...we go out in stormy weather.
|
|
Acceptance of Change from..... A couple of developments w/ respect to society's general acceptance/acknowledgement of global warming: Southern Baptists now say "that current evidence of global warming is "substantial," and that the threat is too grave to wait for perfect knowledge about whether, or how much, people contribute to the trend." Also, has anyone noticed that all three major U.S. presidential candidates still in the running acknowledge global warming and as partly man made, including this guy |
Upcoming Events
User loginActive forum topicsRandom Image
Newest Album
AdvertisementsPay Up!It's only $15 a year for some extra features! Every little bit helps keep this site up and running so click here for the details. Weather There are currently 0 users and 3 guests online.
Recent Visitors23 here in the last 24 hours
58 here in the last week |
all trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. comments/images are owned by the poster.
I like this sentence:
I like this sentence:
He has offered common sense approaches to limit carbon emissions by harnessing market forces that will bring advanced technologies, such as nuclear energy, to the market faster, reduce our dependence on foreign supplies of energy, and see to it that America leads in a way that ensures all nations do their rightful share.
Wait 'til next january
"Also, has anyone noticed that all three major U.S. presidential candidates still in the running acknowledge global warming and as partly man made,"
They do right now, while they need to pander to as many people as possible to get the vote. We'll see who sticks to their guns when they reach the oval office.
.
no one will, and here's why:
Enviro-nuts will not rest until electricity costs 3x its current rate and will do anything to keep nuclear energy out of the market.
Politicians and the businesses that line their pockets know that doing anything substantial to help out the environmental would severely limit US production of goods, increase energy costs, and bring down the economy in general. In addition to the loss of domestic jobs entirely, the slack in production would be picked up by China, India, and Russia, who care even less about Kyoto than the US.
The net results would be an economically crippled US and worse global pollution in the log run. Pacific coast seafood *already* have much more elevated levels of Hg than the Atlantic.
Conclusion: we're f'd in the a
Roger, Global warming is
Roger,
Global warming is 100% pure bullshit. Baptist joining the bandwagon just speaks to element of faith and not science that underpins this massive scam.
Plus haven't you heard the earth is now thought to be beginning a cooling phase based on reduced Sun activity. The idea that man plays any role in any of this is pure political fantasy, but as long as they can get your vote then anything goes.
Lastly it would only cost about $150m to basically put the Saudi's out of business, but when you think about things more than just superficially you might begin to understand that would actually be much worst than the current situation.
The earth will be fine, the only thing to fear are the fear mongering politicos, ie all of them!!!
"but when you think about things more than just superficially"
Comments like that really convince others to consider your arguments.
It is probably likely that it is a combination of forces, both man-made and natural, that are affecting climate change. But that doesn't mean that reducing the use of fossil fuels is a bad thing--reduced pollution levels and having cleaner air are goals that would benefit us all. I have seen the air quality in Atlanta deteriorate to the point where it is negatively affecting people I care about deeply.
But maybe it is just the sun causing all that pollution...
.
air in china is so bad, they're keeping their athletes in Korea prior to the olympics.
it sucks, but it could be much worse.
That and, guilt and shame
That and, guilt and shame are poor motivators.
j/s
damn!
why does the sun hate the chinese so much? i'm glad it only dislikes Atlantans at this point and pretty much leaves my mom alone down in rural GA.
laughable
Well guys, I guess a century of rising temperatures doesn't really mean much in the face of a single year of alleged cooling.
