| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Life Extension Forum » Wakeup Call on the Food Front
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Mark Plus |
 Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 12:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update31.htm
December 16, 2003-11
Copyright © 2003 Earth Policy Institute
Wakeup Call on the Food Front
Lester R. Brown
While Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and President Bush discussed Taiwan,
currency rates and North Korea on December 9, a more important and
far-reaching development in U.S.-China relations was going on far from
the White House.
Under the North China Plain, which produces half of China's wheat and
a third of its corn, water tables are falling by 3 to 10 feet per
year. Along with rising temperatures and the loss of cropland to
non-farm uses, this trend is shrinking the Chinese grain harvest,
which has fallen in four of the past five years. To get an idea of the
magnitude, the harvest dropped by 66 million tons during that period,
an amount that exceeds the total annual grain harvest of Canada, one
of the world's leading grain exporters.
Thus far China has covered its growing grain shortfall by drawing down
its once-massive stocks. It can do this for perhaps one more year
before those stocks are depleted. Then it will have to turn to the
world market for major purchases. The odds are that within the next
few years the United States will be loading two or three ships per day
with grain destined for China. This long line of ships stretching
across the Pacific will function like a huge umbilical cord between
the two countries.
This isn't only a question of U.S.-China relations, but also one of
the relationship between the Earth's 6.3 billion people and its
natural resources, especially water. Food production is a
water-intensive process. Producing a ton of grain requires a thousand
tons of water, which helps explain why 70 percent of all water
diverted from rivers or pumped from underground goes for irrigation.
The tripling of world water demand over the past half-century,
combined with the advent of diesel and electrically driven pumps, has
led to extensive overpumping of aquifers. As a result, more than half
the world's people now live in countries where water tables are
falling and wells are going dry. Among these countries are the three
that account for half of the world grain harvest: China, India and the
United States. In India, water tables are falling in most states,
including the Punjab, that nation's breadbasket. In the United States,
aquifers are being depleted under the southern Great Plains and
throughout the Southwest, including California.
If the world is facing a future of water shortages, then it is also
facing a future of food shortages.
To be sure, it is difficult to trace long-term trends in food
production, which fluctuates with weather, prices and the spread of
farm technology to developing countries. In one of the major economic
achievements of the last half-century, China raised its grain output
from 90 million tons in 1950 to 392 million tons in 1998. Since then,
though, China's production appears to have peaked, dropping by 66
million tons, or 17 percent. (See data.)
As a result, it seems likely that China will ultimately need to buy
30, 40 or 50 million tons of grain a year, and then it will have to
turn to the United States, which accounts for nearly half of the
world's grain exports. Imports on this unprecedented scale will create
a fascinating geopolitical situation: China, with 1.3 billion
consumers and foreign exchange reserves of $384 billion—enough to buy
the entire U.S. grain harvest eight times over—will suddenly be
competing with American consumers for U.S. grain, in all likelihood
driving up food prices.
For the first time in their history, the Chinese will be dependent on
the outside world for food supplies. And U.S. consumers will realize
that, like it or not, they will be sharing their food with Chinese
consumers.
Managing the flow of grain to satisfy the needs of both countries
simultaneously will not be easy because it could come amid a shift
from a world of chronic food surpluses to one of food scarcity.
Exporters will be tempted to restrict the flow of grain in order to
maintain price stability at home, as the United States did 30 years
ago when world grain stocks were at record lows and wheat and rice
prices doubled. But today the United States has a major stake in a
stable China because China is a major trading partner whose large
economy is the locomotive of Asia.
The pressure on world food markets may alter the relationship between
exporting and importing countries, changing the focus of international
trade negotiations from greater access to markets for exporting
countries such as the United States to assured access to food supplies
for China and the 100 or so countries that already import grain.
The prospect of food and water scarcity emerges against a backdrop of
concern about global warming. New research by crop ecologists at the
International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines and at the
U.S. Department of Agriculture indicates that a 1-degree-Celsius rise
in temperature (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) above the optimum during the
growing season leads to a 10 percent decline in yields of rice, wheat
and corn. With four of the past six years being the warmest on record,
grain harvests are suffering. High temperatures lowered harvests last
year in India and the United States and scorched crops this year from
France to Ukraine.
The new combination of falling water tables and rising temperatures,
along with trends such as soil erosion, has led to four consecutive
shortfalls in the world grain harvest. This year production fell short
of consumption by a record 92 million tons. These shortages have
reduced world grain stocks to their lowest levels in 30 years.
If we have a shortfall in 2004 that is even half the size of this
year's, food prices will be rising worldwide by this time next year.
You won't have to read about it in the commodity pages. It will be
evident at the supermarket checkout counter. During the fall of 2003,
wheat and rice prices rose 10 percent to 30 percent in world markets,
and even more in some parts of China. These rises may only be the
warning tremors before the earthquake.
