World's Farmers Feel The Effects Of A Hotter Planet

[DiscoBiscuit]

Clowd11:

You are always so rude. I am here to have a civil debate. Throwing insults around doesnt impress anyone.

Your link proves that the Maunder minumum lasting 70 years was directly attributed to the power (or lack there of) of our star.

Cosmic rays havent been studied enough with regards to weather/climate.

However, we know that variable solar activity doesn't result in the Earth's tendency to retain heat the way that warming gasses do.

Here's an example. You run a club that's always overcrowded. One of your assistants tells you, "Hey mon, the club entrance is too big!", while your other assistant says, "Nah mon, you got the exit locked."

As for fluoride it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that it is very harmful if ingested. Especially as the stuff put in the water supply is literally toxic waste. A by-product of aluminium smelting or phospate mining.

Is oxygen used as the main ingredient in rat poison?

Fluoride contains uranium as a by product of phosphate mining.

Mind and or population control is one of the more bizarre assertions I've come across. I grew up on the county side of the city-limits. Across the street, city residents had fluoride in their water and our hood had private wells. The only difference? Our side typically has fillings in their teeth and the other doesn't.

We're talking over 6 decades, generations of families in the hundreds. Counting those who've moved in or out over time, probably thousands. There's never been anything attributed to town's water fluoride treatments, other than the occasional government mind-control conspiracy stuff.

And the few fluoride warriors we occasionally run across go from one conspiracy to the next.

Silver, any one of the chemicals that is used to purify water at treatment plants is toxic. As these chemicals are purged from the final product, they also meet the classification of toxic waste.

Many elements are mined in environments that appear unsuitable for human health. Thanks to science, we know how much we may benefit from something as well as how much will hurt.

I could understand you suggesting the health risks outweigh the benefits. But where's the proof? IMO, the mind-control thing is too edgy to swallow. That's old John Birch ramblings that had a government conspiracy for every day of the week.

We get all the natural fluroide we need from a healthy and balanced diet.

Says..... ?

MadL:

The NASA link was aimed in the direction of space weather. Under-estimate the sun at our peril. The meat of my post was however the climate change NASA agrees is happening across our solar system.

Why is is happening to all the planets at the same time?

Like i said i agree on methane and other man made tragedies. I have a specific beef with carbon being the driver of climate.

I liked your link that showed more c02 = more green stuff

More C02 also means more

severe rain

severe drought

severe cold

severe heat

rising oceans (where the majority of the world's population happens to reside.)


Imagine having your setup dialed in and the only way you retain control is by managing every aspect. When one environmental factor goes whack, so does your operation.

You say C02 is good for plants, no argument there. But instead of compensating your C02 supplemented grow with more water, ferts and heat, you have...

periods of drenched medium

periods of arid medium

periods of stress inducing heat

periods of stress inducing cold

(I think you get the pic.)

The argument that rising C02 levels will increase crop production is silly. It argues the subject away instead of understanding it.

 

[CLOWD11]

Clowd11:

You are always so rude.

Yes

I am here to have a civil debate.

No your not.
How can you have a civil debate when clearly you fully reject the science. Do you know more than the thousands of scientists in their field?

Your link proves that the Maunder minumum lasting 70 years was directly attributed to the power (or lack there of) of our star.

No.
The link showed that research scientists show the sun is in a cycle of quiet and could not be responsible for the warming witnessed in the previous decades. It also states this quiet period will not be enough to hinder projected global warming.

Cosmic rays havent been studied enough with regards to weather/climate.

Just fkn great!
We cant produce enough evidence on our planet in the 21st century to convince clowns of GW, but your willing to place your trust in something you claim is un-studied while rejecting wtf we know already. Clutching at straws to evade the truth is quite pathetic really.

As for fluoride it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that it is very harmful if ingested.

Fkn bollocks! Tasmania was the 1st state in 1964 i think to introduce flouride into the water supply and every state has since followed. Please point out all those who been poisoned by flouride they drink EVERYDAY... waiting..
There is bulk proof of the benefits of flouride in water but you just want grasp at the BS politics of scaremongering tinfoil hat wearing fools. But this thread is not for that argument.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

We've got peeps that don't like being told that change is in their best interests, even when the science community and the media have more than explained the dangers we face with the status quot.

