Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Saturday, March 08, 2008

As if a bear market, credit crunch, energy crisis and city financing emergency were not enough for one year, experts say the world is now facing down the barrel of the worst catastrophe of all: famine. The very idea that the modern world could run out of food seems ludicrous, but that is the flip side, or cause, of the tremendous recent increase in the cost of raw wheat, corn, rice, oats and soybeans. Food prices are not escalating because speculators have run them up for sport and profit, but because accelerating demand in developing nations, biofuel production and poor harvests in some areas have made basic foodstuffs truly scarce.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

reinheitsgebot

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

I still can't believe we're turning our food into fuel for our cars. Stupidest thing I've ever heard of.Time to drill where the oil is and stop wasting our food. Corn is over $5.50 per bushel now. Sad thing is,we're probably going to continue this stupidity indefinately,thanks to global warming alarmist idiots.

"stupidity indefinately(sic),thanks to global warming alarmist idiots."

... stupidity indefinitely, thanks to ADM lobbyists and illiterate morons ...

There. Fixed.

We won't run out of food as long as we can afford to pay for it.

Sigh

I'll post this AGAIN.

From: JASON Defense Advisory Panel Reports

www.fas.org

(JASON is an independent scientific advisory group that provides consulting services to the U.S. government on matters of defense science and technology. It was established in 1960."

-------

Reducing DoD Fossil-Fuel Dependence, JSR-06-135, September 2006
-
Corn ethanol conclusion:
-
"The low solar-energy conversion efficiency, coupled with the energy-intensive process to produce corn ethanol, results in an overall process that yields no significant net energy benefit from corn-derived ethanol, as it is within 20% of "energy breakeven". As implemented in the U.S. at present, much of the energy used to make corn-based ethanol is produced by burning coal to provide heat to the process."

Corn ethanol is an excellent example of Big Ag (Can you say ADM?) lobbying.

thanks to global warming alarmist idiots.

Hope they are right. Try to grow crops when it's cold.

Corn ethanol is an excellent example of Big Ag (Can you say ADM?) lobbying.

All you dittohead morons who voted Republican can take credit.

Corn ethanol is an excellent example of Big Ag (Can you say ADM?) lobbying.

All you dittohead morons who voted Republican can take credit.

Posted by Zatoichi




The corn manufacturers love it, don't they?


I cannot bring myself to call them farmers.


I don't mind a little corn ethanol,but I prefer mine to be right out of the jug,before it's fucked up by rendering it undrinkable.

"Corn ethanol is an excellent example of Big Ag (Can you say ADM?) lobbying."

Absolutely correct.

"All you dittohead morons who voted Republican can take credit."

What!? You mean no democrats involved? When did Algore change parties? You trying to tell us that all those democrats in Congress are AGAINST Big Ag and ethanol? And, by the way, I WON'T be voting democrat again THIS election. That certainly doesn't mean I'm enamored with McCain.

Drill off the coast of America,in ANWR,wherever there is oil. Liquefy coal,there's plenty of it.


thanks to global warming alarmist idiots.

Hope they are right. Try to grow crops when it's cold.

Posted by Ray at 2008-03-08 07:58 AM

The Sahara seems to be doing well. Oh wait...

I cannot bring myself to call them farmers.


Imagine if there were none,TurdBaxter...

The Sahara seems to be doing well. Oh wait...

And Greenland is getting greener.

The Sahara was the result of man-made global warming? Who knew? Damn,I'm glad we have Bob on here giving history lessons.

This ethanol nonsense is really pissing me off, I tell ya. Can't go to a pump anywhere within 15 miles of my home now without the gas being 10% ethanol. Now, the dealership tells me I'll only have a slight drop in efficiency with it, but I can run that gas. Why do I doubt this? I mean, if I knew anything about autos and could find something or other to help my engine with this, okay, I wouldn't be so torqued off, but geez!

God is still around we won't run out of food. Now the question is will we be able to AFFORD the food that God Provides. THAT is the REAL question.

Larry Mohr

"The Sahara was the result of man-made global warming? Who knew? Damn,I'm glad we have Bob on here giving history lessons."

He has a lot of time on his hands now that he has proven the moon landing to be false and the 9/11 conspiracy.

Gee, American, that was cute.


I come from a long line of Midwest farmers. It's not like the movies anymore.


Although I have a hunch you believe corn is picked by hand, by kids, after school.

Although I have a hunch you believe corn is picked by hand, by kids, after school.

It was when I was a kid,but we did manage to buy a single-row picker after a while.Too bad I could never figure out how to hook it to the horse.

Drill off the coast of America,in ANWR,wherever there is oil. Liquefy coal,there's plenty of it.

The best thing we could do is to start using the CTL technology developed, well a shitload of years ago. Back then it wasn't affordable, roughly the equivalent of 40 bucks a barrel. Now we can do it for less and 40$ a barrel sounds great to me right now.

The US has the worlds largest reserves of coal. We could become energy independent nearly as fast as we could build the factories and mine the coal.

www.futurecoalfuels.org

The only thing I like about Obama:

obama.senate.gov

The first FT plants began operation in Germany in 1938 but closed down after the Second World War. Then in 1955, Sasol, a world-leader in the commercial production of liquid fuels and chemicals from coal and crude oil, started Sasol I in Sasolburg, South Africa. Following the success of Sasol I, Sasol II and III, located in Secunda, South Africa, came on line in 1980 and 1982, respectively. The syngas at these three plants as well as at several other plants abroad is converted to more than 200 fuel and chemical products. In the early 1990's, two other FT plants came on line. The Mossgas plant which converts natural gas to FT products using a high temperature process and an iron catalyst started up in South Africa in 1992. Additionally, Shell commissioned a plant in 1993 in Bintuli, Malaysia using the Shell Middle Distillate Synthesis process, which is essentially, enhanced FT synthesis. Currently, Syntroleum is building a 10,000 BPD specialty chemicals and lube oil plant located in Northwestern Australia.4 Also, Conoco-Phillips is building a gas-to-liquids pilot plant in Bartlesville, Oklahoma to produce diesel, naptha, and waxes from natural gas via FT catalysis.