We can, however, take measures to improve world food security. We
could recognize that population growth and environmental trends
threaten economic progress and political stability just as terrorism
does. Since the overwhelming majority of the nearly 3 billion people
expected to be born during this half-century will be in countries
where water tables are already falling and wells are running dry,
filling the family planning gap and creating a social environment to
foster smaller families is urgent.
The situation with water today is new, but similar to that with land a
half-century ago. Coming out of World War II, we looked toward the end
of the century and saw enormous projected growth in population but
little new land to plow. The result was a concentrated international
effort to raise land productivity; boosting the world grain yields
from just over one ton per hectare in 1950 to nearly three tons today.
We now need a similar global full-court press to raise water
productivity, by shifting to more water-efficient crops, improving
irrigation and recycling urban water supplies.
As it becomes apparent that higher temperatures are shrinking harvests
and raising food prices, a powerful new consumer lobby could emerge in
support of cutting carbon emissions by moving to a hydrogen-based
economy. It is a commentary on the complexity of our time that
decisions made in ministries of energy may have a greater effect on
future food security than those made in ministries of agriculture. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| The Enlightenment |
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2003 7:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
markplus@hotmail.com (Mark Plus) wrote in message news:<4886cf3e.0312170921.3626544f@posting.google.com>...
Quote: http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update31.htm
December 16, 2003-11
Copyright © 2003 Earth Policy Institute
Wakeup Call on the Food Front
Lester R. Brown
While Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and President Bush discussed Taiwan,
currency rates and North Korea on December 9, a more important and
far-reaching development in U.S.-China relations was going on far from
the White House.
Under the North China Plain, which produces half of China's wheat and
a third of its corn, water tables are falling by 3 to 10 feet per
year. Along with rising temperatures and the loss of cropland to
non-farm uses, this trend is shrinking the Chinese grain harvest,
which has fallen in four of the past five years. To get an idea of the
magnitude, the harvest dropped by 66 million tons during that period,
an amount that exceeds the total annual grain harvest of Canada, one
of the world's leading grain exporters.
The only answer I see is the widespread implementation of breeder and
high tempearture gas cooled reactors. The Breeders don't produce any
long term waste becuase apart from breeding more fissile material they
also transmute long term waste. They are so economical in fuel that
tens of millions of years of Uranium extracted at considerable expense
from the oceans would not effect the price of energy much.
Apart from the generation of electricity they would desalinate our
water for us while extracting CO2 from the atmosphere to synthesise
hydrocarbons.
It will require great discipline to do this. Energy at this level
will allow us to cover every square inch of the planet with human
flesh; an ugly prospect. It is a technology that will take billions
of dollars to implement safely so we must start now.
Comparison of CO2 sources for the synthesis of renewable methanol
http://www.refuelnet.de/content/refuelnet/pdf/CO-CO2_98.pdf
(30kb file)
Comparison of Renewable Transportation Fuels, Liquid Hydrogen and
Methanol, with Gasoline - Energetic and Economic Aspects,
http://www.refuelnet.de/content/refuelnet/pdf/IJHE1998.pdf
(The is a 800kb file so give it a minute to down load)
IFR reactor:
http://www.anlw.anl.gov/anlw_history/reactors/ifr.html
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/ifr/
(Unofficial web site)
SYNTHESIS OF METHANOL FROM BIOMASS/CO2 RESOURCES
http://www.refuelnet.de/content/refuelnet/pdf/SOMFB_99.pdf
(30kb file) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Say not the Struggle noug |
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2003 9:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Mark Plus wrote:
Quote: http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update31.htm
December 16, 2003-11
Copyright © 2003 Earth Policy Institute
Wakeup Call on the Food Front
Lester R. Brown
While Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and President Bush discussed Taiwan,
currency rates and North Korea on December 9, a more important and
far-reaching development in U.S.-China relations was going on far from
the White House.
Under the North China Plain, which produces half of China's wheat and
a third of its corn, water tables are falling by 3 to 10 feet per
year. Along with rising temperatures and the loss of cropland to
non-farm uses, this trend is shrinking the Chinese grain harvest,
which has fallen in four of the past five years. To get an idea of the
magnitude, the harvest dropped by 66 million tons during that period,
an amount that exceeds the total annual grain harvest of Canada, one
of the world's leading grain exporters.
Thus far China has covered its growing grain shortfall by drawing down
its once-massive stocks. It can do this for perhaps one more year
before those stocks are depleted. Then it will have to turn to the
world market for major purchases. The odds are that within the next
few years the United States will be loading two or three ships per day
with grain destined for China. This long line of ships stretching
across the Pacific will function like a huge umbilical cord between
the two countries.
This isn't only a question of U.S.-China relations, but also one of
the relationship between the Earth's 6.3 billion people and its
natural resources, especially water. Food production is a
water-intensive process. Producing a ton of grain requires a thousand
tons of water, which helps explain why 70 percent of all water
diverted from rivers or pumped from underground goes for irrigation.
