frightening

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 12:10:28 PM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 9:34:50 AM UTC-4, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 2:47:00 AM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
snip

Like most political hacks, you're an argumentative know-nothing of subhuman intelligence.

The chief climate science is political science.

That's what you like to think. It saves you from having to get to grips with the actual science involved, which turns out to be a little beyond you.

E.g. kindly point out to we fungi where the White House or NASA predicted the
hottest year ever would increase crop yields, or where they even announced
this unexpected result for corn and soybeans, in their effort to be earnest,
honest, forthright purveyors of the truth, and scientifically accurate.

Why should they have done? It would be nice if they could have, but since one of your special subjects is the futility of climate modelling, you should be better aware than most that it's lot easier to predict that more CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to higher global average temperatures than it is predict how extra CO2 in the atmosphere will impact the growing season in the US food-bowl.

One of the triumphs of climate modelling was the 2010 paper that pointed out that ice-free conditions in the Barents and Kara Seas (north of Finland) leads to colder winters in northern Europe

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD013568/abstract

Nobody has done anything similar for the US food-bowl.

Here's the agency you said wasn't part of the administration:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/7875584/Barack-Obama-Nasa-must-try-to-make-Muslims-feel-good.html
"[NASA head] Charles Bolden, ... said in an interview with al-Jazeera that
Nasa was not only a space exploration agency but also an "Earth improvement > agency".

Mr Bolden said: "When I became the Nasa administrator, he [Mr Obama] charged me with three things.

"One, he wanted me to help reinspire children to want to get into science and
math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and
perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world
and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good
about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering."

The UK Daily Telegraph can be relied on to put enough right-wing spin on any story to make even you happy. The most interesting part of any Daily Telegraph story is always what they've left out to make the story more palatable to people like you.

He's some real scientific research on even more detrimental effects of high CO2. So you know what you can do with your CO2 inflated biomass of junk growth, you don't know the first thing about agricultural science.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v510/n7503/nature13179/metrics/news

More alarmism. Does any serious person think crops can't be selectively bred?

Sure, but it takes time - less if you practice genetic engineering, but that does worry a lot of people, some of them less dumb than Jamie.

It's an open question whether selective breeding can change our food plants enough to let them cope with the kind of climate change we've set in train, and whether natural biota doesn't already include a bunch of potential super-weeds which are already well-adapted to the the new conditions we are hell-bent on setting up.

The kind of super-weed which can rapidly colonise our carefully prepared crop-lands and out-compete our food plants at the seedling stage.

It's silly. Ditto for the CO2 uptake saturation argument. If anything, that
non-coincidence demonstrates that plants cannily optimize themselves for the
prevailing conditions.

But - sadly for denialist pollyannas - their optimisation take the form of having less stomata so that they can take up the same amount of CO2 while losing less water.

That isn't a royal road to bumper crops - at best a partial defense against changing rainfall patterns.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 11:15:35 AM UTC+11, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 17:10:43 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> Gave us:

Eventually the sun will become a red giant and fry Earth, or even
expand into contact with Earth.

We will all be bacon crisps long before that time comes.

We'll need to move the planet to a
higher orbit.

That is not possible.

It would be difficult, but shouldn't be beyond a sufficiently advanced technology.

In *this* solar system, Mars is our ONLY hope of surviving when those
centuries come to pass. And as the Sun actually begins to go Red Giant,
living on Mars will also not be possible.

Homo Erectus is the longest surviving human species so far - they lasted 2 million years.

The earth is likely to remain habitable for another billion years ago, and it's unlikely that we'll be around then. Re-engineered humans, with error-detecting and -correcting codes built into the DNA might last that long, but we wouldn't be able to breed with them, so they'd be a different species, and probably a lot of different species, each engineered for a different ecological niche in this solar system. We might even colonise other solar systems (if they haven't colonised us first).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 12:22:49 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 18:10:23 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 9:34:50 AM UTC-4, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 2:47:00 AM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
snip

Like most political hacks, you're an argumentative know-nothing of subhuman intelligence.

The chief climate science is political science.