As if that idea wasn't stupid enough, it's already been debunked. The original "basis" for the claim came from a columnist on DailyTech that last year's temperature was cooler than average, which directly contradicts a study by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies that shows that last year was among the hottest on record. On top of that, taking a peek at his history on the site reveals his tendency to cherry-pick news items to support his side of the argument (hint: it's not the one with the overwhelming body of evidence). There's enough documented evidence of how the skeptic groups (funded by things like Exxon) function to know that they have aped the smoking causes cancer deniers rather than genuinely trying to find alternative plausible scientific hypotheses for climate change. In case anyone still isn't convinced about how laughable the claim that the earth is cooling is, you can have a look at the data for yourself. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
Of course, Fox News and Rush Limbaugh took the article and ran with it. Nothing like a transparently denialist agenda. The real irony here is that they can't even grasp the larger impact of sun's effect on temperatures. We're at the bottom of the solar cycle right now. Want to think about the next peak? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
It was SUPPOSED to be a cold year. We're at solar minimum, and at the coldest point in the pacific ocean cycle (La Nina). That it is ludicrously warm implies that we can expect it to get even worse in the following years. So, let's think about what might be causing it. Not the sun. Not normal climate variations. The earth is relatively quiet geologically, so it's none of that. Anyone have any ideas?
idea
we're f'd in the a
So it's getting warmer,
So it's getting warmer, arguing over whether it's man made or not doesn't really answer my question:
How does this affect my day to day life? Will it affect it in such a manner that I will be completely unable to cope with and adapt to these changes?
Arguing man made vs. non-man made at this point is like a eco-pissing contest.
So what would it take to
So what would it take to make you give a shit? If you're going to play the "tough internet nihilist" card when faced with catastrophic (in regards to human life) changes to the environment, then there's not really a lot anyone can do for you. I guess at some point the ocean level could rise X feet without it mattering to you, until it rises X+1 feet and now your house is underwater and you've just been rendered homeless by a non-linear inflection point.
The whole "let's wait and see" approach just doesn't hold up. To borrow something somebody said on a different forum, it's analogous to saying, "well, ecologists and marine biologists are predicting, based on past population observations, that a particular population of fish is at significant risk of extirpation from overfishing in the next 10 years. Will their predictions be accurate? Instead of managing fishing practices, let's wait and see."
Re: catastrophic (in regards to human life)
O RLY?
How much does this fear you're selling cost me?
Re: ocean level could rise... you've just been rendered homeless
In my lifetime? I can't pack up and move? Fuck, I never knew that. I guess I deserve to die because I have no idea how to adapt.
Re: particular population of fish is at significant risk of extirpation from overfishing in the next 10 years
Then the population of humans will drop due to starvation of not being able to eat fish... until we reach equilibrium. Problem solved.
To quote Mr Hobson:
we're f'd in the a
mmm. equilibrium.
mmm. equilibrium.
Re: How much does it cost me?
I found the answer myself Gong. The answer is $12.95 + S&H.
Who knew that recognizing
Who knew that recognizing facts is the same thing as advocating fear?
If you think the worst consequence of rising ocean levels would be that you have to pack up and move, then I don't even know where to start. Go play Civilization and watch what happens when all of your grasslands become plains, and all of your plains become deserts. It should be a simple enough demonstration. As for things happening in your lifetime, its entirely possible. The ice core studies from the Arctic revealed a global temperature change of around 6C over a period of around 60 years, so don't even try to be so ignorant as to suggest rapid climate change is impossible. If you insist on being pedantic, I can find sources for this once I get home.
I'm not really buying the strict Darwinism thing as being acceptable by modern ethics. If you get raped by a gang of burly men on your way home, did you deserve it? This line of reasoning spirals so quickly beyond the realm of rational argument for acceptable societal conduct that I can't even believe you tried to use it, especially given how much credit you usually give to following the law.
It just seems like you're going to extreme lengths to couch your position in the philosophy of 'I can't be wrong because even if I'm factually incorrect, I don't actually care about what happens, lol.' which is the sort of pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-philosophical garbage that I think most of us left behind in our teenage angst years.
Blarg
Who knew that recognizing facts is the same thing as advocating fear?
Who knew emotions were the same as facts?!?! I mean, we feel it, it must be true. Right?!?!?
Go play Civilization and watch what happens when all of your grasslands become plains, and all of your plains become deserts.
This makes my head hurt.
The ice core studies from the Arctic revealed a global temperature change of around 6C over a period of around 60 years
Dinosaurs burned oil? I thought dinosaurs were oil!
If you get raped by a gang of burly men on your way home, did you deserve it?
