And when the test show something different, you adjust your
formulas to match.
You stated it very well. Look at the way they react when you
present a different viewpoint. It is not friends discussing
fascinating new discoveries, you are insulting their gods.
You are committing heresy ("Deniers").
Their models are so bad that "extremist religion" is the only
way they could sell it.
Can you imagine if CERN refused to look at other's research,
fabricated data, accused others of mental health issues, and
then sold their stuff with religion terms? No one would
believe a single thing out out their mouths. There would be
no Higgs Boson.
I will share some of my moon cheese with you. :-)
Higgs! That is a snotty thing to say. If you disagree
with him, just remain a gentleman and tell him what your
concerns are. And, when you name call, you lose the
debate. You also paint yourself as an ignorant imbecile.
i can point to specific cases in each of
those locations if that would help you
understand what i'm talking about.
i don't consider myself rich at all, but i do
consider myself fortunate to be living at a time
when this country is not at war within itself
or with other close neighbors, at least not in
ways which exhibit destructive and disruptive
violence which ruins crops/land.
i'm pretty sure that in most of the cases of
famine we have tsunami, hurricane/typhoon, fires,
drought, wars and disruptions caused by disease.
if you remove those causes and look at actual
food shortages around the world very few are
caused by not being able to grow enough food.
i think a vast amount of food is currently
wasted or lost due to transporation or storage
problems (including governmental corruption,
distribution failures, animals or bugs, or
to me you are seeing the only the bulk
calories because that is what you are looking
for, you're not seeing the number of calories
coming from personal gardens or small plots
or the non-conventional sources because they
are not collected or reported in any manner.
one way to be less poor is to grow more
of your own food by any means you possibly
i wasn't at all saying anything about
non-carbohydrate plants at all, that is
your own spin. my point is that there
are more crops than corn, rice, wheat,
potatoes, and probably the ones that Pat
was thinking of in her remark.
take a look at the article i posted in
the "alternative methods" thread and tell
me there aren't a huge number of possibilities
in there for exploration.
this is really the result of what? in many
places before the arrival of modern agriculture
(also known as the green revolution, but in my
opinion it should be called the great illusion)
people had a more varied and nutritious diet.
if the monoculture plots were returned to small
holdings with varied plantings as shown
repeatedly by many folks (in all the areas you
mention) then there would be plenty of food
you may not agree, but this worked in the past
before the great illusion. it works in a country
as large as Cuba. it works for people in various
parts of Africa and the Middle East (if they are
allowed to actually have stability long enough to
complete a harvest).
i don't have numbers you're asking for, i don't
know how much land is under what kind of planting
where, i don't even think that is all that
important because it is what i would consider a
temporary insanity which will eventually self-
correct by whatever means comes along (be it oil
shortages, specific nutrient availability collapse,
wars, droughts, fires, ...). to me the most
important thing is that we somehow keep intact
various ecological spaces so that we have some way
to recover and repair the damage being done.
my own experience is convincing enough to me and
i see the wider benefits from it too. it is not
that i haven't thought it through, it is that i see
plenty of examples of people doing things differently
and it is working for them. given enough time the
situation could shift again where more people are
back living in the country and farming more diverse
You are drifting off into all manner of ideas but not addressing the main
point that I was trying to make with Todd and that Pat repeated - still
quoted at the top here.
If you want to argue the world can be improved I won't. If you want to
argue that peasant farmers can do better for themselves, especially if freed
from war and corruption I won't. If you want to argue that their
agricultural efficiency and diet can be improved by giving education and
autonomy I won't.
If you want to argue that the masses of the world's poorest countries can be
adequately fed without use of "grains, potatoes and a several starchy
tropical crops" I will. The glaring statistic is the proportion of
existing world diet provided by those foods (and still there isn't enough)
and until you explain where that food will come from if those crops are
abandoned you and Todd haven't made a case just presented a passing fad.
I loved your letter. The only thing I would add is that
the stuff tastes a lot better too.
I think what David is requiring from the two of us is
specific details of what we would substitute at specific
locations. Kind of a hoop that neither one of us can provide,
since we don't live there, and in my case, I am not a
professional farmer. Each geographic location will have its
own issues and challenges. He also doesn't want to hear of
efforts elsewhere to address the issue, such as a special type
of corn substituted for rice, the farms you describe, etc..
He doesn't want to hear how things could be done, he wants
specifics of how to do it right now. He wants an instant answer.
