Global Warming

“There has to be an applicable barnyard reference.”

“Crops under stress as temperatures fall
Our politicians haven't noticed that the problem may be that the world is not warming but cooling, observes Christopher Booker.


By Christopher Booker
Published: 6:04PM BST 13 Jun 2009


For the second time in little over a year, it looks as though the world may be heading for a serious food crisis, thanks to our old friend "climate change". In many parts of the world recently the weather has not been too brilliant for farmers. After a fearsomely cold winter, June brought heavy snowfall across large parts of western Canada and the northern states of the American Midwest. In Manitoba last week, it was -4ºC. North Dakota had its first June snow for 60 years.

There was midsummer snow not just in Norway and the Cairngorms, but even in Saudi Arabia. At least in the southern hemisphere it is winter, but snowfalls in New Zealand and Australia have been abnormal. There have been frosts in Brazil, elsewhere in South America they have had prolonged droughts, while in China they have had to cope with abnormal rain and freak hailstorms, which in one province killed 20 people.


None of this has given much cheer to farmers. In Canada and northern America summer planting of corn and soybeans has been way behind schedule, with the prospect of reduced yields and lower quality. Grain stocks are predicted to be down 15 per cent next year. US reserves of soya – used in animal feed and in many processed foods – are expected to fall to a 32-year low.

In China, the world's largest wheat grower, they have been battling against the atrocious weather to bring in the harvest. (In one province they even fired chemical shells into the clouds to turn freezing hailstones into rain.) In north-west China drought has devastated crops with a plague of pests and blight. In countries such as Argentina and Brazil droughts have caused such havoc that a veteran US grain expert said last week: "In 43 years I've never seen anything like the decline we're looking at in South America."

In Europe, the weather has been a factor in well-below average predicted crop yields in eastern Europe and Ukraine. In Britain this year's oilseed rape crop is likely to be 30 per cent below its 2008 level. And although it may be too early to predict a repeat of last year's food shortage, which provoked riots from west Africa to Egypt and Yemen, it seems possible that world food stocks may next year again be under severe strain, threatening to repeat the steep rises which, in 2008, saw prices double what they had been two years before.

There are obviously various reasons for this concern as to whether the world can continue to feed itself, but one of them is undoubtedly the downturn in world temperatures, which has brought more cold and snow since 2007 than we have known for decades.

Three factors are vital to crops: the light and warmth of the sun, adequate rainfall and the carbon dioxide they need for photosynthesis. As we are constantly reminded, we still have plenty of that nasty, polluting CO2, which the politicians are so keen to get rid of. But there is not much they can do about the sunshine or the rainfall.

It is now more than 200 years since the great astronomer William Herschel observed a correlation between wheat prices and sunspots. When the latter were few in number, he noted, the climate turned colder and drier, crop yields fell and wheat prices rose. In the past two years, sunspot activity has dropped to its lowest point for a century. One of our biggest worries is that our politicians are so fixated on the idea that CO2 is causing global warming that most of them haven't noticed that the problem may be that the world is not warming but cooling, with all the implications that has for whether we get enough to eat.

It is appropriate that another contributory factor to the world's food shortage should be the millions of acres of farmland now being switched from food crops to biofuels, to stop the world warming, Last year even the experts of the European Commission admitted that, to meet the EU's biofuel targets, we will eventually need almost all the food-growing land in Europe. But that didn't persuade them to change their policy. They would rather we starved than did that. And the EU, we must always remember, is now our government – the one most of us didn't vote for last week.”

“whether global warming is a sham or not, some people seem to think that their disbelief in it offers them carte blanche to consume and pollute all they want. whether or not global catastrophe is truly looming, isn't pouring pollutants into the air and water and drilling to death every natural place with the misfortune to contain oil something that we all can agree isn't the best thing for the planet?

It isn't black and white like that. People can't say "I'm gonna get me an H2 because that global warming is bs" - it's missing some fundamental steps in logic. Maybe, global warming or not, it might be a good idea to clean up energy, transportation, and industry. Unless you want to argue that pollution has zero negative impact on the planet... and THAT would be an argument I'd love to hear...

I would ask (and I don't know the answer to this question), "Is the greater good still worth it if propped up by something that may not be true?" If it takes a lie to improve the air quality or save a unique and beautiful place from becoming another refinery, is it worth it?”

“The "myth" is that people actually care about anyone other than themselves, pepsis.”

“true... I think most of my problems come from my inability to really accept that fact - but you're probably right, rosey. After all, what does some extra gas consumption and carbon monoxide emissions really matter when I can drive in this giant truck that makes my junk feel a little larger?”

“is that what you do?

See, more assumptions. How many of us do you think own giant trucks? I don't. It makes me laugh out loud to see a POS car being held together with peacenic stickers, spout smoke and dripping oil with a great big "stop global warming now" bumper sticker.”

“what's this "us" you refer to? I said:

whether global warming is a sham or not, some people seem to think that their disbelief in it offers them carte blanche to consume and pollute all they want.

so, are you one of those who pollutes and consumes at will because of that silly libby lie about global warming? Because if you're not, then I wasn't referring to you

and if you are, I would suggest that it is indeed some misplaced machismo sprung from "conquering nature" that leads you to attack it instead of making any efforts to preserve or protect it. Hell if I know why, but most machismo issues spring from inadequacy, whether emotional or physical. Maybe they do it to piss off those treehugger hippie libbie whatever buzzword is needed to make sure the "us vs. them" facade is maintained. I don't know. I can't really fathom such illogical behavior, but then again we all have our preferred flavor of kool aid”

““The "myth" is that people actually care about anyone other than themselves, pepsis.”
roseymonster
5:32:34 PM
6/15/09

“true... I think most of my problems come from my inability to really accept that fact - but you're probably right, rosey.”
pepsisformosa
5:57:04 PM
6/15/09

Being that I consider myself a person, I assumed you were talking about me.”

“well then, I guess I could see your confusion about my suggesting that every person owned a big truck. And certainly, myself being Martian, I could speak of every single person as belonging to a group that I do not belong to.

My suggestion was simply that, whether global warming is real or not, shouldn't we all agree that taking good care of the planet is probably a good idea? And isn't it ironic that a considerable portion of global warming deniers use their denial (whether justified or not) as an excuse to pollute at will? I haven't had a chance to read all 52 pages of (surely enthralling) debate on here, so my post was meant to be more of an independent attempt at actual discussion, rather than the (likely) "liberals-are-evil"/"conservatives-are-evil" flame war that TT has a good fifty popular threads of already

Sadly, I keep making the mistake of trying to find actual discussion on a discussion board, and my attempts at discourse are always met with defensive posturing, trolling, and pointless bickering.”

“I'll point you to some posts where Hyway was getting wood over the prospect of buying some new gas-guzzler for cheap because the cost of gas was going through the roof last summer and sales were flatlining.

If that helps add any perspective to where the guy is coming from (I think you probably had him pegged already)...”

“economical common sense. I guess I could be a conscientious as the democrats and give away $3500 if you trade in your 15mpg SUV for a 17mpg SUV. Or, hell, if I trade in a 14 mpg ($250 car) car for 24 mpg car they'll give me $4500. Or if I only go with a 18 mpg new car I only get $3500. Yeah, look at me. I care.”

“dude, if you want to stop pollution, then work at stopping pollution. There is good solid science about how differing types of pollution interact with the environment. But If you want to run around citing hokey science and biased modeling that can't even judge what the weather will do only a few short years away from when they started making their claims much less 50 years from now (you do know its pretty cold in places this summer), then I stop listening to you.”

“Why did this cooling trend(If really one is upon us) follow the world wide reduction in usage from the 2007 high just before the $147 ppb oil? I'm not suggesting that yawl great drill driller scientist haven't been keeping up with your cause-effect homework.”

“funny”

“LOL, now cooling and warming are instant reactions rather than long term actions”

“LOL...thats cult religion for you. They are so desperate to support this dying cult of Envirodisaster that they will say or do anything.

Since most of their followers have the attention span of a cocker spaniel in a room full of tennis balls they can get away with their lies.”

“You dudes are the ones that want to talk about the last two years of cooling, Is Gore gona send yawl a check , maybe put yawl in his next thriller,'Who bought the COOL-AID'.

Yawl run from one side of the boat to other. Missing that snipe shoot on your new Michael Moore signature camera would be worse than losing another election.
last edited: 6/16/09 6:19:37 AM”

“And isn't it ironic that a considerable portion of global warming deniers use their denial (whether justified or not) as an excuse to pollute at will? - pepsi

Oh bullsh*t. The only time I've seen your stereotype come alive is when the subject is about anthropogenic global warming, and then it's mainly in jest as a "f*ck you" to the people who have politicized the science. Some guys do seem to take a certain macho pride in owning big vehicles, but most "f*ck global warming" types that I've interacted with buy large vehicles primarily for collision survivability, for work/utility, and for entertainment (e.g. offroading, boating, atvs).”

“'entertainment (e.g. offroading, boating, atvs
).

Fillum All up Gomer!LOL So , you need a big gas hog to transport the gas hogs, thanks, that gave me a god chuckle.
last edited: 6/16/09 6:51:53 AM”

“Yeah, generally only full frame vehicles are rated to tow significant weight. I take it you're not a car guy - LOL.”