Did you see what I was wearing?!?? I was totally asking for it!!! LULZ! RAPE!
the sort of pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-philosophical garbage that I think most of us left behind in our teenage angst years.
Do away with punk rawk, cause we gotta save teh errf now?
Also, why are we so worried when the magical flying time traveling magician should be back any minute now?
Are you deliberately being
Are you deliberately being dense now? What's next? "Hey guys, I don't care if the sun stops burning tomorrow, that's why we have lightbulbs and electricity!"
I don't really know what to say if scientific consensus, data analysis, data from the past gained via GISP/GISP2 ice core studies, knowledge of effects of similar past events such as Younger Dryas brought about by changes in the thermohaline circulation of the oceans changing as a result of ice caps melting due to greenhouse gases being vented into the atmosphere, etc. aren't enough to convince you, then I don't know what will.
Did you even bother reading anything in the first post I made in this thread? We're at a minimum of the solar fluctuation, we're at the coldest point in the pacific ocean's temperature cycle, and we still had one of the warmest years on record, there obviously aren't any major geologic events happening, what the hell else do you think could be causing it? Greenhouse gas emissions from human activity fit the bill pretty cleanly. I've presented plenty of data and there are plenty more studies and reports that I can go dig up, and you've still got your fingers shoved in your ears.
If you want to say that you don't give a shit because you don't care about anyone but yourself, I can't make you change your mind about that (aside from what I thought were the obvious side effects of global warming such as massive food shortages, war and strife resulting from a global refugee crisis on a scale we've never seen just to name a few) , but it's intellectually fraudulent to suggest that a) global warming isn't occurring and b) that human activity isn't one of the most likely causes.
Maybe you're missing my point...
I'm not arguing the existence of global warming. Hell, I agree it's here, and it's changing the way we live.
What I'm arguing is, even if we stop today, and put measures into place to curtail this warming in the best way we can dream up... those changes will not produce a lasting affect for 20, 30, 40 years... the changes that we would have to put in place on a global scale would so drastically change our (humanity's) way of life, that we might as well ride out the oil boom and make the changes away from oil gradually (frankly we're going to have to do this... because anyone with half a brain knows it takes at least a decade to get the world out of bed anyways). People will adapt, no need to freak the fuck out.
What I am so pissed off about is all of the fear being shoved down my throat saying I have to reduce my carbon foot print even further and then the remaining carbon I poop out of my ass I have to off set with carbon credits... and you know why I have to do this? Because if I don't, I loose the respect of my peers (oh yeah, and we all die because my house is going to be seven fathoms down next Monday).
Well I'm saying I don't give a fuck, and I'm not buying into the hysteria. The reason I don't have to shell out dead presidents and tears is because the problem will literally solve itself. Peak oil has been reached (sorry again Chris), demand outstrips new discovery, and demand will only get worse as Asia becomes more of a player in the global market. The pumps will run dry in our lifetime (if we live to see 80). As this abundant and cheap source of energy slowly dwindles and it's price sky rockets, new solutions will become economically feasible. Change will happen slowly, and life will tick on, one day at a time... like it always has. All of the fear mongers who have lit your ass on fire will move to the next big thing (just speculating, asteroids?).
As for "massive food shortages"... that is inevitable, global warming or not. The one thing that has truly fueled (pun intended) the massive increase in global crop production is petroleum... in the form of diesel powered farm equipment and petroleum based fertilizers. We can make bio-diesel to run the tractors... but only if we figure out a way to pull ammonium nitrate out of our asses in order to grow the soybeans needed to make the biosnot. (In quantities high enough to keep crop levels where they are today, raw amounts of hydrogen needed to produce such quantities will have to be derived via H2O electrolysis and not from tearing off H2 from natural gas... yada, yada, another discussion). Now does this mean that suddenly some day in the near future all of the planet will resemble Mogadishu circa 1993? Probably not (well actually, certainly). What it does mean is global crop production will begin to decrease at probably the same rate in which it increased... this lack of readily available food will lead to slow increases in the rate of malnutrition and infant mortality rates, thereby leading to a gradual decline of world populations over the next two hundred years back to levels of sub one billion... unless we figure out a way to pull fertilizer out of our asses (and no I'm not talking about manure... I don't care how many cows you have, they don't shit enough to fill our needs).