Interesting the impossible hoops he requires for some things and
other things he just takes on faith.
We are so very past a "passing fad". Some day humanity will
touch the starts. This "passing fad" will be required to
get us there and to survive when we arrive (no factories to
crank out ammonium nitrate). Without you, there will
be no Mars or Moon colonies either. Didn't realize you
were a Star Girl, did you? (By the way, we have to solve the
microbes in the soil problem before starting a Moon colony,
unless we want to fly every bit of food up there. At least we
could use the soil, unlike on Mars.)
Me personally, I think every family should have their
own doctor, their own dentist, and their own farmer.
This may just be me getting all Fuzzy Lovey, but I think
there is something special about knowing the folks that
grow your food -- looking them in the eyes and saying
this or that was "so" good and "thank you"!
I will share my moon cheese with you. David doesn't get any.
Scientists are notoriously irreligious, compared to the general population.
97% of climate scientists agree that the climate is changing and that
human activities are part of that.
What I freely admit is debatable is what can or should be done as a
response to the fact that the climate is measurably changing, and that
human activity has had an effect.
But beyond that...
There is a finite amount of exploitable gas and oil (we have reached
the point where extreme measures* must be taken to extract those
fuels), so the carbon era will not go on forever. This energy shift will
happen whether or not you accept scientific concensus on climate change.
The sooner we wean ourselves from a carbon-based energy economy
the better, for a host of reasons that have nothing to do with climate
change but have everything to do with some of the economic forces that
support climate change denial (Koch Industries, for example).
*whatever your opinion on fracking for gas, the massive efforts needed to
extract oil from tar sands, drilling in the extremely deep ocean or above
the Arctic Circle, I think it must be admitted that we are going to extreme
lengths to continue to extract oil and gas.
Still no ripening heirloom tomatoes, but the vines are green and healthy
and all of them have set fruit.
No so much when their government funding will be cut off
if they don't tote the line.
A good example, or rather a bad example, would be all the
funding for cholesterol testing. There is no evidence
whatsoever from autopsy studies that links serum cholesterol
with arteriosclerosis. It would be funny, if the side
effects of the drugs weren't hurting so many people.
Basically, follow the money.
Uh. This is a really bad study. Ocean temperatures have been
cooling for the last 11 years. This is another government
funded study. The results are often predetermined when the
source of your funding has an agenda.
The tip of was the 97% number. Sort of like a Soviet election
were 97% all voted for the communists. (The other 3% were sent to
mental institutions or Siberia.) You can never find that kind
of consensus with anything.
Here are some a non-government funded analysis of the 97% number
(Skeptical Science calls it a myth):
Basically, more number fudging. This isn't science, this
Here is a much more believable analysis on ocean temperatures:
If you look at comment #87, the ideologues knees jerked
On Monday, July 21, 2014 8:18:14 AM UTC-7, Pat Kiewicz wrote:
It was a hysterical reaction (unusual for me) to Joseph's comment:
"When folks start using Political
Set aside for a moment "political correctness to push their theory...
At first, seeking to link the term "denier", as in Global Warming/Climate c
hange denier -- which is what we were talking about -- to religion, I thoug
ht it was from Christian theology -- apostles "denied", etc. Then, while h
anging laundry this morning - who knows why synopses open? -- it occurred (
sp)to me that poster might have been referring to "Holocaust denier". Both
would have religious connotations.
Since I am not in poster's mind I don't know why he made this (apparent) li
But since I am in a state of active terror re: future of civil liberties un
dermined by pre-Vatican II SCOTUS majority in Hobby Lobby and subsequent Wh
eaten College decision, I displaced some of that on poster when I saw (inex
plicable?) religion linkage.
Perhaps poster would care to explain?
To quote someone else:
A skeptic can be convinced by the evidence. A denier
cannot be convinced regardless of the evidence.
AND - YOU - AIN'T - GOT - SQUAT. You even CHEATED
by fabricating research.
"Denier" is a religious term and meant to insult
I picked my first Black Plum (2" plums) about a week ago. Last
night I picked about a pint. There are dozens hanging there taunting
me by being almost ripe. Push come to shove, they'd probably already
taste better than the ones in the store.
On the other hand, the Amish Paste are just starting to turn.
Previous experience is that they take forever to ripen.