E.g. kindly point out to we fungi where the White House or NASA predicted the
hottest year ever would increase crop yields, or where they even announced
this unexpected result for corn and soybeans, in their effort to be earnest,
honest, forthright purveyors of the truth, and scientifically accurate.


Here's the agency you said wasn't part of the administration:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/7875584/Barack-Obama-Nasa-must-try-to-make-Muslims-feel-good.html
"[NASA head] Charles Bolden, ... said in an interview with al-Jazeera that Nasa
was not only a space exploration agency but also an "Earth improvement agency".

Mr Bolden said: "When I became the Nasa administrator, he [Mr Obama] charged me with three things.

"One, he wanted me to help reinspire children to want to get into science and
math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and
perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world
and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good
about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering."

He's some real scientific research on even more detrimental effects of high CO2. So you know what you can do with your CO2 inflated biomass of junk growth, you don't know the first thing about agricultural science.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v510/n7503/nature13179/metrics/news

More alarmism. Does any serious person think crops can't be selectively bred?
It's silly. Ditto for the CO2 uptake saturation argument. If anything, that
non-coincidence demonstrates that plants cannily optimize themselves for the
prevailing conditions.

Warming alarmists believe in "science" but they don't believe in
evolution.

Selective breeding isn't evolution. It exploits natural variation in the same way, but lacks the restriction that each new variant has to be able to out-compete the parent strain and other variants.

It's also relatively slow. Genetic engineering - which should be known as intelligent design, but that phrase got hijacked by the fundamentalists - could do better, but frightens people like Jamie.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 2:52:56 AM UTC+11, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

"Technically speaking, the surface of the sun isn't getting any brighter, but the sun is getting bigger, so there's more surface to irradiate us, and more light hitting us. "

Kinda what I was saying.

Your post could be interpreted that way, or as a simple denial.

I made the point explicit. If you been all that clever in the first place, you could have done that too.

"Brighter" is ambiguous in the original context. I didn't disambiguate it in my original post, because it didn't matter to my argument how the sun has delivered more heat the earth in recent (billions of) years.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 10:21:11 AM UTC+11, gray_wolf wrote:

On 10/19/2015 10:41 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 October 2015 05:23:42 UTC+11, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
"robably not. Really high CO2 levels go back to when the sun was >less bright, and we needed better insulation to make sure that the >oceans didn't freeze up (as they did, once, early on)"

So you are talking many millions of years ago.

Several billion, in fact.

As far as the sun being less bright, that is incorrect. It serves for explanatory purposes but is nonetheless incorrect.

Go argue with the astrophysicists. The sun is a normal main sequence star, and they slowly get brighter as they get older.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_luminosity

Technically speaking, the surface of the sun isn't getting any brighter, but the sun is getting bigger, so there's more surface to irradiate us, and more light hitting us.

How would you measure the difference? Would the W/M^2 on the earth's surface
increase?

You'd probably measure the difference by putting a radiometer in orbit.

Since anthropogenic global warming works by raising the effective radiating latitude higher into the earth's atmosphere, measuring the Watts per square metre at sea-level probably isn't a useful approach.

The proposition that the sun is heating us more now than it did a few billion years ago doesn't seem to be based on direct observation but rather on astrophysics - stars like the sun seem to evolve in a tolerably predictable way.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 10:01:02 -0700 (PDT), the renowned
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

"You lived in New Orleans: it's like France, they'll eat anything >down
there. If Chernobyl had happened in France, those fungi would be
served in four-star restaurants. "

Been said that they will eat what we call the Orkin Man for. A joke but pretty true.

And nobody beats the Israelis in that shit. They had a problem with locusts and some Jews figured out a way to cook them and sell them, and people were eating them. Actually I think that is some damn good thinking. If people will eat them, hell you know they are free range. Probably the most nutritious thing in the world ! Really.

Shit, when you eat shellfish, what is that ? Barnacles ?

Oh boy, them Jews better consult with a Rabbi before opening up the chain of locust restaurants. They'll have to make sure this new dish is Kosher. If it is, it is probably also Halal (sp) so they can sell it in Palestine and make a fortune.