But the real obstacle is the peep that doesn't want his freedom impinged (even if it's in their vital interests) in addition to mistrusting the government to wild conspiracy proportions.

Throw in some...

"That doesn't jibe with my religion."

and

"That's money out of my pocket."

and

"Al Gore yada yada bama lama bing bang."


In the end, it's all math folks. But it gets even better. The science community offers their conclusions for public scrutiny. Peer review actually strengthens conclusions within scientific consensus. Whether amateur naysayers get their distraction on enough to win out is left to be seen.

Since the general public typically has the attention span for denier tactics, we get those who either believe the crap or diss the facts altogether to avoid having to think about the environment and the sacrifices it takes to maintain. I guarantee it's the latter with the Kock bros.

 

[grapeman]

We've got peeps that don't like being told that change is in their best interests, even when the science community and the media have more than explained the dangers we face with the status quot.

You have it backwards. We have people that insist that change, any change is due to man. then they develop a system to profit from it and sell it to dimwits and the empty hole folks who are looking for a cause.

I am not a denier. You use that term as the ignorant masses throw around racism. Oppose obama socialism and you find the racism charge. Always when a liberal cannot make a point, the racism flies. Now the word du jour is GW denier. so pathetically predictable and childish.

When you cannot make sense of the admitted falsities found in the hocky stick graph, the hundreds of emails, tree ring bullshit and the fact that 10 years ago these same scientists claimed the ocean would raise by 10" by 2010, you keep hope alive by calling folks that have a bit more critical thinking then yourself "deniers".

Thousands and thousands or real scientist have petitioned these faux climate agencies for a real debate, but it cannot happen since a real debate will stop their money from flowing into their corrupt coffers.

The only "deniers" here are you and the others who blindly look at bullshit and can't fathom to ask a question.... any question.

Yes there are deniers. Look in the mirror and see for yourself. I especially like the way that the shrinking ice cap on Mars is dismissed as no big deal. Oh, and there is very little water vapor on Mars, just to debunk your other dribble.

If your lives were not so empty, you wouldn't need to fill it with bullshit. But no one can open your eyes.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

this is like skeet practice where pieces of skeet get back up and fly again

this is like skeet practice where pieces of skeet get back up and fly again

You have it backwards. We have people that insist that change, any change is due to man.

You've most likely been reminded (repeatedly) that both man and nature are contributing to global warming. Industrialization is estimated to push us faster to the point of natural warming forces that can't be addressed by humans.

However, we can turn down the industrial shit valve to critical instead of futile.

then they develop a system to profit from it and sell it to dimwits and the empty hole folks who are looking for a cause.

Baloney. We've had cap n trade for decades.

I am not a denier.

Like many classic uh... (folks that don't believe the manifestations of AGW) the term denier is offensive.

You deny the science, even going as far to substitute profit as motivation. Classic denial.

Denial is a verb. It depicts action. Denier is a noun. It depicts one who denies.

I'm agnostic, I deny religion. One might call me a denier in a religious sense. Can't argue with that, let alone take personal offense...

You use that term as the ignorant masses throw around racism. Oppose obama socialism and you find the racism charge.

...let alone cry racism

Always when a liberal cannot make a point, the racism flies.

let alone cry racism again

Now the word du jour is GW denier. so pathetically predictable and childish.

So interesting you seem to deny the fact that you deny the science that says we're warming.

Obama, Al Gore, socialism, racism, yada yada bing bang.

You bring a whole new meaning to

She blinded me with science

When you cannot make sense of the admitted falsities found in the hocky stick graph, the hundreds of emails, tree ring bullshit and the fact that 10 years ago these same scientists claimed the ocean would raise by 10" by 2010, you keep hope alive by calling folks that have a bit more critical thinking then yourself "deniers".

Grow some skin grapeman. "Denier" isn't another bogeyman, it's just another non-scientific argument.

I'm sorry, I'll rephrase. It's a grasping substitute for an argument.

Now you don't even want to be associated with the denial of warming science (while you deny the value of the science itself, i.e. graphs and tree rings.)