I think SA runs all their diesel engines on this stuff.

www1.eere.energy.gov

Now there is some energy independence you can believe in. You want "Hope" and "Change", well start using the CTL technology to rid ourselves of those pesky Arabs and OPEC.

Cheers,
Walt

Coal to diesel, yes, Walt? Am I reading that correctly?

I'll need a diesel vehicle then. Shame I don't have $30K and these aren't available in this country yet, but... if I may point you towards a link:

How's this for a diesel vehicle?!

I'd been pointed to an editorial on the Loremo by my father a few days ago, I'll link to it if anyone is interested.

This statement in Walt's link tells me CTL is not economically viable at this time.

"To jump start CTL production on a significant scale, federal participation is critically important for two reasons. First, financial assistance on a limited scale will help to reassure private investors wary of undertaking major investments in energy technologies untried in the United States."

If it was, it wouldn't need taxpayer support.

Coal to diesel, yes, Walt? Am I reading that correctly?

Yes.

Cool link, but if you don't have 30K, try this:

cgi.ebay.com

Cheers,
Walt

Ray,

"To jump start CTL production on a significant scale, federal participation is critically important for two reasons. First, financial assistance on a limited scale will help to reassure private investors wary of undertaking major investments in energy technologies untried in the United States."

It is my understanding that if this was implemented that OPEC could simply reduce the price of oil to put these guys out of business. They would need assurances before they put billions into these factories that we, the US, wouldn't turn around and start buying OPECs 39.99/ Barrel oil instead of their 40/barrel oil. Essentially.

That and the initial cost to build the number of factories required to make this a viable alternative to OPEC would be enormous. But worth it.

I'd been pointed to an editorial on the Loremo by my father a few days ago, I'll link to it if anyone is interested.

Send it.

Done, Walt. Let me find it:

An MSN editorial on the Loremo

Now if you'll pardon me, there's poker to be played. Ciao.

Ray,

Does this help?

www.platts.com

Try this one:

www.globalinsight.com

Thanks Letus,

Cool car, not very practical for a family, but for a married couple with no kids and no boat, would work.

Walt

What you don't see is that subsidies force taxpayers to pay for the higher cost of CTL by inflation and taxes.

OPEC doesn't control the price of oil, it's world market with many producers and consumers. The falling dollar is in actuality reducing the price they are receiving for their oil. That plus rising demand from Asia accounts for the higher price. There is probably a degree of uncertain payback because of an unstable dollar, that inhibits investment.

CTL will probably become economically viable in the distant future, but not yet. Until then, it's a loser.

pretty sure I won't run out of food.

CTL will probably become economically viable in the distant future, but not yet. Until then, it's a loser.

Ray, I think you are looking at this too pessimistically. I just read that 30% of SAs fuel is produced this way. They are currently looking at exporting this technology to China. SA can do something we can't? I doubt that. Which would you prefer, subsidized CTL in the short term which would leave us energy independent or extremely more energy independent than we are now, or the status quo?

Ray,

www.guardian.co.uk

These guys are the reason there is no positive coverage on this topic. It is the Global Warming', or as they are starting to call themselves now Climate Change' people who are against this.

They prefer Climate Change' because that way there is no way they can be wrong.

Cheers

Walt, I have no wife, no kids, no boat, and no need to share space, so the Loremo would work well for me indeed. Here to Vegas on three tanks of gas? Woohoo!

Walt

I said economically viable. As we speak, oil producing countries are shifting away from the falling dollar. There is nothing bad about being dependent on other nations for resources if it wasn't for our warmongering and reckless money management.

I thought you understood why you are buying gold.

Shit Letus, if you can't afford a 30K car, what are you doing in Vegas? Very cool link but I wonder if it is 120MPG highway and 30 MPG city. 0-60 in I can't count that high.

no wife, no kids, no boat, and no need to share space

You need to get into contracting.

Cheers

Ray,

I thought you understood why you are buying gold.

I buy gold basically because I can stash it and nobody can touch it. I have money in USAGX which is up about 18% this year alone.

You didn't answer my question. Which would you prefer? Would you rather subsidize the use of CTL and worse case scenario pay the same per barrel, or would you rather send our dollars, weak as they are now, all over the world?

www.investorguide.com">www.investorguide.com

Damn,

Try this one:

www.investorguide.com*d=v1

"Analysts say the fuel could be economic if oil prices stay consistently above US$25-40 a barrel. Oil currently costs double that, and briefly touched $100 a barrel last month."

If that is true, then government subsidies aren't necessary. I'm not sure we are getting the full picture. The article touched briefly on the water problem. Tar sand to oil requires lots of water too. The processes might require a desalinization plant and an energy source not built into their calculations.

Anytime a commercial project requires government subsidy, it's probably not economically viable. I can't imagine the major oil companies wouldn't jump at this otherwise. Aren't they supposed to be driven by greed?

disregard the *d=v1

Anytime a commercial project requires government subsidy, it's probably not economically viable. I can't imagine the major oil companies wouldn't jump at this otherwise. Aren't they supposed to be driven by greed?