One last thing, Re: intellectually fraudulent
I prefer the word debilitating as opposed to fraudulent.
But yes, you are correct on your two points (for the most part).
re: even if we stop
re: even if we stop today
Show me some evidence to support that theory. Here's some evidence that contradicts it: During a certain 2-week period in Atlanta in 1996, private cars were banned from downtown and public transit was massively encouraged. In 2 weeks, Peak traffic decreased by 23%, ozone levels in the city decreased 28%, and emergency visits for asthma events in children decreased 42% (while emergency visits for other reasons did not change).
This is a clear example of how quickly positive changes can occur without "drastically changing humanity's way of life." It also demonstrates the effects on people in their day-to-day lives. Perhaps you, like me, are lucky enough not to have severe asthma. Not everyone is so lucky.
But again, it's easy to toss out the "I don't care about anyone else" card. and my point becomes moot.
Your example is a good one,
Your example is a good one, but it is on an incredibly micro scale (as compared to the global scale we need to reference). It also only address asthma and ground level ozone... not greenhouse gases and their affects on a global scale (and how that effect plays out over time).
You still haven't shown any
You still haven't shown any evidence to support your theory.
Nonetheless, I'll give you some more evidence that contradicts it.
Here's a graph from NASA. The bottom graph in the image shows the minimum measured ozone level from 1979 to 2007. You'll notice a downward trend until 1996, which is the minimum recorded level during this time span. After 1996, the slope is level with a slight upward trend. Interestingly, CFC production ceased in 1996.
The ban on CFCs halted the depletion of the ozone layer. It will likely take decades before the ozone levels are the same as they were previously, but the effects of the ban are easily measurable after only a couple of years.
global enough?
It will likely take decades
You: It will likely take decades before the ozone levels are the same as they were previously
Me: those changes will not produce a lasting affect for 20, 30, 40 years...
Am I missing something here?
you seem to be saying,
you seem to be saying, "Since it will take decades to fix completely, there's no reason to do anything today."
I'm saying, "Even if it takes decades to fix completely, we can stop making it worse today"
how do you define "lasting effect"? Stopping the depletion of something is certainly a lasting effect.
One lasting effect is having
One lasting effect is having nut cases move on the something new.
Re: you seem to be saying
You seem to be saying "stop all oil usage today... bend over and grab your ankles."
What I am saying is let the oil boom run it's course... naturally. Let the undeveloped countries (third world) use their share to get to a point where they can leverage themselves a bit closer to the first world ones, instead of us forcing upon them policies that will widen the gap between us and them.
re: problem will solve
re: problem will solve itself
I agree that the problem will solve itself if left alone. But I'll use the fish example to point out where I think our opinions differ.
You promote allowing the fish to be over-harvested such that the fish-population dies out. Resulting in food shortages that cause a massive people-population die out. Thus, resulting in equilibrium.
I think it's better to lower the fish harvest rate, thereby saving the fish species AND maintaining more food supply for people. Thus achieving an equilibrium without the massive population loss.
What is your time period.
What is your time period? I'm referring to a time period of decades (or more). Population curves will go on the decline for the people that rely on this one fish to survive (I highly doubt that this one fish is the sole food source for a particular population of people, what ever that fish may be as no one has stated what it is yet... or any real tangible data in regards to the ecosystem this magical fish lives in).
If see my post below (somewhere) adapting is not eating less, adapting is eating something new. If people are eating something new... then the demand for the magic fish is less, fishing is less, the fish survive to fuck and make more fish, and the environmentalists get to have a ticker tape parade or something.
re: massive food shortages
re: massive food shortages inevitable
I disagree. I think you're absolutely right about petroleum 'fueling' global crop production. But I think it's more accurate that petroleum is merely the way to achieve this level of crop production without intense labor. Petroleum allows one man and some big machines to work a few thousand acres of farm. The same (and even better) crop yields can be achieved by more labor intensive methods, and without petroleum based goods.