Science is all about data and the calculations made from. Of course, you're free to deny facts, theories, predictions and calculations. In other words, practically everything it took to harness electricity, split the atom, return our astronauts from multiple moon landings and cure deadly disease.

Thousands and thousands or real scientist have petitioned these faux climate agencies for a real debate, but it cannot happen since a real debate will stop their money from flowing into their corrupt coffers.

Care to cite? Peer review comprises ~97% of the climate science community. Your thousands of "scientists" must be pretty shy. Otherwise, all we see are the "lord of nothing" Monckton", Coleman and ad-man.

Besides, deniers argue science data like they argue politics. There's some philosophical road block that can't accept the correlation. Scarecrows like Al Gore, racism, and profit bla bla are to prevent logic from permeating the senses involuntarily.

Not unlike a kid covering their ears and babbling (whatever) to resist logic and reasoning.

The only "deniers" here are you and the others who blindly look at bullshit and can't fathom to ask a question.... any question.

Sorry, we're conformists. That makes those who deny the science of AGW "deniers". The euphemism was selected and defined upon inception.

Yes there are deniers. Look in the mirror and see for yourself. I especially like the way that the shrinking ice cap on Mars is dismissed as no big deal. Oh, and there is very little water vapor on Mars, just to debunk your other dribble.

Check out the math and the averages. Know the ethics accusations don't hold water. You might not like the string of words you read in the e-mails but your interpretation is incorrect. Are you denying the fact that 5 different bodies investigated and found no wrongdoing? Even the context of the accusations were shown to be aided by imaginative misinterpretation.

If your lives were not so empty, you wouldn't need to fill it with bullshit. But no one can open your eyes.

That comment is even lamer than the racism crap. Deductive reasoning of the indicators has nothing to do with the solutions. That comes after the fact. You won't consider the initial element because you're convinced any solution is the wrong one. Sounds like you're in some serious denial.

 

[SilverSurfer_OG]

I like how you address every point except the important one.

How and why are Mars' ice caps melting?

Why are the other planets showing distinct signs of climate change?

Fluoridation is claimed to be safe, but so was Arsenic, DDT, Thalidomide, Dioxin, Asbestos, Agent Orange, the Dalkon Shield, Deildrin, Mercury, Lead and more recently, Vioxx, all shown later to harm or kill people. But at least they weren’t compulsory. Fluoridation is!

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I like how you address every point except the important one.

Might lead one to believe the other points weren't that pertinent?

How and why are Mars' ice caps melting?

You know, I'm not sure the whole Mars and water thing has panned out to fact. There are those that think Mars once had water, due to topographic indications.

When exactly did we get to ice caps and more importantly, melting ice caps that we can't yet see?

Why are the other planets showing distinct signs of climate change?

Do you realize there are fewer "solar warming" theorists than AGW deniers?

Fluoridation is claimed to be safe, but so was Arsenic, DDT, Thalidomide, Dioxin, Asbestos, Agent Orange, the Dalkon Shield, Deildrin, Mercury, Lead and more recently, Vioxx, all shown later to harm or kill people. But at least they weren’t compulsory. Fluoridation is!

Even wiki knows that fluoride strengthens tooth enamel.

One might substitute bottled beverages at the risk of ingesting the dreaded fluorine in trace amount.

 

[mad librettist]

fluoride - gotta side with surfer. it should be applied like medicine directly to the teeth. in my case, the teeth are super strong (no cavities in over 30 yrs), but discolored by fluoride

Why are the other planets showing distinct signs of climate change?

why wouldn't they? they have dynamic climate systems just like us, and cycles of warming and cooling - just like us.

Climate scientists don't claimm there is no natural cycle. AFAIK the claim is that we are altering the cycle through our CO2/methane pollution.


This is just a straw man to grasp at.

 

[mad librettist]

plain as day, posted earlier. as you can see, the science already knows there is a cycle of warming/cooling. The argument you and grapeman are making happens because deniers don't actually read the science, just the critique.

in the modeling, other variables are kept constant so that the effet of the CO2 can be quantified. This is not the same as denying the science that clearly illustrates cycles of warming and cooling on earth and other planets.