Locusts (of certain species) are halal and kosher. There are
disagreements on which species.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher_locust
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Islamic_and_Jewish_dietary_laws

I'm not sure selling anything to Palestine is a road to riches.. but
there are > 1.5bn other Muslisms who might buy a tasty locust burger
and of course there's nothing stopping hungry Xtians and many others
from chowing down.

Fast food is frequently modified for the market- I think this Emirates
"Tower" burger looks pretty good (as far as BK food goes), for only
DHS 17 ea. So why not a locust burger?

http://www.thedubaimall.com/en/Images/UAE%20Counter%20menu.pdf


Some Aussie boffin has suggested renaming them "sky prawns" to make
them more acceptable to Western sensibilities.

There's this little fella too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_cricket

--sp



--
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
Amazon link for AoE 3rd Edition: http://tinyurl.com/ntrpwu8
Microchip link for 2015 Masters in Phoenix: http://tinyurl.com/l7g2k48

 

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 4:21:52 AM UTC-4, Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 10:01:02 -0700 (PDT), the renowned
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

"You lived in New Orleans: it's like France, they'll eat anything >down
there. If Chernobyl had happened in France, those fungi would be
served in four-star restaurants. "

Been said that they will eat what we call the Orkin Man for. A joke but pretty true.

And nobody beats the Israelis in that shit. They had a problem with locusts and some Jews figured out a way to cook them and sell them, and people were eating them. Actually I think that is some damn good thinking. If people will eat them, hell you know they are free range. Probably the most nutritious thing in the world ! Really.

Shit, when you eat shellfish, what is that ? Barnacles ?

Oh boy, them Jews better consult with a Rabbi before opening up the chain of locust restaurants. They'll have to make sure this new dish is Kosher. If it is, it is probably also Halal (sp) so they can sell it in Palestine and make a fortune.

Locusts (of certain species) are halal and kosher. There are
disagreements on which species.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher_locust
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Islamic_and_Jewish_dietary_laws

I'm not sure selling anything to Palestine is a road to riches.. but
there are > 1.5bn other Muslisms who might buy a tasty locust burger
and of course there's nothing stopping hungry Xtians and many others
from chowing down.

Fast food is frequently modified for the market- I think this Emirates
"Tower" burger looks pretty good (as far as BK food goes), for only
DHS 17 ea. So why not a locust burger?

http://www.thedubaimall.com/en/Images/UAE%20Counter%20menu.pdf


Some Aussie boffin has suggested renaming them "sky prawns" to make
them more acceptable to Western sensibilities.

There's this little fella too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_cricket

I had fried grasshoppers somewhere, either Africa or Asia (I can't remember).
They were very good, crunchy, salted. Tasted about like peanuts.

So if AGW favors bugs, we can always just eat bugs. The People Who Know Better
(but who prefer caviar) are already saying we plebes should.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/to-save-the-world-eat-bugs/283970/

Suits me.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 9:10:28 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 9:34:50 AM UTC-4, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 2:47:00 AM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
snip

Like most political hacks, you're an argumentative know-nothing of subhuman intelligence.

The chief climate science is political science.

E.g. kindly point out to we fungi where the White House or NASA predicted the
hottest year ever would increase crop yields, or where they even announced
this unexpected result for corn and soybeans, in their effort to be earnest,
honest, forthright purveyors of the truth, and scientifically accurate.

They also did not predict the exact date of the monarch butterfly migration.

Here's the agency you said wasn't part of the administration:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/7875584/Barack-Obama-Nasa-must-try-to-make-Muslims-feel-good.html
"[NASA head] Charles Bolden, ... said in an interview with al-Jazeera that Nasa
was not only a space exploration agency but also an "Earth improvement agency".

Mr Bolden said: "When I became the Nasa administrator, he [Mr Obama] charged me with three things.

"One, he wanted me to help reinspire children to want to get into science and
math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and
perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world
and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good
about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering."

Take a look at the numbers you're using, imbecile, they're arabic.

