the unearned
on behalf of the undeserving, and the unwanting.
Rather than raise all boats, she will raze all mountains.
Rather than suffer people equality under a law in a justice which
restores she would have ALL PEOPLE suffer equally and extensively under
a law whose rules do not apply if you are liberal, depraved or powerful
enough.
This is WHY LIBs seek to reward the Guilty,
to Punish the Innocent, to Champion the Mediocre,
the Unworthy, the Depraved on the basis of their Depravity.
LIBs don't want you to realize,
that because Life requires effort,
it also rewards those who make that effort.
In the absence of effort, Death takes place naturally,
but it is the innate cowardice of LIBs to be consistant and
take that course of action. Instead, they want to take you with them.
To see what they hold up as their ideal. They express this in their Art,
which is the universal expression of the way life could and should be.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/459846.stm
Hillary steps into dung art row
If LIBs consider Elephant dung as Art, why not this?
http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/114328.jpg
That's right!
The same people who gave you
2 Liter flush toilets now want to take you all the way.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20038392/
Think outside the toilet bowl, historian says
The Western World's dependence on flush toilets
could be its environmental downfall.
And LIB Strategic Insanity
WON'T be the Western World's downfall?
The only Earth in Balance possible for a LIB
is one where Mankind become an Endangered Species.
HELLWORLD stands for Hillary. She has SUCH sights to show you.
LIBs will vote for Killary watching FOXnews liking BOTH!
CLINTON is Great and FOXnews is her Profit. OBEY HER. Now!
LIB Strategic Insanity can and MUST be defeated.
http://www.frootandbee.org/pictures/anime.gif
http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/122975.gif
To concede now CTHILLARY would send a message to constituents
and other potential adversaries around the world that
they can change our policies by questioning their truthfulness.
It would be open season on the Clinton Legacy...
A legacy which is no legacy because it embody no legitimacy.
HELLWORLD stands for CTHILLARY.
She has SUCH sights to show you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE15z7llRnw
Do you see?
The TRUELY Evil are abetted
by the Venal and the Weak.
CTHILLARY. Yes, I SEE...
http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/13629.jpg
Ouroboros_Rex
> April 29, 2008 at 06:27pm
>
>
>
> Mark Steyn:
ROFLMAO
hanson
news:0265313d-4d30-41be...@l25g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
"0BZN0" <0B...@ddo.com> or Mark Steyn wrote:
The biofuels debacle is global warm-mongering in a nutshell:
>
green criminal Fran wrote
The ignorant deissembling and opportunistic response from the fossil
fuel lobby is denialism in a nutshell. Grab any factoid, and turn it
into an argument for protecting the interests of global polluters.
>
hanson wrote:
The willful dissembling and opportunistic response from the green
shits is a con in a nutshell. Grab any factoid, and turn it into an
argument for protecting the interests of green shits....
who continue to operate according to the edicts of their
GREEN BIBLE that says:
>
= "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true. -- Paul Watson, Sea Shepard/ex-Greenpeace, &...
= "A lot of environmental [sci/soc/pol] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
= "If you don't know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then .... make it
= up on the spot ... for the mass-media today ... the truth is irrelevant."
= -- Paul Watson in Earthforce: An Earth Warrior's Guide to Strategy.
= "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)
= "It is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presen-
= tations" -- Al Gore, Chairman, Gen. Investment Management Bank
>
... and in this link below you will find the reason why you have been
classified as a little green idiot aka class 3 enviros:
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/70ed6372eccc32ba>
wherein it says:
===== enviros Class (3) -- the Little green idiot(s)...
.. .are the unpaid, well-meaning ones, in "environmental
groups", who think they do something for the "environment",
when in fact they are only the enablers and facilitators for
the class (2) enviros, who are harvesting the green $$$
which the class (1) enviros have extorted. (rest see link)
>
Green Crimes, Green Scams, Green Extortions & Green Lies:
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/14968cc3ee9939d4>
>
Nothing in recent history has been so bad and so corrupt as the
Green movement. --- It is merely a continuation of the planning
type that occurred under the Brown banner and then the Red one.