The irrefutable message from this plot: experimentally, it is clearly demonstrated that the addition of increasing amounts of CO2 to an otherwise constant atmosphere causes a systematic rise in gas temperature. The ranges shown in the above plot are pertinent to levels that might be attained in the future if carbon dioxide emissions are not curbed.

The follow-up question: Is there any strong evidence that the more rapid temperature rise of the last 50 years (or, going back to the Industrial Revolution) is abnormal? The closest to the truth may be that there is now a temperature spike added to a trend that has natural causes related to glacial processes.

the space weather thing is just baffling. why do you have trouble believing what has been observed, but no trouble believing in something as of yet unproven and not understood?

 

[grapeman]

why wouldn't they? they have dynamic climate systems just like us, and cycles of warming and cooling - just like us.

Climate scientists don't claimm there is no natural cycle. AFAIK the claim is that we are altering the cycle through our CO2/methane pollution.

So all other planets have dynamic climate systems to explain any climate changes observed therein. LOL All planets but mother earth I see.

You have to know how stupid this answer makes you look. Don't you? LOL

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

why do you have trouble believing what has been observed, but no trouble believing in something as of yet unproven and not understood?

Blaming all this on the sun means we don't need cap n trade because warming ain't due to the global pollution from 6.5 billion humans on the planet.

So all other planets have dynamic climate systems to explain any climate changes observed therein. LOL All planets but mother earth I see.

You have to know how stupid this answer makes you look. Don't you? LOL

What part of "just like us" do you not understand?

 

[mad librettist]

You have to know how stupid this answer makes you look. Don't you? LOL

I think I have a pretty good idea.

try reading my posts all the way through sometime.


let me repeat myself -

The closest to the truth may be that there is now a temperature spike added to a trend that has natural causes related to glacial processes.

and let me repeat myself repeating myself (how did you miss this?)

why wouldn't they? they have dynamic climate systems just like us, and cycles of warming and cooling - just like us.

this is what the science currently says. it does not deny a natural and dynamic pattern of climate change. you got that from reading blogs, not reading the science.




I noticed, grapeman, that you have thus far declined to address any of the positive claims I made by reposting material from the NASA website. That's because you have never seen that stuff before, because you don't keep up on any science, probably because you don't find it interesting. You certainly have the intelligence to process it, so I really can't excuse your foolishness.

 

[SilverSurfer_OG]

Its obvious at this point that we have all made our minds up and they are pretty much set in stone.

My whole point about the space weather is that it is still being understood. You can have a computer simulation that takes out all known variables but c02. I am saying there are quite a few unknowns.

Sure the planets all have natural cycles. Why is it now they are all in warming cycles hmm? Perhaps there is something going on we cant explain with modern science... unless we look to the power of the sun or perhaps extra friction as we enter the Oort cloud.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993A&A...273..684B

BTW the city of Calgary, Canada just voted 10-3 to remove the fluoride from the water supplies. There is a growing awareness of the deadly side effects (especially to childrens bones and brains) of this neurotoxin.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/fluoride-hoax-exploding-alex-jones-interviews-dr-paul-connett.html

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Its obvious at this point that we have all made our minds up and they are pretty much set in stone.

Not quite. Science is by nature theory based on hypothesis. Depending where we specialize, science is improved.

Peer review weeds errors in theory, based on what we know as fact. Further hypotheses is studied, based on what we know as fact.

Once science is set in stone, your portable, wireless, high tech device is otherwise known as a cell phone or GPS etc.

Until then, written in stone is a stretch because communications etc technology doesn't stop evolving. Neither do the technological advances we're seeing with the monitoring of AGW.

The overwhelming evidence is like a giant hay stack where deniers seek the needle that makes everything go away. Whether it's cerebral like yourself or Al Gore bashing, the bottom line is the same. AGW either ain't happening or we ain't dealing with it. (I only include the latter because some deniers aren't scientifically oriented.

My whole point about the space weather is that it is still being understood. You can have a computer simulation that takes out all known variables but c02. I am saying there are quite a few unknowns.

