frightening

[Jasen Betts]

On 2015-10-19, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

Didn't I just get through telling you the 2014 growing season was
abnormally wet and cool? Are you saying excessive atmospheric CO2 will
result in an abnormally wet and cool planet? If not, then buzz off.

are you claiming that it was abnormally wet and cool world-wide?


--
\_(ツ)_

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 5:00:55 PM UTC+11, Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2015-10-19, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

Didn't I just get through telling you the 2014 growing season was
abnormally wet and cool? Are you saying excessive atmospheric CO2 will
result in an abnormally wet and cool planet? If not, then buzz off.

are you claiming that it was abnormally wet and cool world-wide?

The specific subject under discussion was US food crop yields, so the abnormally wet and cool growing season isn't even US-wide, but rather confined to the specific food-growing areas of the US involved.

Do try to keep track of context when thinking about this kind of question - it does make a difference. Snipping most of the context - including the bit where Fred explicitly referred "to the handful of northern states growing soy and corn" - doesn't add to your credibility.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 10:01:54 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 8:12:15 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 10:28:55 AM UTC-4, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 10:56:14 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:


http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/09/25/us-global-crop-production-sets-new-records-2014
"The U.S. Department of Agriculture has forecast record U.S. corn
yields this year as warmer temperatures, longer growing seasons,
more precipitation, and higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels
have enhanced crop output."

The Heartland Institute is a phony shill institute, and the USDA made no such statement about atmospheric CO2 contributing to crop yields. You're just a lying little political hack.

Ad hominem squared is your answer?

I assume the USDA forecast a record crop, and the Heartland Institute
ascribed causation. You're free to disagree with the causation, not
the empirical data.

Didn't I just get through telling you the 2014 growing season was abnormally wet and cool?

I know. But NASA and the White House say it was the warmest year ever. You're
being dense.

> Are you saying excessive atmospheric CO2 will result in an abnormally wet and cool planet? If not, then buzz off.

I'm not making claims, you are. You said excess CO2 will reduce soil moisture,
hurting yields.

NASA has been bleating that this has been the warmest year, evuh. You've
posited crop yields will fall, but in real life they're better.

There is no "they" to it, all you have is the 2014 season. Prior years were dismal, and successive years will almost certainly be dismal too. How dumb are you that you think a continental average applies to the handful of northern states growing soy and corn? You can't fathom a record high average nationwide while some areas were below average? If everything was above average then you're working with the wrong average obviously!

Ironically, *you* failed to consider that a warmer average might not be uniform,
and might not be uniformly bad. The Whor^H^Hite House did the same.

At a minimum you have to admit that higher US avg temps might not actually
reduce yield. (Because we had them, and they didn't.)

Feel free to find a warmer part of the US and show its losses exceed other
regions' gains.

Here's how yields are actually modeled:
http://www.usda.gov/oce/forum/presentations/Westcott_Jewison.pdf
Warmer temperatures reduce yield, and add in below average precipitation and the yields plummet. Note that CO2 as an independent variable doesn't figure into the equation, its effects are more appropriately gauged through resulting climate change.

You're arguing the model over physical, empirical data? Really?

Show me where the model is in disagreement with the date from the 2014 season? You can't because it isn't.

It's your duty to show lower crop yields somewhere. I gave a few of the first
hits, which showed higher yields.

www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/soybean/seed/docs/2014-USSEC-soybean-quality-report.pdf
"According to the 1 November, 2014 United States Department of Agriculture,
National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS) crop production report,
the total US soybean harvested area increased 9.4 percent from last year to
33.8 million hectares harvested (Table 1). Average yields increased to
3.2 MT per ha. The higher yields brought total US soybean production to an
estimated 107.8 million MT. The record 2014 crop is estimated to be 17.8%
larger than the 2013 crop. "

That was for one year with abnormally cooler growing season and abnormally higher precipitation. Abnormal conditions are not usually given much weight in determining trends, except by political hacks.

Speaking of political hacks, NASA declared 2014 the warmest year ever, yet
you're denying that physical 'fact.'
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/

So are your arguing that this administration is lying, or are you arguing
that CO2 and / or warmth reduces crop yield, in a year when we had the most
of both ever?

NASA is not the "administration"-man, you're dumber than a rock.

Of course NASA's the administration. They're home to Jimmy Hansen, famed
Gore-shill. They work for the president, blow up shuttles, persecute
competence, and send out spam rags. Oh, and most importantly, try to
invent reasons for their own existence.