Federle are loaded with funky looking fruit, but also staying mainly
green. Oddly enough, those vines also are staying short. I doubt
they are determinant, but they've yet to reach the 3 foot mark.
(Some of the Black Plum are getting to 6 foot.)
The new growth (and regrowth) is all healthy. The Leaf Spot infected
leaves haven't all died off yet, so I'm not sure what the final
toll will be.
I just may get pasta sauce canned this year.
Drew Lawson | Radioactive cats have
| 18 half-lives
I've tried various "black" tomatoes, and just find the taste to be "off"
in some way. I don't think it is just the color. I know I can smell and
taste things that not all people can, from experiments* involving taste
in high-school science class and from observation of how other people
perceive various flower aromas. (Bradford pear flowers have a strong
and horrible smell to me and my daughter while other people barely
notice a slight floral scent.)
*experiments like this:
Of course, the increasing influx of meltwater from the Greenland
ice sheet or Antarctica or the loss of long-term sea ice might have
something to do with that.
"Willis said the findings have significant implications for global sea-level
rise. 'Average sea level goes up partly due to warming and thermal
expansion of the oceans and partly due to runoff from melting glaciers and
ice sheets,' Willis said. 'The recent cooling episode suggests sea level should
have actually decreased in the past two years. Despite this, sea level has
continued to rise. This may mean that sea level rise has recently shifted
from being mostly caused by warming to being dominated by melting. This
idea is consistent with recent estimates of ice-mass loss in Antarctica and
accelerating ice-mass loss on Greenland,' he said."
And if NASA has an "agenda" it's certainly not designed to keep the
big money rolling in from the (Republican controlled) Congress!
The article you linked to at skepticalscience.com actual supports climate
"Claims that the ocean has been cooling are correct. Claims that global
warming has stopped are not. It is an illogical position: the climate is
subject to a lot of natural variability, so the premise that changes should be
monotonic temperatures rising in straight lines ignores the fact that
nature doesnt work like that. This is why scientists normally discuss trends
30 years or more so that short term fluctuations can be seen as part of
a greater pattern. (Other well-known cyclic phenomena like El Nino and La
Nina play a part in these complex interactions)."
And yes, I looked at the comments thread. I have rarely found them
to contain more than name calling, bickering, or the endless repetition
of arguments that have been made and rebutted.
It's not just NASA and climate scientists who are taking notice. Have you
ever looked at really old family pictures taken on Decoration Day (May 31,
the traditional Memorial Day) and been surprised by how bare the trees
were? I have.
Henry David Thoreau's records of the phenology of Walden Pond can be
used to compare then and now.
"Today, nearly 160 years later, Thoreau's detailed observations form the
basis of a long-term study of how climate change is altering the timing of
seasonal biological events--or phenology--and how such shifts may in turn
impact the wildlife and wild places of an entire region. Researchers from
Boston University have assembled a vast array of biological data--
arboretum specimens, old photographs and the observations of local
citizens, in addition to Thoreau's journals--to produce a baseline of
springtime events for the Concord area. Comparing these data to the results
of their own exhaustive, five-year effort to walk, literally, in Thoreau's
footsteps, the scientists can now tell a story that New England's favorite
naturalist-philosopher might never have imagined: As Massachusetts
warms, flowers are blooming, trees are leafing out, and birds are arriving
as many as three weeks earlier than they did in the mid-nineteenth century.
'If Thoreau were alive today, he would be very concerned about this,' says
Richard Primack, a biology professor at Boston University and lead
researcher on the project."
Except that sea levels are not rising and Arctic ice is
all over on the Russian side. Arctic ice flows
follow a pattern. And low Arctic ice on our side
has happened several times before. This is all normal.
For the amount of Greenland ice to affect sea levels
would probably have to reach the moon. Think eye
dropper and swimming pool. Not to mention the
earth quakes it would cause as the crust snapped
back after all the weight was released. Seen
any reports of that?
Sorry, still skeptical. Doesn't help that the
ideologues got caught cheating and they sell their
wares with religious extremist terms. And, none of
their models are able to predict anything. And
they refuse open discussions.
I like Skeptical Science. They actually have open
discussions. And NASA works for the President, not
congress. Add to that, you are at great risk of
losing your job, if you don't tote the company line.
If I were to speculate, I would posit that the
non-ideological based 206 year solar cycle research
will hit the mark a lot closer than the ideologues.
Then again, they don't want your money, your life
style, your freedom, your faith ...
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.