He's some real scientific research on even more detrimental effects of high CO2. So you know what you can do with your CO2 inflated biomass of junk growth, you don't know the first thing about agricultural science.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v510/n7503/nature13179/metrics/news

More alarmism. Does any serious person think crops can't be selectively bred?

That's exactly what's been happening for the past 10,000 years, idiot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_breeding

> It's silly. Ditto for the CO2 uptake saturation argument.

It's not an argument, it's a measurement, idiot.

Cheers,
James Arthur

You're definitely damaged material...

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 04:21:44 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 10:01:02 -0700 (PDT), the renowned
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

"You lived in New Orleans: it's like France, they'll eat anything >down
there. If Chernobyl had happened in France, those fungi would be
served in four-star restaurants. "

Been said that they will eat what we call the Orkin Man for. A joke but pretty true.

And nobody beats the Israelis in that shit. They had a problem with locusts and some Jews figured out a way to cook them and sell them, and people were eating them. Actually I think that is some damn good thinking. If people will eat them, hell you know they are free range. Probably the most nutritious thing in the world ! Really.

Shit, when you eat shellfish, what is that ? Barnacles ?

Oh boy, them Jews better consult with a Rabbi before opening up the chain of locust restaurants. They'll have to make sure this new dish is Kosher. If it is, it is probably also Halal (sp) so they can sell it in Palestine and make a fortune.

Locusts (of certain species) are halal and kosher. There are
disagreements on which species.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher_locust
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Islamic_and_Jewish_dietary_laws

I'm not sure selling anything to Palestine is a road to riches.. but
there are > 1.5bn other Muslisms who might buy a tasty locust burger
and of course there's nothing stopping hungry Xtians and many others
from chowing down.

Fast food is frequently modified for the market- I think this Emirates
"Tower" burger looks pretty good (as far as BK food goes), for only
DHS 17 ea. So why not a locust burger?

http://www.thedubaimall.com/en/Images/UAE%20Counter%20menu.pdf


Some Aussie boffin has suggested renaming them "sky prawns" to make
them more acceptable to Western sensibilities.

That's great. The price doubles when you call them "prawns."

There's this little fella too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_cricket

--sp

 

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 1:30:26 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 9:10:28 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 9:34:50 AM UTC-4, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 2:47:00 AM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
snip

Like most political hacks, you're an argumentative know-nothing of subhuman intelligence.

The chief climate science is political science.

E.g. kindly point out to we fungi where the White House or NASA predicted the
hottest year ever would increase crop yields, or where they even announced
this unexpected result for corn and soybeans, in their effort to be earnest,
honest, forthright purveyors of the truth, and scientifically accurate.

They also did not predict the exact date of the monarch butterfly migration.



Here's the agency you said wasn't part of the administration:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/7875584/Barack-Obama-Nasa-must-try-to-make-Muslims-feel-good.html

-----quote------

Charles Bolden, ... said in an interview with al-Jazeera that Nasa
was not only a space exploration agency but also an "Earth improvement agency".

Mr Bolden said: "When I became the Nasa administrator, he [Mr Obama] charged me with three things.

"One, he wanted me to help reinspire children to want to get into science and
math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and
perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world
and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good
about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering."
-----/quote------

> Take a look at the numbers you're using, imbecile, they're arabic.

Unable to process simple arguments? I'll recap:

You said NASA was independent. I just showed they're political, slobbering
sycophants to a political agenda. Boosting Muslims' self-esteem at the
President's behest ain't independent, and it ain't science.

He's some real scientific research on even more detrimental effects of high CO2. So you know what you can do with your CO2 inflated biomass of junk growth, you don't know the first thing about agricultural science.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v510/n7503/nature13179/metrics/news

More alarmism. Does any serious person think crops can't be selectively bred?

That's exactly what's been happening for the past 10,000 years, idiot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_breeding

It's silly. Ditto for the CO2 uptake saturation argument.

It's not an argument, it's a measurement, idiot.

Typical super-intelligent zero-order mastermind thinking. The argument is,
implicitly, that they can't change, even given cause.


> You're definitely damaged material...

