|Posted on Saturday, July 04, 2015 - 10:08 am: ||
Another mega project that has had mixed results is the Aswan Dam in Egypt.
It produces electricity, ( but much of it is lost in heat on it's long journey to Cairo ) controls floods, ( but stopping the yearly floods has led to salt water migration in the ground water and agricultural problems ) etc. etc.
It's a combination of man made disaster and mighty public work. The Headline I recall from the time was "Dam Russians" ( who sponsored the project ) It's been a mixed blessing.
One seldom mentioned aspect of the Aswan is it's role in Mid East Peace. In 1973, after the war between Egypt and Israel, it is rumored that it was quietly pointed out to Egyptian leaders that a nuke strike on the Aswan would lead to a wall of radioactive boiling water sweeping the Nile basin out to sea and wiping out the vast majority of the population and cities of Egypt. Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel shortly after.
That last is speculation, based on rumor, but it is undeniable that the Aswan is a huge blackmail opportunity.
So are other major dams. How many would die if the Hoover Dam broke? How long would Manhattan survive if it's water supply was broken?
Do you live downstream from a major flood control system?
Only time will tell if the new Chinese dams are a plus or a disaster. Both, I bet.
Communist countries have the worst record for ecological disasters. Having the river catch fire in Ohio is nothing on what the Soviets & Chinese have done. That doesn't count the deforestation and desertification of places like N Korea, where stripping bark off trees to try to keep from starving has denuded vast landscapes.
|Posted on Wednesday, July 08, 2015 - 06:25 am: ||
|Posted on Wednesday, July 08, 2015 - 08:47 pm: ||
"ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change – seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm’s own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial.
The email from Exxon’s in-house climate expert provides evidence the company was aware of the connection between fossil fuels and climate change, and the potential for carbon-cutting regulations that could hurt its bottom line, over a generation ago – factoring that knowledge into its decision about an enormous gas field in south-east Asia. The field, off the coast of Indonesia, would have been the single largest source of global warming pollution at the time.
“Exxon first got interested in climate change in 1981 because it was seeking to develop the Natuna gas field off Indonesia,” Lenny Bernstein, a 30-year industry veteran and Exxon’s former in-house climate expert, wrote in the email. “This is an immense reserve of natural gas, but it is 70% CO2”, or carbon dioxide, the main driver of climate change.
However, Exxon’s public position was marked by continued refusal to acknowledge the dangers of climate change, even in response to appeals from the Rockefellers, its founding family, and its continued financial support for climate denial. Over the years, Exxon spent more than $30m on thinktanks and researchers that promoted climate denial, according to Greenpeace.
Exxon said Wednesday that it now acknowledges the risk of climate change and does not fund climate change denial groups.
Some climate campaigners have likened the industry to the conduct of the tobacco industry which for decades resisted the evidence that smoking causes cancer.
In the email Bernstein, a chemical engineer and climate expert who spent 30 years at Exxon and Mobil and was a lead author on two of the United Nations’ blockbuster IPCC climate science reports, said climate change first emerged on the company’s radar in 1981, when the company was considering the development of south-east Asia’s biggest gas field, off Indonesia.
That was seven years ahead of other oil companies and the public, according to Bernstein’s account." From the Guardian
(and it wasn't a decision made for economic reasons, the industrial standard model is to just vent CO2 into the atmosphere)
But what does a 30 year oil industry scientist know, the BWBT is much better informed.
And how about this statement
"Exxon said Wednesday that it now acknowledges the risk of climate change and does not fund climate change denial groups."
So exxon is just saying this for public relations? And the assentation that it doesn't say "manmade" is ridiculous.
|Posted on Wednesday, July 08, 2015 - 09:43 pm: ||
So the climate can't change? Ever? What evidence do you have have that, even though the earth has been warmer than it is now and at times colder, this is the "correct" one?
What are you doing on a personal level to stop this? As for me, I sold my house in California and am moving north ahead of "the great migration".
(Message edited by strokizator on July 08, 2015)
|Posted on Wednesday, July 08, 2015 - 09:44 pm: ||
The first sentence is a lie. The rest is therefor suspect.
|Posted on Wednesday, July 08, 2015 - 11:00 pm: ||
T o answer "So the climate can't change? Ever? What evidence do you have have that, even though the earth has been warmer than it is now and at times colder, this is the "correct" one? "
The rate of change caused by human activity is much greater then what is normal.