Sure the planets all have natural cycles. Why is it now they are all in warming cycles hmm? Perhaps there is something going on we cant explain with modern science... unless we look to the power of the sun or perhaps extra friction as we enter the Oort cloud.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993A%26A...273..684B

Is "Dynamical Friction Induces Perturbations on Oort Cloud Comets" subject to the peer review of climate change? Or is this even in their orbit? I ask because your reference doesn't establish a link to climate change.

BTW the city of Calgary, Canada just voted 10-3 to remove the fluoride from the water supplies. There is a growing awareness of the deadly side effects (especially to childrens bones and brains) of this neurotoxin.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/fluoride-hoax-exploding-alex-jones-interviews-dr-paul-connett.html

Politicians will be politicians. Some conservatives want to kaboosh the EPA and defund the Superfund that cleans (part) of the mess that corporations make.

If I were seeking information that fluoridation is harmful, I'd probably look at the scientific evidence. I know that lawmakers are supposed to act in the best interests of the public but I'd pass on their politics for the facts. I wouldn't judge an accused criminal guilty based on consensus. I'd have to see the evidence to know that what's being suggested isn't misunderstood, even possibly manipulated.

I don't argue it's toxic. So is snake venom. But both have elements that are beneficial in proper proportion.

I have no qualms with anyone's desire to defluorodate. But suggesting it's mind control or pop control is a face palm moment in the making.

 

[SilverSurfer_OG]

Yes that giant haystack is made using grass grown by the millions spent on research funded by the very banksters and corporations that seek to profit from a carbon tax/worldwide ETS/de facto world government.

I dont like world government. It seems we are halfway there with the UN declaring war on Libya. The UN has been found directly assisting in child slavery and turning a blind eye to mass rape and genocide. Nice.

http://www.philipbrennan.net/2010/0...as-everyone-else-in-africa-and-the-caribbean/

The paper on Oort clouds has no direct reference to climate change. Just more info on space weather that shows we are just beginning to understand its impacts on our planet and solar system.

The EPA is another currupt organisation. You do realise your whole bloated federal govt. has bought and sold your once great country. You are now run by corporations and their lobbyists. Your president cant even produce a real birth certificate. The recent electronic one is a very bad fake.

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/05/jerome-corsi-obama-birth-certificate.html

People all over the world are waking up and smelling the bullshit. Still a minority but a rapidly growing challenge to the corrupted mainstream.

That includes the manufactured concensus on C02 as a driver of climate.

 

[mad librettist]

I dont like world government.

so tell me, really, how parochial is parochial enough for you?

care to give a reason why you think nation-states need governments, but when you put them all together the most sensible course is anarchy?

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogs...rtificate.html

are you fucking serious? leave my prez out of this. or do you actually support the xenophobic proviso in the US constitution that prohibits naturalized americans from serving in their country's highest office as equal members of society deserving of all the same rights and privileges? this is xenophobic, racist garbage and I do find it to be a little over the line here.


I'm getting nauseous.


Mad Lib: we are adding to our current warming trend in an very alarming way by ejaculating too much shite into the air.

Silver Surfer, Grapeman: Ha! what you didn't know, is that we are currently in a warming trend.

Mad Lib: I just said that.

Silver Surfer, Grapeman: Ha! what you didn't know, is that we are currently in a warming trend, and so is the whole solar system.

Disco Biscuit: I think Mad Lib sorta just said that guys.

Silver Surfer, Grapeman: Ha! what you didn't know, is that we are currently in a warming trend...

Mad Lib: Sigh... touché, whatever.




wtf guys you can't argue against me by just agreeing with one of my points and then claiming victory. This must be how girls with big tits feel when they try to talk to me about something serious when there is a cold draft in the room. "look at my eyes and try to listen to what I am saying, ok?"

 

[grapeman]

What part of "just like us" do you not understand?

The part that is nonsense Discoman is where you and your ilk try to claim both sides of the argument. We can explain weather patterns on other planets that have their ice caps shrinking by just shrugging and claiming there are 'dynamic weather' patterns in play. But on mother earth any and all 'dynamic' weather changes or patterns, you have an insane need to blame mankind and then go even further into the laughing gas by thinking we can substitute our energy needs with windmills, as if that will solve anything. You irrational people take a snapshot in time equivalent to less then a minute of our entire history and are vain enough to think you can extrapolate from that snapshot the need for you to tell me that I need to buy a fucking prius. And that I should pay carbon taxes to boot. Tell that to all the life on earth that died when our atmosphere developed oxygen. Or does the fact elude you? As I said before, this bullshit science you stake your future on predicted the ocean would rise 10" by 2010. didn't happen. So the liberal nonsense approach is to just make more predictions. Never once stopping to say, "oh my, my predictions are all fucked up".