= Enviros use the same great lies of yore. Only the color changed.
= (A) Environmentalism is Communism in Green...
= (B) Environmentalism is Nazism in Green...
= (C) Environmentalism makes the Poor poorer and the Rich richer.
>
Yet all you class 3 enviros, you hordes of little green idiots
you keep on cheering for green causes, oblivious to that fact
that the Green sharpies are fucking you and fucking you over...
until you can't get a job when you come out of school, or lose
your home, or can't fill up your gas tank to get to work...
Serves you right!... you gullible green morons... AHAHAHA...
Thanks for the laughs..... ahahaha... ahahanson
>
PS:
Years ago, poster Eric Gisin had a prophetic notion when he said:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.org.sierra-club/msg/5bf027613f44f4fa>
"Fucking Greens should be shot for making the world so stupid".
Fran
> Little green idiot "Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:0265313d-4d30-41be...@l25g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> "0BZN0" <0B...@ddo.com> or Mark Steyn wrote:
> The biofuels debacle is global warm-mongering in a nutshell:
>
>
>
> green criminal Fran wrote
> fuel lobby is denialism in a nutshell. Grab any factoid, and turn it
> into an argument for protecting the interests of global polluters.
>
> hanson wrote:
>
"Hanson" may hate "the greens" but "Hanson" does share one gren idea
-- 'recycling'. "Hanson" recycles an absolute truckload of drivel with
no relevance at all to any contemporary discussion on environmental
policy.
Really all that "Hanson" can manage to say is that "Hanson" hates what
he takes to be 'greens'. "Hanson" might have used one line for that.
That those such as "Hanson" is the best the GPC can come up with just
underscores how desperate they are.
Anotgher example of this Maxim would be the enthusiasm with whicj
brainless GPC cnaller Bonzo quotes Mark Steyn ..
|||
The biofuels debacle is global warm-mongering in a nutshell:
The first victims of poseur environmentalism will always be
developing
countries.
In order for you to put biofuel in your Prius and feel good about
yourself for no reason, real actual people in faraway places have to
starve to death.
|||
Now normally, the fossil fool deniers say they don't like models,
especially ones they see as have more predictive results. So how good
at describing and modelling the world is Mark Steyn?
Mark Steyn was of course, the person who claimed that the Virginia
Tech students were 'too passive' in resisting that crazed gunman who
came to kill them on that fateful day.
According to The Guardian in 2006 he also predicted that George Bush
would win the 2000 presidential election in a landslide, said at
regular intervals that Osama bin Laden "will remain dead". Weeks after
the invasion of Iraq he assured his readers that there would be "no
widespread resentment at or resistance of the western military
presence"; in December 2003 he wrote that "another six weeks of
insurgency sounds about right, after which it will peter out"; and the
following March he insisted that: "I don't think it's possible for
anyone who looks at Iraq honestly to see it as anything other than a
success story
Now with an impressive track record of claims like that, there really
is only one place for a pundit to go ... and that's to the side of the
global polluters cartel where he can be in the company of others like
"Hanson" and Bonzo who don't make him feel stupid.
Fran
Fran
> "0BZN0" <0B...@ddo.com> or Mark Steyn wrote:
> The biofuels debacle is global warm-mongering in a nutshell:
>
>
>
> green criminal Fran wrote
> fuel lobby is denialism in a nutshell. Grab any factoid, and turn it
> into an argument for protecting the interests of global polluters.
>
> hanson wrote:
>
"Hanson" may hate "the greens" but "Hanson" does share one gren idea
-- 'recycling'. "Hanson" recycles an absolute truckload of drivel with
no relevance at all to any contemporary discussion on environmental
policy.
Really all that "Hanson" can manage to say is that "Hanson" hates what
he takes to be 'greens'. "Hanson" might have used one line for that.
That those such as "Hanson" is the best the GPC can come up with just
underscores how desperate they are.
Anotgher example of this Maxim would be the enthusiasm with whicj
brainless GPC cnaller Bonzo quotes Mark Steyn ..
|||
The biofuels debacle is global warm-mongering in a nutshell:
The first victims of poseur environmentalism will always be
developing
countries.