Without oil, farms get smaller, more people become farmers (we gotta put the hippies somewhere, right?) Like you said, the problem will sort itself out. As food prices rise, it becomes more profitable to be a farmer.
Again, one solution is to let the catastrophe occur, and just ride it out until the equilibrium point is reached. Another solution is to guide things into a higher equilibrium point.
You are correct:
In regards to petroleum being the magic ingredient that turns one man into 20 (with the addition of a tractor), but...
The one thing your argument does not take into account is the reliance of petroleum based fertilizers needed to make farmland out of land that is not farmland.
I used to have a romantic notion of the 'bread basket' of the US being somewhere in the Kansas/Nebraska region. Good brown dirt being tilled by Shamis on his John Deere.
Now, after researching where American crops are grown, I come to find out they are grown in desert regions of Arizona, Nevada, and California. The soil (sand?) is conditioned with tons of fertilizers (literally) and irrigated with billions of gallons of water sucked from the Colorado. Just so we can get strawberries in November and organic broccoli in August.
The same holds true for most farmland across the globe. Growing seasons are weak in areas where soil is good. <200 days of sunlight only allows for a single harvest. Dumping fertilizer on sand and irrigating it in the desert with it's 350 days of sunlight allows for four harvests a year.
It's not a matter of farming becoming more profitable... it's a matter of there isn't enough good farmland to support the population growth vectors we've witnessed over the last 200 years.
Re: The same (and even better) crop yields can be achieved by more labor intensive methods, and without petroleum based goods.
Show me data, because I would love to read it (and put it into practice).
Genetically engineered crops
Genetically engineered crops could drastically increase output if people would stop being such weenies about it. I'd say that's true for biotech and robotics in general. I just hope that people wisen up before things get too bad to turn it around without catastrophic events occurring.
mmmmmmmm
Soycon (Not tofacon! I mean the real thing, with pig intorduced into the plant to make bacon).
Grow the meat in a lab!
Grow the meat in a lab! Petri dish meat. all the flavor, not nearly as much waste, and no pesky concerns about animal suffering since it's just a bunch of cells without a nervous system! :science:
Soylent Green
Is People.
Re: catastrophic events
I don't see a decline of world population to sub one billion over a period of 200 years as catastrophic considering it took 200 years to go from ~970 million to 6 billion (and the journey to that number brought with it all of the problems we bitch about today).
Mr. Jones has provided an article....
That argues that genetically modified crops are not the answer:
Berkely
FTA:
Despite claims from the biotech industry and academic researches, there is no indication that biotechnology will solve the shortcomings of industrial agriculture. Compared to the novel and untested crop systems that biotech corporations are pushing as the only solution to food security problems, organic farming has many advantages. The majority of genetically engineered crops currently in cultivation do not appear to show higher yields. For example, contrary to claims by Monsanto, a recent study by Dr. Charles Bendrook, the former director of the Board on Agriculture at the National Academy of Sciences, indicates that genetically engineered Roundup Ready soybeans do not increase yields (Bendrook, 1999). The report reviewed over 8,200 university trials in 1998 and found that Roundup Ready soybeans yielded 7-10% less than similar natural varieties. In addition, the same study found that farmers used 5-10 times more herbicide (Roundup) on Roundup Ready soybeans than on conventional ones. The only reason farmers seem to prefer Roundup Ready soybeans is because they simplify management of large chemically-intensive farms, by allowing them, for example, to spray larger doses of herbicides from planes on crops, engineered to be resistant to the particular herbicide. Applications of biotechnology continue the legacy of industrial agricultural with monocultures and high energy and chemical inputs.
First, you seem to operate
First, you seem to operate on the belief that oil is the only way to make crops. Not at all, it's just the easy way. There's lots of other ways to get things done. At the moment, we rely on oil, but there's no inherent need for us to rely on oil.
why try to change the soil? It's easier to build a greenhouse and use hydroponics. Just like Euro-Fresh Farms in Arizona (note: this is not some tree-hugging communal farm, this is a large-scale for-profit corporation)
For hydroponics, you need stuff like calcium, potassium, phosphate etc, and honestly I don't know by which methods we get the stuff, or if it can be gotten without petroleum based methods, nor do i feel like spending the time to find out right now.
