Does that make the “banana in the tailpipe” a little clearer for those who have muddied their minds by eating to many Carbs ?[/quote]
Yes. Thanks for clearing that up.
You see, I got the impression that maybe you were getting at some discrete latent effect of living in an environment with different atmospheric gas levels, like change in size of insects or their complete extinction due to their simple circulatory systems, thus causing harm to plants that rely exclusively on certain species for pollination.
But now it is apparent that you are just fucking crazy.
It’s widely believed that we’re at or soon to reach (the nearer side of a decade) peak farming.
[/quote]
I’m not trying to start a fight or anything, but this statement does not jive with anecdotal evidence I have inadvertently collected over the past couple of years. The consensus of the farmers and ranchers I have spoken with is that they are afraid of the exact opposite: farmers and ranchers will not be able to keep up with the increasing demand for food.
There were a few who went so far as to say that we will run out of warehoused grains inside of 5 years.
Mind you, this is all anecdotal evidence that came about by casual conversations with clients. I didn’t push them to substantiate their opinions but upon reflection, I probably should have.
I found it odd that their forecast is diametrically opposed to the peak farming theory.
Happily the negative effects of climate change will also solve that “problem.”[/quote]
No they won’t, not even close, stop drinking the kool-aid. No single weather event or collected series of weather events can hold a candle to the ability of war and disease to address overpopulation. The '31 China floods are probably the worst natural disaster in human history and claimed some 4.5 million lives. If you consider the Great Irish Famine to be an environmental disaster, it killed nearly a million and displaced about 2 million. The Dust Bowl displaced a couple million people and killed several thousand (upper estimates at 15-20K). Added together you get the low estimates of just Nazi Genocide (not the whole of WWII).
y. Pestis alone has some 300 million deaths between the Plague of Justinian and the Black Death. H1N1 has/had between 50 and 100 million in the span of a couple of years. HIV has some 15+ million.
The ONLY time in human history where environmental disasters reasonably approached the death toll associated with disease and war were when a community of Soviet scientists produced a famine in the Ukraine that killed 1-2 million people in the space of a year. Mao Zedong managed to use their work to develop a progressive social policy and created the ‘Three Years of Natural Disasters’ that killed 30-40 million people. However, since these disasters were the result of a social policy based on a near consensus of government-sponsored, peer-reviewed, scientists (Working solely with the best interests of the public in their hearts and minds), I don’t think it would be fair to consider this disaster in the AGW debate where the undereducated plebes that drive to work, harvest the wheat, and bake the bread every morning are clearly in the wrong.
There were a few who went so far as to say that we will run out of warehoused grains inside of 5 years.
Mind you, this is all anecdotal evidence that came about by casual conversations with clients. I didn’t push them to substantiate their opinions but upon reflection, I probably should have.
I found it odd that their forecast is diametrically opposed to the peak farming theory.[/quote]
First, let me say this is speculative with a particular scope. Not as speculative and broad as global warming, but not as solid and narrow as Moore’s Law. More along the lines of peak oil, looking at efficiencies over the last century. There are also a lot of conditionals on it (as I, sort of, indicated by mentioning organic farming). It’s entirely plausible that it’s a local minimum (had we decided to switch to predominantly organic means, this would almost invariably be the case).
I don’t know the exact details of "Location: " and the ranchers that live there, but as I’m sure you know, warehousing is generally a sign of the inability or the prohibitive cost to produce a good (if you could snap your fingers and have fresh groceries for free, nobody would ever buy a refrigerator, many of us can get digital media on demand and CD/DVD collections have evaporated). Additionally, much like the Flynn Effect and The Wealth of Nations (Progress of Opulence), the US (beef too) is at the top of this curve and exploring the options it has the luxury to explore (such as organic foods and biofuels). In places like India, China, and Africa where people who used to starve to death are now feeding themselves acceptably is where the actual benefits of more food are seen most dramatically.
If your ranchers have been at it long enough, a quick back of the napkin question/anecdote to validate; We (Earth) just passed 7 billion people. We were at 3.5 billion in 1965(ish) do they think they’re producing twice the amount of beef they were 50 yrs. ago? Obviously, those who’ve sold farms or scaled back will say no, but I think you get the idea. World population growth is slowing (immigrant studies on teen pregnancy rates through progressive generations of Westernization have been described as “astounding”) our efficiency at producing food continues to increase.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
It may very well be that global warming’s positive effects are just the solution for the “impending” population explosion “catastrophe.”[/quote]
It’s widely believed that we’re at or soon to reach (the nearer side of a decade) peak farming. That is, humans have gotten so good at farming that we are expected to consume less land (and subsequently less fuel) to produce the food needed to support world population growth.
The organic crowd has taken the decidedly more scientific approach; producing less than 4% of the world’s crops, delivering the same or fewer nutrients at a higher cost, and killing or sickening people in the process. Rapid regression to zero people is technically the most efficient and ‘sustainable’ scenario.
[/quote]
Modern farming depletes the soil and is completely unsustainable. It leads to having modify plants to live on high amounts of nitrogen and then dump huge amounts of nitrogen fertilizer on the soil. Increasing more and more every year because the soil dies a little more every year and there is more and more runoff. Nitrogen that comes from oil. The modern farming industry runs on oil. Oil grows the plants and those plants grow the livestock. Without new innovations in the future as the oil runs out and the soil dies off, production will diminish.
So don’t give me this wonders of modern farming crap.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Modern farming depletes the soil and is completely unsustainable. It leads to having modify plants to live on high amounts of nitrogen and then dump huge amounts of nitrogen fertilizer on the soil. Increasing more and more every year because the soil dies a little more every year and there is more and more runoff. Nitrogen that comes from oil. The modern farming industry runs on oil. Oil grows the plants and those plants grow the livestock. Without new innovations in the future as the oil runs out and the soil dies off, production will diminish.
So don’t give me this wonders of modern farming crap.[/quote]
I don’t think you have a clue about anything you just wrote.
You do know that organic farming also requires that the soil be fertilized, right? And you do know that organically grown crops also require nitrogen, right? I mean the organic farming fairies don’t fly around all night sprinkling pixie dust on organically grown crops to make them grow.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Modern farming depletes the soil and is completely unsustainable. It leads to having modify plants to live on high amounts of nitrogen and then dump huge amounts of nitrogen fertilizer on the soil. Increasing more and more every year because the soil dies a little more every year and there is more and more runoff. Nitrogen that comes from oil. The modern farming industry runs on oil. Oil grows the plants and those plants grow the livestock. Without new innovations in the future as the oil runs out and the soil dies off, production will diminish.
So don’t give me this wonders of modern farming crap.[/quote]
I don’t think you have a clue about anything you just wrote.
You do know that organic farming also requires that the soil be fertilized, right? And you do know that organically grown crops also require nitrogen, right? I mean the organic farming fairies don’t fly around all night sprinkling pixie dust on organically grown crops to make them grow. [/quote]
Yes, they fertilize with things like manure and crop rotation, not oil. And they can’t use GMOs so they can’'t tolerate anywhere near the amounts of nitrogen used in modern farming, so no they cannot just dump a bunch of nitrogen on them. So, while there are no pixie fairies, there is also no oil and little to no runoff. Nor does ti destroy the top soil.
Yes, they fertilize with things like manure and crop rotation, not oil. [/quote]
LOL. You have no clue how anhydrous is even made, do you? Or even it’s chemical make up. NH3. That’s your “oil in the soil”? I live around farms, and I’ve never seen anyone oiling their fields.
Wow. Sorry, but if the organic crowd is spreading manure, then they’re dumping nitrogen on their crops - and into the water table. Rotating crops does nothing for the soil unless you are rotating out with nitrogen fixing crops. You might want to google “nitrogen fixing”.
What? Organic farmers intentionally injecting that evil little element nitrogen into the soil? The heck you say? Oh yes, my birkenstock wearing friend, and as far as manure goes - it is a greater threat to water supplies than anhydrous ammonia. But don’t tell your tree hugger friends. They think their method of farming is safer and healthier.
I’m just wondering if you have any facts to back up your propaganda, or if you are are merely parroting what the other progressives are saying.
[quote]carbiduis wrote:
Long thread is long…did not read.
Climate change =/= global warming
Liberals and al gore have politicized it, trying to scare us into believing that the plant will burn up one day…but no one ever mentioned the chance that CLIMATE CHANGE could result in the earth turning into an ice cube.
climate change is 97% confirmed…how many scientists confirm that Global WARMING is real?? (Honest question)
Scare tactics by the left is nothing new
Inconvenient truth, CONVENIENT LIE[/quote]
there are some people that agree with you , what do you say to the majority of Scientists that disagree with you. The point of my argument is most people here can not even defeat pittttt on the subject let alone a Scientist
I know there are a lot of people that don’t like Wikipedia but there are many links here with an overview
[/quote]
Do you refer to yourself in the third person???
Or is there another person on this site with 5 T’s in their ‘pit’ name?
It’s widely believed that we’re at or soon to reach (the nearer side of a decade) peak farming.
[/quote]
I’m not trying to start a fight or anything, but this statement does not jive with anecdotal evidence I have inadvertently collected over the past couple of years. The consensus of the farmers and ranchers I have spoken with is that they are afraid of the exact opposite: farmers and ranchers will not be able to keep up with the increasing demand for food.
There were a few who went so far as to say that we will run out of warehoused grains inside of 5 years.
Mind you, this is all anecdotal evidence that came about by casual conversations with clients. I didn’t push them to substantiate their opinions but upon reflection, I probably should have.
I found it odd that their forecast is diametrically opposed to the peak farming theory. [/quote]
there is not a shortage of food , food just costs too much for some to buy
It’s widely believed that we’re at or soon to reach (the nearer side of a decade) peak farming.
[/quote]
I’m not trying to start a fight or anything, but this statement does not jive with anecdotal evidence I have inadvertently collected over the past couple of years. The consensus of the farmers and ranchers I have spoken with is that they are afraid of the exact opposite: farmers and ranchers will not be able to keep up with the increasing demand for food.
There were a few who went so far as to say that we will run out of warehoused grains inside of 5 years.
Mind you, this is all anecdotal evidence that came about by casual conversations with clients. I didn’t push them to substantiate their opinions but upon reflection, I probably should have.
I found it odd that their forecast is diametrically opposed to the peak farming theory. [/quote]
there is not a shortage of food , food just costs too much for some to buy
[quote]carbiduis wrote:
Long thread is long…did not read.
Climate change =/= global warming
Liberals and al gore have politicized it, trying to scare us into believing that the plant will burn up one day…but no one ever mentioned the chance that CLIMATE CHANGE could result in the earth turning into an ice cube.
climate change is 97% confirmed…how many scientists confirm that Global WARMING is real?? (Honest question)
Scare tactics by the left is nothing new
Inconvenient truth, CONVENIENT LIE[/quote]
there are some people that agree with you , what do you say to the majority of Scientists that disagree with you. The point of my argument is most people here can not even defeat pittttt on the subject let alone a Scientist
I know there are a lot of people that don’t like Wikipedia but there are many links here with an overview
[/quote]
Do you refer to yourself in the third person???
Or is there another person on this site with 5 T’s in their ‘pit’ name?
[/quote]
Modern farming depletes the soil and is completely unsustainable. It leads to having modify plants to live on high amounts of nitrogen and then dump huge amounts of nitrogen fertilizer on the soil. Increasing more and more every year because the soil dies a little more every year and there is more and more runoff. Nitrogen that comes from oil. The modern farming industry runs on oil. Oil grows the plants and those plants grow the livestock. Without new innovations in the future as the oil runs out and the soil dies off, production will diminish.
So don’t give me this wonders of modern farming crap.[/quote]
This is either a joke or just laughably ignorant. Unfortunately, it’s probably the latter and there’s not enough time in the day to beat a horse to near death, drag it to the nearest body of water, and toss it in.
Suffice to say, DoubleDouche (this can’t be the first time you’be been called that), your metabolic nitrogen comes in a plastic container and that’s where your knowledge and understanding of it ends. Despite all the internet “research” and maybe, at most, chats with yokels at the local farmers’ market or while picking apples in the local u-pick-em orchard, you’re still pretty clearly calling it from the armchair here. So, as far as you’re concerned, it might as well be pixie dust and fairies either way.
LOL. You have no clue how anhydrous is even made, do you? Or even it’s chemical make up. NH3. That’s your “oil in the soil”? I live around farms, and I’ve never seen anyone oiling their fields.[/quote]
This stance against anhydrous, to me, is the hallmark of someone who has no clue about farming or food production and possibly even biology in general (I doubly love the one’s that buy into the myth of “sustainable coffee”). If you don’t understand why anhydrous is used and have never worked with it (or why coffee can never be sustainable) and say we can produce food without it, you don’t realize that you’re effectively saying that we could just as easily get into space without solid-fuel aluminum/perchlorate boosters and go back to using plain old lift-based flight.
Like we never tried manure and decided to pick the biologically compatible equivalent of mustard gas for shits and giggles.
LOL. You have no clue how anhydrous is even made, do you? Or even it’s chemical make up. NH3. That’s your “oil in the soil”? I live around farms, and I’ve never seen anyone oiling their fields.[/quote]
This stance against anhydrous, to me, is the hallmark of someone who has no clue about farming or food production and possibly even biology in general (I doubly love the one’s that buy into the myth of “sustainable coffee”). If you don’t understand why anhydrous is used and have never worked with it (or why coffee can never be sustainable) and say we can produce food without it, you don’t realize that you’re effectively saying that we could just as easily get into space without solid-fuel aluminum/perchlorate boosters and go back to using plain old lift-based flight.
Like we never tried manure and decided to pick the biologically compatible equivalent of mustard gas for shits and giggles.
[/quote]
plants can be grown without anhydrous, though. I have some in my back yard.
and crop rotation was practiced for only god knows how long.
are you saying that food cant be produced on the scale we need it without anhydrous? or seriously saying plants will not grow at all without it?
and before you go there, i am not a tree hugger that likes to spout off about ‘locally grown/locally sourced’ and smells my own farts.
there is not a shortage of food , food just costs too much for some to buy
[/quote]
And the typical 40-120% premium paid for organic foods (despite offering no significant nutritional or health benefits) should be taken as a sign of it’s superior productive capacity and overall sustainability, right? Or are they just bourgeois sadists that like to play in the dirt, grow healthier veggies more efficiently, and then price more hungry people out of the market for them?