“nice pigeon hole pepsi. anyone with a big truck has it to make their junk feel bigger.

the fact that we are in an overall cooling period doesn't seem to matter to some.

as i've said before, conservation is good. fear mongering to get your ideas pushed through so everyone has to abide by your beliefs is bull#&%!$.”

“or worse, fear mongering to support Union controlled GM with a bill that will do very little to encourage the use of high mpg cars.”

“Since I got my learners permit in 1958, I've adopted my late fathers distaste for fossil fuel burning machines. In 58, he caught me working on my car and told me,' within your life these things will become the destruction of this and many other civilization and it will not be pleasant. Yes, I've watched this all come true, along with many other of his futuristic views.”

“I've got it, you're Elroy Jetson!!

Hey-hey!

When did "The Union" take control of GM?
Perhaps I'm spending too much time in the woods instead of macho profilin' in a BIG Cah.”

“With all the promises this capitalist outfit made to it's worker bees to keep um from getting a government job, I guess, they had the right to the mass of the bones. Big CaharkO, I think not.”

“Oh well.................you had me thankin' all Back-To-The-Future when its really Back-Into-The-Cold-Hard-Blade of the future, non?”

“the Obama admin has no use for a car company, but it has much use for the workers at said company. This is the most blatant (and expensive) method of buying votes any politician has ever done.”

“hahaha, wow, this is really great. The deniers say that people who believe in global warming are clinging to their quasi-science like a religion - while they, themselves cling to their own denying quasi-science like a religion.

"They want to take away our trucks! But what about our safety? If we run into a little honda civic, WE might actually get seriously injured too! That just isn't fair! How can we tear up some wild place offroading if we don't have big ol' schitkickin' trucks anymore? How can we tow our big ol' oil leaking fume-spewing boats to the nearest man-made 'recreation area' if all we have is a faggy prius to do it with? This myth of pollution is a libbie lie! Kool aid! Kool aid! And what am I going to do with my pair of truck nuts if all I can hang them on is a Ford Focus?"

remember kids, only ski in a counter-clockwise direction. this is your lake!”

“I think they were also eating quiche at the time ----”

“it never ceases to amaze me how narrow minded the left is”

“I'm just speaking in extremes - after all, it's all black and white on TT, isn't it?

I originally offered a rather middle-of-the-road attempt at discussion, attempting to find a common ground. Rather than get any sort of actual response, I got the usual defensive "if you ain't with us, you're against us" spew. At least the "silly libbies" can recognize logic when they see it”

“Stovie Two too is firing up the 'Narrow Minder Machine' , 380 hp of pure 'Name Callin' Power'.”

“Oh no!!

Don't conjure up yoo-no-hoo!”

“I mean, all I'm saying is that we ALL can agree that, completely independent of global warming's existence or nonexistence, polluting the earth is a bad thing. Right? RIGHT?

So right or left, global warming believer or nonbeliever, maybe it's a good idea to... you know... make a few sacrifices to pollute less? I didn't expect this suggestion to cause anyone to soil themselves in indignance, but when you attempt, however delicately you can, to chip away at an insecure person's machismo, they puff out their chests, flex, and wanna armwrestle you
last edited: 6/16/09 9:03:57 AM”

“pepsi, you only see what you choose to see. Several people commented that if you want to fight pollution then use the accurate science that exists on how it is actually harming the environment we NOW live in rather than resorting to boogeyman tactics based on false gods. yet you continued with your progressing argument that we actively choose our vehicles for the most harm they can do.

Sow it, reap it, eat it.”

“again with the "we"... what group, exactly, do you think this "we" is?

And many (most) people certainl don't choose their vehicles for the least harm they do. I think it's more a matter of selfishly choosing a vehicle without any consideration for the harm it does. If we all agree that gas-guzzling cars are bad for the environment (we CAN agree on that, can't we?), shouldn't we at least seek an in-between? shouldn't we at least consider the environment?

And to be perfectly honest, I'm not sold either way on global warming. I think for all the true science that supports it, there's plenty of BS science as well. If Al Gore couldn't even beat Bush in a debate, why should I listen to him tell me how to save the world? However, there's just as much BS science in all the anti-global warming arguments as well (along with some real science, probably). When anything becomes political, the actual facts of it are immediately drowned in BS, posturing, and namecalling.