Another idea: Do what Cuba does. When the communist bloc fell, Cuba lost 80-90% of its oil imports and the farm community/industry had to change quickly. I mean real quick, or lots of people were going to starve to death. Cuba went from highly industrialized (ie oil-dependent) farming, to nearly 100% organic farming in less than 5 years. In addition, they developed a system of 'urban organic agriculture' where they utilize a lot more urban space for food production (rooftops, etc). Not only did they produce as much food as they had previously, but they even doubled food production to make up for lost imports.
Basically, the shit already hit the fan in Cuba and they found an equilibrium.
Re: First, you seem to
Re: First, you seem to operate on the belief that oil is the only way to make crops
It is the only way to make crops to feed 6 billion people. I learned a new phrase today from an ecologist today (it relates to population growth vectors)... carrying capacity.
Re: honestly I don't know by which methods we get the stuff, or if it can be gotten without petroleum based methods
I'll do the research... it will probably be grim.
Re: Do what Cuba does.
Yeah, I'd like to see that happen on a global scale. Some of me thinks it could happen... most of me knows it's not possible (considering the greedy nature of humanity at large. Cuba (Castro) maintained order by keeping the population of the island under thumb.) You should really try talking to a Cuban refugee about the "Cuban Utopia" that people go on and on about.
re: it's the only way to
re: it's the only way to feed 6 billion people.
On this I'll say that you are flatly wrong.
Research from Cornell, Berkeley, and University of Michigan all say that organic farming techniques are at least as good as conventional techniques in terms of yield (and often better). This is not true for all crops (notably potatoes and some fruits), but it is true for staples such as corn, wheat and soybeans.
On the low end of the studies, the Swiss concluded that organic farms produce 80-90% yields compared to conventional farms.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0531-05.htm
And all the studies show that organic techniques have greater yields during drought years.
Well, we'll see when organic
Well, we'll see when organic is all we have left.
The Common Dreams article leaves the reader with a mixed message.
A key point in all of the articles is crop rotation and nitrogen fixation, both reduce available farm land by 33% (at best)
Another thing none of the studies take into account are vast large scale organic farms, thousands of hectares. The kind of farms you can see from space. The studies quote numbers like 80 bushels per hectare vs. 60... but if the comparison compares a farm that is one hectare to one that is two hundred... I don't really think the comparison is fair.
Edit: Ok, got to the bottom, and there is an illustration that clearly shows that small farms are more productive than large farms. So the organic vs. non-organic yield comparisons are not fair. The article even clearly says "small farms produce far more per acre than large farms" and "In all cases, the smaller farms are much more productive per unit area— 200 to 1000 percent higher — than larger ones"
To see this change over to small farms and the redundant man power needed to run them, there would have to a massive migration from urban centers, and the industrial specialization that we enjoy and they provide... to rural areas, and their lack of Lenny's and the 2 dollar PBR big boys they provide. Ie: the "[drastic changes in] our (humanity's) way of life".
I think we've already established on this board our disdain for OTP and everything that entails. I really can't picture any of you putting on overalls and milking a cow (that and keeping a cow for milk is SO not vegan).
Re: we can stop making it worse today
I'd like to see 10% of us here on the board become small organic farmers in the next 10 years... but we all know that will never happen.
My 2 cents worth on small organic farms
I have done my share of hand-working (*no* power equipment) organic gardens and it takes an incredible amount of time and effort. If it came down to that or going hungry, I would take the hard work, but it can be a heart-breaker. Nothing like seeing all your hard work and just-ready-to-produce plants flattened by a early summer thunderstorm.
I do it now. And it does
I do it now. And it does suck, until you get that crop of beefsteaks come August. Yum.
Also, it's not going to be starvation. Don't forget the time frame... 50 to 150 years. No mass famine, just population decline along the same rate of increase that happened previously... unless hipsters start picking up hoes.