Ray,

I am going to lay off this one for now. I appreciate the conversation and the reasonable approach to this that you have taken. You appear to be hung up on the subsidy thing; I will research it and get back to you. The oil companies will most likely be against this idea, it would, after all, nearly put them out of business.

Walt, I'm not in Vegas, never was there. And I'm one of those guys that never finished school, so contracting is out. I just like seeing the geeks win once in a while is all. Hell, I'll be lucky to get to old age without debt in my pocket (aside from the national anyway).

Walt, I'm not in Vegas, never was there.

Surprisingly enough neither have I. I have been, according to "Where I've Been", to over 24% of the planet, but not Vegas.

Whatever your job is, you used the term "geek", they are hiring for all sorts of shit. Visit www.dangerzonejobs.com or use monster and just look in the ME. Big pay bro.

Well I buy gold (silver actually, up 2x gold) because the collapse of the dollar is imminent.

Would you rather subsidize the use of CTL and worse case scenario pay the same per barrel, or would you rather send our dollars, weak as they are now, all over the world?

Both are bad alternatives to private investment, as I've tried to explain. Capital investment in this country has fallen terribly because of taxes and over-regulation. Subsidies only heighten or problems.

The oil companies will most likely be against this idea, it would, after all, nearly put them out of business.

They were made for a business like this if they saw money in it. They are not idealists.

Ray, I might be in trouble for asking this, but how do you store your metals? At home, or do you use a company storage facility? I'm curious, because the large quantities you'd need to hold any sizable amounts, wouldn't you need a frickin' huge hole in the ground (metaphorically speaking at least)?

Sorry, completely off topic. Wouldn't mind seeing a thread on this.

Let

There are good books in the subject.

www.amazon.com

Capital investment in this country has fallen terribly because of taxes and over-regulation. Subsidies only heighten or problems.

Agreed 1000% But if the subsidies rid ourselves of the dependence on foreign oil, I am OK with that.

Lets,

Stash that shit wherever you want. I have some hidden in Thailand. It only takes a small amount of actual gold to make up a lot of money.

Ray, are you referring to silver coins? I am not a big fan of coins. I prefer chunks of the real deal!

Lets,

10oz of gold is about 10,000.00$. How hard is it to stash 10oz? Let's be real. Not hard.

www.onlygold.com

Walt

I think you are too obsessed on one thing to the exclusion of unseen negative consequences elsewhere. And you have to pay attention to the reasons why government intervention has been the cause of the reduction of capital investment in this country.

Coins are recognizable, easy to sell and come in small quantities. Bars, I think come in minimum 100 oz size. They need to have a registration number on them and the name of the producer. Otherwise you need a buyer with the sophistication to assay them, at a price of course. Then you face the risk that whomever you entrust to store the metal for you doesn't abscond with your cache.

Because of it's commercial value, long term reduction of above-the-ground inventories and smaller market, silver has been rising about twice the rate of gold. It's also terribly under priced to gold. Its historical ratio to gold is in the order of 15:1 when today the ratio is 45:1.

It's the buy of the century.

Ray,

You are not looking at my links. Please look at the CTL links, not just the first few paragraphs.

Walt

I read the whole links. That doesn't negate my point about the negative consequences of government subsidy. Pie-in-the-sky projections that the world will be a better place if government will do something are a dime a dozen. Look where it's brought us?

Is there something you want to draw attention too?

Good article. Fact is that we cannot divert needed food to make fuel all the time. But there is a lot of agricultural land that is going to waste -- that's why developers are buying up farmland at dirt cheap prices.

A couple of thoughts -- cellulosic ethanol, from renewable plant sources, trees and switchgrass, etc. -- is a potential energy alternative. In addition, clean wood burning stoves are a few years off -- and wood is certainly renewable and eco-correct as long as the carbon they absorb from the atmosphere is re-stored in a terrestrial form rather than sent back into the air.

IMHO, corn will still be used for ethanol as long as farmers cannot sell all of it for food, but legislators may limit the price of corn so it all doesn't get diverted from feed-grain purposes to fuel-oil purposes. Rice prices are affected to the extent that rice is an alternative to corn as a food product and to population growth in Pakistan, Bangladesh, China, South Asia, Latin America and parts of the Middle East. But rice is not a fuel alternative.

OBTW -- President Petro will continue to rule: See: www.motherjones.com

Guess I better start canning food and buying up all the beef jerky at the 7-11 Stores.

"thanks to global warming alarmist idiots."
Are you blaming the over consumption and global shortage of oil on "global warming alarmist idiots"? What kind of logic is that????

Could the world run out of food?

Well, that's a bit of optimism right there.

Not could. WILL. Real question is "when?"

Populations increase.

Arable land decreases.

Fuel costs sky rocket.

In the short term this means the price of food globally will go sky high.

In the long term it means that global starvation will become an all too real issue.

And that's w/o even taking into account the fact that there are many places on this earth that are on the cusp of becoming too hot which will eventually become useless.

Also the CCD (Colony Collapse Disorder) phenomenon suggests that many crops in arable areas will fail due to lack of poillination.

Spud had a thread on this very topic at one point.

Very. Real. Issue.

People who deny the reality of Global Warming Climate Change may as well go and join the flat earth society and quit trying to discuss the subject.

Wonder how many folks who are global warming deniers (not the professionals) are also big believers in the rapture and other ludicrous end times scenarios?

Spud imagines the over-lap there is prolly quite pronounced.

Just a hunch. Got no hard numbers there.

Be Well.


So --

Is it true when they say the way to a man's heart is through his stomach?

Walt --

10oz of gold is about 10,000.00$. How hard is it to stash 10oz? Let's be real. Not hard.

www.onlygold.com

Posted by Walt at 2008-03-08 10:21 AM


Good link. Thanks!