> Try to get it through your head that agricultural production is not uniformly distributed throughout North America before you look even more absurd, because that's the only way the reported averages would support your beliefs.

You aren't usually this dense, Fred. The WH and NASA are shrieking that the
sky's on fire and, because the sky's on fire, crops will lessen. It didn't
happen. Yields increased. I'm not assuming anything, I just looking at the
observed results, and they contradict you, NASA, and the Whore House.

P.S. If you admit temps aren't uniform, then you've admitted that higher CO2 and
higher temps might not affect the crop-growing regions negatively at all,
mooting your crop claim.

Another effect you and the other ignoramus are ignoring is the dependence of many food crops on cold. Many types of fruit and nut producers REQUIRE several hundred hours of HARD FREEZE prior to the growing season for production. The hard freeze will be doing a disappearing act in many places as the climate warms.

Here is another example of an industry in rapid decline:
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/New_England_includes/Publications/0605mpl.pdf



As compared to..

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/06/18/us-climate-food-idUSTRE55H3YI20090618
"The White House published this week a report which forecast that heat, floods, drought and pests would harm food yields and concluded, for example, that cranberry production may no longer be possible by 2050 in its East Coast heartland."

IOW, the White House predicts AGW will produce
- flood, and
- drought, and will
- hurt food yields.

That's just one of numerous readily accessible white papers on the subject based on real science. You ignore this because you're an irrational simpleton who never learned to reason properly, consequently you're opinion is not worth much.

Likewise, we've been told
- the last two years have been the warmest ever, and
- warmer weather will cause more storms, and more energetic storms.

That's a testable hypothesis.
If true we should see it immediately: (storms respond to current local
conditions). Instead, we have fewer storms, and weaker, right?

You don't know the first thing about interpreting climate data, and you're too dumb to learn.

IOW you can't defend your hypothesis.

I don't have a hypothesis, I have the research of the people who know how to make scientific agricultural forecasts.

Your hypothesis was that higher temps would reduce yields, that lower soil
moisture would offset plants' love of increased CO2.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 7:51:26 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 12:56:38 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

The gaia concept is appealing. It assumes that Earth takes care of
itself and uses various critters to do it. There are schools that
think humans are part of the scheme, and other who think we are
poison.

It's appealing only in a poetic sense. The proposition that Gaia is 'living'
suggests regulation of its internal variables (much as human
bocy temperature, tissue oxygenation, blood sugar are regulated).

It doesn't, however, help the human race if Gaia 'survives'. Perhaps the
global warming fever causes the human infection to go away.
Or, perhaps Gaia adjusts its metabolism to absorb pollutants
without harm. The 'Gaia hypothesis' doesn't predict either; neither
event would refute the Gaia hypothesis. it is less than a verifiable theory,
too general to be suitable for scientific investigation.

The Earth doesn't care much about us. If we disappeared our cities would be washed out to sea, buried under vines, and lost in forests in no time.

Check out the wildlife explosion in Chernobyl...
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/chernobyl-disaster-exclusion-zone-around-plant-has-become-wildlife-haven-on-par-with-nature-reserves-a6680396.html


Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, 20 October 2015 17:47:00 UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 10:01:54 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 8:12:15 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 10:28:55 AM UTC-4, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 10:56:14 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:


http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/09/25/us-global-crop-production-sets-new-records-2014
"The U.S. Department of Agriculture has forecast record U.S. corn
yields this year as warmer temperatures, longer growing seasons,
more precipitation, and higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels
have enhanced crop output."

The Heartland Institute is a phony shill institute, and the USDA made no such statement about atmospheric CO2 contributing to crop yields. You're just a lying little political hack.

Ad hominem squared is your answer?

I assume the USDA forecast a record crop, and the Heartland Institute
ascribed causation. You're free to disagree with the causation, not
the empirical data.

Didn't I just get through telling you the 2014 growing season was abnormally wet and cool?

I know. But NASA and the White House say it was the warmest year ever.
You're being dense.

Sadly, you are. The "warmest year" is averaged over the entire country - possibly over the entire world. An abnormally wet and coll growing season is averaged over the - smaller - area where the growing actually going on, and over the months when the growing was actually going on.

You are trying to compare apples and pears, and your enthusiasm for a snappy line has short-circuited your higher cognitive functions - not for the first time.