Now does this mean that suddenly some day in the near future all of the planet will resemble Mogadishu circa 1993? Probably not (well actually, certainly).
A key point in all of the
A key point in all of the articles is crop rotation and nitrogen fixation, both reduce available farm land by 33% (at best)
what? how's that? Several of these studies are 20+ years in duration. One of them has continuous data for 150 years (resulting in a 1% difference between organic vs petroleum yields). The average yields were compared.
You do know that crop rotation is used in conventional farming, too, right?
Small farms are more productive, and tend to be less environmentally damaging. Seems win-win to me. If it becomes more profitable to be a farmer, and more people choose to become farmers, that doesn't seem like a drastic change. Hell, it's only in the last 100 years that most people quit being farmers.
I am already a small organic farmer. Very small. I'll make you a salad sometime. Also, I've got some great kiwi fruits - but they don't ripen until the fall though...
Wait, how the hell are you
Wait, how the hell are you growing Kiwi's? Pots? Do you move them indoors in the winter? Please tell me.
Re: The average yields were compared.
Yeah, look at all of my stuff about how comparing small farms to large farms is not a fair comparison.
Re: You do know that crop rotation is used in conventional farming, too, right?
Petrol based corporate agra-industry? I don't think so. Not like they outline in organic farming techniques.
Re: If it becomes more profitable to be a farmer, and more people choose to become farmers, that doesn't seem like a drastic change.
This still doesn't seem to support the population growth vector we've seen in the last 200 years. Something will have to give, either less industrial specialization or less people (all things being equal, unless automation and robotics reaches a new level <-- robots were just brought to my attention).
A pair from the first
A pair from the first productive season.
Mine are in the ground and they survive Georgia winters with, apparently, no issues. I've been to kiwi fruit farms in New Zealand, so I mimicked what I saw there - made a trellis about 8ft off the ground for them to grow onto. It takes ~3 years before they bear fruit - I planted mine in 2003. Actually, I moved before they were fruit bearing, but I still know the people who live there so I keep tending and harvesting.
Fruit trees/vines are on the
Fruit trees/vines are on the list for next season. I think I might add some Kiwi to that list.
Slowly I will uproot and destroy all of the bushes that currently occupy my plot. Then I will be victorious(garden).
in case there was any doubt
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm
lucky next time
Climate science sux
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm
beware the ides of 1998
"global temperatures have not risen since 1998"
be wary of generalized claims that involve the year 1998. It was anomalously hot that year.
Check the average temps from 1999-2006, you'll find that the average temps have risen slightly every year (and indeed dips from this trend in 2007). However, none of these years were as hot as it was in 1998.
Indeed my claim of "Climate
Indeed my claim of "Climate science sux"
If we are going to argue
If we are going to argue global warming, here's some fuel on that fire:
Oil, the main cause as to increased carbon emmisions, is made from mostly dead prehistoric aquatic plant life. This boom in aquatic plant life was the result of... get this... global warming. This seems rather cyclical.
What are we trying to accomplish here? The preservation of our existence? For what? "Modern" civilization has only existed for roughly 5000 years, and industrialized civilization has only existed for 200 of those 5000. The earth, with all it's life, has existed for billions of years. Man's existence on this blue marble is a drop in the fucking bucket.
What's the point. I don't see it. What makes us so special? Last time I checked the existence of God cannot be proven scientifically, so he (she?) doesn't exist.
Change is impossible to prevent. The one thing that makes us the top of the food chain is our ability to adapt. I'd like to think we can adapt to this "global warming" without emptying our wallets and loosing our minds.
So it gets a bit hotter, and we run out of oil, and then people start to starve. Plenty of people are going to die. The thing that lets me sleep is... in spite of a lot of good people dying... there's going to be a lot of assholes that die too.
the existence of God cannot
the existence of God cannot be proven scientifically, so he (she?) doesn't exist.
illogical conclusion. 'not proven to exist' does not conclude 'proven not to exist'. but really, the existence, or lack thereof, of God seems irrelevant to the topic.
damnit, why can't i just ignore these conversations?