RAY

silver has been rising about twice the rate of gold. It's also terribly under priced to gold. Its historical ratio to gold is in the order of 15:1 when today the ratio is 45:1.

It's the buy of the century.

Posted by Ray at 2008-03-08 10:36 AM


I've been watching silver a lot lately.

People who deny the reality of Global Warming Climate Change may as well go and join the flat earth society and quit trying to discuss the subject.

Wonder how many folks who are global warming deniers (not the professionals) are also big believers in the rapture and other ludicrous end times scenarios?

Man Made Global Warming is just another one of the "ludicrous end times scenarios" that you so clearly hate.

I don't believe in the Bible or any other holy book for that matter, nor do I believe in the newest religion of Global Warming.

Clearly you have bought into it hook, line and sinker.

Tell you what Spud, you post what the exact temperature will be in Bangkok at 1645 GMT in Fahrenheit on April 9 2008. That shouldn't be so hard, that is only 1 month away and you are so certain of all the apocalyptic climate change, surely you can tell me what the temperature will be in a mere month.

Better yet, you post the date you think will be the end of it all for mankind due to the evil actions of man against your God, the Earth.

Your jihad is underway (All praise to Earth), please tell me, when does the story end?

Cheers,
Walt

Ray,

Bars, I think come in minimum 100 oz size.

That was 10 minutes after I posted this link:

www.onlygold.com

So no, I do not think you are looking at my links. I think you have focused on one aspect of a complex issue and let it cloud your thinking. I will go back and see if there is anything I can find to clearly and concisely show why you shouldn't be concerned about that one particular issue.

Pie-in-the-sky projections that the world will be a better place if government will do something are a dime a dozen.

I am the last guy on Earth to start cheering for government programs, this isn't one. This is private industry stepping in with a little help from the gov. Honestly this may be one issue where the gov need to take the lead. We have the most coal on Earth practically and could easily turn it around on the rest of the world and make them dependent on us. All we have to do is fight off the Man Made Global Warming Jihadists.

Cheers,
Walt

Anyone who imagines that the cumalative effects of an over populated, industrialised planet is not in large measure responsible for where we are now is basically a moron in denial......People who deny the reality of Global Warming Climate Change may as well go and join the flat earth society and quit trying to discuss the subject.

Wonder how many folks who are global warming deniers (not the professionals) are also big believers in the rapture and other ludicrous end times scenarios?




You're right of course.

Computer models are infallible.

Macro-climate change is really not at all complex.

The science behind man-made global warming is tighter than running a controlled experiment and measuring the results.


Utterly amazing.

The global warming issue is going to prove to be a huge black eye for the scientific community. Not that the theory itself is neccessarily bad, but because the way in which the scientific community is so protective of that theory.

It used to be that theories were constantly challenged with new theories, which resulted in new observations, experiments and data that either proved to be stronger or weaker than the theory challenged. Throughout all of history man has believed in certain scientific theories that later proved to be wrong. The sun revolving around the earth, for example. The earth being flat, as another example.

The global warming religious zealots are treating alternative theories much the same way the Catholic church originally treated Galileo. How ironic.

The next few years will be interesting. The earth just recorded an unprecedented drop in global temperature over the last 12 months. By far the widest change in such a short period ever measured. This drop corresponds with a lack of solar activity. Hmmmm.... Is it possible, maybe, that while man-made CO2 emmissions do have a greenhouse effect, that other forces that affect climate change are far more impactful? Should we not at the very least theorize such? Should we not set out to try and prove other theories via observation and experimentation?

Posted by JeffJ at 2008-03-01 03:39 PM

NEVER! As long as McDonald's has deep frying grease which is magically transformed into a Burger, Fries and a Milkshake... the world will never run out of food.

www.onlygold.com

Didn't see that one.

I am the last guy on Earth to start cheering for government programs, this isn't one.

Yeah they all say that too. If there is money to be made, there is a company to make the money. Government has a long history of backing losers.

Posted by JeffJ at 2008-03-01 03:39 PM

Excellent Jeff. There is a lot of guesswork built into computer models. Look how badly economists are doing with computer models that supposedly predict human behavior. There are too many unforeseeable forces. So they always miss changes in direction when they are not on a predictable cycle.

"stupidity indefinately(sic),thanks to global warming alarmist idiots."

... stupidity indefinitely, thanks to ADM lobbyists and illiterate morons ...

There. Fixed.

Posted by Zatoichi

this is what the amerikan peeps get for not valuing the LOCAL farmer..Thats why I started farming years ago..The supply chain of the major cities is 1 week of food.. thats right 1 week. so if fuel becomes an issue..no food.

Excellent Jeff.


Thank you, Ray.

btw.. money aint shit when you cant get food.. i grow heritage corn, have beef cows, goats chickens and a wide variety of heritage non GM foods..

Also the CCD (Colony Collapse Disorder) phenomenon suggests that many crops in arable areas will fail due to lack of poillination.

Spud had a thread on this very topic at one point.

this is not as large an issue as proposed.. mostly with new zealand varieties of honeybees. and due to the fucking almond industry in CA..the twats out there are bringing in colonies of bees from other continents

The price of food will keep rising as long as we have an oil-dependent economy. Higher fuel prices equals higher harvesting costs, higher transportation costs, higher storage costs (for mobile refrigeration) and in the end higher fuel costs. Uh duh!! So all you people that think we just need to sink another oil well to solve the problem should probably get over yourselves and accept the fact that the longer we, as a society, are in denial about our oil dependency and the effects it has on everything the more everything, including food, is going to cost.

Soylent Green is......CEO's!