The tripling of world water demand over the past half-century,
combined with the advent of diesel and electrically driven pumps, has
led to extensive overpumping of aquifers. As a result, more than half
the world's people now live in countries where water tables are
falling and wells are going dry. Among these countries are the three
that account for half of the world grain harvest: China, India and the
United States. In India, water tables are falling in most states,
including the Punjab, that nation's breadbasket. In the United States,
aquifers are being depleted under the southern Great Plains and
throughout the Southwest, including California.
If the world is facing a future of water shortages, then it is also
facing a future of food shortages.
To be sure, it is difficult to trace long-term trends in food
production, which fluctuates with weather, prices and the spread of
farm technology to developing countries. In one of the major economic
achievements of the last half-century, China raised its grain output
from 90 million tons in 1950 to 392 million tons in 1998. Since then,
though, China's production appears to have peaked, dropping by 66
million tons, or 17 percent. (See data.)
As a result, it seems likely that China will ultimately need to buy
30, 40 or 50 million tons of grain a year, and then it will have to
turn to the United States, which accounts for nearly half of the
world's grain exports. Imports on this unprecedented scale will create
a fascinating geopolitical situation: China, with 1.3 billion
consumers and foreign exchange reserves of $384 billion—enough to buy
the entire U.S. grain harvest eight times over—will suddenly be
competing with American consumers for U.S. grain, in all likelihood
driving up food prices.
For the first time in their history, the Chinese will be dependent on
the outside world for food supplies. And U.S. consumers will realize
that, like it or not, they will be sharing their food with Chinese
consumers.
Managing the flow of grain to satisfy the needs of both countries
simultaneously will not be easy because it could come amid a shift
from a world of chronic food surpluses to one of food scarcity.
Exporters will be tempted to restrict the flow of grain in order to
maintain price stability at home, as the United States did 30 years
ago when world grain stocks were at record lows and wheat and rice
prices doubled. But today the United States has a major stake in a
stable China because China is a major trading partner whose large
economy is the locomotive of Asia.
The pressure on world food markets may alter the relationship between
exporting and importing countries, changing the focus of international
trade negotiations from greater access to markets for exporting
countries such as the United States to assured access to food supplies
for China and the 100 or so countries that already import grain.
The prospect of food and water scarcity emerges against a backdrop of
concern about global warming. New research by crop ecologists at the
International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines and at the
U.S. Department of Agriculture indicates that a 1-degree-Celsius rise
in temperature (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) above the optimum during the
growing season leads to a 10 percent decline in yields of rice, wheat
and corn. With four of the past six years being the warmest on record,
grain harvests are suffering. High temperatures lowered harvests last
year in India and the United States and scorched crops this year from
France to Ukraine.
This projected decrease in yield with increased temperature must be
wrong, since wheat and corn is grown from Texas to Canada.
Quote:
The new combination of falling water tables and rising temperatures,
along with trends such as soil erosion, has led to four consecutive
shortfalls in the world grain harvest. This year production fell short
of consumption by a record 92 million tons. These shortages have
reduced world grain stocks to their lowest levels in 30 years.
If we have a shortfall in 2004 that is even half the size of this
year's, food prices will be rising worldwide by this time next year.
You won't have to read about it in the commodity pages. It will be
evident at the supermarket checkout counter. During the fall of 2003,
wheat and rice prices rose 10 percent to 30 percent in world markets,
and even more in some parts of China. These rises may only be the
warning tremors before the earthquake.
We can, however, take measures to improve world food security. We
could recognize that population growth and environmental trends
threaten economic progress and political stability just as terrorism
does. Since the overwhelming majority of the nearly 3 billion people
expected to be born during this half-century will be in countries
where water tables are already falling and wells are running dry,
filling the family planning gap and creating a social environment to
foster smaller families is urgent.
The situation with water today is new, but similar to that with land a
half-century ago. Coming out of World War II, we looked toward the end
of the century and saw enormous projected growth in population but
little new land to plow. The result was a concentrated international
effort to raise land productivity; boosting the world grain yields
from just over one ton per hectare in 1950 to nearly three tons today.
We now need a similar global full-court press to raise water
productivity, by shifting to more water-efficient crops, improving
irrigation and recycling urban water supplies.
As it becomes apparent that higher temperatures are shrinking harvests
and raising food prices, a powerful new consumer lobby could emerge in
support of cutting carbon emissions by moving to a hydrogen-based
economy. It is a commentary on the complexity of our time that
decisions made in ministries of energy may have a greater effect on
future food security than those made in ministries of agriculture. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| John Doe |
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2003 11:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I'm 46 years old and I've been hearing this gloom and doom nonsense all of
my life. Exactly 100% of it has been dead wrong, yet it continues to spew
forth. Do you remember that we were supposed to be *completely out* of oil
by 2000? Not a shortage, but every drop gone. How about global *cooling*?
In the mid-1970s we were all being told that the next ice age was upon us.
It seems that the daily dire predictions all fit the standard mold: "Oops,
sorry, this week it's warming that's the big fear. We can't tell what the
temperature will be next week, but trust us, we know what it will be 100
years from now, so we had better spend more money today than it would cost
to provide clean drinking water to everybody on earth to avoid the latest
hypothesized threat. Too bad for all the kids dying every day from bad
drinking water and a zillion other practical things that we could do with
the money; for the first time ever, we got it right, so hand over the money
to fix the dire emergency of the day, the CO2 problem. Oh, and by the way,
if you question our data, our motives, or our track record, then you are a
heartless idiot."
It's so absurd that I don't know where to start. I'll just hit a few major
points:
1 - CO2 increase drives plant growth.
2 - Warmer climate drives more plant growth (in cold areas) than it reduces
(in marginal desert areas). Net increase in arable land.
3 - If food ever becomes a problem (not likely in our lifetime) then there
are more efficient ways to produce it than by open-air growing of grain.
Remember we were supposed to all be starving by 1980, with major food riots
and wars worldwide? Another case of worst-case assumptions based on *zero*
improvements due to technology over time.
4 - China's population is going to drastically fall in the next few decades
due to their draconian family size limitation measures, their rising
standard of living, and their shift to industrialization.
Give me a break! When I read this kind of idiotic tripe I just wonder which
gene is responsible for the desire to believe in the Apocalypse, and why do
so many people have it expressed so strongly? And why is the fix that is
demanded by these Chicken Littles invariably higher taxes, less private
property, and restrictions on freedom of choice?
..
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dez Akin |
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 3:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
bernxard@yahoo.com.au (The Enlightenment) wrote in message news:<39556695.0312181625.2b806a13@posting.google.com>...
Quote: The only answer I see is the widespread implementation of breeder and
high tempearture gas cooled reactors. The Breeders don't produce any
long term waste becuase apart from breeding more fissile material they
also transmute long term waste. They are so economical in fuel that
tens of millions of years of Uranium extracted at considerable expense
from the oceans would not effect the price of energy much.
Use molten salt reactors for online fuel processing, passive safety,
better neutron economy, and a much safer beta running with U233 as the
primary fuel in the epithermal spectrum.
IFR sucks. Its a fast neutron reactor that uses molten salt
pyroprocessing without the benifits of a molten salt fuel regime. So
you have fast neutron fuels with rather unsafe beta's, lotsa prompt
neutrons, fuel accumulation, liquid metal cooled core either sodium
(sodium fires when exposed to air) or lead-bismuth mix that is rather
corosive and quite heavy. You have to deal with fuel fabrication, and
you have to do just as much R&D as you do for molten salt reactors, so
you may as well just make a molten salt reactor.
Well, except the IFR is better at making weapons grade fissile
materials.
Quote: http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/ifr/
(Unofficial web site) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| carlp |
| Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 11:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I'm 46 years old and I've been hearing this gloom and doom nonsense all of
my life. Exactly 100% of it has been dead wrong, yet it continues to spew
forth. Do you remember that we were supposed to be *completely out* of oil
by 2000? Not a shortage, but every drop gone. How about global *cooling*?
In the mid-1970s we were all being told that the next ice age was upon us.
It seems that the daily dire predictions all fit the standard mold: "Oops,
sorry, this week it's warming that's the big fear. We can't tell what the
temperature will be next week, but trust us, we know what it will be 100
years from now, so we had better spend more money today than it would cost
///////////////////
Sorry but while we have people like yourself with their heads well and truly
up their arse breathing in them rarefied
gases and failing to see reason despite the overwhelming facts, and usually
because of either financial blindness or AMERICAN STUPIDITY regard energy
despite most of the rest of the world being willing to concede that they
must lower their energy use, the Yanks go blindly on leading the world into
disaster, instead of making smaller economical vehicles like most of the
rest of the world they make larger off road vehicles, that eat up the fuel
in a very poor way giving rubbish mileage per gallon, their fuel prices are
far to low double them and it still would not be enough.
The political situation in Yankland will not allow sane judgements, they
will mark my words destroy this earth, through politically blind
incompetence, not a failure to see the problems but the failure to have a
backbone to tackle and make the correct decisions. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Phil Hays |
| Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 12:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Doe wrote:
Quote: 1 - CO2 increase drives plant growth.
....In a controlled environment, with ample water and nutrients. In the real world,
thing are different. Other things are often the limiting factor for plant growth:
temperature, water, nutrients, pests, diseases...
Quote: 2 - Warmer climate drives more plant growth (in cold areas) than it reduces
(in marginal desert areas). Net increase in arable land.
You know this because of ____________. Please fill in the blank.
It's probably wrong.
Quote: 3 - If food ever becomes a problem (not likely in our lifetime) then there
are more efficient ways to produce it than by open-air growing of grain.
Such as _____________?
Quote: 4 - China's population is going to drastically fall in the next few decades
due to their draconian family size limitation measures, their rising
standard of living, and their shift to industrialization.
Short answer, no, China's population is likely to rise for the next twenty years.
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/winter2001/lectures/china_case/china_case.html
--
Phil Hays |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| John Doe |
| Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 8:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Isn't religion a wonderful thing? Especially fanatical ones like
environmentalism. Anybody who raises the slightest doubt about the accuracy
of the catechism is cursed at and declared an infidel.
Thanks for so eloquently making my point for me. It's no wonder the
historical accuracy of these apocalyptic predictions is 100% wrong; they are
based on faith, not fact. The green clergy declares that man, through some
sort of original sin of energy consumption and desire to better his
condition, will send us all to hell. Sorry, I'm not buying it in the face
of such overwhelming contradictory evidence.
Your religion is very amusing but unfortunately it has real-world
consequences when productivity is impacted through artificially high energy
costs due to taxes, etc. In the end, poor people suffer and die because of
your beliefs, if you manage to convince society to heed them. Very sad in
the end. But don't let that dissuade you from your need to be right and
evangelize to us heathens who dare to question your divine authority in such
matters. If the poor slobs of the world have to die in order to toe the
environmentalist line, so be it! After all, energy consumption must be
sinful, because it has been so decreed by the green papacy.
I'm glad that you have all of the information necessary to "make the correct
decisions". Perhaps you can explain why the track record of dire
predictions is such an utter failure? Has there been a sudden change in
some factor that leads you to believe in an overnight inversion of this
embarrassing string of failures? Or is it just faith in the green clergy,
that eventually they must get it right, by chance if nothing else?
--
..
"carlp" <carlp@ic24.net> wrote in message
news:vu8vkd57igdc3a@corp.supernews.com...
Quote: I'm 46 years old and I've been hearing this gloom and doom nonsense all of
my life. Exactly 100% of it has been dead wrong, yet it continues to spew
forth. Do you remember that we were supposed to be *completely out* of
oil
by 2000? Not a shortage, but every drop gone. How about global
*cooling*?
In the mid-1970s we were all being told that the next ice age was upon us.
It seems that the daily dire predictions all fit the standard mold:
"Oops,
sorry, this week it's warming that's the big fear. We can't tell what the
temperature will be next week, but trust us, we know what it will be 100
years from now, so we had better spend more money today than it would cost
///////////////////
Sorry but while we have people like yourself with their heads well and
truly
up their arse breathing in them rarefied
gases and failing to see reason despite the overwhelming facts, and
usually
because of either financial blindness or AMERICAN STUPIDITY regard energy
despite most of the rest of the world being willing to concede that they
must lower their energy use, the Yanks go blindly on leading the world
into
disaster, instead of making smaller economical vehicles like most of the
rest of the world they make larger off road vehicles, that eat up the
fuel
in a very poor way giving rubbish mileage per gallon, their fuel prices
are
far to low double them and it still would not be enough.
The political situation in Yankland will not allow sane judgements, they
will mark my words destroy this earth, through politically blind
incompetence, not a failure to see the problems but the failure to have a
backbone to tackle and make the correct decisions.
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| John Doe |
| Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 8:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hi Phil -
It's amusing to presume that the presumption of inaccuracy is on me, when my
predictions have been 100% right and the other side that has a 100% record
of failed predictions in these matters. Sorry, I'm not biting. Once I see
the first such prediction come to pass then I may deem the predictor
credible in that area. Until then the record speaks for itself. Plus, it's
so politicized, where the solution always conveniently fits the
anti-progress, anti-industry, anti-private property, anti-development,
socialist agenda, that the legitimate green concerns (if any) get lost in
the noise.
That said, there are many, many books that have plenty of data to debunk the
apocalyptic predictions. Most people don't bother to read things that
directly confront their religious beliefs, but they are widely available
despite that. Here are a few of the hundreds of titles available.
Global Warming and Other Eco Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses
False Science to Scare Us to Death
by Ronald Bailey (Editor), Ronald Bailey, Competitive Enterprise Institute
The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World by
Bjorn Lomborg (Author)
The Satanic Gases by Patrick J. Michaels, Robert C. Balling
Ecoscam: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse by Ronald Bailey
Damned Lies and Statistics: Untangling Numbers from the Media, Politicians,
and Activists by Joel Best
Heck, I'd be happy just hear a good rationalization as to why the D&D (Death
and Destruction) predictors got it so perfectly wrong up until now, but
somehow have had some epiphany and now have finally got it right. So right
that they are willing to kill countless poor people by diverting resources
to solve this supposed problem, rather than solving real tangible problems.
For me, that's a level of faith that requires at least some explanation of
why the confidence level is suddenly so high in the face of such
overwhelming past non-performance. It seems logical that either something
fundamentally changed in their ability to predict, or this is just another
nonsensical scare. For a host of reasons I'm inclined to believe the
latter, in the absence of compelling contradictory evidence.
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Vendicar Decarian |
| Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 9:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"John Doe" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3fe2855d_2@127.0.0.1...
Quote: I'm 46 years old and I've been hearing this gloom and doom nonsense all of
my life.
Physically. But intellectually still an infant.
"John Doe" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3fe2855d_2@127.0.0.1...
Quote: Exactly 100% of it has been dead wrong, yet it continues to spew forth.
So in your OPINION then, 100 million people <HAVEN'T> starved to death since
you were born?
In your OPINION then, global Cod Stocks have not been nearly extinguished?
In your OPINION then, the populations of other large ocean species <HAVEN'T>
been reduced by 90%?
In your OPINION then, there is no such thing as an OZONE hole?
In your OPINION then, Oil production has not peaked as predicted?
In your OPINION then, measurements of the Global average temperature of the
earth has not increased due to the emission by man of CO2?
In your OPINION then, tens of millions of people DON"T die every year as a
direct result of preventable and easily curable diseases?
In your OPINION then, wars are now being fought for control of natural
resources just as predicted?
If so, then your OPINION's seem wildly at odds with reality.
But the very first line of your post immediately informed us of your abject
ignorance now didn't it?
"John Doe" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3fe2855d_2@127.0.0.1...
Quote: Do you remember that we were supposed to be *completely out* of oil
by 2000?
Nope. This claim was never made by any scientist or noted popularist.
Why do you need to lie about it?
"John Doe" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3fe2855d_2@127.0.0.1...
Quote: Not a shortage, but every drop gone.
Please feel free to find a reference in which it is claimed that every
drop of oil was to be gone.
Would that include the oil in those pimples on your backside?
"John Doe" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3fe2855d_2@127.0.0.1...
Quote: How about global *cooling*? In the mid-1970s we were all being told that
the next
ice age was upon us.
No scientist from that period warned of any imminent onset of any ice age.
Why do you feel a need to lie about such things?
"John Doe" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3fe2855d_2@127.0.0.1...
Quote: We can't tell what the
temperature will be next week, but trust us, we know what it will be 100
years from now,
Hmmm. I can't tell you the height of the next person to walk into your
local post office, but I can tell you what the average height will be even
10 years hence.
If you can't comprehend why this is so, then you are far too ignorant to
comment on the accuracy of the statements made by Environmental sciences.
But we knew that from the first line of your post, now didn't we?
Bahahahahahah... NeoCon/Republican morons. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Vendicar Decarian |
| Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 9:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"John Doe" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3fe4f565$1_2@127.0.0.1...
Quote: Isn't religion a wonderful thing? Especially fanatical ones like
environmentalism. Anybody who raises the slightest doubt about the
accuracy
of the catechism is cursed at and declared an infidel.
John Doe would rather not be associated with the ignorance of his posts.
Hence he hides behind a false name. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Eric Gisin |
| Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 10:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
And you hide behind a New Age pseudonym. Bad religion is like bad acid.
"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:z08Fb.15963$mV5.797@read1.cgocable.net...
Quote:
John Doe would rather not be associated with the ignorance of his posts.
Hence he hides behind a false name.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Vendicar Decarian |
| Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2003 11:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote in message
news:bs32qh04oq@enews3.newsguy.com...
Quote: And you hide behind a New Age pseudonym. Bad religion is like bad acid.
Really? Vendicar Decarian is not my chosen name? Please provide your proof. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| John Doe |
| Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2003 11:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:VT7Fb.38568$8Y4.437175@read2.cgocable.net...
Quote:
"John Doe" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3fe2855d_2@127.0.0.1...
I'm 46 years old and I've been hearing this gloom and doom nonsense all
of
my life.
Physically. But intellectually still an infant.
Ah, reasoned discussion from the keepers of the faith, how refreshing! Does
everybody who disagrees with you on any subject receive this level of
discourse, or just those who question the apocalyptic prophecies of your
faith? Have you reached such an enlightened state of intellectual
development that you can dismiss any opposing view as infancy?
I believed this apocalyptic stuff for the first 20 or so years of my life,
having been constantly indoctrinated with it since birth, like most
Americans. Fortunately I woke up and started questioning authority,
especially my own. I wondered: Could it be possible that people are wrong?
Or that they know the score but are pushing an alternate agenda? It was not
easy to question the church of environmentalism, and face the ostracism that
any infidel faces. But lacking the arrogance to believe that I was right
and the movement was right and therefore any dissent was wrong and sinful, I
made the leap. In retrospect it's just common sense to question it, but at
the time, the religious indoctrination had quite a grip on me. Now I think
I know how Copernicus must have felt, when he pointed out observations that
conflicted with the orthodoxy of the time and was ostracized by the church
for daring to question their conclusions that they had made based on faulty
data and an agenda.
