Science Deniers and the Ice Age

PragmaticOne;1069151646[B said:

]Man can do nothing to stop the earth from cooling and warming over the course of hundreds of years.[/B] The scare tactics of Democrats are meant to do nothing but exercise control over people, and your attempt to exploit a perceived "anti-Trump" sentiment is nothing but demagoguery.

Click to expand...

That should read "man can do nothing to stop the Earth from cooling and warming over the course of Thousands of years." Thousands of years is the historical norm for the Planet. Hundreds of years is one of the leading factors identifying this as Anthropological (caused by man) Global Warming.
/

DaveFagan said:

That should read "man can do nothing to stop the Earth from cooling and warming over the course of Thousands of years." Thousands of years is the historical norm for the Planet. Hundreds of years is one of the leading factors identifying this as Anthropological (caused by man) Global Warming.
/

Click to expand...

Anthropogenic.

Jack Hays said:

Anthropogenic.

Click to expand...

Correct, thank you.
/

Visbek said:

Jumping Jehosephat.

• There is NO CORRELATION between ethanol production and prices. NONE. So right off the bat, we know you're wrong.

• Crop supplies are NOT FALLING. Global yields are INCREASING.

• Ethanol does NOT wind up consuming a significant percentage of grain production. It's closer to 5% of global production.

• Yet again! Factors like animal feed and food waste have bigger impacts here -- and even in that respect, it is oil prices that are the dominant influence on food prices.

• Your repetition of your disproven claims does not magically make you right. The real madness here is that you think you can ignore tons of actual facts, because you read about the laws of supply and demand on a website one day.

Click to expand...

Your denial of the obvious is astonishing.

https://phys.org/news/2015-10-role-food-prices-syrian-crisis.html

The disintegration of Syria and Europe's refugee crisis are only the latest tragic consequences of two spikes in food prices in 2007/08 and 2010/11 that triggered waves of global unrest, including the Arab Spring. Researchers at the New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI) have traced these spikes and spiraling crises to their root causes: deregulated commodity markets, financial speculation, and a misguided U.S. corn-to-ethanol fuel policy that removes nearly 5 billion bushels of corn from markets each year. With world food prices currently in retreat, now is the time to changes policies.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-10-role-food-prices-syrian-crisis.html#jCp

Click to expand...

My bold

How much do they pay you to pump out this damaging propaganda? Is your concious so cheap? Would you spout anything if they paid you enough?

How much do you hate poor people?

Tim the plumber said:

Your denial of the obvious is astonishing.

https://phys.org/news/2015-10-role-food-prices-syrian-crisis.html



My bold

How much do they pay you to pump out this damaging propaganda? Is your concious so cheap? Would you spout anything if they paid you enough?

How much do you hate poor people?

Click to expand...

You realize food price spikes would happen regardless of ethanol diversion, right?

If ethanol subsidies were eliminated, farmers wouldn’t grow corn- it wouldn’t be profitable.

Threegoofs said:

You realize food price spikes would happen regardless of ethanol diversion, right?

If ethanol subsidies were eliminated, farmers wouldn’t grow corn- it wouldn’t be profitable.

Click to expand...

Can you ever understand that poor people are dying due to the artifficially increased demand and thus price of food.

I know you don't like the poor and want them dead but try not to show it so blatantly.

Tim the plumber said:

Can you ever understand that poor people are dying due to the artifficially increased demand and thus price of food.

I know you don't like the poor and want them dead but try not to show it so blatantly.

Click to expand...

Damn Tim... you need to quit pushing this stupid B.S. Nobody is dying from the increase in the price of food due to ethanol production.

Look at the price of corn for an example. As has been shown by Visbek the price of corn has gone from about $2.50 before the spike in food prices to $3.50 now. That is an increase of $1.00 per bushel. What you seem to not realize is that a bushel is 56 pounds of corn. That breaks down to an increase of less than 2 cents per pound. So... even if there are really poor people who are eating a pound of corn every day(that's a lot of corn) the increase in cost over a year that you could have any chance of linking to ethanol production would be $6.51. That is one hell of a huge difference from your ridiculous assertion that the poor are paying $400 more for food every year.

Buzz said:

Damn Tim... you need to quit pushing this stupid B.S. Nobody is dying from the increase in the price of food due to ethanol production.

Look at the price of corn for an example. As has been shown by Visbek the price of corn has gone from about $2.50 before the spike in food prices to $3.50 now. That is an increase of $1.00 per bushel. What you seem to not realize is that a bushel is 56 pounds of corn. That breaks down to an increase of less than 2 cents per pound. So... even if there are really poor people who are eating a pound of corn every day(that's a lot of corn) the increase in cost over a year that you could have any chance of linking to ethanol production would be $6.51. That is one hell of a huge difference from your ridiculous assertion that the poor are paying $400 more for food every year.

Click to expand...

http://www.mdpi.org/energies/papers/en1020041.pdf

The rapidly growing world population and rising co
nsumption of biofuels are
increasing demand for both food and biofuels. This
exaggerates both food and fuel
shortages. Using food crops such as corn grain to p
roduce ethanol raises major nutritional
and ethical concerns. Nearly 60% of humans in the w
orld are currently malnourished, so
the need for grains and other basic foods is critic
al. Growing crops for fuel squanders land,
water and energy resources vital for the production
of food for human consumption.

Click to expand...

I understand that you don't want it to be so but the clever people who write such papers, who are in universities for being clever like, they think like me.

If you live on less than $2.50 a day then the massive increase in food prices has caused your life expectancy to not be anywhere near as high as it otherwise would be.

Like 43 rather than 60.

Tim the plumber said:

If you live on less than $2.50 a day then the massive increase in food prices has caused your life expectancy to not be anywhere near as high as it otherwise would be.

Like 43 rather than 60.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that is patently absurd. You don't arbitrarily whack 20+ years off of life expectancy because food prices went up 10-30% (which is what your article claims -- and leaves open the question of "what caused the rest of the price increases?") Especially since -- as already discussed -- the number of hungry people in the world DROPPED even as food prices rose.

And, as already discussed, there is no correlation between biofuels production and food prices.

And, as already discussed, there IS a correlation between oil prices and food prices.

And, as already discussed, grain yields increased, even as the acreage dedicated to agriculture stayed flat, meaning there isn't a permanent crunch in the availability of grains.

And, as discussed previously, the number of people in extreme poverty is falling. Meaning incomes are going up, and increasing faster than inflation, including food inflation.

Speaking of inflation: The rise in prices is a tad exaggerated, as we can see with the FAO's comparison of nominal and real food prices:




In fact, as grains get cheaper, farmers have LESS INCENTIVE to grow those grains. Since you missed it, corn is so cheap that American farmers don't want to grow it without subsidies. That's why the farmers keep pushing for ethanol mandates -- because it includes generous subsidies for those farmers.

Oddly enough, the article you linked is from 2008, when there was a big spike in prices -- which dropped the next year. So tell us, based on the information in the article, why did prices drop? After all, the use of crops for biofuel did not drop; it rose slightly. Something doesn't add up.

Last but not least: Most environmentalists do not advocate using food crops for biofuels; they prefer biodiesels made out of non-food crops or food waste. This is, yet again, a big red herring. If you want to attack someone over biofuels, go after Republicans and American farmers who demand mandates and subsidies.

Visbek said:

Yeah, that is patently absurd. You don't arbitrarily whack 20+ years off of life expectancy because food prices went up 10-30% (which is what your article claims -- and leaves open the question of "what caused the rest of the price increases?") Especially since -- as already discussed -- the number of hungry people in the world DROPPED even as food prices rose.

And, as already discussed, there is no correlation between biofuels production and food prices.

And, as already discussed, there IS a correlation between oil prices and food prices.

And, as already discussed, grain yields increased, even as the acreage dedicated to agriculture stayed flat, meaning there isn't a permanent crunch in the availability of grains.

And, as discussed previously, the number of people in extreme poverty is falling. Meaning incomes are going up, and increasing faster than inflation, including food inflation.

Speaking of inflation: The rise in prices is a tad exaggerated, as we can see with the FAO's comparison of nominal and real food prices:

In fact, as grains get cheaper, farmers have LESS INCENTIVE to grow those grains. Since you missed it, corn is so cheap that American farmers don't want to grow it without subsidies. That's why the farmers keep pushing for ethanol mandates -- because it includes generous subsidies for those farmers.

Oddly enough, the article you linked is from 2008, when there was a big spike in prices -- which dropped the next year. So tell us, based on the information in the article, why did prices drop? After all, the use of crops for biofuel did not drop; it rose slightly. Something doesn't add up.

Last but not least: Most environmentalists do not advocate using food crops for biofuels; they prefer biodiesels made out of non-food crops or food waste. This is, yet again, a big red herring. If you want to attack someone over biofuels, go after Republicans and American farmers who demand mandates and subsidies.

Click to expand...

Yes, we need to eliminate methanol mandates and farm subsidies both. Let the market function unhindered.

Lord of Planar said:

Yes, we need to eliminate methanol mandates and farm subsidies both. Let the market function unhindered.

Click to expand...

I cannot conceave of the mind set that is so closed to reason that it will dismiss the utterly obvious that reducing thamunt of food availible to buy will increase the cost that this will cause big problems for poor people who will suffer greatly and die more as a result.

That the poor of the world are getting richer is good but they would be doing so much faster without this evil policy.

That those who don't want to think this thought will be so stuborn even when they have been faced with authoritive supporting evidence, the way they seem to base their thinking on, makes me come to the conclusion that they are simply paid to post.

Russia is supposed to have a small army of such propagandists. Are we seeing the effect of that here?

Tim the plumber said:

I cannot conceave of the mind set that is so closed to reason that it will dismiss the utterly obvious that reducing thamunt of food availible to buy will increase the cost that this will cause big problems for poor people who will suffer greatly and die more as a result.

That the poor of the world are getting richer is good but they would be doing so much faster without this evil policy.

That those who don't want to think this thought will be so stuborn even when they have been faced with authoritive supporting evidence, the way they seem to base their thinking on, makes me come to the conclusion that they are simply paid to post.

Russia is supposed to have a small army of such propagandists. Are we seeing the effect of that here?

Click to expand...

I think the Russians are paid, ours volunteer!

longview said:

I think the Russians are paid, ours volunteer!

Click to expand...

But how can anybody be that self blinded?

Are you sure this is not the Russian propaganda machine?

Tim the plumber said:

But how can anybody be that self blinded?

Are you sure this is not the Russian propaganda machine?

Click to expand...

Pretty sure, I converse with Eastern Europeans on line from time to time, and many times
you can tell when English is not someone's first language.
I am quite sure there are well trained Russians, but they have likely have better things to do with their time.

longview said:

Pretty sure, I converse with Eastern Europeans on line from time to time, and many times
you can tell when English is not someone's first language.
I am quite sure there are well trained Russians, but they have likely have better things to do with their time.

Click to expand...

I agree that when you are talking to an Eastern European engineer you can easily tell.

But obviously these are not in any way scientists or engineers.

Could they be Russian linguists? Would you know if they were that? Such types are probebly good at sounding very credible with language and let's face it they always see spelling errors rather than any actual content errors.

[h=2]Evil Nature caused Swiss Glaciers to melt faster in 1870 (See solar and volcanic effects)[/h]
A study on Swiss Glaciers shows that the fastest melting was in the 1860s and 1870s, long before the first coal fired power. (See that steep decline from 1850-70 in Part a in the graph below.) In Part b see the glaciers have been going back and forward in cycles that somehow have no correlation with human emissions.
Climate models can’t predict any of these turning points, don’t understand any of these cycles, but “doom is coming”.
Pay up your money to make glaciers grow again.
From the Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI)
In Part c (above) — glacier lengths correlate with temperatures. In part d the brown spikes are the Stratospheric Aerosol Optical Depth [SAOD] — meaning volcanic dust, black carbon, soot. These were bad years to head to the beach.
In terms of speed, note the lack of any spooky “unprecedented” retreat. The glaciers are shorter now, but the rate they are shortening is slower than in 1870.
[h=3]Unlike CO2, volcanoes and solar activity do correlate with glacier length[/h]See this longer graph — the red line estimate of summer temperature bottoms twice in 1600 and 1810 which also coincides with volcanic activity and solar minima.
It could get pretty expensive to control glacier length since we have to reduce the suns activity and probably set off some nukes in lieu of a handy volcano.
Long glaciers coincide with the solar minima and with volcanic forcing:http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/ev...70-see-solar-and-volcanic-effects/#more-61283Keep reading →

Deforestation was caused by humans. Ocean trashing and death of marine life was caused by humans. Air pollution? Caused by humans. These things cause a ripple, affecting the environment. And this is why the climate is changing. Still convinced that humans have nothing to do with it?

jparkshere said:

Deforestation was caused by humans. Ocean trashing and death of marine life was caused by humans. Air pollution? Caused by humans. These things cause a ripple, affecting the environment. And this is why the climate is changing. Still convinced that humans have nothing to do with it?

Click to expand...

We absolutely are responsible for perturbing nature. The problem is, the alarmist side has zero credibility because it always places any negative effect on mankind, when nature still has dramatic roles.

Lord of Planar said:

The problem is, the alarmist side has zero credibility because it always places any negative effect on mankind, when nature still has dramatic roles.

Click to expand...

Well, that's true. It's not enough that the planet is already in the brink of falling apart, it definitely isn't helping that someone is instilling fear to people. I get it, they probably just want people to do something about climate change, but there's a better way to do it without having to make people feel paranoid.