Er, what about population increase?

And agriculture is essentially a "mining" operation. Fertilizers are required to replenish the soil, and some are petroleum based. Uh oh!

For years, there had been a "buffer" between capacity to produce food, and the consumption, but now the burgeoning populations (whose increase we are helping along) have eliminated that so even minor disruptions in the supply of food will result in disastrous consequences.

Keep a pantry and store a year's supply of food in it. Don't forget water, purifiers, generators, and medications. There are difficult times ahead. It's no longer a world of plenty.

Look ahead a century or so, we may have reverted to windpower for sailing and other now unthinkable alternatives.

Is this new? Didn't the Bible have a tale of seven lean years?

If you restate the question as "will the world's "poor people" run out of food?" the answer is of course a big Yes!!!


If you restate the question as "will the world's "poor people" run out of food?" the answer is of course a big Yes!!!

Posted by AntiCadillac

...good to grow your own if poor?

I doubt it. As long as there are cows walking the streets of India there is still plenty of food for the masses.

Surely Chia pet can come up with a quick growing food source that you can grow right in your living room fer pennies a day.

Don't worry if Obama gets elected the hungry can live off of hope. Just think they won't be any fat people cos hope is low in calories.

Don't worry if Obama gets elected the hungry can live off of hope. Just think they won't be any fat people cos hope is low in calories.

Posted by Crackpipejunkie

just live on crack (for free?:>)

The scare du jour, running out of food.

Well who needs it if you have no clean air, water, oil, medical care, job, and whatever ever else the merchants of fear want us to believe

certain types of people may run out of food, but the world at large? no. it cannot happen - look to the mormons! they keep seven year's worth in their pantries at all times.

it is, however, a very good idea to have a garden, chickens, a pig or cow if at all possible and learn to can.

teach a person to fish concept - rarely does a person learn a thing if given everything.

"teach a person to fish concept - rarely does a person learn a thing if given everything."

What!?...Are you saying that the majority of the population of New Orleans is unlearned? Does it apply to the democrats who are seeking "free" everything? For shame....you have no "heart" and you must be a "monster."

If we keep burning it in our cars, YES!!!

I always thought food was ment to be eaten, not burned.

Archeologists, paleontologists, Historians, have recorded a civilization cycle consistently interrupted by environmental disaster and war.

Fishing, Farming, Forestry are in decline, worldwide, though not as much in the US where agriculture is king.

Our quality of life is unsustainable. But the US is less susceptable to environmental disaster than most. Third world countries export raw materials and import hi-value products. We should be seriously worried about our decent into a third world economic force with the worlds largest collection of weapons of mass destruction. Is the only way out to kill everyone else?

Small farms. Local food. Get rid of monoculture. Save seeds and local varieties. Sustainability. Not that hard really in practice, but the profits of "agribusiness" won't continue, so it likely won't get any traction until it's too late.

anyone hear that there are well over 17,000 of the worlds top scientists who say humans do not cause global warming? no? well that's not surprising.

I still can't believe we're turning our food into fuel for our cars. Stupidest thing I've ever heard of.Time to drill where the oil is and stop wasting our food.

I believe it, the tree hugger who thought of the idea was brilliant. If the environment wacos who some like to call them, want the most of the Earth returned back to the animals. Bio fuels a 'blessing' for them. A curse for the rest of us and especially poor people...Here is their logic...

Raise the demand---Support growing third world countries and condemn the evil empire of the United States for pollution and support highly restrictive regulations for the US companies while not paying much attention to third world countries.

Rise the Price---By raising the prices of food through bio fuels and the price of oil will eventually compel people to reduce their driving. Support government help to afford food for the poor people so they don't look like they trying to starve anyone.

Many concerns raised years ago about bio fuels have not come to light.

The best option is either electric cars or h2 cars that uses gas more wisely not just 2 miles a gallon better than cars that use just gas. Also I agree, we should start drilling more in the US...


ethanol is a huge waste of time (& corn, too:>)


Ethanol fuel is not so green
It is not green, it is not economically viable, and any move to mandate its inclusion in fuel would have enormous repercussions for other sectors of Australian industry. It is something of a relief, therefore, to read a just-released parliamentary research paper on the economic effects of an ethanol mandate.
The paper concludes that "no prima facie economic case for a mandate has been established".

www.news.com.au

"Corn has doubled in price in the past two years, while stockpiles have shrunk alarmingly. As ABN Amro Morgans chief economist Michael Knox put it so well recently: 'Part of this increased (grain) consumption comes from turning corn into fodder for automobiles. This is the dumbest idea that politicians have produced this century.'" M.R.

I don't believe in the Bible or any other holy book for that matter, nor do I believe in the newest religion of Global Warming.

Clearly you have bought into it hook, line and sinker.

Tell you what Spud, you post what the exact temperature will be in Bangkok at 1645 GMT in Fahrenheit on April 9 2008.


Yer argument hinges on the inaccuracy of even short term weather prediction due to chaos theory and ignores the huge masses of data that have been gathered around the world by competent scientists.

Island nations are losing ground... literally. Ocean temperatures are warming to the point where coral is dying of bleaching. The ice at both poles is melting at a faster rate than the IPCC predicted it would. There is too much data in at this point to even call it a question. Glonbal Warming is real and it is caused by mans enormous footprint.

Seeing as how yer not religious this can;'t be the wrath of an angry god. Glad we gor that argument out of the way. Spud's only question to Walt is wot particular brand of cognitive dissonance from the Multi Million Dollar Global Warming Denial Industry are you buying this week?