Quote: "John Doe" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3fe2855d_2@127.0.0.1...
Exactly 100% of it has been dead wrong, yet it continues to spew forth.
So in your OPINION then, 100 million people <HAVEN'T> starved to death
since
you were born?
Quite the opposite, hence my concern for helping the needy. I don't see how
you could miss that by accident. I'm also greatly concerned that some of
the largest mass starvations were brought on by legislative fiat, those
being the USSR before W.W.II, and China during the "Great Leap Forward", and
North Korea right now. All of these events were triggered by an
authoritative state deciding to completely change the economy because they
were smarter than the markets. Oops, too bad tens of millions had to die
because the geniuses were wrong. Any dissent was met with derision or
worse. Hmmmmm, it sounds like today's environmentalists.
The world produces plenty of food, it just does not distribute it to where
it's needed. This is almost always a political problem, not an
environmental problem.
The production of food has been increasing tremendously since the 1970s,
largely due to technology, free markets, and cheap energy. All of these
factors tend to be viewed with disdain by pious greens. Perhaps the real
agenda of the greens is to kill off as many people as possible, thereby
sparing mother earth the insult of their presence? I don't know, but it
seems to be the end result of policies such as heavily taxing energy,
regardless of true motives.
Quote: In your OPINION then, global Cod Stocks have not been nearly extinguished?
No, that's not my opinion at all. By what process to do come to such
conclusions about my opinions? Such things are easily verifiable, and don't
have anything to do with mass starvation of human race, or predictions of
future climate, overall food supplies, etc.
Quote: In your OPINION then, the populations of other large ocean species
HAVEN'T
been reduced by 90%?
See above.
Quote: In your OPINION then, there is no such thing as an OZONE hole?
Sure, because there is good, solid science behind it, unlike the claptrap
masquerading as science behind the greenhouse effect and mass starvation.
Stratospheric ozone depletion is a problem that is being mitigated and has
never threatened the destruction of humanity and society as we know it,
unlike so many other warnings.
It's also worth noting that the ozone hole may have been appearing and
disappearing for millennia, but we have only recently deployed instruments
to detect it. We have some pretty good theories that say that this is
probably not the case, but not much evidence, so that part of it is still
faith, not science, at the moment.
Quote: In your OPINION then, Oil production has not peaked as predicted?
I have a friend at USGS who is a petroleum geologist. Her entire career has
been devoted to estimating oil reserves, production levels, etc. She says
that the USGS feels that there are between 60 and 600 years of oil left to
be produced economically. This gives plenty of time to transition to other
sources, and so does not threaten an apocalyptic end to society, nor
requires any mitigation in the form of confiscatory taxes, restrictions on
use, demonization of vehicle type, etc.
It also indicates the state of ignorance of even such an esteemed and
learned institution as the USGS. A 10:1 spread on probable oil extraction
estimates is not something solid enough to risk grave immediate consequences
to the world's population, IMHO.
Quote: In your OPINION then, measurements of the Global average temperature of
the
earth has not increased due to the emission by man of CO2?
No. It is unsupported by the facts, thus requires faith in a long chain of
events, faith which I do not have. If you buy the greenhouse prophecy then
it requires the following leaps of faith. ALL of these events must believed
to happen, in the order listed, or the whole chain falls apart. I don't
have any idea how people generate such faith in long shot odds. Perhaps
this explains the popularity of lotteries. To me, inflicting mass misery on
humanity in order to play these odds is unthinkable.
1 - The earth is warming significantly.
We are just now starting to get measurable data that this may be true. It
is finally detectable by instruments. When this theory started there was no
data to support the idea that any warming had occurred at all, yet we were
told to immediately crash the world economy to tackle this problem.
2 - Such warming is a bad thing.
Believing this presumes to know that recent temperatures are ideal. Any
variation from that is bad. OK, why? 11,000 years ago, during the last ice
age, Chicago was under 80 feet of ice. Perhaps we should strive for that
level? Why not strive instead for a level that optimizes food production,
or comfort, or biodiversity, or some other goal?
What should be the target? The average temperature for, say, the last 100
years? How about the 100 years before that? If we miss by 0.0001 degree
either way, is that good enough? How about 1 degree? How about 10? Who
anoints themselves the arbiter of what is ideal, and by what authority to
they do so? And what do they base their faith on, that this is the correct
answer, to be implemented at such cost?
We have no real idea what caused the world to slip into the ice ages, or
what caused it to come back out. What we do know is that they come fairly
regularly. That's it. We have been warming for over 10,000 years now, and
we don't know why. Heck, they grew grapes in Scotland 1,000 years ago. It
was warm enough to have viable Viking settlements in Greenland. Then it got
cold again. Nobody knows why. We can't blame evil Americans driving evil
SUVs, or evil oil companies, or any other demon of the day, so maybe, just
maybe, it was not anything to do with humans.
