step 8
MNMikeW
The U.N.'s controversial climate report is coming under fire -- again --
this time by one of its own scientists, who admits he can't find any
evidence to support a warning about a climate-caused North African food
shortage.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/08/british-scientist-says-panel-losing-credibility/
Jack Hollis
wrote:
Things just get worse and worse for the AGW crowd.
Officials in both China and India have dismissed the IPCC as not
trustworthy and it's doubtful that either one of them will sign on to
any international treaty on reducing CO2. Obviously, if China and
India don't, the chance of getting any treaty past the US Senate is
zero.
Moderate
"MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7tb34t...@mid.individual.net...
Is record snow a sign of Global Warming?
Carbon
It's statistically insignificant. So, no.
John B.
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:23:24 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The U.N.'s controversial climate report is coming under fire -- again --
> >this time by one of its own scientists, who admits he can't find any
> >evidence to support a warning about a climate-caused North African food
> >shortage.
>
>
> Things just get worse and worse for the AGW crowd.
>
> Officials in both China and India have dismissed the IPCC as not
> trustworthy and it's doubtful that either one of them will sign on to
> any international treaty on reducing CO2. Obviously, if China and
> India don't, the chance of getting any treaty past the US Senate is
> zero.
China and India will grasp at any excuse to get out of a treaty
binding them to emissions reduction targets.
Jack Hollis
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 8, 7:52=A0pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:23:24 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The U.N.'s controversial climate report is coming under fire -- again --=
> =A0
>> >this time by one of its own scientists, who admits he can't find any
>> >evidence to support a warning about a climate-caused North African food
>> >shortage.
>>
>> >http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/08/british-scientist-says-pane...
>>
>> Things just get worse and worse for the AGW crowd. =A0
>>
>> Officials in both China and India have dismissed the IPCC as not
>> trustworthy and it's doubtful that either one of them will sign on to
>> any international treaty on reducing CO2. =A0Obviously, if China and
>> India don't, the chance of getting any treaty past the US Senate is
>> zero.
>
>China and India will grasp at any excuse to get out of a treaty
>binding them to emissions reduction targets.
Neither nation was required to reduce emission by the Kyoto Treaty, so
that's not a problem for them. However, now with the IPCC being
totally discredited, I doubt they ever will agree to reductions.
Why should any nation agree to a treaty that will hurt its economy
based on bad science?
William Clark
Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
I believe it is actually due to an El Nino (a warm current) off the
coast, that is providing additional moisture that is turning into snow.
So, no.
BAR
@o8g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com says...
>
> On Feb 8, 7:52ï¿œpm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:23:24 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >this time by one of its own scientists, who admits he can't find any
> > >evidence to support a warning about a climate-caused North African food
> > >shortage.
> >
> > >http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/08/british-scientist-says-pane...
> >
> >
> > Officials in both China and India have dismissed the IPCC as not
> > trustworthy and it's doubtful that either one of them will sign on to
> > India don't, the chance of getting any treaty past the US Senate is
> > zero.
>
> China and India will grasp at any excuse to get out of a treaty
> binding them to emissions reduction targets.
Why will they, China and India, not enter into any treaty or agreement
that will bind them to emissions controls, reductions, targets?
BAR
state.edu>, wcl...@colnospamumbus.rr.com says...
It appears that your climate/weather guessers can't predict when the
next El Nino or La Nina is going to occur.
And, there is a body of thought that believes that the decacal
oscilations have more of an effect on our climate/weather than does CO2.
But, there is no way to tax the Oceans themselves so the UN isn't
interested in "studying" them.
John B.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 8, 7:52 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:23:24 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...@aol.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >The U.N.'s controversial climate report is coming under fire -- again --
> > > >evidence to support a warning about a climate-caused North African food
> > > >shortage.
>
> > > >http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/08/british-scientist-says-pane...
>
> > > Things just get worse and worse for the AGW crowd.
>
> > > trustworthy and it's doubtful that either one of them will sign on to
> > > India don't, the chance of getting any treaty past the US Senate is
> > > zero.
>
> > China and India will grasp at any excuse to get out of a treaty
> > binding them to emissions reduction targets.
>
> Why will they, China and India, not enter into any treaty or agreement
> that will bind them to emissions controls, reductions, targets?
Because they think (correctly) that the developed world is responsible
for most of the CO2 in the atmosphere so the developed world should
bear the brunt of emissions reductions.
BAR
@c10g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com says...
You are wrong, as usual.
China and India are now and will continue to increase the amount of CO2
they are dumping into the atmosphere. They are not stupid enough to
hamstring their economies by placing artificial limits based upon
artificial data on their ability to expand their economies and produce
goods and services to support their populations.
MNMikeW
"Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4b71f969$0$4963$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
Someone might want to clue in MSNBCs Dylan Ratigan in on it.