Most folk who aren't total loons have stopped buying their original brand ie. Global Warming Aint Real. Now the more savvy denial shoppers are going with Brand B "GW is real but it's not mans fault" *Now with extra solar activity! Some prefer Brand C "It's real but it's part of a natural cycle that we can't change" The more hard headed shoppers also seem to like Brand D "It's real, it's man made but it's too prohibitively expensive to do anything about"

They are all bullshit, of course, but it gives folks a real boost to believe that "too smart" to buy into some "ludicrous hoax".

So wot brand of denial do you reccomend, Walt?

Be Well.

I still can't believe we're turning our food into fuel for our cars. Stupidest thing I've ever heard of. Time to drill where the oil is and stop wasting our food.

~A1st

Ethanol from corn is stupid. No argument there.

Drill where the oil is?

If yer talking ANWR, that's only a drop in the bucket and it will do practically nothing in terms of solving America's oil addiction crisis.

Think again.

'Part of this increased (grain) consumption comes from turning corn into fodder for automobiles. This is the dumbest idea that politicians have produced this century.'

~Bani

Key word there is "politicians". CNN actually told a little truth on this topic tonight with their Broken Government/ Scorched Earth series.

Basically, they explained that everybody and their monkey in Washington largely knows that ethanol from corn is a massive money wasting boondoggle that is mostly a sop to Big Agra, particularily in places like Iowa.

Then they showed clips of Bush, McCain, Clinton, Obama, and a shitload more folks besides, all make their pilgrimage to Iowa where they all sed good things about ethanol. It's power politics over-riding common sense and basic math. Madness.

That sed the idea of using renewable sources of energy is not a bad one, from solar to wind to hydro-electric to geo-thermal there are a shitload more viable options out there.

Be Well.

the real issues are whether it's really all/anybit man made and/or we are still coming out of the last ice age ~ of course....And who really benefits from the taxes raised to fight this 10,000 year old plus, plus beast.


ps saw "Waterworld" again tonite on Dish:>)

the real issues are whether it's really all/anybit man made and/or we are still coming out of the last ice age ~ of course....And who really benefits from the taxes raised to fight this 10,000 year old plus, plus beast.


ps saw "Waterworld" again tonite on Dish:>)

Now little Spud sittin in his shithole trailer up in coukfest Canada has Global Warming and all its nuances figured out.

Anything that disrupts his brain from believing in GW surely is just junk science conjured up by the oil industry and world polluters.

Never mind that a large number of serious scientist using real data and observations categorically call Global Warming bullshit.

There are so many holes in the Global Warming bullshit theory it would take a lifetime to point them all out.

Glonbal Warming is real

Yep.


and it is caused by mans enormous footprint.

The science supporing this assertion is far from convincing. If you are going to make this claim, back it up. To what percent does man-made carbon emissions contribute to the current warming cycle? Put a number on it. I dare you.


Walt is wot particular brand of cognitive dissonance from the Multi Million Dollar Global Warming Denial Industry are you buying this week?

The oil industry certainly takes a bit of a hit, due to the theory that man-made carbon emmissions is causing the globe to warm and that said warming is a net negative relative to current temperatures. However, an awful lot of grant money is dependent upon stoking the fires (no pun intended) of global warming alarmism. If you are going to play the 'greed card', apply it to all parties and project an appropriate level of skepticism toward all parties.


They are all bullshit, of course, but it gives folks a real boost to believe that "too smart" to buy into some "ludicrous hoax".

The entire man-made global warming hysteria is entirely predicated on computer modeling, which is entirely predicated on the strength of the data being used coupled with the programming itself.

I could very well be wrong, but my prediction is that in 15-20 years we will all be laughing at the man-made global warming Armagedon that is currently being peddled.

Most folk who aren't total loons have stopped buying their original brand ie. Global Warming Aint Real. Now the more savvy denial shoppers are going with Brand B "GW is real but it's not mans fault" *Now with extra solar activity! Some prefer Brand C "It's real but it's part of a natural cycle that we can't change" The more hard headed shoppers also seem to like Brand D "It's real, it's man made but it's too prohibitively expensive to do anything about"

Then you've got brand "E" -- the realists. This is the group of people who believes that climatology is too young of a science and data is far to sparse (only 400 kyrs worth, or 8 seconds worth if the earth was one day old) to understand what makes the weather tick. This group believes that neither side, the alarmists nor the deniers, have the knowledge or the tools and data to fully and correctly understand the causes of global warming.

I could very well be wrong, but my prediction is that in 15-20 years we will all be laughing at the man-made global warming Armagedon that is currently being peddled.

I am already laughing. I forget who it was that posted some study by the Pentagon and in that study it predicted that by the year 2007, the Hague would be underwater. It also predicts that by 2009, all of China will be in a MEGA-Drought.

In 20 years, when Florida, and New York are NOT underwater I will be having a hell of a good laugh at the fanatical man made Global Warmists

Perfectly stated, Goat.

I didn't realize that accidentally whiffing petrol fumes resulted in such intellectual clarity.

I am already laughing. I forget who it was that posted some study by the Pentagon and in that study it predicted that by the year 2007, the Hague would be underwater. It also predicts that by 2009, all of China will be in a MEGA-Drought.

That was me, and apparently you didn't read the premise. It wasn't a prediction at all, nor was it supposed to be. It was a planning exercise the Pentagon requested. The point didn't have anything to do with whether GW science was real or not. .

The point in my posting the study was that the Pentagon's perspective appeared to be near religious in it's apocalyptic worst case scenario. I found it ironic. Both the author of the thread you posted and the Pentagon agree on GW. The issue was the author misconstrues fervor with religion

Fervor/passion exist with or without religion and can be found in wholly different places.