3 - Such warming is caused by humans
Big big big stretch. GCMs being developed now have huge "fudge factors" in
order to make the predictions come even close to the observed data. When
the draconian mitigations were first being urged, about 15 years ago, the
GCMs then in use were predicting warming about 10 times greater than was
being observed at the fringes of the data. Any rational person would
conclude that the GCM was badly flawed, which is not surprising given the
complexity of the system being modeled and our poor understanding of it.
But instead, the call went out to drastically cut CO2 emissions, with the
attendant economic impacts, based on this clearly flawed data. It is this
kind of potentially devastating policy to which I object.
There is a much more credible model, one who's predictions fit the observed
data without any gymnastics. That theory is that warming is caused by
fluctuations in cosmic rays. But the mitigation to this does not forward
the green's agenda, so it is almost never mentioned in mass media. See
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020731080631.htm. If you can
bear to confront your religious views with facts (not easy, I know!), do a
Google search on "cosmic ray global warming" and follow some of the links.
4 - Such warming can be mitigated by humans.
Even less credible than any of the others. Many predictions by greens are
that even if Kyoto was fully implemented, it would only cut 50% of the
supposed need, assuming that the warming is being caused by CO2, and not
some other factor.
5 - The cost of mitigating the warming exceeds the benefit
One must look at the cost versus the benefit of such a "solution" to such a
"problem". Crashing the world economy will lead to more starvation and
deaths due poverty, guaranteed. I find it just not credible that inflicting
such cruelty on the world's poor in order to mitigated a hypothesized
problem is the right thing to do. And I think that anybody who would
deliberately inflict such suffering has no place calling SUV drivers evil.
6 - There is not some more pressing need for the resources that would
otherwise be allocated to mitigating this "problem".
Nonsensical on it's face. You have mentioned many problems of human
suffering. There are of course more. All would benefit from the trillions
of dollars that would be required to significantly cut CO2 emissions and the
resulting reduction of economic output. And all would solve real, tangible
problems and mitigate real, tangible suffering.
Quote: In your OPINION then, tens of millions of people DON"T die every year as a
direct result of preventable and easily curable diseases?
See above. Amazing, we agree on so many things!
Quote: In your OPINION then, wars are now being fought for control of natural
resources just as predicted?
NO. If markets are allowed to work unfettered then resources get allocated
without bullets. In 1973 the Arabs completely cut off the west from oil
exports. No war. Oil prices quadrupled in 1 year. Recession but no war.
Oil prices doubled again in 1979. No war. OTOH, places like Somalia have
leaders who deliberately hold back food, in order to starve the opposition.
Wars, like any human action, are undertaken by humans using inputs of
thousands of factors. A choice is made and then a rationalization is
created after the fact based on some of the inputs. Anybody who says that
"X went to war just for Y reason" is simply ignoring the reality of how
humans make choices, and they know it.
Quote: If so, then your OPINION's seem wildly at odds with reality.
No, your opinion that misguided (by your definition) environmental policy
will result in mass starvation is the one at odds with reality. As I have
asserted from the start, every one of the apocalyptic predictions of human
disaster brought on by ecological problems has proven false. The greens
just keep crying wolf, and then demonize the people who don't take them
seriously anymore. However, many, many times in my life have proposed green
"solutions", such as allocation of resources by fiat rather than markets,
resulted in mass human suffering. It is obvious to me, based on the
historical record, that the biggest risk factor for increased human
suffering is to follow the green's agenda of increased socialization of
formerly free society.
I'm sorry that it makes you mad by conflicting with your religious views on
the subject, but it's just the facts. Shoot the messenger if it makes you
feel better, but it does not change the facts.
Quote: But the very first line of your post immediately informed us of your
abject
ignorance now didn't it?
Good, back to the insults. A reliable indicator of a true believer, willing
to sacrifice millions on the alter of environmental Jihad, confident in is
infallible grasp on the divine facts, not to be disputed by infidels.
If you can put aside your ego and find the courage, then try to question
authority and independently test the alternative hypotheses, not just on
environmental issues, but all issues. It takes a big effort of will to even
temporarily set aside a lifetime of indoctrination, but in the end it can
lead to a view of the world that is closer to reality than the dogma that is
commonly preached. Good luck.
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Eric Gisin |
| Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2003 2:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:LwjFb.41076$8Y4.446837@read2.cgocable.net...
Quote:
"Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote in message
news:bs32qh04oq@enews3.newsguy.com...
And you hide behind a New Age pseudonym. Bad religion is like bad acid.
Really? Vendicar Decarian is not my chosen name? Please provide your
proof.
The onus is on you. What is your given name before you choose this
drug-induced alter ego? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:13 pm
|
|