Here's the problem - these 'snowpocalypses' that have been going through
D.C. and other extreme weather events are precisely what climate scientists
have been predicting, fearing and anticipating because of global warming,"
Ratigan said.
http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2010/20100209101507.aspx
BAR
I've lived in DC since 1971. We usually get these major snow events
every couple of years. When I was in junior high school we had a about
18 to 24 inches of snow. My street didn't get plowed for 5 days. When I
was a Senior in high school it was the Washington's birthday blizzard.
About 24+ inches of snow, again no school for a week and no plow for 4
or 5 days. Then in '83 there was a bad snow storm and again in 87 there
was another one. In 93, 96 it was bad really bad. Our Norwegian au-pair,
thought 96 was just a little bit of snow. Again, there have been a
couple of events in the '00s. This is nothing new in the DC area it is
just normal periodic activity that has not increased or decreased in
frequency.
I don't know why anyone watches MSNBC other than for the entertainment
value.
John B.
> In article <50835108-506c-4f83-af83-07f14354bf09
> @c10g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, johnb...@gmail.com says...
CO2 persists in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. During the 20th
century, almost all CO2 emissions came from the United States and
Europe. China and India are major emitters, but they're relative
newcomers.
Jack Hollis
>It appears that your climate/weather guessers can't predict when the
>next El Nino or La Nina is going to occur.
I think that climate alarmists are instructed to mention El Nino or La
Nina whenever they are presented with data that doesn't fit the model.
The fact remains that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that
humans are having any significant impact of global climate one way or
the other. And anyone who says otherwise is either misguided, lying
or doesn't understand the limits of science.
BAR
1831de...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com says...
> > > > Why will they, China and India, not enter into any treaty or agreement
> > > > that will bind them to emissions controls, reductions, targets?
> >
> > > Because they think (correctly) that the developed world is responsible
> > > for most of the CO2 in the atmosphere so the developed world should
> > > bear the brunt of emissions reductions.
> >
> > You are wrong, as usual.
> >
> > China and India are now and will continue to increase the amount of CO2
> > they are dumping into the atmosphere. They are not stupid enough to
> > hamstring their economies by placing artificial limits based upon
> > artificial data on their ability to expand their economies and produce
> > goods and services to support their populations.
>
> CO2 persists in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. During the 20th
> century, almost all CO2 emissions came from the United States and
> Europe. China and India are major emitters, but they're relative
> newcomers.
Are you proposing that China and India get to pollute the atmosphere and
the earth as much and for as long as the rest of the technologically
advanced world has to make things even? If CO2 is bad it does not matter
who is doing the polluting does it?
I suggest that you lead by example and terminate your emissions of all
CO2 as soon as possible as a great and honorable gesture to the world.
John B.
> In article <533dbcb3-d6b8-4f84-9743-
> 1831de625...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, johnb...@gmail.com says...
No, I'm not suggesting that, Bert. I'm just stating the facts.
Dinosaur_Sr
I don't think you can argue that humans have zero impact. You can
argue like liberals and simply refuse to be convinced no matter what,
but that makes one look lie as much of a fool.
The issue, at least IMHO, is" So What?". What is missing is evidence
that there is any severe impact (outside the impact of simply
sequestering the resources needed to maintain 6.5 billion or so
humans).
One thing for sure, there is no evidence that changes in CO2 levels
have or ever have had any significant impact. Organic farmers destroy
more life than has been destroyed by variations in CO2 levels as
simply represented by the fact that natural systems cannot exist on
the farms, and thus the loss of nature is unquestionable.
La Nina causes drying in western North America that alarmists
attribute to global warming, an aspect that is 100% predictable!
BAR
@t1g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com says...
What is your proposed solution?
Dinosaur_Sr
> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4b71f969$0$4963$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> > On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 05:34:10 -0600, Moderate wrote:
> >>news:7tb34t...@mid.individual.net...
>
> >>> The U.N.'s controversial climate report is coming under fire -- again
> >>> -- this time by one of its own scientists, who admits he can't find
> >>> any evidence to support a warning about a climate-caused North
> >>> African food shortage.
>
> >>>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/08/british-scientist-says-panel-
> >>> losing-credibility/
>
> >> Is record snow a sign of Global Warming?
>
> > It's statistically insignificant. So, no.
>
> Someone might want to clue in MSNBCs Dylan Ratigan in on it.
>
> Here's the problem - these 'snowpocalypses' that have been going through
> D.C. and other extreme weather events are precisely what climate scientists
> have been predicting, fearing and anticipating because of global warming,"
> Ratigan said.
>
> http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2010/20100209101507.aspx
A theory that predicts whatever happens is the product of pseudo-
science. Kinda like mind readers. Make enough statements and some will
be true. Someone predicts a more snow, another predicts the same
amount of snow, another predicts less snow...and one of the has to be
right.
John B.
> In article <fb9a528d-9604-4812-8618-9319f3d9c152
> @t1g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>, johnb...@gmail.com says...
I don't have one.
bkn...@conramp.net
DAMN ! This means that we have someone who admits to not having an
answer !!
What is Usenet coming to?
BK
BAR
@f8g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com says...