Are you saying excessive atmospheric CO2 will result in an abnormally wet and cool planet? If not, then buzz off.

I'm not making claims, you are. You said excess CO2 will reduce soil
moisture, hurting yields.

NASA has been bleating that this has been the warmest year, evuh. You've
posited crop yields will fall, but in real life they're better.

There is no "they" to it, all you have is the 2014 season. Prior years were dismal, and successive years will almost certainly be dismal too. How dumb are you that you think a continental average applies to the handful of northern states growing soy and corn? You can't fathom a record high average nationwide while some areas were below average? If everything was above average then you're working with the wrong average obviously!

Ironically, *you* failed to consider that a warmer average might not be
uniform, and might not be uniformly bad. The Whor^H^Hite House did the same.

You seem to have missed the same fundamental point

At a minimum you have to admit that higher US avg temps might not actually
reduce yield. (Because we had them, and they didn't.)

When the areas that had the increased yield were abnormally wet and cool, it's optimistic to argue that higher average temperatures are likely to be consistently associated with unusually favourable conditions in the growing reases during the growing season.

Feel free to find a warmer part of the US and show its losses exceed other
regions' gains.

Why? It's warmth and lack of water during the growing season that affect crop yields.

Here's how yields are actually modeled:
http://www.usda.gov/oce/forum/presentations/Westcott_Jewison.pdf
Warmer temperatures reduce yield, and add in below average precipitation and the yields plummet. Note that CO2 as an independent variable doesn't figure into the equation, its effects are more appropriately gauged through resulting climate change.

You're arguing the model over physical, empirical data? Really?

Show me where the model is in disagreement with the date from the 2014 season? You can't because it isn't.

It's your duty to show lower crop yields somewhere. I gave a few of the first
hits, which showed higher yields.

Why has he got a duty to show lower crop yields anywhere? Why should he bother when you'll just cry "normal variation" without going to the trouble of finding out what the normal distribution looks like in the particular area..

www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/soybean/seed/docs/2014-USSEC-soybean-quality-report.pdf
"According to the 1 November, 2014 United States Department of
Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS)
crop production report, the total US soybean harvested area increased
9.4 percent from last year to 33.8 million hectares harvested (Table
1). Average yields increased to 3.2 MT per ha. The higher yields
brought total US soybean production to an estimated 107.8 million
MT. The record 2014 crop is estimated to be 17.8% larger than the
2013 crop. "

That was for one year with abnormally cooler growing season and abnormally higher precipitation. Abnormal conditions are not usually given much weight in determining trends, except by political hacks.

Speaking of political hacks, NASA declared 2014 the warmest year ever, yet
you're denying that physical 'fact.'
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/

So are your arguing that this administration is lying, or are you arguing
that CO2 and / or warmth reduces crop yield, in a year when we had the
most of both ever?

NASA is not the "administration"-man, you're dumber than a rock.

Of course NASA's the administration. They're home to Jimmy Hansen, famed
Gore-shill.

Huh? James Hansen is one of the scientists who give Al Gore advice, which he is sensible enough to pay attention to.

Gore is a populariser - and has got a share of a Nobel prize for it.

Hansen is a scientist, and tells what he knows.

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

They work for the president, blow up shuttles, persecute
competence, and send out spam rags. Oh, and most importantly, try to
invent reasons for their own existence.

Only a Tea Party nitwit could see them that way.

Try to get it through your head that agricultural production is not uniformly distributed throughout North America before you look even more absurd, because that's the only way the reported averages would support your beliefs.

You aren't usually this dense, Fred. The WH and NASA are shrieking that the
sky's on fire and, because the sky's on fire, crops will lessen.

Eventually.

> It didn't happen.

It has, but not when you were paying attention.

> Yields increased.

Once.

I'm not assuming anything, I just looking at the
observed results, and they contradict you, NASA, and the Whore House.

They don't. You want to confused country wide and year-wide observations with local conditions in the food-growing areas, during the food-going season.. It's a nonsense.

P.S. If you admit temps aren't uniform, then you've admitted that higher CO2 > and higher temps might not affect the crop-growing regions negatively at all,
mooting your crop claim.

Why? An abnormally cool growing season will get to be more abnormal as the global average temperature rises.