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 2:58:42 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:48:37 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 4:21:52 AM UTC-4, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 10:01:02 -0700 (PDT), the renowned
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

"You lived in New Orleans: it's like France, they'll eat anything >down
there. If Chernobyl had happened in France, those fungi would be
served in four-star restaurants. "

Been said that they will eat what we call the Orkin Man for. A joke but pretty true.

And nobody beats the Israelis in that shit. They had a problem with locusts and some Jews figured out a way to cook them and sell them, and people were eating them. Actually I think that is some damn good thinking. If people will eat them, hell you know they are free range. Probably the most nutritious thing in the world ! Really.

Shit, when you eat shellfish, what is that ? Barnacles ?

Oh boy, them Jews better consult with a Rabbi before opening up the chain of locust restaurants. They'll have to make sure this new dish is Kosher. If it is, it is probably also Halal (sp) so they can sell it in Palestine and make a fortune.

Locusts (of certain species) are halal and kosher. There are
disagreements on which species.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher_locust
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Islamic_and_Jewish_dietary_laws

I'm not sure selling anything to Palestine is a road to riches.. but
there are > 1.5bn other Muslisms who might buy a tasty locust burger
and of course there's nothing stopping hungry Xtians and many others
from chowing down.

Fast food is frequently modified for the market- I think this Emirates
"Tower" burger looks pretty good (as far as BK food goes), for only
DHS 17 ea. So why not a locust burger?

http://www.thedubaimall.com/en/Images/UAE%20Counter%20menu.pdf


Some Aussie boffin has suggested renaming them "sky prawns" to make
them more acceptable to Western sensibilities.

There's this little fella too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_cricket

I had fried grasshoppers somewhere, either Africa or Asia (I can't remember).
They were very good, crunchy, salted. Tasted about like peanuts.

So if AGW favors bugs, we can always just eat bugs. The People Who Know Better
(but who prefer caviar) are already saying we plebes should.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/to-save-the-world-eat-bugs/283970/

Suits me.


Can you herd grasshoppers? Cowboys become bugboys?

Roll 'em, roll 'em, keep them buggies rollin',
rollin' rollin, rollin' raw----crick-ets!
Don't try and understand 'em,
Just rope, fry, and brand 'em, ...

(Needs work)

> Does the world need saving?

Funny, ain't it, how the people wanting to save the planet are ever the ones
who wanna spend it into oblivion?

Anyone worried about humanity's effect on the planet needs to check out what
their local rainforest does to ancient ruins in .75 to 1.2 jiffies. Or just
visit Detroit, same same.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Dave Platt]

In article <8n6f2bdmmda42hvl71ujtu8lh3c16tjb5m@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

Some Aussie boffin has suggested renaming them "sky prawns" to make
them more acceptable to Western sensibilities.

That's great. The price doubles when you call them "prawns."

An excellent idea. Chinese gooseberries became far more popular when
they were dubbed "kiwi fruit".

Fried/BBQ'ed grasshoppers are a popular bar snack in much of Southeast
Asia. I had some when my wife and I toured Laos last year. Quite
good... the flavor is about halfway between BBQ'ed shrimp, and Fritos
corn chips (I suspect the critters were raised on a diet of cornmeal).

Deep-fried tarantula legs (Cambodia) are similar in both taste and
texture.

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:48:37 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 4:21:52 AM UTC-4, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 10:01:02 -0700 (PDT), the renowned
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

"You lived in New Orleans: it's like France, they'll eat anything >down
there. If Chernobyl had happened in France, those fungi would be
served in four-star restaurants. "

Been said that they will eat what we call the Orkin Man for. A joke but pretty true.

And nobody beats the Israelis in that shit. They had a problem with locusts and some Jews figured out a way to cook them and sell them, and people were eating them. Actually I think that is some damn good thinking. If people will eat them, hell you know they are free range. Probably the most nutritious thing in the world ! Really.

Shit, when you eat shellfish, what is that ? Barnacles ?

Oh boy, them Jews better consult with a Rabbi before opening up the chain of locust restaurants. They'll have to make sure this new dish is Kosher. If it is, it is probably also Halal (sp) so they can sell it in Palestine and make a fortune.