But, you are willing to let others make them even when the research they
are depending upon is proved faulty, incorrect and politically
motivated.
There is a reason that MD's call it practicing medicine. There is too
much they don't know.
Scientist should show the same humility.
Jack Hollis
<frostb...@att.net> wrote:
>> I think that climate alarmists are instructed to mention El Nino or La
>> Nina whenever they are presented with data that doesn't fit the model.
>> The fact remains that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that
>> humans are having any significant impact of global climate one way or
>> the other. =A0And anyone who says otherwise is either misguided, lying
>> or doesn't understand the limits of science.
>
>I don't think you can argue that humans have zero impact. You can
>argue like liberals and simply refuse to be convinced no matter what,
>but that makes one look lie as much of a fool.
>
>The issue, at least IMHO, is" So What?". What is missing is evidence
>that there is any severe impact (outside the impact of simply
>sequestering the resources needed to maintain 6.5 billion or so
>humans).
>
>One thing for sure, there is no evidence that changes in CO2 levels
>have or ever have had any significant impact. Organic farmers destroy
>more life than has been destroyed by variations in CO2 levels as
>simply represented by the fact that natural systems cannot exist on
>the farms, and thus the loss of nature is unquestionable.
>
>La Nina causes drying in western North America that alarmists
>attribute to global warming, an aspect that is 100% predictable!
I agree that it is very likely that humans are having some impact on
global warming. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and this is well-established.
It is also well-established that humans are releasing CO2 into the
atmosphere. Of course, the trick is to determine how much human
activity is contributing to the current warming period on earth.
Unfortunately, anyone who understands the limitations of what science
can do, knows that the exact impact that humans are having cannot be
determined. My guess is that it's fairly small, but you never know.
I hope I'm right because humans are not going to stop pumping CO2 into
the atmosphere. Of course, I can't really say that global warming is
necessarily bad. I'd be much more concerned about another ice age.
Hor...@net.net
<john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>CO2 persists in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. During the 20th
>century, almost all CO2 emissions came from the United States and
>Europe. China and India are major emitters, but they're relative
>newcomers.
If you've ever been to Iowa and seen corn growing, you would never
worry about CO2 in the atmosphere. I'm sure the US takes out more CO2
than it puts in.
Vote for Palin-Brown in 2012.
Hor...@Horvath.net
My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."
assim...@borg.org
On 9-Feb-2010, "John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Because they think (correctly) that the developed world is responsible
> for most of the CO2 in the atmosphere so the developed world should
> bear the brunt of emissions reductions.
What are you smoking? China is the #1 emitter today:
http://tinyurl.com/y8j4xur
--
bill-o
assim...@borg.org
On 10-Feb-2010, "John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
> CO2 persists in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. During the 20th
> century, almost all CO2 emissions came from the United States and
> Europe. China and India are major emitters, but they're relative
> newcomers.
today's atmosphere is around 330ppm CO2; this is historically low and has
been up as high as 1000+ ppm in the past.
--
bill-o
John B.
China just became the #1 emitter. Because CO2 persists in the
atmosphere for over 100 years, most of the CO2 up there now cam from
developed countries, i.e. the US and Europe.
John B.
BAR
3ae6f2...@w31g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com says...
Did the dinosaurs inherit the planet? What did they do to kill
themselves off? They sure did a poor job passing it off to their
children.
How did it get to 1000 ppm? How did the Earth survive these high CO2
levels?
How did it go from 1000 ppm to 330 ppm?
Does CO2 follow a cycle, you know, like the ice ages do.
Don Kirkman
article <k9Ncn.71267$s%.19958@newsfe18.iad>:
There are samplings of CO2 over the past several hundred years
(depending on location) reported at
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm.
They seem to show statistically significant but not constant rises
over the periods sampled, but be aware that some graphs start from a
base reading higher than zero, which distorts the chart, giving the
impression of a higher rate of increase than is actually occurring.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
Don Kirkman
<MPG.25dce1c28...@news.giganews.com>:
>Scientist should show the same humility.
As should non-scientists, atheists, socialists, Democrats, Republicans
. . . .
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
>It seems to me I heard somewhere that BAR wrote in article
><MPG.25dce1c28...@news.giganews.com>:
>
>>Scientist should show the same humility.
>
>As should non-scientists, atheists, socialists, Democrats, Republicans
>. . . .
.... and especially RSGers.
BK
John B.
> In article <c6405cfb-6727-4f3b-b589-
> 3ae6f20b8...@w31g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, johnb...@gmail.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 11, 1:08 am, assimil...@borg.org wrote:
> > > On 10-Feb-2010, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > CO2 persists in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. During the 20th
> > > > century, almost all CO2 emissions came from the United States and
> > > > Europe. China and India are major emitters, but they're relative
> > > > newcomers.
>
> > > today's atmosphere is around 330ppm CO2; this is historically low and has
> > > been up as high as 1000+ ppm in the past.
>
> > > --
> > > bill-o
>
> > Did humans inhabit the planet when it was 1000 ppm?