It is a leading cause of this, which has not gotten the deserving attention:
What am I doing... gosh have you noticed how I am rallying for education and understanding here. Also my carbon foot print is much smaller then most Americans im pretty sure, my car gets close to 30 mph, my main mode of transportation (S1) in the summer 50ish. And having grown up and currently being involved with organic agriculture counts for something, among other aspects of my being.
Oh and there is this.
https://youtu.be/LxLwmGPMLJk and this
and look into whose names are attached to this: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
here is a little more info
http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/ article/scientific-and-public-perspectives-on-clim ate-change
and i'm stealing a youtube comment here that eloquently sums up the "debate":
"Stop being obtuse. "Climate change" as a term refers specifically to changes caused by human activity, as you well know. Perhaps it should be constantly qualified as "anthropogenic climate change" for semantic hair splitters such as yourself. Scientists stopped calling it "global warming" because it's difficult for the simple to understand how some parts of the world might actually get colder, while other parts get hotter.
Yes, there are macro changes in the Earth's climate, and scientists recognize that. There is now virtually unanimous agreement that humans are affecting the climate in a negative way, at least in terms of humanity's continued comfortable existence.
"You people" are being fooled by a relatively small group who's only interest is maintaining the status quo. "They" will sell you leaded gas, cigarettes, and asbestos, then deny any link with cancer. "They" will even find unscrupulous doctors and scientists who will be traitors to science and humanity in return for a cheque, and pay sock puppets to spam youtube channels with misinformation and propaganda."
Do you guys realize that there is little debate in the rest of the world about this.
FOLLOW THE MONEY, who has the most to loose if we switch to a world of renewable energy? The same people are working feverishly to discredit the emerging green energy technologies.
WHY NOT MOVE AWAY FROM A PETRO BASED ENERGY SYSTEM?
her is the article I quoted above (the full quoted email is an interesting read), and the integrity of the source should be above reproach, a Pulitzer prize winning magazine should hold more sway then the ranting blogs the other side uses for reference.
And if I have to I will go into the science of how changes as minuscule as parts per million of CO2 can and does affect the environment.
And yes 95% plus of climate scientists say its real. The Idea that the whole worlds Academics have been snookered is just not plausible, America maybe but everywhere? As stated, these are the same tactics that kept leaded gas and tobacco from admitting any fault.
There it is, look through what's there and then tell me I'm wrong, maybe but is it worth the risk?
|Posted on Thursday, July 09, 2015 - 12:59 am: ||
Climate is constantly changing. We are possibly nearing the end of a .8 deg C per century warming trend.
However, since you began your post with an outright falsehood, why bother with the rest of your rehashed propaganda?
I dunno about Exxon, but they had to know long before 1951 that the planet was in a warming trend, that we have not yet reached the temps of a thousand years ago and that co2 is a greenhouse gas. I knew that by the time I was in high school and watched as the Climate Con began.
I've watched these con men lie year after year, falsified data, and changed predictions over and over...... but never changed the goal. Power and your money.
Not that the oil companies are blameless for pollution and greed.
But that doesn't change the fact that the religion of fear mongering Global Warming, as presented, is wrong. It's bull. A thieves tale.
Now, getting off fossil fuels is a matter of common sense and near term necessity. But the religious ones won't accept the working alternatives, since the purpose of the cult is not to save the planet but to steal our wealth.
My concern is sun spots and a mini ice age that will kill billions.
We're about due and I was hoping to miss it.
And SMOD. So far so good.
Oh, and not accepting lies as facts. I can do statistics.
|Posted on Thursday, July 09, 2015 - 08:27 am: ||
The historical record is pretty clear regarding climate change. Which is handy for the current debate, as the vast majority of the historical record is free of influence from industrialized societies (we think... hard to prove the planet wasn't colonized a billion years ago and then wiped out by a comet or something, how would we know really?)
Anyway, the climate swings of a non industrialized planet have been quite dramatic, with New York City being buried under about mile of ice just yesterday (in geologic time).
So Todd, I appreciate that you are trying to bring more facts into the discussion. Would you agree that even the most dramatic (and absurd) projections of man made climate change are minor compared to natural variations that have already been observed as occurring in the history of our planet?