Locusts (of certain species) are halal and kosher. There are
disagreements on which species.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher_locust
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Islamic_and_Jewish_dietary_laws

I'm not sure selling anything to Palestine is a road to riches.. but
there are > 1.5bn other Muslisms who might buy a tasty locust burger
and of course there's nothing stopping hungry Xtians and many others
from chowing down.

Fast food is frequently modified for the market- I think this Emirates
"Tower" burger looks pretty good (as far as BK food goes), for only
DHS 17 ea. So why not a locust burger?

http://www.thedubaimall.com/en/Images/UAE%20Counter%20menu.pdf


Some Aussie boffin has suggested renaming them "sky prawns" to make
them more acceptable to Western sensibilities.

There's this little fella too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_cricket

I had fried grasshoppers somewhere, either Africa or Asia (I can't remember).
They were very good, crunchy, salted. Tasted about like peanuts.

So if AGW favors bugs, we can always just eat bugs. The People Who Know Better
(but who prefer caviar) are already saying we plebes should.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/to-save-the-world-eat-bugs/283970/

Suits me.

Cheers,
James Arthur

Can you herd grasshoppers? Cowboys become bugboys?

Does the world need saving?


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, 22 October 2015 06:04:10 UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 1:30:26 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 9:10:28 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 9:34:50 AM UTC-4, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 2:47:00 AM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
snip

Like most political hacks, you're an argumentative know-nothing of subhuman intelligence.

The chief climate science is political science.

E.g. kindly point out to we fungi where the White House or NASA predicted the
hottest year ever would increase crop yields, or where they even announced
this unexpected result for corn and soybeans, in their effort to be earnest,
honest, forthright purveyors of the truth, and scientifically accurate.

They also did not predict the exact date of the monarch butterfly migration.



Here's the agency you said wasn't part of the administration:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/7875584/Barack-Obama-Nasa-must-try-to-make-Muslims-feel-good.html

-----quote------
"[NASA head] Charles Bolden, ... said in an interview with al-Jazeera that Nasa
was not only a space exploration agency but also an "Earth improvement agency".

Mr Bolden said: "When I became the Nasa administrator, he [Mr Obama] charged me with three things.

"One, he wanted me to help reinspire children to want to get into science and
math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and
perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world
and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good
about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering."
-----/quote------

Take a look at the numbers you're using, imbecile, they're arabic.

Unable to process simple arguments? I'll recap:

You said NASA was independent. I just showed they're political, slobbering
sycophants to a political agenda. Boosting Muslims' self-esteem at the
President's behest ain't independent, and it ain't science.

Your quotation was not direct, and "The Daily Telegraph" isn't an objective source. If you'd found a direct and complete quotation, you might have established that their chief administrator would say things calculated to go down well with the current administration. Sadly, that's politics, and that's the kind of thing that administrators are hired to do, so that the scientific business of the agency can be prosecuted without too much scientist-time being wasted on public relations.

This doesn't necessarily compromise the scientific output of the agency. If NASA were being run by a Tea Party hack - some kind of Jim Imhofe clone - there would be reason for anxiety, but so far the lunatics aren't running the asylum, and your right wing assumption that since you are corruptible everybody else is corrupt is merely one more of your ill-founded and unrealistic assumptions.

He's some real scientific research on even more detrimental effects of high CO2. So you know what you can do with your CO2 inflated biomass of junk growth, you don't know the first thing about agricultural science.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v510/n7503/nature13179/metrics/news

More alarmism. Does any serious person think crops can't be selectively bred?

That's exactly what's been happening for the past 10,000 years, idiot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_breeding

It's silly. Ditto for the CO2 uptake saturation argument.

It's not an argument, it's a measurement, idiot.

Typical super-intelligent zero-order mastermind thinking. The argument is,
implicitly, that they can't change, even given cause.

I can't detect any evidence of any such argument.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 3:04:10 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

Unable to process simple arguments? I'll recap:

You said NASA was independent. I just showed they're political, slobbering
sycophants to a political agenda. Boosting Muslims' self-esteem at the
President's behest ain't independent, and it ain't science.