Another effect you and the other ignoramus are ignoring is the dependence of many food crops on cold. Many types of fruit and nut producers REQUIRE several hundred hours of HARD FREEZE prior to the growing season for production. The hard freeze will be doing a disappearing act in many places as the climate warms.

Here is another example of an industry in rapid decline:
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/New_England_includes/Publications/0605mpl.pdf



As compared to..

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/06/18/us-climate-food-idUSTRE55H3YI20090618
"The White House published this week a report which forecast that heat, floods, drought and pests would harm food yields and concluded, for example, that cranberry production may no longer be possible by 2050 in its East Coast heartland."

IOW, the White House predicts AGW will produce
- flood, and
- drought, and will
- hurt food yields.

That's just one of numerous readily accessible white papers on the subject based on real science. You ignore this because you're an irrational simpleton who never learned to reason properly, consequently you're opinion is not worth much.

Likewise, we've been told
- the last two years have been the warmest ever, and
- warmer weather will cause more storms, and more energetic storms.

That's a testable hypothesis.
If true we should see it immediately: (storms respond to current local
conditions). Instead, we have fewer storms, and weaker, right?

You don't know the first thing about interpreting climate data, and you're too dumb to learn.

IOW you can't defend your hypothesis.

I don't have a hypothesis, I have the research of the people who know how to make scientific agricultural forecasts.

Your hypothesis was that higher temps would reduce yields, that lower soil
moisture would offset plants' love of increased CO2.

And you haven't posted any evidence which would falsify that hypothesis.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 2:00:55 AM UTC-4, Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2015-10-19, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

Didn't I just get through telling you the 2014 growing season was
abnormally wet and cool? Are you saying excessive atmospheric CO2 will
result in an abnormally wet and cool planet? If not, then buzz off.


are you claiming that it was abnormally wet and cool world-wide?

Corn and soy are grown in only a handful of geographically contiguous states in the U.S. The weather during the growing season of 2014 was atypical, it could have easily gone the other way. The long term average of crop yield will be the deciding factor as to the effects of global warming. The previous USDA paper I linked shows that decline in yield due to detrimental perturbations of ideal growing conditions are nonlinearily steeper than yield improvement due to beneficial climatic perturbations, so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the long term average yield will go into decline.


"Understanding climate effects on crop yield has been a continuous endeavor aiming at improving farming
technology and management strategy, minimizing negative climate effects, and maximizing positive climate
effects on yield. Many studies have examined climate effects on corn yield in different regions of the United
States. However, most of those studies used yield and climate records that were shorter than 10 years and were
for different years and localities. Although results of those studies showed various influences of climate on corn
yield, they could be time specific and have been difficult to use for deriving a comprehensive understanding of
climate effects on corn yield. In this study, climate effects on corn yield in central Missouri are examined using
unique long-term (1895–1998) datasets of both corn yield and climate. Major results show that the climate
effects on corn yield can only be explained by within-season variations in rainfall and temperature and cannot
be distinguished by average growing-season conditions. Moreover, the growing-season distributions of rainfall
and temperature for high-yield years are characterized by less rainfall and warmer temperature in the planting
period, a rapid increase in rainfall, and more rainfall and warmer temperatures during germination and emergence.
More rainfall and cooler-than-average temperatures are key features in the anthesis and kernel-filling periods
from June through August, followed by less rainfall and warmer temperatures during the September and early
October ripening time. Opposite variations in rainfall and temperature in the growing season correspond to low
yield. Potential applications of these results in understanding how climate change may affect corn yield in the
region also are discussed."

From:
http://snr.unl.edu/climate_change/research/climate_corn.pdf

All of the plant science research on the effects of CO2 indicate the uptake is already saturated.

--
\_(ツ)_

 

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.
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

 

>"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.

 

>"I - personally - think that you are reacting correctly, if >ineffectively, against a rather dire environment. "

The radicals are not reacting all that correctly. I personally think some of them are just not all that smart. Take McVeigh for example. He really did not get the revenge he was looking for. He was trying to take out the shooters from the Weaver place. He gave the whole organized/unorganized whatever movement a black eye and the government of course responded in its usual way.

I know y'all think we're crazy having all these guns because an assault on the government would never work, but we could make it impossible for them to do business. What if so many of them got picked off from the windows that tax collectors, cops, code enforcement folks and whoever else helps in their rent seeking was totally afraid to go out and do their job ? What if a loud stereo complain results in two dead or injured cops, and no suspect because someone with a fucking brain used it and was able to get away, and do it again and again. Think of how long it took them to find some of those freeway snipers. And don't even think they solve all crimes, and that is only of the pones that get reported.

