To Bully the scientific community to validate bugus theory

Although I doubt the numbers I do believe that the balance of what you say is true.
To be fair America exports tons of grain to countries in need far more than any other Nation.

I just wonder though..... It’s like the farming .....I know there is a better word conundrum is the best I can come up with. Simply put capitalism with respect to farming does not necessarily work. The American Farmer if given full freedom to produce to maximum capacity will quickly over produce what essentially is perishable product. In which case it would be good that we could feed the world but then what? We would wipe out world agricultural economies. They would go on hating us and yet depend on us. Think of places like for instance Albania is it not mostly an agricultural economy still? Why not assist other countries in farming technologies?

Ironically our discussions tend to always get down to Israeli hatred but look at what they have managed to do in reclaiming desert and turning sand into useable farmland with irrigation, mulching, and other technological advancements. Using the same techniques the Palestinians who live in poverty rather take foreign aid for food and spend intellectual, physical labor, as well as real capital on war. They have Gaza and could use the existing greenhouse technology left by the Jews when they left.

Green house technology is not above the typical layman to easily figure out. Look you have severally inebriated potheads making ingenious hydro phonic systems in their basements. As a hobby to support their stupid habit here in the states. How hard can it be?

 

The United States still has farming subsidies though. I would be a fan of dropping subsidies and making farmers compete on the true world market.

 

Right because it has to be subsidized. Farming economics is a thread all in its own but before Joe Capitalists here jumps into that one I have to say it does not work (capitalism) with farming at least not from my perspective. But I'll tell you this if allowed to the farmers would produce till a 16 oz can of corn were like 5 cent. And those 6 bills a pound steak would be more like 50 cent.

This is above my head to explain why though where is the economist around here?

 

You've run into the final stages of capitalism in farming. The means of production has become so efficient that the labor required is barely worth the product. Eventually every product will hit this point. You really should read Das Kapital Joe, even if you don't like Communism, Marx had some great points about Capitalism and Economics.

 

One thing all those guys appeared to know nothing about was the End oF tHe DAMN worLD!

 

Phatboy wrote

Why you wanna know? Its a tough job, diseaseridden and psychologically challenging. If you have other options I would suggest trying them out first.
Whores can be trained, and indeed whoretrainig is ,comparably, one of the prime sexual fantasies for both males and females. As such, its a piece of cake, ( with the right individuals ).

The end of the world is a linear consept Smurf. End of an era can include both cyclic and linear views.

Joe ! If this isnt a piece og vile ironic humor,
( http://xerxesx.youaremyfriend.com/ ) whoose aim is the detriment of my mental stability, then its a beautiful gift. It made my day ! Thank you !

Sending soy-beans from Brazil to feed UScows and exporting the beef to Japan is in vogue.
The energy-expenditure is hillarious, but the sending forth and back seems to be the way to do it.

 

Yeah I was having fun with aninote.com just looking for an excuse. Thought about sending it to Smiley or Nursey but figured they would just think I was being factitious and sarcastic. :wink:

 

In the meantime ... here are just a few little factoids for you to play around with, factoids that cause me to doubt that whatever global warming we're experiencing can be blamed on the actions of man.

The sun is hotter. Period. This fact cannot be denied. The sun is going through a lengthy period of increased activity that causes it to radiate more heat into space. Is it really that hard to believe that a hotter sun would lead to a hotter earth?
Our polar ice caps are melting? Sure looks like it. But .. the polar ice caps on Mars are melting also. So, are we to believe that this is caused by man on the Earth but by the hotter sun on Mars?
And while we're talking about ice caps melting, it's worth noting that the ice pack in the heart of Antarctica is actually getting thicker!
Scientific data clearly shows that the Earth has undergone warming and cooling cycles for millions of years. Why, all of a sudden, does a warming cycle just have to be caused by the actions of man?
Scientists who work on government grants are more inclined to blame global warming on the actions of man than are scientists who do not depend on continued government (political) funding.
And just how much warmer has our atmosphere become in the last 100 years? One degree. That's it. Just one degree.
Many of the people who are so involved in promoting the man-made global warming theme are people who are also involved in anti-capitalist movements. So, what is their true goal? Do they want to solve the global warming problem, or do they want to cripple the capitalist systems they so hate?
The U.S. Senate snubbed the Kyoto treaty by a vote of 99-0. This was during the Clinton years! What did these 99 senators know about the Kyoto Accords that we don't know?
Speaking of the Kyoto accords, they would severely impact the U.S. economy, but would leave China absolutely alone! China has one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Since a huge number of Kyoto proponents can also be called anti-American, could this cause you to wonder what the true goal of Kyoto is?
And just how many years ago was it that these very same scientists were warming us about the earth getting cooler?
That's just a start. More to come later. They want to discuss global warming? Fine! No holds barred.

 

Ah, so Global warming is a product of the hate America crowd, and has no reason behind it at all. That must be why the Australians are the other nation that didn't sign up.

 

So which planet are you from?

 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, has voiced their disapproval of the Associated Press FALSE news release.

 

So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.
First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.

Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.

Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

That's just the conclusion of a very compelling opinion by a scientist from MIT.

 

Keep track of the end of times as predicted by Albert Gore

 

because, as he readily points out in his speeches, he lives a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." But if Al Gore is the world's role model for ecology, the planet is doomed.

For someone who says the sky is falling, he does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.)

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.

But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.

Gore is not alone. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has said, "Global warming is happening, and it threatens our very existence." The DNC website applauds the fact that Gore has "tried to move people to act." Yet, astoundingly, Gore's persuasive powers have failed to convince his own party: The DNC has not signed up to pay an additional two pennies a kilowatt hour to go green. For that matter, neither has the Republican National Committee.

Maybe our very existence isn't threatened.

Gore has held these apocalyptic views about the environment for some time. So why, then, didn't Gore dump his family's large stock holdings in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum? As executor of his family's trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas.

Living carbon-neutral apparently doesn't mean living oil-stock free. Nor does it necessarily mean giving up a mining royalty either.

Humanity might be "sitting on a ticking time bomb," but Gore's home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.

The issue here is not simply Gore's hypocrisy; it's a question of credibility. If he genuinely believes the apocalyptic vision he has put forth and calls for radical changes in the way other people live, why hasn't he made any radical change in his life? Giving up the zinc mine or one of his homes is not asking much, given that he wants the rest of us to radically change our lives.

 

I find my self more and more impressed with Thomas Sowell's articles here he gives examples of how the overwhelmingly left biased scientific community uses studies to push their own political agenda instead of true science.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/..._part_ii&ns=ThomasSowell&dt=08/10/2006&page=1

 

A little of both sides of the debate on global warming in this artical.

 

The leftleaning scientific community should be locked up with the leftleaning journalists, the leftleaning teacher and the leftleaning democratic party. USA is pretty close to becoming a communist state Joe. You dont need those teachers , journalists, liberals, and scientists anyway. Priests and soldiers and technicians should do it.

 

The fact is that the neo-cons with their lacking diplomatic skills and their lacking knowledge on historical presedence, ( Bush got a C in his major, I think ), is the greates threat to the republic of the united states , ever !

( This is the same mechanic of policy that makes it Hizbollahs fault that Lebanon was so thoroughly set back developementaly ).

Its what i have said before. The clod-war rethorics are counterproductive tool, only good for winning elections.

 

You know what the fact that they exist is ok with me the system has a natural checks and balance. However the biggest risk to democracy is that the people are misinformed. A properly educated electorate will make the right choice. We do not need to; because we feel the country is going to far right, misinform them. You would be surprised how many make it a point to keep themselves properly informed that is why regardless of all the rhetoric of the loudmouth minority the silent majority goes out on Nov and blows away the so called popular consensus.