In order for you to put biofuel in your Prius and feel good about
yourself for no reason, real actual people in faraway places have to
starve to death.
|||
Now normally, the fossil fool deniers say they don't like models,
hanson
"Fran" <Fran...@gmail.com> the little green idiot cranked
himself & wrote in message
news:c952dec2-3517-4896...@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
that he does not know why he is a class 3 enviro..
So, bless you, fat-bro-fran, & here it is again, for your benefit:
"0BZN0" <0B...@ddo.com> or Mark Steyn wrote:
The biofuels debacle is global warm-mongering in a nutshell:
>
green criminal Fran wrote:
fuel lobby is denialism in a nutshell. Grab any factoid, and turn it
into an argument for protecting the interests of global polluters.
>
hanson wrote:
hanson
"Fran" <Fran...@gmail.com> the little green idiot cranked
himself & wrote in message
that he does not know why he is a class 3 enviro..
So, bless you, fat-bro-fran, & here it is again, for your benefit:
>
>
"0BZN0" <0B...@ddo.com> or Mark Steyn wrote:
The biofuels debacle is global warm-mongering in a nutshell:
>
green criminal Fran wrote:
fuel lobby is denialism in a nutshell. Grab any factoid, and turn it
into an argument for protecting the interests of global polluters.
>
hanson wrote:
Fran
> ...... ahahahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha.....
<snip reposted drivel leaving in the most enlightening portions>
Take a hike spammer.
Fran
hanson
Fran, thanks for giving me the microphone again, you showing
that you really look forward to my response. So, here it is:
Rifty
> Better? It's either it or it's not. Instead of showing what it isn't...
> simply show the information that proves it to be absolute.
You want absolutes dealing with a massive range of data where there will
always be conflicting evidence? Science has never demanded absolutes
before in such circumstances. Theories are put up, and humans act on
what seems most likely based on the known evidence. If more evidence
comes to light that demands a change in approach, that's what science
always has done. In fact, that's what all rational humans do in their
daily life, in just about every decision they make.
Don't even think of absolutes unless you want to try to begin to act
long after it's too late. You don't have that luxury - or at least, your
children don't.
Rifty.
--
riftynet - put a dot after rifty
Poetic Justice
> Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote:
>
>> Better? It's either it or it's not. Instead of showing what it isn't...
>> simply show the information that proves it to be absolute.
>
> You want absolutes dealing with a massive range of data where there will
> always be conflicting evidence? Science has never demanded absolutes
> before in such circumstances. Theories are put up, and humans act on
1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting
point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
Once predictions are made, they can be tested by *experiments* . If
test results contradict predictions, then the hypotheses are *called
into question* and explanations may be sought. Sometimes experiments are
conducted incorrectly and are at fault. If the results confirm the
predictions, then the hypotheses are considered *likely to be correct*
but might still be wrong and are subject to *further testing* . The
experimental control is a technique for dealing with observational
error. This technique uses the contrast between *multiple samples* (or
observations) under differing conditions, to see *what varies* or what
remains the same. We vary the conditions for each measurement, to help
isolate what has changed. Mill's canons can then help us figure out what
the important factor is. Factor analysis is one technique for
discovering the important factor in an effect.
Depending on the predictions, the experiments can have different shapes.
It could be a classical experiment in a laboratory setting, a
double-blind study or an archaeological excavation. Even taking a plane
from New York to Paris is an experiment which tests the aerodynamical
hypotheses used for constructing the plane.
Scientists assume an attitude of openness and accountability on the part
of those conducting an experiment. Detailed record keeping is essential,
to aid in recording and reporting on the experimental results, and
providing evidence of the effectiveness and integrity of the procedure.
They will also assist in *reproducing* the experimental *results* .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
> what seems most likely based on the known evidence. If more evidence
> comes to light that demands a change in approach, that's what science
> always has done. In fact, that's what all rational humans do in their
> daily life, in just about every decision they make.
>
> Don't even think of absolutes unless you want to try to begin to act
> long after it's too late. You don't have that luxury - or at least, your
> children don't.
Proof and reproduce the same results....