You remind me of the idiot that just rescheduled the rapture. It's now in October so your man made GW bullshit won't matter to anyone come November. I would say the 2 carry about the same credibility.

 

[mad librettist]

ok, this is easy -

If the volume is gonna go up to six, and we are adding six to that, we are going to be even louder than eleven.

is that simple enough? It's not having it both ways, it's just making a point your blogs didn't train you to explain away.



wanna help, instead of just whining? meatless fridays, end of story. shut the fuck up and do your part, it's easy.



you don't need a prius or to even get off your fat ass and ride a bike. just skip eating meat and animal products once a week (no fish either, do it for real). Wanna do twice as much? Skip meat twice a week.


any Catholics over 40 might remember doing fish fridays, so this is just a little more effort.

Here's one Republicans laughed at real hard: check your tire pressure regularly if you drive a car. This tiny little act, when performed collectively by an entire nation, can make a real difference. They stopped laughing when the numbers came back on how much good this would actually do.



We used to be such a great nation. We defeated Nazism and Fascism. WE went to the moon. We brought down the USSR, just by making them try to keep up with our productivity (just for you grape, you know pinkos like me worship stalin). We saved our used fats, grew victory gardens, sent housewives to kick ass in our factories while our boys were over there. We rationed our gas and our food as a nation.

We used to be able to accomplish things together, and it was not considered a bad thing.

Then somewhere along the line we started giving Ayn Rand to schoolkids and telling them about the virtues of greed and the supremacy of the individual, and the inherent evil of collective action. I'm calling shenanigans.

 

[grapeman]

ok, this is easy -

If the volume is gonna go up to six, and we are adding six to that, we are going to be even louder than eleven.

is that simple enough? It's not having it both ways, it's just making a point your blogs didn't train you to explain away.



wanna help, instead of just whining? meatless fridays, end of story. shut the fuck up and do your part, it's easy.



you don't need a prius or to even get off your fat ass and ride a bike. just skip eating meat and animal products once a week (no fish either, do it for real). Wanna do twice as much? Skip meat twice a week.


any Catholics over 40 might remember doing fish fridays, so this is just a little more effort.

Here's one Republicans laughed at real hard: check your tire pressure regularly if you drive a car.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your posts. LOL

 

[mad librettist]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your posts. LOL

I'm sorry to confuse you.

these kids get it, even if you don't

Why Exeter must support a meatless day a week?
Posted on January 30, 2010 by akshatrathi294
Two students from the JCR of Exeter College have proposed to the JCR & MCRthat one day in the college hall should be meatless. Their main argument stems from the UN’s Livestock’s Long Shadow Report. The 400-page report is an in-depth assessment of the significant impact of world’s livestock on the environment. Meat consumption is projected to double by 2050 , ensuingirreversible consequences. The meat industry already contributes to 20% of global emissions.

According to the college chef, we buy (approximately) the following amounts of meat every week: 150 kg Beef, 150 kg, Diced Chicken, 600 Chicken Breasts, 100 kg Lamb, 60 kg Pork, 30 kg Bacon, 10 kg Sausages. This translates to 16.4 tons of CO2e (see below) every week of which red meat alone contributes 12.8 tons. Considering that the hall is run on full capacity for 30 weeks (3 Terms) in a year and 30% capacity for 15 weeks, it means the hall’s carbon footprint coming from meat consumption is a staggering 566 ton of CO2e per year. A meatless day a week, can reduce that consumption by about 15%, which is 85 ton CO2e. This is equivalent to the annual carbon footprint of eight people in the UK. It’s not just a reduction in the carbon footprint but also our water footprint. (More on that here). The UN report also speaks about the impact of meat on water depletion, water pollution & biodiversity.