You're a trashy uneducated and worthless piece of garbage. It' just unbelievable how a low life cretin operating at your level of ignorance can presume to tell everyone how the government and society should be organized and managed!

"Independent agencies of the United States federal government are those agencies that exist outside of the federal executive departments (those headed by a Cabinet secretary). More specifically, the term may be used to describe agencies that, while constitutionally part of the executive branch, are independent of presidential control, usually because the president's power to dismiss the agency head or a member is limited."

"The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was established in 1958 to run the American space program. It placed the first American satellites and astronauts in orbit, and it launched the Apollo spacecraft that landed men on the moon in 1969. Today, NASA conducts research aboard earth-orbiting satellites and interplanetary probes, explores new concepts in advanced aerospace technology, and is currently developing a next-generation manned spacecraft."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government

Typical super-intelligent zero-order mastermind thinking. The argument is,
implicitly, that they can't change, even given cause.

No one made any such argument...you've completely lost any shred of credibility here, move on to something else, ignoramus.


Worth repeating:

You're definitely damaged material...

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 8:04:37 AM UTC-4, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 3:04:10 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:


Unable to process simple arguments? I'll recap:

You said NASA was independent. I just showed they're political, slobbering
sycophants to a political agenda. Boosting Muslims' self-esteem at the
President's behest ain't independent, and it ain't science.

You're a trashy uneducated and worthless piece of garbage. It' just unbelievable how a low life cretin operating at your level of ignorance can presume to tell everyone how the government and society should be organized and managed!

Naturally, freedom, as an organizing principle, offends you. But that's not
the topic.

> "Independent agencies of the United States federal government are those agencies that exist outside of the federal executive departments (those headed by a Cabinet secretary). More specifically, the term may be used to describe agencies that, while constitutionally part of the executive branch, are independent of presidential control, usually because the president's power to dismiss the agency head or a member is limited."

Which part of 'executive branch' wasn't clear? And when he says their new
mission is Muslim outreach (and / or AGW), that's their new mission.

"The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was established in 1958 to run the American space program. It placed the first American satellites and astronauts in orbit, and it launched the Apollo spacecraft that landed men on the moon in 1969. Today, NASA conducts research aboard earth-orbiting satellites and interplanetary probes, explores new concepts in advanced aerospace technology, and is currently developing a next-generation manned spacecraft."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government

They forgot to list outreach and boosting Muslim self-esteem.

Typical super-intelligent zero-order mastermind thinking. The argument is,
implicitly, that they can't change, even given cause.

No one made any such argument

You did, when you cited saturated CO2 uptake as evidence plants couldn't utilize
higher concentrations of CO2.

...you've completely lost any shred of credibility here, move on to something else, ignoramus.


Worth repeating:

You're definitely damaged material...

You're getting awfully emotional these days, Fred.

Objectively shown:
o The feds are not disinterested purveyors of truth.
o They use their agencies to dispense political, not scientific messages.
o They report items that support their objectives, and do not report data that conflict.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 9:39:49 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 05:04:24 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com Gave us:

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 3:04:10 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:


Unable to process simple arguments? I'll recap:

You said NASA was independent. I just showed they're political, slobbering
sycophants to a political agenda. Boosting Muslims' self-esteem at the
President's behest ain't independent, and it ain't science.

You're a trashy uneducated and worthless piece of garbage. It' just
unbelievable how a low life cretin operating at your level of ignorance
can presume to tell everyone how the government and society should
be organized and managed!

"Independent agencies of the United States federal government are
those agencies that exist outside of the federal executive departments
(those headed by a Cabinet secretary). More specifically, the term may be
used to describe agencies that, while constitutionally part of the executive
branch, are independent of presidential control, usually because the
president's power to dismiss the agency head or a member is limited."

"The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was established
in 1958 to run the American space program. It placed the first American
satellites and astronauts in orbit, and it launched the Apollo spacecraft that
landed men on the moon in 1969. Today, NASA conducts research aboard
earth-orbiting satellites and interplanetary probes, explores new concepts
in advanced aerospace technology, and is currently developing a
next-generation manned spacecraft."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government

snip

I find that you are far more intelligent (or at least google skilled)
than I had previously put you down in my book for.