I thought abortion would take care of this...?
What went wrong..?

"I forget who it was that posted some study by the Pentagon" -Walt

I'm sure you did, since no such study exists.

"Global Temperature Trends: 2007 Summation

The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2C above the prior record with the help of the "El Nio of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum

data.giss.nasa.gov

and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Nio-La Nia cycle.

Figure 1 shows 2007 temperature anomalies relative to the 1951-1980 base period mean. The global mean temperature anomaly, 0.57C (about 1F) warmer than the 1951-1980 mean, continues the strong warming trend of the past thirty years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases (GHGs) (Hansen et al. 2007). The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990. "

Fig 1.
data.giss.nasa.gov

data.giss.nasa.gov

"Global Warming/Climate Change Collection
Fifteen recent publications from the National Academies about the science and policy implications of global warming and climate change."
www.nap.edu

Yav,

oco.jpl.nasa.gov

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction to find this.

You look at page 9 and tell me if you think they are not predicting something. I would cut and paste but it is Adobe.

Anyone know how to cut and paste from that thing?

Cheers,

Hey Zat,

Here's some fun reading:

oco.jpl.nasa.gov

From those "Earth Worshiping" Pentagon wussies.

Posted by YAV at 2008-03-03 12:44 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Set Adobe to Text via the T Button on the top of the adobe page and then do what You would on any normal website.

Larry Mohr

**** Could World Run Out of Food? ****

.........nahh.......we'll just eat each other until the population-to-food balance is restored........

Hi Walt,

I can copy and paste it. I can do that for page 9 if you'd like. More relevant though is the very first page's statement:

The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable to push the boundaries of current research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on United States national security.
We have interviewed leading climate change scientists, conducted additional research, and reviewed several iterations of the scenario with these experts. The scientists support this project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First, they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller.
We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible, and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately.

Larry,

Thanks, but it is opened under IE, can I do that?

OK Larry, I figured it out. Thank you very much for the help!

By 2005 the climatic impact of the shift is felt more intensely in certain regions
around the world. More severe storms and typhoons bring about higher storm
surges and floods in low-lying islands such as Tarawa and Tuvalu (near New
Zealand). In 2007, a particularly severe storm causes the ocean to break through
levees in the Netherlands making a few key coastal cities such as The Hague
unlivable. Failures of the delta island levees in the Sacramento River region in the
Central Valley of California creates an inland sea and disrupts the aqueduct system
transporting water from northern to southern California because salt water can no
longer be kept out of the area during the dry season. Melting along the Himalayan
glaciers accelerates, causing some Tibetan people to relocate. Floating ice in the
northern polar seas, which had already lost 40% of its mass from 1970 to 2003, is
mostly gone during summer by 2010. As glacial ice melts, sea levels rise and as
wintertime sea extent decreases, ocean waves increase in intensity, damaging coastal
cities. Additionally millions of people are put at risk of flooding around the globe
(roughly 4 times 2003 levels), and fisheries are disrupted as water temperature
changes cause fish to migrate to new locations and habitats, increasing tensions over
fishing rights.


Just to prove to myself that I could do it.

Cheers to myself.

Zat: Got data for the previous 4,499,998,049 years before 1951, too? It could be relevant

Yav,

We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible, and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately

Should have said : scenario that is not all likely:

First, they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller.

But I thought it was GLOBAL Warming. And if it is going to be considerable smaller, why bother listening to them? They already have their minds made up that the world is going to die because of us.

That was me, and apparently you didn't read the premise. It wasn't a prediction at all, nor was it supposed to be. It was a planning exercise the Pentagon requested.

Fair enough. I did read the whole thing, but I read it quickly; specifically looking for something stupid like the Hague was going to be flooded.

Cheers,
Walt

To make ethanol out of corn requires a lot of energy. Extracting oil from the ground requires much less. That's one reason ethanol must be subsidized. It's not a competitive source of energy but libs should love it because it's alternative energy.

It's not a competitive source of energy but libs should love it because it's alternative energy.

Pretty soon corn will 100 dollars a bushel. Or whatever the hell you call a pile of corn.

Cheers,
Walt

The answer is....No!

Of course, it would help if we weren't rushing to burn our food in car engines as The Nobel Green Giant would have it. But you gotta give him credit...just planning for corn ethanol has dropped global temperatures substantially!

"i grow heritage corn, have beef cows, goats chickens and a wide variety of heritage non GM foods."

Posted by Legio

You probably rank in the Top 100 on the Monsanto hit list, with a bullet.

"So all you people that think we just need to sink another oil well to solve the problem should probably get over yourselves and accept the fact that the longer we, as a society, are in denial about our oil dependency and the effects it has on everything the more everything, including food, is going to cost."

Posted by andyp22

I believe the problem(s)is just a wee bit bigger than mere oil dependency. The problem multiplication factor is 6.5 billion, if you get what I mean, eh wot?

Well this settles it! I've always hated you fat lazy fucks (you know who you are, you own mirrors).
It's time we started to take you rotund fuckers out back and put you out of your misery.

The war against fat fucks has begun. You have no where to run, and no where to hide (because you're fucking fat duh!).

Hey 101!!!

Good to see you!

Cheers!

I'm sure that before long, it will be a sin on the left to be fat. Hillary had better drop those saddle-bags, becasue Obama has her on eco-freindly thinness. It's probably the reason Al isn't running.

Good grief. Get with the program. The reason that the world is "running out of food" is that populations are burgeoning.

Even with climate stability, an unlikely condition, we would still be "running out of food" as the best arable land with the best resources is in use, and marginal less productive land subject to additional limitations such as water insufficiency, is used as additional food is required.