Most thinking people would agree that large energy companies are bringing a bias to their research. We also believe that the "environmentalist industry" is bringing bias to their research. Believe it or not, we believe *everyone* is bringing bias to their research... and they should... create a hypothesis, and try and defend it. Just don't defend it by artificially manipulating data or results to support it. Is there a "side" to the global warming debate that is consistently manipulating results and data?
I'm not an anthropomorphic global warming denier. I'm a crap science denier. All I know so far is that the anthropomorphic global warming science has been sketchy at best. I have no idea what the truth is, the only truth I know at this point is that the science is bad, and no amount of personal attacks, bullying, and mocking will change that.
|Posted on Thursday, July 09, 2015 - 08:46 am: ||
No one who flies gliders thinks man doesn't affect weather on some scale. Thermals pop off freshly plowed fields that minutes before were sink holes. Parking lots of black asphalt heat the air above them often creating lift.
And changing the measured air temperature of the weather sensors in the box that used to be on a pole in a mostly empty field and is now next to the AC unit by the propane grill in the paved industrial zone by the airport. There's a website full of pictures of this.
There's also people who have died because of mandatory noise abatement procedure on take off from airports that used to be out in the boonies but have been surrounded by suburbia. ... and people that bought a house next to the freaking airport bitched about the noise.
Ever hear the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf?
Crisis faking exploitive cons ruin confidence in science itself. So does fraud. Lots of that today as noted at Chaos Manor website.
|Posted on Thursday, July 09, 2015 - 09:18 am: ||
"currently being involved with organic agriculture counts for something"
Yes, it does. You use more land and more water to produce less product. How is that helping? You think 'organic' products are better for you, when the science says there is no nutritional difference between 'organic' food and the food produced by modern farming techniques. By growing and advocating 'organic' farming, you're simply perpetuating a lie at the expense of gullible people who are simply trying to live better lives.
Take 'organic' milk for example. Plastered all over it "hormone free!" And in small letters, on the back, italicized, read the words. "There is no detectable difference between this milk and milk produced by farms that employ hormones to increase milk production". But, "there's a sucker born every minute" I suppose.
FYI - My car gets 40 mpg, and I live 2 miles from work. My carbon footprint is probably smaller than yours.
|Posted on Thursday, July 09, 2015 - 09:25 am: ||
FOLLOW THE MONEY, indeed. Al Gore is making millions flying around in a private jet lecturing us that "the science is settled". Cap and trade is a scam to redistribute wealth and crash the American economy.
So what if the climate warms a little? It's more about the govt putting more control on its citizens. Agenda 21, anyone?
|Posted on Thursday, July 09, 2015 - 09:56 am: ||
I've only got two words for the AGW hucksters: Zoom out.
|Posted on Thursday, July 09, 2015 - 10:47 am: ||
Strok: FOLLOW THE MONEY
WoW so you say Gore supposedly trying to make millions is taking on a industry worth many many billions? come on
Lets see you dispute whats said right here, yes its huffpost but read it and then tell me the holes in it.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinfo rmation/climate-deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-ind ustry-memos#.VZ5_ae_bJfw
aesquire I will make a significant wager that I can find a link between most of your sources and petro dollars. And please expand upon your thought that the left is stifling innovation in alternative energy sources
Hootowl you are right there is a sucker born every minute
So because Lobbyists from Monsanto pressured the government to require natural milk that says its Bovine Growth Hormone Free to include that twisted little line, it must be right. Because if the government tells you something is ok it must be RIGHT??????????? RIGHTTTT!!!?????!!!??? Now if you want hormones and chemicals in your milk and food that's fine, but plenty of people are waking up to the benefits of organics.
ITs a growth hormone!! organic cows can live to 10 plus years THE average age of slaughter for BURNT OUT, SICK, DISEASED COWS FROM LARGE FACILITIES THAT ARE PUMPING RBGH THROUGH THEM IS LESS THEN 4 YEARS. that's a fact.
Im not going to waste any more time trying to explain the virtues of organics, beyond saying that the assertion that the production abilities are lessened by organics is simply not true, It takes better management when you cant just use chemicals to do the work but yields are very comparable. Do a little studying on soil micro biology, organic soil with over a ton of micro organisms per acre can hold up to 20 times more water then dead conventional chemical laden land. Do you think that might have am effect in the near future???
But hey if the government tells you RBGH is ok I totally understand why you take their word for gospel, but those pesky climate scientists they are just suckers!!
Ive read most of Aesquires sourced material and yes some of it sounds good, but who funded it?? Anybody who claims to be a free thinker needs to look though the material from this and my last post. Period
Im done with aesquire if he says we need to switch to renewables right now that's cool so who wants to be my counter point now? I don't have the time to disprove all of the well thought out intelligent statements from the whole badweb brain trust.
|Posted on Thursday, July 09, 2015 - 10:49 am: ||
maybe hootowl, you want to expand upon your vast knowledge of agriculture in this country?
|Posted on Thursday, July 09, 2015 - 11:05 am: ||
Todd, you can't simultaneously assert that money corrupts research when the petrochemical companies do it, but doesn't corrupt research when environmental companies do it. Make up your mind.
Most here assume any funding for research carries bias, and that sound scientific principals exist to manage the degree to which that bias from influencing the accuracy of your conclusions.
So we tend to try and review the rigor of the science. The source of funding is important to identify the most likely shortcomings in the science that may be driven by bias, but it doesn't automatically rule out results.
Bias doesn't mean you are wrong. Somebody will be right, and the person who is biased towards the answer that turns out to be right is probably the person who will prove it.
(Message edited by reepicheep on July 09, 2015)
|Posted on Thursday, July 09, 2015 - 11:07 am: ||
"expand upon your vast knowledge "
I thought I already did.
|Posted on Thursday, July 09, 2015 - 01:13 pm: ||
Organic farming produces the same crops per acre? News to me. I assume only small additional energy and labor costs, right?
There must have been a breakthrough recently, I though it was niche market for ignorant people that only produced 30-60%? per acre. ( much better, of course, in a well maintained & designed truck garden )
Depends. So few energy sources are renewable, and all have environmental impact, some more than others.
Plutonium breeder reactors are renewable, have very few drawbacks for the environment, if designed with modern failsafe techniques, and really only have the issue that the products can be abused and offer a threat to nuclear non-proliferation treaties. ( which, thanks to Barry, are not a real issue anymore ) So you need a larger security force & layout.
Since that's true because of the nature of the jihadi fascists anyway, ( any high profile target needs better security ) not a problem.
Thorium isn't really renewable, but should be considered a temporary solution for the next century to tide us over until the Lockheed Fusion plants come on line.
Wind has serious ecological impact, and seems to be close to break even on economics & energy use. Not my circus, not my monkeys, all I know is the Google people rate it as a fail. And they looked hard.
Solar, combined with distributed storage at the local level, integrated into the grid, has promise. But not at the industrial solar farm level, that's an ecological disaster and only makes a very few rich richer. ( everyone else gets screwed ) Rooftop solar is almost here, less than a decade from practicality. Then again, Fusion has been 20 years away since before most of you were born.... so much for predictions.
Orbital solar is the answer for most of the grid based energy needs, and offers the most ecological energy for much of the third world. You can graze cows ( not sheep ) and grow crops under/around the rectennas, even put them up in and around a village or city. This contrasts wildly with ground based commercial solar that wrecks the local ecology and requires vast amounts of water and robots to keep the panels clean.
Booze. Well, darn it, I was all for alcohol as a temporary substitute for gasoline. But they sold it as a process that would use garbage as feed stock. That makes sense, and Waste Management makes a fortune off methane recovery, as do many pig farming operations. ( with improved environmental impact and safety. That's local, capitalist, lovely pigs. See "Beyond Thunderdome" )
Turning food into fuel is clinically insane. Every cost/energy breakdown I've seen shows net loss or at best within the error bars. We burn more diesel to make booze for gasoline than we get out. It's actually INCREASING our dependency on fossil fuels. ( or at best only hurting the environment as much as using 3 times the diesel fuel ( in tons ) as the energy equiv. in booze. Since gasahol cars are less efficient than diesel in converting fuel to power and CO2 )
Then you get to the deaths by famine and revolution. The "arab Spring" revolutions were in large part a direct result of higher food prices because of the food to fuel programs, and countless thousands have died, been driven deeper into poverty, or been outright mass murdered as a direct result of that EPA mandated alcohol fuel, and the tax/subsidy structures purchased by ADM and others with big bribes to Congress.
Btw 40mpg ( 36 average, winter summer ) plus 50+ for the Cyclone, high efficiency heat pumps, and a diesel garden tractor.
Al "the science is settled" Gore uses more energy in a week than I do in a year, and he calls me a heretic. Fu&^ Him.
and F the Climate Cultists who fly to Cabo every year to tell me I'm the problem, when most of them don't know what a millibar is.
|Posted on Thursday, July 09, 2015 - 01:26 pm: ||
"Al "the science is settled" Gore uses more energy in a week than I do in a year, and he calls me a heretic. Fu&^ Him"
He sells himself carbon offset credits, so it's OK.
|Posted on Thursday, July 09, 2015 - 03:17 pm: ||
reep yes I can, not everything is black and white has there probably been some small numbers fudged, yes and we hear ALLLL about it, but not anywhere near all 95 +% of the pro warming scientists have funding depending on and are paid to state their position, I suspect though that 97% of the 3 % that say climate change is hogwash are paid in petro dollars. Though I must commend you on one of the most thought out posts I've ever read from the BWBT. (I think im contradicting myself , like maybe multiple times in one sentence but my contention that its not all black and white is a very important point.( your post is a very valid point, and for once im not being snide)) Though the idea that the thoughts of the left are as motivated by bucks as the views most aired here is just not true.
I can't have it both ways but hooty can say government and science is lying to us about so many issues but use a Monsanto pushed statement mandated by Washington as a argument? (I well know people that testified against that statement)
Yes hooty you have shown your knowledge there.
And aesquire when you add in the health costs and environmental costs of fossil fuels, many renewables are all ready competitively priced. Let alone where would we be if ronny ray gun wouldn't have pulled the solar panels off the white house the first week he was there?
Answer that, why did he do that?, who was influencing that decision??, why not look for new solutions???, where could we be with 30 years of more research, alternative energy research has been stifled for many years???? and that should be criminal.
Because THEM WHO MAKE THE MOST OFF THE STATUS QUE DONT WANT ANYTHING TO CHANGE THEY ARE HEAVILY INVESTED IN PETRO.
And yes you are once again wrong on your assumptions aesquire, how many times have I shown you that with facts recently? And what does a millibar have to do with CLIMATE (the long term changes in weather... are pressures changing?, has gravity changed?, millibars ain't got shut to do with climate, do you not understand the difference between weather and climate? (or I may be wrong, please enlighten me))
Aesquire my weekend starts now and if you want to discuss ignorant farmers in person I will meet you anywhere in America to talk about it. And im not getting mad but i'll only be insulted so many times, no threats but you wouldn't talk to me like that in person. (and my tone is not always as cordial as it should be, but I've been biting my tongue on here for close to 15 years, and believe my tone has been mostly reciprocatory, and im sick of it)
and al gore is the boogy man, nothing is little illiterate bushys fault but AL GORE has more power then all the petro companies that spend more on toilet paper then his net worth, put it in perspective boys
|Posted on Thursday, July 09, 2015 - 06:21 pm: ||
huh? hardest working folk with a broad knowledge base from meteorology to economics with practical mechanic as a minimum to make it in the hardest job? I never said farmers were ignorant.
I think you believe in CIA agents on the Grassy Knoll. GMO's cause aliens. Hitler lives in a robot body in the secret antarctic base, The Nazi's never had death camps, Socialism works, 2015 is the warmest year on record....
Well maybe just one or two of the above.
You want me to like Bernie? Have him propose that Farm Families get to inherit the Family Farm, and I don't care what the Harvard going children of Stockbrokers get after Estate Taxes.
Now, excuse me I'm shopping for a new Variometer. ( btw, Correct, millibars is pressure. Also what I want to sense with a Vario )
|Posted on Thursday, July 09, 2015 - 08:27 pm: ||
Yeah, that's the ticket - Al Gore, the guy who's net worth is north of $200,000,000, the same guy who sold his cable TV channel to Al Jazeera for upwards of $400 mil (he had a 20% stake in that failed venture), the guy who lives in a 20 room/8 bath mansion that burns through 191,000kW of electricity, the guy who flies around in a private jet telling us not to live like him, yeah that guy, he's really Davy taking on the Goliaths of industry.
One more thing and then I'm done responding to your nonsense: don't chastise us and call us childish for pointing out your spelling and grammatical errors and then in the same breath disrespect a former president as "little illiterate bushy". I assume you're referring to the guy who graduated Yale with a B.A. in history and received an MBA from Harvard. Bush admits that he was an average student but we're expected to believe that Obama is a genius who's transcripts are concealed in the Arc of the Covenant lest they damage our eyes should we gaze upon them.
|Posted on Thursday, July 09, 2015 - 08:45 pm: ||
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420965/profe ssor-animal-rights-manifesto-texas-vegans-overthro w-society
Actually a fairly limited objective. There is a branch of Hard Core Greenies that want all mankind exterminated so the foxes can play in paradise. I agree with them we'd all be better off without them, yet they never seem to mass suicide to save the planet.
|Posted on Friday, July 10, 2015 - 02:24 pm: ||
Btw. Yes. I would talk to ANYONE in person just like I talk on the internet.
You are insulted by nothing I said but implied in your own mind. Too bad. I can't help it if someone believes in the zombie apocalypse and will only be so polite.
Someone who tells me stuff like organic farming has the same production per acre is going to have to show me. Because I have never read that anywhere.... nor am I a shill for Monsanto or ADM. I admit I'm not up on the latest farming tech. I did spend a summer hauling a new fangled gizmo called a "laser" ( air quotes) through farm fields in Nebraska to help the Agriculture guy help farmers with a radical technique called contour plowing. I realize that was before your birth.... and I haven't run a combine since before you were out of diapers. So..... if there's an organic way to kill thistles that doesn't involve brute labor or gamma radiation, I'd love to hear it.
Big damn heavy thing, that "laser". Almost as heavy as the deep cycle batteries needed to power it. Glass tube, not ruby. First one cheap enough to issue to field workers. Also learned how to stomp transit tripod legs.
I could be wrong, unlike rabid ideologues, and unlike Global Warming Cultists will change my theories when evidence shows I was wrong.
|Posted on Friday, July 10, 2015 - 03:42 pm: ||
Oh! I see.
Ignorant consumers. I stand by that. I see how you could mistake my meaning.
Local Amish farmers are top notch organic farmers.
Most hippie farmer wannabes give up the job fast, too much work.
|Posted on Friday, July 10, 2015 - 04:08 pm: ||
Lets see you dispute whats said right here, yes its huffpost but read it and then tell me the holes in it.
Take the spin out of that and it pretty much seems to detail much of our scientific understanding of climate science since around 1980 when the doomsayers switched from death by iced to death by fire. Ironically, they talk about memos from Mobil where they are clearly concerned about cleaning up the bad effects of oil on the environment as evidence that "they knew way back then". From there the article shows that over the years their view on all of this has evolved. Guess what. Our scientific understanding of climate has evolved greatly since 1980. The article states that solar activity as a primary source of climate change as being "scientifically indefensible". That's funny considering the fact that solar activity has been the major driver of climate for all of history, and certainly better explains the lack of warming in the past two decades better than CO2 reduction that hasn't happened.
Comparing all of this to the tobacco industry is pretty funny too. I'm no fan of tobacco, but they were attacked for years based on fears that hadn't been proven scientifically. The tobacco industry finally prevailed in court based on science. The short of it was that yes, it had been proven that smoking caused a wide variety of deadly health issues, but they were being attacked on the issue of second hand smoke. This had not been studied scientifically at the time, but it was presumed that if first hand smoke was bad for you, certainly second had smoke was too. The problem with that presumption, is that it was very easy to prove scientifically that the compounds produced at higher combustion temperatures found when inhaling on a cigarette were very different from the compounds produced by a smoldering cigarette. All the tobacco industry had to do was prove that this was the case, and that second hand smoke compounds hadn't been studied scientifically to show that the claims against them hadn't been proven. This is what happens when you are too lazy to do the science, even if you happen to be right. The details of proof matter. Back to climate, the details of proof have shown that the climate doomsayers from 30 years ago got it wrong. Also from 20 years ago. Also 10 years ago. Now we are supposed to believe the current predictions that are still based on the evils of oil that they got wrong over 30 years ago?
|Posted on Friday, July 10, 2015 - 04:16 pm: ||
BTW, according to Tod, who says that the oil industry can not be trusted with science, should be equally untrustworthy about issues of organic farming based on him being an organic certification specialist.
Actually when he publicly makes claims about yields of organic farming being as efficient as other methods, I can see why he might be skeptical about believing someone in the oil industry.
|Posted on Friday, July 10, 2015 - 04:35 pm: ||
It takes better management when you cant just use chemicals to do the work but yields are very comparable.
Keep in mind that this comes from UC Berkly, not exactly a place friendly to corporations such as Monsanto, and reading the article, it's clear that they have a pro-organic farming bias. Even so, they find that yields are 19.2% lower with organic farming techniques. "They found that organic yields are about 19.2 percent lower than conventional ones, a smaller difference than in previous estimates." Even assuming no bias in the studies, that's a pretty big difference, and says nothing for the quality of that yield.
As for growth hormones in livestock, I'm not a fan. I do have my one theory on a side effect of this, that isn't scientifically proven, and pretty non-PC, so I will keep it to myself, unless asked in person. It's been an eyeopener for some that I've shared it with though.
EDIT: Forgot the link to the Berkley study... Can organic crops compete with industrial agriculture?
(Message edited by SIFO on July 10, 2015)
|Posted on Friday, July 10, 2015 - 05:10 pm: ||
It's been an eyeopener for some that I've shared it with though.
I'm going to bet that it's eye open but hands off. Am I on the right track?
19.2 percent is better than the 30 percent I usually see. Be interesting to see energy use compared. And Labor.
The big problem with the Food to Fuel program, is there is a big chance it's actually costing us in oil more than if we didn't add booze to gasoline at all.
Last study I read the numbers were between the error bars. Could be neutral, ( which is not worth it because of food costs ) could be a small net fuel positive. Which may still be a net negative. How many people in Africa is a greenie happy to kill to feel better about himself? Sorry, dumb question. ( All of them ) How many people are YOU happy to have starve so you can save some oil?
And I'm guilty here too. I was all for the idea of stretching the fossil fuel supply with alcohol. I just thought it was going to be made from garbage and inedible crop waste.
That was before we destroyed a generation of engines, wrecked a bunch of airplanes, and started revolutions in third world dictatorships.
On Organic Farming. If it's less than 20% less yield, then I have to ask how much surplus we have with current methods, and how bad the impact on soil ( possibly positive ) and poor people switching over would be?
I mean, if all we have to do to all eat organic tortillas is to change our ways, awesome. If it means we have to slaughter China & Indonesia to stop their pollution and ease the planetary famine, not so awesome.
BTW, I call pre-processed Organic Salad In A Bag "Assault veggies". Because of the high numbers of e-coli problems. ( that's far more polite than my first off color reference )
|Posted on Friday, July 10, 2015 - 05:40 pm: ||
I'm going to bet that it's eye open but hands off. Am I on the right track?
You might be.
On Organic Farming. If it's less than 20% less yield...
I don't know anything about the studies being discussed there, but I think it's entirely possible that is a number arrived at by looking at best case scenarios. Organic is also a poorly defined term. Would that number include GMO seeds that are pest resistant to start with? Most "organic" consumers that I've talked to would reject GMO crops too.
Why do we associate "organic" with healthy anyway? Go out in the woods and start randomly eating mushrooms that are growing, 100% organically and then tell me how that works out. It makes as much sense as calling something an "assault weapon".
(Message edited by SIFO on July 10, 2015)
|Posted on Friday, July 10, 2015 - 06:24 pm: ||
So it looks like my skepticism was in order regarding the organic farming study.
Organic yield gap shrinking? Study actually shows it’s less sustainable than conventional ag
Indeed, when organic farmers employ the conservation agriculture techniques of diverse rotations and growing in polycultures, we see the gap closes to around 9 percent. However, when conventional farmers also employ the same conservation techniques that boost organic yields, the gap widens to over 20 percent.
Basically, they focused on a combination of organic farming and conservation agriculture methods vs. conventional farming not employing these conservation methods. An apples to oranges comparison. It looks like these conservation techniques have nothing to do with organic farming, but are simply better farming practices that can be employed. It is great to see that techniques continue to be examined and evolve, but it take time for these better techniques to be widely employed.