>
> Did the dinosaurs inherit the planet? What did they do to kill
> themselves off? They sure did a poor job passing it off to their
> children.
>
> How did it get to 1000 ppm? How did the Earth survive these high CO2
> levels?
>
> How did it go from 1000 ppm to 330 ppm?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
The dinosaurs didn't "kill themselves off." The question is not
whether earth can survive significant warning, but whether any number
of life forms can survive.
BAR
@h12g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com says...
>
> On Feb 11, 12:16ï¿œpm, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> > In article <c6405cfb-6727-4f3b-b589-
> > 3ae6f20b8...@w31g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, johnb...@gmail.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 11, 1:08ï¿œam, assimil...@borg.org wrote:
> > > > On 10-Feb-2010, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > CO2 persists in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. During the 20th
> > > > > century, almost all CO2 emissions came from the United States and
> > > > > Europe. China and India are major emitters, but they're relative
> > > > > newcomers.
> >
> > > > today's atmosphere is around 330ppm CO2; this is historically low and has
> > > > been up as high as 1000+ ppm in the past.
> >
> > > > --
> > > > bill-o
> >
> > > Did humans inhabit the planet when it was 1000 ppm?
> >
> > Did the dinosaurs inherit the planet? What did they do to kill
> > themselves off? They sure did a poor job passing it off to their
> > children.
> >
> > How did it get to 1000 ppm? How did the Earth survive these high CO2
> > levels?
> >
> >
> > Does CO2 follow a cycle, you know, like the ice ages do.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The dinosaurs didn't "kill themselves off." The question is not
> whether earth can survive significant warning, but whether any number
> of life forms can survive.
Maybe we are not intended to survive. The dinosaurs were only here for a
short while. Many animals have only been on the Earth for a short while.
What makes you think that man is supposed to exist forever?
John B.
> In article <72f2eced-67d9-4ea5-b0ee-f58b1719e3b6
> @h12g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, johnb...@gmail.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 11, 12:16 pm, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> > > In article <c6405cfb-6727-4f3b-b589-
> > > 3ae6f20b8...@w31g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, johnb...@gmail.com says...
>
> > > > > On 10-Feb-2010, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > CO2 persists in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. During the 20th
> > > > > > century, almost all CO2 emissions came from the United States and
> > > > > > Europe. China and India are major emitters, but they're relative
> > > > > > newcomers.
>
> > > > > today's atmosphere is around 330ppm CO2; this is historically low and has
> > > > > been up as high as 1000+ ppm in the past.
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > bill-o
>
> > > > Did humans inhabit the planet when it was 1000 ppm?
>
> > > Did the dinosaurs inherit the planet? What did they do to kill
> > > themselves off? They sure did a poor job passing it off to their
> > > children.
>
> > > How did it get to 1000 ppm? How did the Earth survive these high CO2
> > > levels?
>
> > > How did it go from 1000 ppm to 330 ppm?
>
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > The dinosaurs didn't "kill themselves off." The question is not
> > whether earth can survive significant warning, but whether any number
> > of life forms can survive.
>
> Maybe we are not intended to survive. The dinosaurs were only here for a
> short while. Many animals have only been on the Earth for a short while.
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't think that. I do think that mankind should have and does have
an interest in its survival, rather than saying fuck it, we're outa
here.
Howard Brazee
>Did the dinosaurs inherit the planet? What did they do to kill
>themselves off? They sure did a poor job passing it off to their
>children.
How many hundreds of millions of years is necessary to be
"successful"?
(Their descendents are flying around today).
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
BAR
how...@brazee.net says...
>
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:16:09 -0500, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>
> >Did the dinosaurs inherit the planet? What did they do to kill
> >themselves off? They sure did a poor job passing it off to their
> >children.
>
> How many hundreds of millions of years is necessary to be
> "successful"?
>
> (Their descendents are flying around today).
I ate one last night.
Don Kirkman
<189a8a0d-e669-4528...@f12g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>:
>On Feb 10, 11:45�am, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 22:23:44 -0500, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>> >It appears that your climate/weather guessers can't predict when the
>> >next El Nino or La Nina is going to occur.
>One thing for sure, there is no evidence that changes in CO2 levels
>have or ever have had any significant impact. Organic farmers destroy
>more life than has been destroyed by variations in CO2 levels as
>simply represented by the fact that natural systems cannot exist on
>the farms, and thus the loss of nature is unquestionable.
Are you using "organic" in the common sense of "natural, without use
of pesticides and chemical fertilizer"? If so I think there are
several millennia of human experience against you.
>La Nina causes drying in western North America that alarmists
>attribute to global warming, an aspect that is 100% predictable!
Yeah, but there are alarmist and then there are scientists who are
alarmed but reasonable.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
Don Kirkman
<3sn5n5t19qodufgi7...@4ax.com>:
>On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 22:23:44 -0500, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>>It appears that your climate/weather guessers can't predict when the
>>next El Nino or La Nina is going to occur.
>I think that climate alarmists are instructed to mention El Nino or La
>Nina whenever they are presented with data that doesn't fit the model.
>The fact remains that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that
>humans are having any significant impact of global climate one way or
>the other. And anyone who says otherwise is either misguided, lying
>or doesn't understand the limits of science.
I am not a climatologist, but don't El Nino and La Nina simply
represent periodic phenomena with no more relation to long-range
forecasts than the current blizzards? We're certainly getting the El
Nino effects that were expected this year, following several unnamed
or El Nina seasons.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
John B.
How are organic farmers more destructive of life than non-organic
farmers?
assim...@borg.org
On 11-Feb-2010, "John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > today's atmosphere is around 330ppm CO2; this is historically low and
> > has
> > been up as high as 1000+ ppm in the past.
> >
> > --
> > bill-o
>
> Did humans inhabit the planet when it was 1000 ppm?
Only in cheesy dinosaur movies
--
bill-o
assim...@borg.org
On 11-Feb-2010, "John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The dinosaurs didn't "kill themselves off." The question is not
> whether earth can survive significant warning, but whether any number
> of life forms can survive.
sure, life was abudant during this period. CO2 is not a poison.
--
bill-o
BAR
@v36g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com says...
> How are organic farmers more destructive of life than non-organic
> farmers?
First you are going to have to explicitly define organic farming.
Dinosaur_Sr
Dinosaurs are still with us. We call them birds today. Just the big
ones went extinct, as big things are prone to do.
Dinosaur_Sr
> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dinosaur_Sr wrote in article
If La Nina is alarming to you you need to find some pill to take to
get over it!
Dinosaur_Sr
They remove the natural system that is there, in very productive
ecosystems, and replace the life that was there with kale, spinach and
other ecologically useless phenomena!
assim...@borg.org
On 12-Feb-2010, Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...@att.net> wrote:
> > How are organic farmers more destructive of life than non-organic
> > farmers?
>
> They remove the natural system that is there, in very productive
> ecosystems, and replace the life that was there with kale, spinach and
> other ecologically useless phenomena!
you still haven't differentiated it from non-organic farming, which not only
removes the ecosystems and replaces it with ecologially useless phenomena
such a corn & soybeans then dumps tons of nitrogen-phosphorsus-potash on it,
enough in fact that it can wash down into the nearest watershed and create a
dead zone in the ocean, along with things to kill the hardiest plants &
inscests in the ecosystem that resist the invasion of the interlopers. Again
how is it different?
--
bill-o
John B.
>
> > How are organic farmers more destructive of life than non-organic
> > farmers?
>
> First you are going to have to explicitly define organic farming.
First, I wasn't asking you and second, organic farming is that which
conforms to the organic standards promulgated by USDA.
John B.
>
> - Show quoted text -
And how does that differ from non-organic farming?
BAR
@z19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com says...
A bit petulant today Johnny?
Title XXI Organic Certification just means you don't use synthetic
chemicals in the production or handling of the product. But, you can use
a field that had synthetic chemicals 3 years ago and use it and it still
qualifies as organic.
John B.
> In article <cd0999e1-3f42-4633-8c17-b5aa69033be5
> @z19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, johnb...@gmail.com says...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 12, 7:20 am, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> > > In article <cf18bcef-c7ac-4a8c-8277-a1421f8f3924
> > > @v36g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>, johnb...@gmail.com says...
>
> > > > How are organic farmers more destructive of life than non-organic
> > > > farmers?
>
> > > First you are going to have to explicitly define organic farming.
>
> > First, I wasn't asking you and second, organic farming is that which
> > conforms to the organic standards promulgated by USDA.
>
> A bit petulant today Johnny?
>
> Title XXI Organic Certification just means you don't use synthetic
> chemicals in the production or handling of the product. But, you can use
> a field that had synthetic chemicals 3 years ago and use it and it still
> qualifies as organic.
So?
BAR
15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com says...
Organic = twice the manure, half the volume and twice the price.
Don Kirkman
>If La Nina is alarming to you you need to find some pill to take to
>get over it!
I don't think I said or implied that in anything I wrote. LN's normal
effect is slightly dryer colder winters, and has nothing to do with
being alarmed or concerned about global warming. It and its sibling
EN are mere bumps on the long range trend line.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
Carbon
God almighty you're so obvious. Can't think of anything to say, ask for
a definition. You're not fooling anyone. Just admit that you don't know
and get it over with.
Dinosaur_Sr
Irrelevant. The fact is you can clearly demonstrate that organic
farming does in fact harm the environment. Cut and dried, no doubt
about it. Whereas the addition of more of the important plant nutrient
CO2 to the air cannot be shown so conclusively and in such a cut and
dried manner to cause harm to the environment.
Dinosaur_Sr
> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dinosaur_Sr wrote in article
>
> >If La Nina is alarming to you you need to find some pill to take to
> >get over it!
>
> I don't think I said or implied that in anything I wrote. LN's normal
> effect is slightly dryer colder winters, and has nothing to do with
> being alarmed or concerned about global warming. It and its sibling
> EN are mere bumps on the long range trend line.
> --
> Don Kirkman
That's true, but I saw a show on The Discovery Channel a month or so
ago where some global warming alarmist was attributing drying on the
west coast that I know was caused by La Nina to global warming. Saw
another idiot attributing drying of north Africa to global warming
too, which is funny because I have seen presentations by real
climatologists who have attributed that phenomenon to global cooling.
John B.
All agriculture harms the environment. What I asked you was how
organic farming was more destructive than non-organic.
Jack Hollis
>Organic = twice the manure, half the volume and twice the price.
For people who are stupid enough to believe anything.
John B.
Yes, preferring produce that hasn't had Round-up or methyl chloride
sprayed on it? How stupid can you get?
assim...@borg.org
On 12-Feb-2010, Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...@att.net> wrote:
> That's true, but I saw a show on The Discovery Channel a month or so
> ago where some global warming alarmist was attributing drying on the
> west coast that I know was caused by La Nina to global warming. Saw
> another idiot attributing drying of north Africa to global warming
> too, which is funny because I have seen presentations by real
> climatologists who have attributed that phenomenon to global cooling.
And I have seen one theory that ties the rise of the Sahara to that of the
Himalayas
--
bill-o
Don Kirkman
>On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:58:45 -0500, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>>Organic = twice the manure, half the volume and twice the price.
>For people who are stupid enough to believe anything.
Goes well with $5.00 a bottle tap water with a French name.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
Don Kirkman
article <RApdn.50396$zN4....@newsfe05.iad>:
>
>On 12-Feb-2010, Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> That's true, but I saw a show on The Discovery Channel a month or so
>> ago where some global warming alarmist was attributing drying on the
>> west coast that I know was caused by La Nina to global warming. Saw
>> another idiot attributing drying of north Africa to global warming
>> too, which is funny because I have seen presentations by real
>> climatologists who have attributed that phenomenon to global cooling.
But most of us are, or should be, wise enough to get our science from
real scientists, not from radical alarmists. I don't even find them
amusing or interesting. Extremism is one of our current fads and one
of our current problems.
>And I have seen one theory that ties the rise of the Sahara to that of the
>Himalayas
How much did the Sahara rise? I know the Rif and Atlas mountains are
there, but hardly comparable to the Himalayas, IMO.
OTOH whatever led to the destruction of its ancient forests did turn
the Sahara from an apparently well forested region into a desert.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
Carbon
And some museums http://creationmuseum.org/
BAR
nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
There's your problem right there Carbs. You are afraid of starting out
with a level playing field.
Again, what is your definition of Organic farming? I know what the
USDA's definition is but, that doesn't mean it is the same definition as
the guy framing his 40 acres down the street.
BAR
b2189c...@a1g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com says...
Its all about trade offs.
Jack Hollis
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 12, 7:47=A0pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:58:45 -0500, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>> >Organic =3D twice the manure, half the volume and twice the price.
>>
>> For people who are stupid enough to believe anything.
>
>Yes, preferring produce that hasn't had Round-up or methyl chloride
>sprayed on it? How stupid can you get?
There is some evidence that you're more likely to get pesticide
residue on regular produce, but if you just wash your food before
cooking, this is removed. Organic food does not taste better and is
no more nutritious. There is the possibility of more toxins in
organic produce because of the plants natural defense to insects which
are more likely to attack organically grown food. Also the
fertilizers used in organic farming are no that appealing.
All in all, anyone who pays extra for organic food is a fool.
Jack Hollis
wrote:
Penn and Teller did a "Bullshit" episode on organic foods and you can
see what complete nonsense it is. Yet people continue to waste their
money for nothing.
John B.
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 18:58:27 -0800 (PST), "John B."
>
You can wash chemical residues off an apple or a carrot, but that's
not what most people eat. The average American's diet consists mostly
of processed food and fast food. You can't wash the chemicals out of a
Big Mac or a box of Cap'n Crunch or a Stouffer's frozen dinner, not to
mention the high fructose corn syrup and all the other junk. You want
to eat that shit and feed it to your kids, be my guest.
assim...@borg.org
On 13-Feb-2010, Don Kirkman <don...@charter.net> wrote:
> >And I have seen one theory that ties the rise of the Sahara to that of
> >the
> >Himalayas
>
> How much did the Sahara rise?
rise is figurative here, as in the formation of
--
bill-o
BAR
733c35...@v36g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com says...
>
> On Feb 13, 7:12ï¿œpm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 18:58:27 -0800 (PST), "John B."
> >
> > <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Feb 12, 7:47=A0pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:58:45 -0500, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> > >> >Organic =3D twice the manure, half the volume and twice the price.
> >
> > >> For people who are stupid enough to believe anything.
> >
> > >Yes, preferring produce that hasn't had Round-up or methyl chloride
> > >sprayed on it? How stupid can you get?
> >
> > There is some evidence that you're more likely to get pesticide
> > residue on regular produce, but if you just wash your food before
> > no more nutritious. ï¿œThere is the possibility of more toxins in
> > organic produce because of the plants natural defense to insects which
> > fertilizers used in organic farming are no that appealing.
> >
> > All in all, anyone who pays extra for organic food is a fool.
>
> You can wash chemical residues off an apple or a carrot, but that's
> not what most people eat. The average American's diet consists mostly
> of processed food and fast food. You can't wash the chemicals out of a
> Big Mac or a box of Cap'n Crunch or a Stouffer's frozen dinner, not to
> mention the high fructose corn syrup and all the other junk. You want
> to eat that shit and feed it to your kids, be my guest.
It sounds like you need to change your diet John.
Howard Brazee
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You can wash chemical residues off an apple or a carrot, but that's
>not what most people eat. The average American's diet consists mostly
>of processed food and fast food. You can't wash the chemicals out of a
>Big Mac or a box of Cap'n Crunch or a Stouffer's frozen dinner, not to
>mention the high fructose corn syrup and all the other junk. You want
>to eat that shit and feed it to your kids, be my guest.
If we eat that junk, we might die at 70 instead living to be 80. Or
maybe not.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Jack Hollis
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> All in all, anyone who pays extra for organic food is a fool.
>
>You can wash chemical residues off an apple or a carrot, but that's
>not what most people eat. The average American's diet consists mostly
>of processed food and fast food. You can't wash the chemicals out of a
>Big Mac or a box of Cap'n Crunch or a Stouffer's frozen dinner, not to
>mention the high fructose corn syrup and all the other junk. You want
>to eat that shit and feed it to your kids, be my guest.
This is a separate issue. Any person, kid or not, can have a very
healthy diet without ever eating organic food. There is absolutely no
advantage to eating organic food. Paying extra money for nothing
makes no sense.
When I lived in NY City, I used to laugh when I saw people buying
bottled water. They did studies and found that NYC tap water has less
chemicals in it than over 90% of the bottled water sold in stores. It
was rated as so good that people used to sell in stores outside the
City.
I now live on Long Island and all the water on Long Island is from
natural springs. Theoretically, anyone could bottle my tap water and
advertise it as natural spring water. Unfortunately, due to all the
population on LI, the water is not really that good. I filter all the
water my family drinks.
Jack Hollis
wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:10:14 -0800 (PST), "John B."
><john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>You can wash chemical residues off an apple or a carrot, but that's
>>not what most people eat. The average American's diet consists mostly
>>of processed food and fast food. You can't wash the chemicals out of a
>>Big Mac or a box of Cap'n Crunch or a Stouffer's frozen dinner, not to
>>mention the high fructose corn syrup and all the other junk. You want
>>to eat that shit and feed it to your kids, be my guest.
>
>If we eat that junk, we might die at 70 instead living to be 80. Or
>maybe not.
Do you think it really matters how old you were when you died after
you're dead? Nobody gets any older than dead.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>>If we eat that junk, we might die at 70 instead living to be 80. Or
>>maybe not.
>
>Do you think it really matters how old you were when you died after
>you're dead? Nobody gets any older than dead.
I expect to live one lifetime, no more, no less. Those who want to
enforce their ideas of health on me are Righteous prigs as much as
some of those Right wing churches who want to enforce their ideas of
God.
I suppose I needed a smiley after my previous post.
Jack Hollis
wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 14:48:19 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsle...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>If we eat that junk, we might die at 70 instead living to be 80. Or
>>>maybe not.
>>
>>Do you think it really matters how old you were when you died after
>>you're dead? Nobody gets any older than dead.
>
>I expect to live one lifetime, no more, no less. Those who want to
>enforce their ideas of health on me are Righteous prigs as much as
>some of those Right wing churches who want to enforce their ideas of
>God.
My internist is always telling me to stop doing things that are not
healthy for me. I told her that we were at cross purposes because she
was talking about dying and I was talking about living. My dad used
to say that if you're going to die of something, it might as well be
something that you enjoy.
Dinosaur_Sr
...of course if you stop "chemical agriculture", food production
declines dramatically, food costs more and far more people starve. I
suppose though, it's OK for people who expect some magic formula to
produce food in a supermarket to insist that the food must be of some
particular sort and have some particular cost. The fact that this
cannot happen notwithstanding.
And this does not get into the amount of energy in compost? Where is
that going to come from?
Dinosaur_Sr
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:10:14 -0800 (PST), "John B."
>
How come we are living longer now than before "chemical agriculture"?
John B.
Who said anything about ending "chemical agriculture?"
BAR
@f29g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, frostb...@att.net says...
>
> On Feb 14, 11:46ï¿œam, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:10:14 -0800 (PST), "John B."
> >
> > <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >You can wash chemical residues off an apple or a carrot, but that's
> > >not what most people eat. The average American's diet consists mostly
> > >of processed food and fast food. You can't wash the chemicals out of a
> > >Big Mac or a box of Cap'n Crunch or a Stouffer's frozen dinner, not to
> > >mention the high fructose corn syrup and all the other junk. You want
> > >to eat that shit and feed it to your kids, be my guest.
> >
> > maybe not.
> >
> > --
> > "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
> > than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
> > to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
> >
> > - James Madison
>
> How come we are living longer now than before "chemical agriculture"?
Ooops, that's going to be hard for them to answer.
MNMikeW
"BAR" <sc...@you.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.25e344254...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <2fd15683-af32-4e55-9078-b95e08823e42
> @f29g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, frostb...@att.net says...
>>
>> > On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:10:14 -0800 (PST), "John B."
>> >
>> > <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >You can wash chemical residues off an apple or a carrot, but that's
>> > >not what most people eat. The average American's diet consists mostly
>> > >of processed food and fast food. You can't wash the chemicals out of a
>> > >Big Mac or a box of Cap'n Crunch or a Stouffer's frozen dinner, not to
>> > >mention the high fructose corn syrup and all the other junk. You want
>> > >to eat that shit and feed it to your kids, be my guest.
>> >
>> > maybe not.
>> >
>> > --
>> > "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
>> > than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
>> > to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
>> >
>> > - James Madison
>>
>> How come we are living longer now than before "chemical agriculture"?
>
> Ooops, that's going to be hard for them to answer.
"Without chemicals, life itself would be impossible" - Dow :-)
Dinosaur_Sr
You want to complain about what we eat; fine, but the fact is with
MCDonald's and all the rest we live a lot longer than we did before
all that.
John B.
We also have one of the highest obesity rates in the world if not the
highest. This leads to disproportionate rates of heart disease,
diabetes and other diet-related disorders. This is particularly
prevalent among lower-income people, because junk food is cheaper than
food that's healthy and nutritious. Life expectancy is not the only
measure of a society's collective health.
Don A Roof
healthy for me. I told her that we were at cross purposes because she
was talking about dying and I was talking about living. My dad used to
say that if you're going to die of something, it might as well be
something that you enjoy."
______________
Congratulations, Jack! You have finally said something that doesn't seem
to be rooted in your usual wingnut, kneejerk, blather that actually
makes one helluva lot of sense!
Carbon
> In article <2fd15683-af32-4e55-9078-b95e08823e42
> @f29g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, frostb...@att.net says...
>>
>> How come we are living longer now than before "chemical agriculture"?
>
> Ooops, that's going to be hard for them to answer.
Are you sure? Because it sure seems like modern healthcare, as
dysfunctional as the US version is in some ways, could easily account
for any difference in average life expectancy.
BAR
nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:45:24 -0500, BAR wrote:
> > In article <2fd15683-af32-4e55-9078-b95e08823e42
> > @f29g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, frostb...@att.net says...
> >>
> >>> If we eat that junk, we might die at 70 instead living to be 80. ￜ
> >>> Or maybe not.
> >>
> >> How come we are living longer now than before "chemical agriculture"?
> >
> > Ooops, that's going to be hard for them to answer.
>
> Are you sure? Because it sure seems like modern healthcare, as
> dysfunctional as the US version is in some ways, could easily account
> for any difference in average life expectancy.
Then account for it or shut up.
Carbon
> In article <4b79ddc9$0$4876$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:45:24 -0500, BAR wrote:
>>> In article <2fd15683-af32-4e55-9078-b95e08823e42
>>> @f29g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, frostb...@att.net says...
>>>>
>>>>> If we eat that junk, we might die at 70 instead living to be 80.
>>>>
>>>> How come we are living longer now than before "chemical
>>>> agriculture"?
>>>
>>> Ooops, that's going to be hard for them to answer.
>>
>> Are you sure? Because it sure seems like modern healthcare, as
>> dysfunctional as the US version is in some ways, could easily account
>> for any difference in average life expectancy.
>
> Then account for it or shut up.
Don't be dense. I just did. Modern healthcare. Plausible explanation,
the end.
Howard Brazee
<frostb...@att.net> wrote:
>> If we eat that junk, we might die at 70 instead living to be 80. � Or
>> maybe not.
>
>How come we are living longer now than before "chemical agriculture"?
Like I said: "Or maybe not".
Telling us what to eat is much more religion than science.
assim...@borg.org
On 15-Feb-2010, "John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We also have one of the highest obesity rates in the world if not the
> highest. This leads to disproportionate rates of heart disease,
> diabetes and other diet-related disorders. This is particularly
> prevalent among lower-income people, because junk food is cheaper than
> food that's healthy and nutritious. Life expectancy is not the only
> measure of a society's collective health.
Bad nutrition is only part of the story, that couch & TV have a lot to do
with it as well.
--
bill-o
John B.
Dinosaur_Sr
Maybe, but we still live longer than we did when there was no chemical
agriculture.
John B.
And you conclude from that that the introduction of chemical
pesticides, herbicides, etc. into American agriculture has lenghtened
life expectancies?