If you want to get a glimpse of the debacle the world is facing by viewing an historical microcosm of the situation, look at the destruction of the civilization in the Yucatan. Population there increased. First bottlam land, then even hard scrabble was used. Then there was a few years of drought, and voila, there was a breakdown of their society.

We have lost our buffer. So, any dislocation will result in debacle.

Parenthetically, another inevitable disaster is looming as we are emptying our aquifers here is the U.S. They are not being replenished, nor are our surface reservoirs. Buy up "water rights." Water rights that 40 years ago could be purchased for $x for use in perpetuity, now cost the same $x for one years use of the amount.

We lived in "the best of times," and they're gone.

Forget the "global warming" balderdash. Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow, things will not be as good as today.

Remember the German declaration of the peak intensity of love. "I love you more than yesterday, and less than tomorrow."

These are the best of times. It's time to indulge hedonoism. Do it now. For tomorrow, the opportunity may no longer exist, not even while you're still alive.

We could protract our opulent period by taking from others, but Americans are still too decadent and degenerate to sustain themselves the old fashioned way, take from others to promote your own life-style. Instead we indulge our fantasies formulating predcepts and rules concerning operation of a dream world, a world that does not exist. A little bit of chauvinism, jingoism, and selfishness is not a bad thing unless you've bought into New Age nonsense, fascims, socialism, and the like, that detract from the value of individualwell-being, and national wel-being as a corollary.l

Typos. Typos. Typos. The bane of a sloppy persons existence.

And those apostrophes ...

It's not too little food, it's too many people.

.......Johnson.........

........you treat ideas like roughage......more volume / better outcome..........

Zat,

Actually the study Walt mentioned out of the Pentagon does exist...

jade.lmu.ac.uk

ulrich-kelber.de

I didn't post it originally, but it was easy enough to confirm...

Don't worry! AlGore is soon to announce global food caps, which he'll happily sell to you if you fork over enough cash.

Be carefull with references older than 200 years. AlGore doesn't allow them! Clearly, you're not in line with the scientific concencus if you do that.

The world has 6 billion people. It always had 6-billion people. It's only CO2 emitted by fat, greedy capitalists which is making food short. If you simply tax the oil companies enough, all these problems will disappear.

So saith AlGore.

The world has 6 billion people. It always had 6-billion people. It's only CO2 emitted by fat, greedy capitalists which is making food short. If you simply tax the oil companies enough, all these problems will disappear.

So saith AlGore.

Posted by jonryker at 2008-03-10 01:01 PM | Reply |

Please you don't read or listen to anything Al gore has done....Just like I don't bother reading ann coulter...

Please you don't read or listen to anything Al gore has done....Just like I don't bother reading ann coulter...

Posted by KnightHawk


yeah, but Al does not intend to be satirical.

To all you Global Warming Skeptics, a primer to read before you expose your general idiocy on the subject:

illconsidered.blogspot.com

Regime change:

I looked at your link. I saw all the other links and picked one at random. Being an amateur astronomer, I saw the one about warming on other planets and picked it.

It was so wrong and told such a blatant lie that I could not read any more. I am one of those who if I find an outright lie (as opposed to a simple mistake, which is forgivable) I assume an agenda and quit reading

Excerpts from this link:

three photos of one piece of ice on Mars and they have no doubt

The only evidence out there that I am aware of is a series of photographs of a single icey region in the southern hemisphere that shows melting over a two year (~1 martian year) period.


Does this guy really expect even a layman to believe that we have only three pictures of Mars?!? And that they were taken in the last two years?

Unbelievable. Even the layman knows that Mars has been telescopically observed for a couple of hundred years at least. We've all seen the photographs.

I'm sorry, Regime -- your reference is clealy biased when they make such blatantly false statements. It is an insult that he would even think that this is believable.

I keep an open mind to global warming, but when I read trash like this, it steers me away from the writer's viewpoint, not towards it.

BTW, I keep throwing this fact out, but none of you global warming guys will comment on it. Maybe you will. We have about 400,000 years of weather data. The earth is 4,500,000,000 years old. If the earth was a day old, we'd have 8 seconds worth of data. Do you really think that we can build a global climatological model with so little data? I don't

Goatman,

Beware if you doubt the Great Gore! You risk joining the Flat-Earthers, and you certainly place yourself outside the "scientific concencus"!

This is approaching heresy!

I think you need to present yourself before the Minister of All That Is Ethical:

Mr. Spitzer!

Regime Change,

You can't divorce yourself from the Great Gore's heavenly inspirations and still agree with his prophesies.

I'm beginning to doubt your purity!

"You can't divorce yourself from the Great Gore's heavenly inspirations and still agree with his prophesies.

I'm beginning to doubt your purity!"

Kind of a one-trick pony here, it appears.

Ashton,

What, you don't see the point? Hmmm.....perhaps I gave you too much credit.

Campaign Warns Of "Economic Disaster" If Climate Policies Are Followed

During a conference to promote its TV and Internet ad blitz, Sam Kazman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute cautioned that, "Global warming activists warn us about the alleged threats from global warming, but are usually silent about the much more immediate threats from global warming policies."

www.prisonplanet.com

As the The Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed last year, Gore's 20 room private mansion uses 20 times the national U.S. average of gas and electricity. Gore lavishes himself in his heated swimming pool while poor people and the middle class await the onslaught of carbon taxes to eviscerate any disposable income they have left.

Gore lavishes himself in his heated swimming pool while poor people and the middle class await the onslaught of carbon taxes to eviscerate any disposable income they have left.

Damn skippy.

Don't worry Barrack Obama will make sure there is a loaf of soilent green in every pot.

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable