Global Warming is over.

[BraveUlysses]

Whut? Water is a greenhouse gas? We need to stop the thoughtless human production of water vapor! It's also dangerous because people drown in it, lets wipe this scourge on the earth out within the next generation, otherwise we just are not thinking about the kids. We should be drinking Brawndo anyway. It's got what plants crave!

This thread has enough stupid hyperbole, there's no need for more of this shit.

[rwh11385]

Unfortunately Monsanto and industrial farming practices rely heavily on oil, which is not sustainable. We will need to do more innovative organic farming that requires about 10 times more farmers to produce more food per acre under more extreme weather events than the best current unsustainable practices. It is possible to live sustainably with our current population, but not under our current economic model.
Sleeve, as usual, you come to your own opinions based on your own beliefs and observations rather than scientific evidence and facts, similar to most religions.

Organic is not feasible to feed the world, only uppity consumers who go to Whole Foods.

The industry has incorporated a lot of more sustainable practices like low or no till, and what was one pass spraying until nature came and had weeds grow resistant to Roundup. If people took proper action and followed good practice maybe the problem could have been better controlled but not in Monsantos best interest to admit their marketed strategy developed a flaw due to evolution.

But a lot of nutrients are wasted by having them break down and turn onto GHGs in lagoons. Livestock operations could also produce carbon credits and their own locomotive fuel, but sadly many are stubborn to invest. Those who do benefit as does the planet.


Oh noes, sleeve and farbin introduce a wild red herring.

[gwb72tii]

Care to share these with us? I'd love to see more recycled content that's already been debunked

this is why we get nowhere
cale thinks all points EVER brought up here re the lack of ANY scientific proof about AGW has been proven false
that 78 scientists are a consensus for all science
that soros is just a benevolent financier of pure as the driven snow scientists that have no political agenda
that the green energy industry is pure as the driven snow, no politics involved, gore is a hero, wind and solar should rule the day damn the consequences

and cale wonders why there are any people anywhere that have the temerity to question authority.

you really cannot make this up

[gwb72tii]

We're talking some of the most profitable corporations in the world up against environmentalists. There is absolutely no way to argue that there's more money available for scientists who accept climate change than those who deny it.

count the money involved on both sides and add it up

[gwb72tii]

Unfortunately Monsanto and industrial farming practices rely heavily on oil, which is not sustainable. We will need to do more innovative organic farming that requires about 10 times more farmers to produce more food per acre under more extreme weather events than the best current unsustainable practices. It is possible to live sustainably with our current population, but not under our current economic model.
Sleeve, as usual, you come to your own opinions based on your own beliefs and observations rather than scientific evidence and facts, similar to most religions.

so herbie, do you buy only organic, buy only local, buy only seasonable, buy only sustainable protein?

[cale]

this is why we get nowhere
cale thinks all points EVER brought up here re the lack of ANY scientific proof about AGW has been proven false
that 78 scientists are a consensus for all science
that soros is just a benevolent financier of pure as the driven snow scientists that have no political agenda
that the green energy industry is pure as the driven snow, no politics involved, gore is a hero, wind and solar should rule the day damn the consequences

and cale wonders why there are any people anywhere that have the temerity to question authority.

you really cannot make this up

Holy hell, wrote this on a potato? Try to formulate your thoughts better because coherent is far from what this post was.

I'm glad you concede that those on my side are the authority :D You're finally coming around!

But seriously, you're misinformed if you think this to be true. Any points, really? There hasn't been a single point I've ever conceded? You're flat out making shit up now because we both know that's not true, and if that's your honest conclusion you need to go back and re-read my replies because you've missed a shit ton.

I never said those scientists alone form the consensus you illiterate twat, quit misrepresenting me because you read what you want to read instead of what has actually been written. I've pointed out several times how the numbers are divided, going a lot further than 78 sole scientists.

When have I EVER even mentioned Soro's other than my reply making fun of you? I haven't, great point your brought up! Seems to go hand-in-hand with your claim that I think all green energy ventures are 100% free from bias or corruption despite never reading anything that could be construed as a foundation for thinking that.

Overall, you're making shit up to try and put me in some AGW box you think we all comfortably fit into. Nice try, but not going to work. Why you ask? Maybe because I don't provide headline news sources from my conservative business websites as though they shatter what's being worked on by those at the forefront of their study. Yup, I'm definitely the one who should be stuffed in a box of generic stupidty.

[herbivor]

Organic is not feasible to feed the world, only uppity consumers who go to Whole Foods.

The industry has incorporated a lot of more sustainable practices like low or no till, and what was one pass spraying until nature came and had weeds grow resistant to Roundup. If people took proper action and followed good practice maybe the problem could have been better controlled but not in Monsantos best interest to admit their marketed strategy developed a flaw due to evolution.

But a lot of nutrients are wasted by having them break down and turn onto GHGs in lagoons. Livestock operations could also produce carbon credits and their own locomotive fuel, but sadly many are stubborn to invest. Those who do benefit as does the planet.


Oh noes, sleeve and farbin introduce a wild red herring.

There are some pretty amazing organic farming and permaculture practices that are creating yields per acre far greater than the best chemical laden mega-farms. Integrating vegetable crops, fish ponds, chicken manure, etc. can can create a healthier, more productive, more weather and pest tolerant crop but it requires more labor.

[rwh11385]

There are some pretty amazing organic farming and permaculture practices that are creating yields per acre far greater than the best chemical laden mega-farms. Integrating vegetable crops, fish ponds, chicken manure, etc. can can create a healthier, more productive, more weather and pest tolerant crop but it requires more labor.

Grain or just veggie? Links?

Integrated operations are going to be crucial for the future and there's a nice one with a brewery, fish, and vegetables IIRC, but grains are a different matter.

[gwb72tii]

yup, i'm definitely the one who should be stuffed in a box of generic stupidty.

qft

and cale, somehow i missied you piping up about the 78 when your twins herb and rwh were arguing that i must be mistaken, that there is a consensus, and i'm too stupid to realize 78 is a representative sample
and somehow i missed any point you've made about doubting AGW, that there's room for both sides to argue the science

[rwh11385]

i believe that's a non answer

Your arguing style is simply monkey see, monkey do. You actually don't understand what people reply with in response to your moronic posts, but then repeat it towards others... pathetic.


Vertical farming and symbiotic production has a big future, which is what herb was referring to. [So not a non-answer] The Soviets actually used labor intensive maintenance of the fields for weeds instead of chemicals... although the household gardens families kept had much higher yield than the fields. But then again it was because veggies are a different animal [pun intended] than grain.

http://www.card.iastate.edu/books/shifting_patterns/pdfs/chapter10.pdf

http://www.eastagri.org/files/wb-land-transitioncountries.pdf

There's better sources about the comparison of productivity of fields vs. household gardens and talking about labor intensity of the socialized farms... but it's been a while since I dealt with the subject.

As much as some hipsters may be getting into organic farming, http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/201...ration-organic ... this won't replace much of the commercial / industrial majority. Oh well, feel free to sign up or get your friends to try it out: http://www.wwoof.org/ It's good to get people involved in their food and see what it means to be organic instead of just buying it. But I don't grow my own veggies organically, much like I don't use floppy drives to store data.


I do support aquaculture and know more than a few swine operations are switching to it, and heard a lot about it in my Farm Bureau group. And I support training veterans to grow hydroponically vegetables... but haven't even seen grain production away from a field. The industry can grow more sustainable and petro-based fertilizer will be challenged at some point in the future, but GMO's and mechanization are going to remain important to the future of the world's food.

[cale]

qft

and cale, somehow i missied you piping up about the 78 when your twins herb and rwh were arguing that i must be mistaken, that there is a consensus, and i'm too stupid to realize 78 is a representative sample
and somehow i missed any point you've made about doubting AGW, that there's room for both sides to argue the science

My twins? Ah yes those who disagree with your dismissal of something which is held as truth by the people at the top of this field, the most respectable scientific institutions in the world and the overwhelming majority of people with a career in science outside of your scientifically bankrupt country. Cry all you want about a consensus not existing, the only debate that exists is when a denier with a degree in another field or rarely an unpublished climatologist has a microphone stuffed in his face by propaganda farms like Heartland, or by equally unaccredited individuals like Christopher Monkton. The rest of the time the people actually involved in the science are plugging away doing their thing, which is most of the time validating theories and keeping up with the changes. Great attempt at insult, you really stuck it to me by comparing me to legitimate scientists.

For someone who doesn't even understand the science he's arguing, has on more than one occasion provided sources which contradict your own arguments and provides some of the most laughable, incorrect and misleading science this thread has seen you're really in no position to condescend.

[Fusion]

Yeah gwb, you're comitting a crime and should be sentanced to death for the mass murder of millions of people.

http://www.uni-graz.at/richard.parncutt/climatechange.html

[Fusion]

something which is held as truth

Even according to the surveys you religiously talk about, this statement is obviously false.

The survey found that as of 2007 97% agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believe human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence.

"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't."
Mark Twain

[cale]

It's obviously false? You then obviously do not understand truth in science. AGW stands up to observation and falsification, it's consistent with a hypothesis or theory therefore it is both true and factual. Seeing as this is what is found by most active climatologists pursuing their own research, debating it's truthfulness is quite laughable when you're in no position to make that call.

Now please share with us your misunderstanding of what truth and fact is in science, ok go.

[Fusion]

There is no proof that human actions are responsible for even a fraction of any climate related change, and there never was.
That climate change is a neverending, unpredictable process, that we can agree on.

I cannot share a misunderstanding because I do not have one.
Though it is true you believe AGW to be something held as truth.