It just GOES to show one...

http://www.goes-r.gov/

Some more about it....

http://tinyurl.com/oarfokh

It (NASA & the NOAA) does a far better job of putting US citizens to
work than Trump ever could or ever will.

I've had pals at NASA--they're about .5% efficient, and finely-tuned for
regularly blowing things up.

NASA's mostly a waste of space.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 05:04:24 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com Gave us:

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 3:04:10 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:


Unable to process simple arguments? I'll recap:

You said NASA was independent. I just showed they're political, slobbering
sycophants to a political agenda. Boosting Muslims' self-esteem at the
President's behest ain't independent, and it ain't science.

You're a trashy uneducated and worthless piece of garbage. It' just
unbelievable how a low life cretin operating at your level of ignorance
can presume to tell everyone how the government and society should
be organized and managed!

"Independent agencies of the United States federal government are
those agencies that exist outside of the federal executive departments
(those headed by a Cabinet secretary). More specifically, the term may be
used to describe agencies that, while constitutionally part of the executive
branch, are independent of presidential control, usually because the
president's power to dismiss the agency head or a member is limited."

"The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was established
in 1958 to run the American space program. It placed the first American
satellites and astronauts in orbit, and it launched the Apollo spacecraft that
landed men on the moon in 1969. Today, NASA conducts research aboard
earth-orbiting satellites and interplanetary probes, explores new concepts
in advanced aerospace technology, and is currently developing a
next-generation manned spacecraft."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government

snip

I find that you are far more intelligent (or at least google skilled)
than I had previously put you down in my book for.

It just GOES to show one...

http://www.goes-r.gov/

Some more about it....

http://tinyurl.com/oarfokh

It (NASA & the NOAA) does a far better job of putting US citizens to
work than Trump ever could or ever will.

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:31:24 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com Gave
us:

I've had pals at NASA--they're about .5% efficient, and finely-tuned for
regularly blowing things up.

NASA's mostly a waste of space.

Cheers,
James Arthur

You're a goddamned retard. Your brain "blowed up real good".

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 2:31:31 AM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 9:39:49 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 05:04:24 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com Gave us:

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 3:04:10 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:


Unable to process simple arguments? I'll recap:

You said NASA was independent. I just showed they're political, slobbering
sycophants to a political agenda. Boosting Muslims' self-esteem at the
President's behest ain't independent, and it ain't science.

You're a trashy uneducated and worthless piece of garbage. It' just
unbelievable how a low life cretin operating at your level of ignorance
can presume to tell everyone how the government and society should
be organized and managed!

"Independent agencies of the United States federal government are
those agencies that exist outside of the federal executive departments
(those headed by a Cabinet secretary). More specifically, the term may be
used to describe agencies that, while constitutionally part of the executive
branch, are independent of presidential control, usually because the
president's power to dismiss the agency head or a member is limited."

"The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was established
in 1958 to run the American space program. It placed the first American
satellites and astronauts in orbit, and it launched the Apollo spacecraft that
landed men on the moon in 1969. Today, NASA conducts research aboard
earth-orbiting satellites and interplanetary probes, explores new concepts
in advanced aerospace technology, and is currently developing a
next-generation manned spacecraft."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government

snip

I find that you are far more intelligent (or at least google skilled)
than I had previously put you down in my book for.

It just GOES to show one...

http://www.goes-r.gov/

Some more about it....

http://tinyurl.com/oarfokh

It (NASA & the NOAA) does a far better job of putting US citizens to
work than Trump ever could or ever will.

I've had pals at NASA--they're about .5% efficient, and finely-tuned for
regularly blowing things up.

James Arthur's pals aren't an impressive bunch. From what he says, it's his pal's that are 0.5% efficient and regularly blow things up, then complain about the unfairness of other people getting promoted.

> NASA's mostly a waste of space.

More probably James Arthur's social circle is a waste of space. If you can get brainwashed into thinking that the Tea Party is an organisation worthy of encouragement, you've got something wrong with your intellectual processes.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney