Climate Change Denier Changes His Mind

[motoguy128]

I know some who believe in man made climate change and who believe it is a positive not a negative, because the elevation of the tillable area will lift. Increasing the total usable area.
I have no doubt that we are influencing our environment, how ever determining the cause and effect and rate of change, is where the issue lies, as any predictions are only as good as the formula that you use. As this is a complex model, we still do not have a accurate model. That does not mean we should just ignore our climate influences.
What harm can it do to the make the most of the earth resources.
As with war, health etc, there will always be profiteers. Do not let these people cloud the scientific facts.
If climate does turn to shyte or not, i will not be around, but does that mean i should not focus on future.

I think that is very well stated. I have always proposed focusing on conservation rather than focusing soley on CO2 and the major threat. With conservation, you will reduce CO2 emissions, but you don't waste resources on other things like a system of carbon credits, trying to sequester or basically "hide" carbon and a list of other silly things. Focusing on some alternative energies are good, others are a waste.

[barbar]

One of the things that GW is said to produce is greater variability in weather, extreme events. Most crops like nice boring weather. Also not really sure where we will be getting an increase in usable growing area. Where is the soil going to come from? Say Canada has more of a US styled weather (Our corn crop has gone through the roof as we have your normal weather up here now) and we can grow things further north. There is no soil built up over centuries to take advantage of. With luck we will get dust bowl conditions and have it blown up here but that does not seem practical.

The argument is not mine, only that some see the increased CO2/temp level as a positive.
I can understand their point of view. I think that a reasonable time scale has to come into play, (1000,s of years, not 10 0r 100s of years)

I try to be objective on this subject!

[printer2]

The argument is not mine, only that some see the increased CO2/temp level as a positive.
I can understand their point of view. I think that a reasonable time scale has to come into play, (1000,s of years, not 10 0r 100s of years)

I try to be objective on this subject!

In the long term it could be but a rough measure of soil generation would be about 1000 years per inch of soil. We might get to grow crops up here that we would not normally bother with if the growing season is extended. Spring was early this year and with all the heat we have farmers that have already combined there wheat and are ready to put in a winter crop.

Because of the heat and drought food prices are suppose to rise about 4% next year. Usually one part of the world would do badly and another would do better. This year Russia is talking about banned exporting wheat as it did in 2010. This year crops are looking badly due to hotter and dryer weather the weather in Argentina, India, Australia and Soviet Union.

[Tool-Slinger]

In the long term it could be but a rough measure of soil generation would be about 1000 years per inch of soil. We might get to grow crops up here that we would not normally bother with if the growing season is extended. Spring was early this year and with all the heat we have farmers that have already combined there wheat and are ready to put in a winter crop.

Because of the heat and drought food prices are suppose to rise about 4% next year. Usually one part of the world would do badly and another would do better. This year Russia is talking about banned exporting wheat as it did in 2010. This year crops are looking badly due to hotter and dryer weather the weather in Argentina, India, Australia and Soviet Union.

From what I have seen while driving around Texas and Oklahoma, only about 10% or less is in cultivation. A stunning amount of land is just sitting idle.

[printer2]

From what I have seen while driving around Texas and Oklahoma, only about 10% or less is in cultivation. A stunning amount of land is just sitting idle.

Wonder how much its going to cost.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has designated counties in Arkansas and Oklahoma as primary natural disaster areas because of a wide-reaching drought.

Vilsack opened up 3.8 million acres of conservation land for ranchers to use for haying and grazing. Under that conservation program, farmers have been paid to take land out of production to ward against erosion and create wildlife habitat.

http://www.kait8.com/story/19176840/...or-drought-aid

[printer2]

This week, 218 counties in a dozen drought-stricken states were added to the federal government's list of natural disaster areas as Vilsack unveiled new help for frustrated, cash-strapped farmers and ranchers grappling with extreme dryness and heat. That means more than half of all U.S. counties have been designated primary disaster areas this growing season, mostly due to drought.

"There's no question that this is one of the most geographically expanded droughts we've confronted," he said. "It's affecting and impacting virtually every state of the Lower 48."

http://www.knoe.com/story/19190757/a...drought-relief

Sounds bad.

[Tool-Slinger]

Wonder how much its going to cost.



http://www.kait8.com/story/19176840/...or-drought-aid

Fairly normal absurdity of weather for a farmer. Nothing unusual. Crop insurance is there for a reason.

[printer2]

Fairly normal absurdity of weather for a farmer. Nothing unusual. Crop insurance is there for a reason.

Yeah but even money from insurance does not come out of thin air, someone has to pay for it. And according to the article it effects pretty much every state.

[Space Racer]

Wow, I just checked out the wikipedia link I mentioned in post #18 about critical thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking). That link is not very helpful. It appears to have been written by a Buddhist college professor with little or no business background. Many other sources had a similar academic bent, with little apparent practical application.

This one gets more to the heart of the matter. It's not perfect, but it'll do.

http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/critical/ct.php

(The domain is Hong Kong University!)

[Tool-Slinger]

Yeah but even money from insurance does not come out of thin air, someone has to pay for it. And according to the article it effects pretty much every state.

Sure, the droughts affect the $$$$. People sell cattle because of lack of grass, reported the corn is bad. Basically a complete reduction in production. Who pays for it? Everyone at the grocer or restaurant.

Mother nature is a lying %^&$*& and a thieving &*(%$# .