But that doesn't mean I'll stop making many of my decisions with a conscious consideration for the environment. It isn't always black and white. You don't have to believe in global warming to believe in treating the earth better. This politicized argument about global warming is causing many people to miss that point. And if you're NOT one of those people who says "eff global warming and eff those hippies, I'ma drive my big macho truck proudly!" then don't worry about it. If you DO make decisions with the environment in mind, despite not believing in global warming, then I was never referring to you in the first place. In fact, if that's the case, then bravo!
last edited: 6/16/09 9:22:17 AM”

“,' within your life these things will become the destruction of this and many other civilization and it will not be pleasant. Yes, I've watched this all come true, along with many other of his futuristic views

LMAO! That sounds like something MarkO would hallucinate during one of his flashbacks. Completely removed from reality. At least now I know it runs in the family.”

“remember kids, only ski in a counter-clockwise direction. this is your lake!�

pepsisformosa

March 2010-No northbound hiking will be allowed on the AT, only southbound hiking, to cut down on the excessive Hiker northbound traffic ruining the the environment on the AT.”

“peps, you threw out sarcastic generalities before anyone but rosey responded. how do you expect people not to get defensive?

there is nothing wrong with conservation of resources or cutting back on pollution. the issue i have is our government is currnetly using fear mongering over global warming to push policies i don't agree with. i'm not against the CAFE standards but i don't at all agree with the cap and trade bs. it will harm our country.

reading above, it appears you are throwing anyone who doesn't agree with your view on this into the same "if your aren't with us" category you're accusations aim at.

the history of the earth's heating and cooling isn't quasi-science. that's where i form my beliefs on global warming from. not from studies backed by political bias (from either side).”

“there is nothing wrong with conservation of resources or cutting back on pollution. the issue i have is our government is currnetly using fear mongering over global warming to push policies i don't agree with.

I agree with you completely. I'm not questioning that or arguing against it at all. If you'll look at some of my other forays into the realm of fuego, you'll see that one of the strongest beliefs I hold is that nothing truly good can ever come out of the government - between the lobbying, fearmongering, corruption, greed, and party politics, even the most pure of intentions comes out corrupted and spoiled.

But whether the earth is warming or not (or whether it'd really be a bad thing if it did), a lot of the global warming opponents (not all of them, agreed... and I never said ALL of them) seem to take it to the extreme and act as though they believe pollution as a whole is also a myth/lie. I was simply posing a more philisophical question of "If a greater good is achieved, but through a lie, is it still worth pursuing?" If, fifty years from now, we're all in electric cars and air is clean every day and smog is a thing of the past... would we be that upset if we were tricked into doing it? I don't know the answer - I just wanted some discussion. I would say that there are only a few small outliers who truly thing polluting the earth has zero consequences, so can't the rest of us agree at least on the one single point that people should take care of the earth?

And you're right, I was a bit sarcastic and generalized. It's hard not to be some days. Apologies
last edited: 6/16/09 9:44:59 AM”

“a lot of the global warming opponents (not all of them, agreed... and I never said ALL of them) seem to take it to the extreme and act as though they believe pollution as a whole is also a myth/lie

Who are these people? They're certainly not most truck owners, as you said earlier.”

“I'd say a good percentage of the ones I know. Then again, here in Southern California, there's not many logical reasons to own a truck so it's probably different elsewhere. I understand there are some instances where a truck is probably necessary, but there are plenty of instances where it's completely unnecessary”

“98% of the shyt we own and use isn't necessary. Who gets to say what is necessary?

It's America. Wanna own a Hummer? Go right ahead. More freedom! And cow bell...”

“I give up - I'm done repeating myself and trying to counter all the nitpicking semantics. Once again, shame on me for seeking real discussion on a discussion board.”

“Oh please”

“'Truck' does cover SUVs, RVs - That's lots of people, lots.”

“..and Honda SUVs Nissan SUvs and Toyota SUVs........Hundai SUVs KIA SUVs

Is there a Fiat SUV?”

“I grow up on the beach in Los Angeles' south bay. I don't think anyone here would argue against that being the 'CAR Capitol and Capital' of the world. The progressive air deterioration from the 40's on into the 80's and then the slow reversal after that leaves impressions on me that makes it very difficult to listen to anyone deny the damage the auto causes.
last edited: 6/16/09 10:21:06 AM”

“I mean, its not like this is a discussion thread for Global Warming. We should just say yeah, forget the global warming discussion and restart the debate from my position. And while we are ate it, why don't we require all vehicles to get 50 mpg, because anything less than that is a gas guzzler. And damn it, all house should come with wind turbines because that's better than coal fired power plants, and no more cutting down trees for housing construction, all house should be built with renewable products like hay bales sprayed with mud.

Or better yet, why don't you define your our arguments and I'll stop defining yours.
last edited: 6/16/09 10:30:52 AM”