I do not call the cops. Alot of my friends do not call the cops.
A few years ago a buddy had an incident with local gang types. He called me.. Me and another buddy get down there with the usual implements of mass carnage and the assholes were gone. But word got out, and it got back to me - "When this dude makes a pho9ne call people show up and it ain't the cops". Never heard a fucking peep out of the punks again. It is like the fucking wild west. That is how it is. If I had blown some punk's head off you know what I would have done next ? Drove away at the speed limit, but not turn the lights on until far enough away they wouldn't get my license number. Not sure about during the day, this was nighttime.

But the punks get into groups and soon realize that there is strength in numbers. Do they get together to fight global w3arming ? Fuck no. Do they get together to change the political situation ? Fuck no.

For the most part, people get what they deserve. That 300,000 people killed by medical mistakes, half of them probably didn't have to be there. The reason insurance companies have copays here is because people seem to think they are entitled to morphine for a hangnail. If it was totally free they would be there every time they cough.

That still doesn't excuse killing them. They kill more than murderers and cops put together. Do these gangs get together and pressure doctors and nurses to be more careful ? Fuck no.

And then we got time to mow a three acre lawn, but not to cook our own food.. People do not know how to eat, and I got absolute proof that maybe half of all disease in this country is caused by poor diet. In fact dude, some of the best information I ever got came out of Australia. I hear that down there when you get sick they don't take everything you own and make a couple of doctors and hospital administrators rich. How technologically advance is a country where you can't even get a good book on how to eat right ?

And then we got the "love it or leave it" crowd who do not want to hear any complaints. Fuck them, pretending there is no problem is by far the worst way to solve it. Saying I ain't patriotic because I put down this country for all the wrong shit happening.

But still, that is ineffective, and I have no idea what would be effective. The motherfuckers made it that way, they want it that way and that is the way it is and they made it hard as hel or maybe impossible to change. They do not want it to change because for "them", things simply couldn't be better. We got legal bribery, we got practical lawlessness among legislators, we got families of legislators who are "tough on crime" in the private prison business. We got judges taking kickbacks from the private prison industry for each inmate shipped, and this was juveniles. After how many lives that motherfucker wrecked he should have been boiled in bacon grease.

If I felt able to learn a new language I actually would leave. If I had kids they would not be in the US at all. They would never ever see the inside of a US school, ever. Not sure where they would go but it certainly wouldn't be here where teachers making a fucking hundred grand a year let pass a yearbook with the title "This Is Are Story".

If they let you have guns down there I would come there. I think you guys are crazy giving them up. There are CROCODILES down there ! Of course next is the open the borders. Wait until you get the immigrant problem.

Enough rant. All I know is people probably should stay where they are, or were. I am. I do not have rose colored glasses, but really, I am probably not suited for life anywhere else. My technical abilities were considered quite exceptional here, the kind of job deals IO got prove it. Top buck and come and go as I please. But in other countries, after having corresponded on the internet and Usenet, it seems to me that I would be considered average or less in most places. So here I am and maybe or maybe not going to live to collect retirement.

Which is a whole nother subject. Social security will be solvent, they will take 44 % of everyone's pay and the old folks will get about $100 a month, with bread at $12 a loaf. And then you can eat your ipad.

 

"Perhaps the
global warming fever causes the human infection to go away."

My Father said something to that effect.

Friend of mine says we are SUPPOSED to burn all this fossil fuel. that we are part of the grand scheme of things.

That guy also has a hell of an idea about convicted murderers and rapists. Don't execute them, turn them into organ donors, LIVE. Do the tissue matching thing and then once there is enough demand, start cutting. Of course corneas can go first as that won't kill them. Skin is pretty hard to match up but it can be done. A cost assessment would have to be done to figure out how to do this the best. Like once you take both kidneys they have to go on dialysis. And you have to find the demand. Once you take certain things the rest of the parts spoil real fast so you gotta get while the getting is good.

And he and I have no illusions of that being a deterrent because nobody thinks they are going to get caught except people who shoot up schools n shit. they are suicidal anyway, it would just be nice if they had the fucking common decency to do it in private.

 

>"They aren't criminals. They write the laws so that what they are >doing isn't technically criminal. "

THAT is the fundamental difference in thinking I have found prevalent. Something is either a crime or it is not. Making it illegal does not make it wrong and if it is legal it isn't necessarily right. And they do not even TRY to make it right in that respect, they write laws to maximize revenue.

I saw a news broadcast years ago - "The Florida legislature passed a law making it a crime to...". The fuck ? They cannot make something right or wrong. they can only make it legal or illegal. In fact they can't really make something lawful or unlawful, but most people do not understand the difference between lawful and legal.

It is illegal in some areas to fix your own house without a permit. However it is a fundamental right to have and maintain your own house. therefore it is not unlawful. Driving a car without a license is illegal, but not unlawful.

People have a hard time with that concept, but my crowd has had tutoring from Harvard professors etc. One of the "students" beat the shit out of the system. got caught redhanded with a shitload of pot plants and all kinds of shit, and got the conviction overturned. He got convicted using a lawyer, he won the appeal pro se. There are some things lawyers just won't do for fear of getting disbarred. That is the fucked up legal system here, your lawyer who is supposed to be your advocate is loyal to the people who want to put your ass away. He is sworn not to embarrass the court, what happens to you has nothing to do with it.

 

"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.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 23:55:28 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 7:51:26 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 12:56:38 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

The gaia concept is appealing. It assumes that Earth takes care of
itself and uses various critters to do it. There are schools that
think humans are part of the scheme, and other who think we are
poison.

It's appealing only in a poetic sense. The proposition that Gaia is 'living'
suggests regulation of its internal variables (much as human
bocy temperature, tissue oxygenation, blood sugar are regulated).

It doesn't, however, help the human race if Gaia 'survives'. Perhaps the
global warming fever causes the human infection to go away.
Or, perhaps Gaia adjusts its metabolism to absorb pollutants
without harm. The 'Gaia hypothesis' doesn't predict either; neither
event would refute the Gaia hypothesis. it is less than a verifiable theory,
too general to be suitable for scientific investigation.

The Earth doesn't care much about us. If we disappeared our cities would be washed out to sea, buried under vines, and lost in forests in no time.

Check out the wildlife explosion in Chernobyl...
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/chernobyl-disaster-exclusion-zone-around-plant-has-become-wildlife-haven-on-par-with-nature-reserves-a6680396.html


Cheers,
James Arthur

This is astonishing:

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

It reminds me of the great BP Gulf oil spill. What happened to all
that oil and methane? Critters ate it.

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.

 

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.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 11:23:37 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 23:55:28 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 7:51:26 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 12:56:38 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

The gaia concept is appealing. It assumes that Earth takes care of
itself and uses various critters to do it. There are schools that
think humans are part of the scheme, and other who think we are
poison.

It's appealing only in a poetic sense. The proposition that Gaia is 'living'
suggests regulation of its internal variables (much as human
bocy temperature, tissue oxygenation, blood sugar are regulated).

It doesn't, however, help the human race if Gaia 'survives'. Perhaps the
global warming fever causes the human infection to go away.
Or, perhaps Gaia adjusts its metabolism to absorb pollutants
without harm. The 'Gaia hypothesis' doesn't predict either; neither
event would refute the Gaia hypothesis. it is less than a verifiable theory,
too general to be suitable for scientific investigation.

The Earth doesn't care much about us. If we disappeared our cities would be washed out to sea, buried under vines, and lost in forests in no time.

Check out the wildlife explosion in Chernobyl...
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/chernobyl-disaster-exclusion-zone-around-plant-has-become-wildlife-haven-on-par-with-nature-reserves-a6680396.html


Cheers,
James Arthur

This is astonishing:

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

It reminds me of the great BP Gulf oil spill. What happened to all
that oil and methane? Critters ate it.

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.

When I was there they decided to eat nutria. Pretty tasty, I heard, but
it never caught on. If nutria liked those fungi, they could be the next
great thing--fungi-fed nutria.

Now they just need something that eats cockroaches.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[gray_wolf]

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?

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 18:21:01 -0500, gray_wolf <g_wolf@nospam.com>
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?

Eventually the sun will become a red giant and fry Earth, or even
expand into contact with Earth. We'll need to move the planet to a
higher orbit.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

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

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

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.

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.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 20:15:09 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
<DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> 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's not only possible, it's easy. It will take a while, but we have
lots of time.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

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

 

[John Larkin]

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.

Cheers,
James Arthur

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


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

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