This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Real Inflation Fear - US Food Prices Are Up 19% In 2014
We are sure the weather is to blame but what happens when pent-up demand (from a frosty east coast emerging from its hibernation) bumps up against a drought-stricken west coast unable to plant to meet that demand? The spot price (not futures speculation-driven) of US Foodstuffs is the best performing asset in 2014 - up a staggering 19%...
h/t Bloomberg's Chase van der Rhoer
»
- 73589 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Yeah, and one day you'll look back at this with fondness, when one can then only get "simulated beef flavoring!"
You can Double that rate, since there is also 19% less actual food in the foodstuff
Let them eat dirt
iPads
I've noticed an increase in the cost of food for my cats. I would imagine the cats will roast well with chestnuts I harvested from my trees. After the cat is gone we could then eat the cat food too!!!!
"Catskins sell for $10.00 a piece. We feed the rats to the cats and the cats to the rats and get the cat skins for nothing." --Husker Du
Hedonics... with the cats going you're going to have a lot more rats and mice- WIN!
Not to worry. Foodstuff is a lagging indicator. Bullish! Follish not to be 100% invested in S&P. /sarc
Fracking adds essential nutrients to your water. Food is done, a nothingburger. Everything is being consolidated into the S&P 1.
this does get past onto the world.
And no, Mr. President..."Russia is not just some European problem."
They're about to wipe Beirut clear off the map.
food inflation in 2011 was 6.2%.
Food inflation in 2012 was 14%
food inflation in 2013 was 9.8%
But, beware the deflation monster!
I'm sure this has to do with the drought in California, but I'm also sure the FED's QE policy has played a hand too... see the numbers above. The drought can only be blamed on 2014 numbers.... not 2011 through 2013.
Remember that US food is made with a lot of petrochem goodness.
Tractors use a lot of diesel. Fertilizer uses a lot of natgas. Trucks to move the food 2000 miles to your supermarket also suck down plenty of diesel.
Oil prices go up, food prices go up.
Food is oil.
Agricultural commoditity futures are up 20%...and gold and especially silver haven't risen precisely along with it.
More proof both metals are being manipulated downwards.
These slimy banks are trying to make it where there's nowhere to hide from their inflation.
Metals and the US dollar are all being manipulated.
No worries, gives me time to buy the physical. Just keep averaging down. I think Silver goes down to $19. That will be my next buy. And then $17 if it keeps going after that.
Look out if the Chinese credit crunch cause them to start dumping gold...
You will be dollar cost averaging alot lower than those prices...
yeah, if my currency shit the bed, I would unload the one thing that could preserve my wealth. I await your shitty reply.
When you get margin calls, you sell what you still have...
4500 years of civilization states otherwise. For every trader, there are 100000 chinese who do not care. Your reply was not shitty. I will give you that. Everything is not about financialization.
Wrong. Better take the loss and keep the good stuff!
Do you understand what a margin call is?
Yes, its when you go to the casino, borrow money from the casino, THEN place your bets.
Not the suggested way to purchase AU.
And what makes you think that the any number of Chinese have not financed things using Au as collateral...
Do you think that Cu and Fe would be the only metals involved?
The trade was (AFAIK):
Buy physical AU.
Sell Gold futures on Wall St/Comex.
So an unwind would mean:
Buy gold futures.
Sell _____________ (possibly physical AU)
There is more to it than that...
The Au holdings are not in isolation....
When you get margin calls, you sell what you still have...
Yeah Flak...
I would dump US Treasuries in a heartbeat. I agree.
Not sure what folks' problem with this is. Seems like it's just good advice to be wary is all...
What would happen to the USD if China dumps? That would be the question: if it goes up then one should be able to buy more PMs per USD, no? if it goes down then chasing after PMs might be a bit rough...
I was in the local healthfood store this weekend. Local grass fed ground beef was running $8.99 a pound. There is no way I could afford to feed my family the quality diet I feed them if I had to buy my food. No way. Fur prices collapsed this year because China stopped buying, so a lot of trappers are throwing in the towel. I'm gearing up. I've already had several people contact me about supplying them with wild game (which is of course illegal).
I'm investing in a quality vacuum sealer as well. I think there will be a lot of money to be made supplying food to people who refuse to source it for themselves.
Vac sealer is a good investment. Don't get the cheapie $100 one as the piston dies quickly. Absolutely no freezer burn.
I've asked you before & got no reply. I'd be interested in some pelts.
Wow - my cheapy FoodSaver (bought at Goodwill, no less) has lasted for about 15 years of regular use.
I must be the luckiest cheapskate alive.
Lucky you are SR. I killed 3 of them. I found they couldn't take a repeated succession of vac's. FoodSaver made good on them. I shelled out $350 for mine & it's been a work horse. The life time guarantee after the 3 dying sealed it for me. ;)
My wife and I have switched primarily to drying and loose packing over the last couple of years. It's working well for us. We don't eat much meat, so our freezer is pretty empty. I'll unplug it before too long.
Food preservation has turned out to be a really interesting endeavour - learned a lot of history through it.
You can CAN meat (I haven't done it, and, frankly, it doesn't sound real exciting to me). And you can also CAN water... Just thought I'd toss out a comple of tidbits...
I'd like to do some drying. Maybe this year... (had always had it in my head to build a solar dehydrator, but am not sure I have enough sun and heat to make it work)
@WillyGroper:
I must have missed your earlier requests. I've got 4 nice beaver pelts left - everything else has been shipped. The pelts I have are scraped, fleshed and stretched - but not garment tanned. You can contact me offline at meattrapper at gmail dot com.
Come to think of it, I also have a very nice otter pelt and a beautiful red fox pelt that has a very nice bushy tail on it and a few bob cats left. If you're interested in any I can upload a video of them and send you a link.
http://meattrapper.com/about-us.html
I love the smell of beaver in the morning. It smells like VICTORY!
What makes you think you can supply wild meat as cheap or cheaper than beef or chicken? Do the game trails come right by your door? Or do you have an oklahoma credit card with which to get out and do some hunting? Thanks for your humor man!
Who cares when Americans can eat laboratory-grown Celebrity Meat >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1wg9fCmbT4
Like anyone will be able to afford meat! Meat "substitutes" though... well, it's what's for dinner.
http://beyondmeat.com/
I like how they advertise that it's non-GMO soy. As if 90% of soy pollen cares about preserving the integrity of the other 10%.
Hell, forget meat. A lot of they shit they're feeding us is Food substitutes.
"Mmmm. Honey, this styrofoam casserole you made tastes a lot like beans. How do you do it?"
Can't they, like, seasonally adjust this or something to make this look better? We all know there is no inflation.. Say it again with me, THERE IS NO INFLATION..
Inflation? I thought it was Deeflayshun?
Feeling like 2008 redux IMO.
Hey, the mainstream financial media keeps telling me that gold has been a wrong trade/purchase due to the fact that inflation never took hold....hmmmmm...food prices...equity prices...no inflation here...
"Hey, the mainstream financial media keeps telling me that gold has been a wrong trade"
On that much they are right. Gold is not a trade, it is a buy. It will remain range bound until the end.
You can use soup bones to cook with your oatmeal. Good dog food and people food.
That's pretty tame... My wife is Filipino and some ofthe things that she's able to eat! (hm... what's this container here? Oh! "Edible Blood!")
I am surrounded by vegetable gardens where I live in Colombia....I just hope we can export a bunch of it to the USA....our farmers should be able to cash in on the shortage...with our new trade agreement...I hope we can...I have been told we ship a lot to Europe.....the USA is closer....
I wouldn't hold my breath on breaking into Con-Agra's (et al.) near monopoly.
That's not inflation. That's dis-deflation. You can clearly see the leading down trend there.
All these new full-time employees combined with the rapid rise in real estate wealth has pull through costs.
It's only fair to pass it on to those that over consume. Obamao told me so.
What in the world is going on with gold (around 10:40)??
Isn't traipsing along the undulating plateau of oil production folded in with drought made more intense by global warming so much fun?
If you like this now, wait another 10 years....
You had me up until the global warming comment.
Oh well... One day you will get it...
So, just to be clear are you saying that it is not warming?
No. To be clear I am saying it's not man made. We cause a plethora of other environmental problems, but global warming is not one of them. We will both have to agree to disagree on this point.
Edit. Even though I disagree with you on this, I'm not jumping on the junk brigade.
So you are agree that it is warming then...
Are you claiming that elevated C02 levels are not the cause of it?
Or are you claiming that C02 levels are not rising because of Anthropogenic emissions?
FM:
Do you know of any resource that presents the strongest arguments on both sides of this issue in a condensed, easy to understand format? Something like, Man-Made Climate Change - the Evidence for and Against: for Dummies!
Sorry for interrupting.
Well, this is a pretty good intro into the basics of the green house effect:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/basics_one.html
Jeremy Grantham, whose writing are that basis of many ZH articles, put this together a few years back
http://8020vision.com/2010/08/02/jeremy-grantham-everything-you-need-to-...
There is no reputable academically honest summary of arguments against, it simply doesn't exist. There is no alternative understanding that can explain the Ice Ages and not conclude that the 120 ppmv of C02 we have added to the atmosphere is now the primary driver of global temperatures...
The real problem with "deniers" is that they have no testable alternative to offer, nothing that can not be immediately ruled out as being incapable of explaining the data...
---------
Now, if you are a little bit techically inclined there is this series of articles on a very simple model that describes the temperature record of past 140 years stunnningly well:
The basics:
http://web.archive.org/web/20091124213247/http://tamino.wordpress.com/20...
The effect of the sun, volcanoes, C02, El Nino's/La Ninas....
http://web.archive.org/web/20100104073232/http://tamino.wordpress.com/20...
And the latest update:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/02/23/once-is-not-enough/
Thanks for taking the time to point those out.
I'm interested to see if the other side will counter.
Cheers,
Bob
I make it a rule not to opine on subjects with which I am only marginally knowledgable. Climate change for example. However, I am more than compentent in economics, and I can tell you that the proposed solution to climate change, carbon trading, is a scam designed to loot the masses.
Re CapN'Trade: See my comment below...
The masses are broke, so I don't believe that that's the desired point.
I believe that it's like everything else in that a select few will profit handsomely. It doesn't matter whether something is true or not. Recall that at one point we were told that smoking was good for us: real data came in and dispelled that, and while lots of people have made money off of anti-smoking activities the fact that they did so does not invalidate the facts of smoking being bad.
I believe that it's a way ot pushing industry back to the US. If China gets slapped in the carbon dept then shit from them would be a LOT more expensive (production AND shipping), so local production would most definitely benefit.
I have no horse in this race. I only care about logic. I have, however, believed that there would be some mecahnism in which TPTB would pull back industry to the US, and without a doubt it would be based on some sort of subsidy scheme (all marketed to the US folks in a nice package)- couild this be done through carbon credit schemes? Perhaps, though I haven't bothered to really spend any energy thinking about it (because I believe it's all going to crash anyway, in which case I'm just kind of skipping past all this).
Elevated CO2 as the cause of 'global warming'?
WTF? Single handedly? Without equal or greater impact from the sun, and water vapor?
Oh Kunstler...
Lay off the strawmen, only the disingenuous try to claim that C02 is the only factor.
The sun plays an important role, the thing is that the variations in the sun are known to have a smaller effect than C02... C02 became more important around 1970 or so..
There are also aerosols, primarily S02 from manmade and natural sources, aerosols provide cooling effect...
What do you think drives WV levels? WV is a feedback, when it warms more moisture can evaporate, and when it cools the WV condenses out. This is 19th century physics, the Clausius-Clapeyron Equations...
Here is a summary of all the things that drive global temperatures:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-spm-2-l.png
The main problem with the climate change brigade is that they are politically useful to those who want to impose Carbon Tax, carbon credits, carbon trading...
Those aren't solutions. They will centralize power in the hands of bureaucrats, and provide another casino for the rich to play in. Nothing more.
Thats why I criticize the focus on CO2, because it implies if we just reduce CO2, or hell, even just fine companies who 'emit more than their share of CO2' the problem is taken care of.
The science doesn't care if you don't like what some are proposing as a solution...
And, if there are people trying to make a fast buck off of something, when the fuck has that ever been not the case?
==============
The only solution is to replace our carbon dependency....
The best way to do that is open to debate, and that is what the debate should be about....
We could start with reducing the ~$500 billion in annual global subsidies for Fossil fuels...
And for the record, Cap n'Trade is bullshit, and the idea of Carbon offsets is no better than the Church peddling Indulgences in the "good old days"...
SOME are proposing?
Its the only goddamn proposal.
No it isn't....
Which subsidies are those?
Start here
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energysubsidies/
You can also look up depletion allowance if you want some real detail...
Bingo!
I am so tired of this bullshit. The earth hasn't warmed in 18 years!! How do you explain the warmer climate in several periods over the last 2 thousand years? What about the hacked emails showing the jerkoff "global warming" alarmists admitting their theories are wrong and colluding to try and cover up their data. Or practically all of their models being disproved year after year after year. The earth warms and cools regardless of man...
This is about money and control period!! BTW, love how it's now conveniently referred to as “climate change” instead of “global warming”....jackasses
What we are tired of is completely discredited bullshit that you are selling
Could you explain the following fitted trends GISTEMP
1970 to 1997: 0.146 +/- 0.067 C/decade
1970 to 2014: 0.163 +/- 0.031 C/decade
If the warming "stopped" why has the rate of warming increased if I add the last 17 years in?
It is mathematically impossible for what you claim to be true...
So stop making shit up or better yet simply STFU....
Who is the “we” in your statement?? Most here don't live in Potemkin Villages and I would dare say agree with me. Please stop spewing your bullshit dribble and pretending it's a "settled" scientific fact like all of your elitist kind. If you want to argue/prove your points address the facts stated above.
44 years and +/- .031. That’s amazing. I better run out and buy some warmer clothing.
Btw, keep it civil. You never know who is on the other end of the keyboard tough guy.
You clearly have no idea what the fuck is going on...
The first number is the fitted trend or slope, the second is the 2 sigma confidence interval...
You just blew your cover buddy and revealed yourself as an idiot out of your league...
Because government funded studies are not to be questioned. The government and paid lackey's are so trust worthy! There a old term Stalin used for people like you, useful idiot.
You're so cool, wish I could throw out random numbers with no reference and claim its proof I'm right. Statistical data depends on numerous variables. One could probably find several studies that prove the exact opposite of this. Regardless your time frame is a fart in the wind.
Go away troll.
Hey - still waiting for your side to offer up a rebuttal.
As a man-made climate agnostic, I'm a potential convert.
'Bout ready to join a church - should it be yours?
A bit off topic, but this is pretty cool...
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=mean_sea...
The potential to be a historic Nor'easter....
Great graphics!
Hey GR!
If you were spinning your bullshit any faster you would drill yourself head first into the ground...
Go ahead and find some data you claim to exist that backs your position...
Can you point me to a source for average ocean termperatures, on an annual basis for the last 100 years or so? Also, do you know the source of the temperature readings from, say, 1940 and earlier?
I am a bit skeptical about land temperature readings as the quality of those readings are affected by land development. I would also prefer to look at raw data as opposed to "fitted trends."
Please post your curriculum vitae that points to your expertise in this subject matter. Otherwise STFU.
Regards,
Fred
.
Post yours first or stop asking.
Lies. The information you're working from is 100% proven wrong.
reference, 2011
reference, 2009
there are plenty more but you're not worth the time to compile a novella for a reply.
That's hardly an excuse to attack AGW. Corrupt governments of the world will support 3 sides of every argument to justify expanded spending, military and reduced liberties for the citizens in their border-pens.
if AGW wasn't real then governments would wholeheartedly demand taxation to cause global warming to save us from cooling into a glacial period.
John D Hammaker's Survival of Civilization is, IMO, the best description of how it all works. The water cycle naturally erodes topsoil, which then leads to a loss of plant life and carbon-syncing. Humans HAVE impacted soil erosion (as well as adding CO2 to the atmostphere): there is no argument that this has occured, the only argument is to what degree.
There WILL be another glacial period. No idea whether humans will be wiped out completely or not; but, pretty sure that the glacial activity will completely pulverize all that mankind has done/built, as glaciers are essentially the means of re-tilling the soil for a new "planting season."
Even Hammaker's "solution" of remineralizing the planet was noted to only slow down the next glacial period, not stop it. I believe that the mechanics are perfectly sound: working out the equation seems a bit tough in that one needs a bit of energy in order to create rock dust and one would have to subtract the negatives with the energy consumed for this process.
if it was the sun we'd see the same temperature cycles on the moon. We don't. The solar influx hasn't changed, the outflow of infrared has.
CO2 + methane are doing it. CO2 will stay much longer but methane is absorbing far more infrared.
It's my belief that the climate always has, and always will run in cycles. Those cycles have more to do with the sun and the earth's magnetic field more than anything else.
Well, they there should be data that correlates your causes with the temperature record...
There isn't and lord knows people have tried...
If the sun's magnetic field had anything to do with it, you would not see this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=71
That dog don't hunt....
Edit:
And you got to explain 800,000 years of temperature and C02 data...
I will admit to ignorance as to how we can be sure of precise temperature measurements more than a hundred years old - much less 800,000. I am pretty sure the "data" on temperature is estimated, derived in some fashion, as opposed to actual measurement. It does seem pretty clear that we have had periods where the earth was quite a bit warmer than now and also quite a bit colder - all before man had any impact at all.
Well before making up your mind learn about things...
For example, Oxygen 18 ratios are very sensitive to changes in temperature...
C02 levels have been directly measured going back 800,000 years using ice cores...
There are literally hundreds of temperature proxies that allow going back 2000 years or so...
See for example the paper discussed here:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/pages2k-confirms-hockey-stick.html
-----
If you add everything that we know you get the following:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png
If you have detailed questions about the above plot, I suggest you ask the experts here
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/can-we-make-better...
which is currently active....
All in all, we have a pretty good understanding of what drives things...
The fact that it may have been warmer before the emergence of H. Sapiens doesn't mean squat.. We also know that the last time C02 was at the current levels for any extended period, the sea levels were about 100 ft higher...
About time you tell us who you are so we can research your ability and background to sell bullshit packaged in a government control solution. IPCC is now saying there has been no warming for 18 years but Flak knows better, IPCC is lying cuz his mom yelled it downstairs right after telling him his pizza rolls were ready..
Could you tell us where the IPCC said that...
Or are you just making shit up, yet again...
http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-head-pachauri-acknowledges-global-warming-st...
Your pizza rolls are ready..
You clearly have a reading comprehension problem....
The IPCC made and endorsed no such statement....
There are holes in the atmosphere from chemical use, the mass of wasteland we call cities is now a geological zone. What could convince someone that humans are not responsible for global warming and climate change?
whatever happened to acid rain... or the next ice age...
The MSM works on hysteria. Al Gore gets rich on hysteria. global warming "scientists"... er.... manmade climate Change researchers get grants based on the level of HYSTERIA they create. Let me ask you a question: Why have several of these hucksters been busted for fabricating their research? SO THEY CAN GET YOUR MONEY TO CONTINUE FAKING SHIT!
If it was real, these asshats like Al Gore would be working stiffs like the rest of us. They are nothing more than modern day snake oil salesmen. Quite buying the hysteria and start questioning the motives.
Because the only people caught faking data were the deniers...
Google Wegman Report and read this
http://deepclimate.org/2010/11/16/replication-and-due-diligence-wegman-s...
Edit: You will be hearing a lot more about the above fakery in the Mann Libel trial...
"whatever happened to acid rain... or the next ice age..."
Google is your friend...
You can measure your own rain's pH if you want to see for yourself (or if you doubt numbers from others you can take the measurements yourself).
The next "ice age," actually it's caled "glacial period," WILL be coming. It's the earth's water cycle that eventually does in the inter-glacial period (one of which we're currently in). Pretty simple actually. Loss of topsoil. Plants hold topsoil. There's no question that humans have sped up topsoil loss. How much CO2 release affects all of this I couldn't venture to say.
I suppose the increased desertification will be useful for folks who wish to bury their head in sand...
Acid rain keeps happening where scrubbers aren't used. Where scrubbers are used there's no acid rain.
Can you be serious that you think this is hysteria? Are you uneducated in everything about chemistry?
You probably think Y2K was a hoax too yet thousands of programmers worked for years at break-neck speed to stop the worst possible outcomes, reprogramming everything, pulling & scrapping chips, making new ones.
Next you'll be saying house fires are a hoax so we needn't have called all those silly firefighters and use up all that water, there would have been no fire in the first place, we should have a debate about it instead of wasting money on them. All the while fires burn and you pretend they aren't.
Why do you have such a belief? Can't you operate with ZERO belief and just look at the evidence?
I have no beliefs. I see many changes in the climate HOWEVER to call it a 'cycle' is very local in time. It's to assert what's seen is warming & cooling, cooling & warming over billions of years in reaction with total, irreversible changes in chemistry, radioactive decay, geological evolution of volcanic activity & tectonic plates and much more not worth listing for it's billions of events.
To state "always has and always will" run in cycles goes far, far beyond just what's been observed and actually has evidence (in the past) to show a one-way change, not a cycle, since the Earth formed, and no way to predict the future to the molecule with that, much less the climate 1 billion years from now.
WITH ONE EXCEPTION: if we fuck it up royally by nuking everything (radiation) or by covering the earth in ash (possibly nuking) or by warming it up so much it can't cool down (which we are attempting to do right now), that will send everything one-way for a long, long time.
Maybe the Earth recovers.
To ask if it will is nonsensical.
The point that's not nonsensical is the only important question: are human actions causing human extinction to come early: yes or no.
The answer is YES.
"Those cycles have more to do with the sun and the earth's magnetic field more than anything else"
That is certainly a NO. Most of the radiation pushed around the Earth by the magnetic field is not photons: it's electrons & protons. Photons as you may discover can be bent by gravity since space itself is curved by gravity so the photons don't act as if they're curving. The space is curved by the path within the space is "straight" relative to time.
The photons are what brings us the energy that we'll call heat, almost no heating through the influx of solar photons but plenty of surface heating through the conversion to infrared photons by the molecules that do receive solar light.
YES, MeelionDollerBogus, I agree the answer is yes. The evidence so far is that humans are not going to do anything significant about it.
Have you ever seen any of James Burke's programs? I enjoyed his 'Day The Universe Changed' episodes very much, then, while I was absorbed watching the CNN war, I stumbled upon his documentary 'After The Warming' and I've been thinking about AGW for 25 years now. It's only more recently that I have been learning about the concept of mass extinction even though James Burke was alluding to it back then; when they finally did start to get the deep ocean data, they realized in 2050 that their work had only achieved a halt to runaway global warming and now the task of returning GHG levels to 'normal' had to begin.
I hope you find time to watch ATW and would like to hear your thoughts. I find most people here seem to fall into the Al Gore/An Inconvenient Truth bashing category due to their politics while failing to realize that JB presented essentially the same evidence 15 years earlier, as they still want to argue about carbon taxes, computer models, and suggest we just gotta have more research, as if the research is ever going to stop, and stop bringing grim news.
I'm more than happy to discuss family law, bitcoin, tax reform, or tractor transmissions and rock bands. But it all pales in comparison to discussing AGW that will bring a change in climate that is likely to result in mass extinction as described in the book "Under A Green Sky'. Finally, world leaders know the score. Just as you defend your rights, certain leaders are finally reaching their own tipping points and will defend their rights against those who failed to contain their emissions. The tide is turning now in preparation for the showdown at COP 21 in Paris. This goes beyond IPCC and beyond UNFCCC. Way beyond. Everyone knows AR6 will be not so much nonsensical as completely pointless. AR5 might well be. But I BELIEVE (lol) we have to try.
Thanks Bogus.
You're very welcome. Something I think no one's pondered out loud, no one at all who is American and worrying about silly carbon taxes, is the kind of warfare that may be used to stop the pollution.
The worst offenders are China & the USA and much of China's is on behalf of economic activity for the USA.
Recession in North America seems not to slow down pollution in China. Technology to contain such massive pollution isn't cheap but survival demands it. Yet for now they don't use it.
Many outcomes are possible:
and who the fuck knows what else could happen on the way to oblivion.
I applaud your use of the Hegelian Dialectic. Your duplicity does not fail to impress me.
Personally I understand that some of this is enviromental and some is anthropogenic.
What I disagree with is the Politicized Agenda to use it as an excuse to involve Government (which has rarely ever done ANYTHING CONSTRUCTIVE) and assess taxation.
But the duplicity of your ilk has "...poisoned the well" FUCK YOU VERY MUCH. Politicizing Science and attempting to force compliance and control only leads to CHAOS.
Go away asshat, you have zero credibility...
Besides, don't you have some work to do on your Cosmology "model"?
Tell us a Tall one about the tax Tom. You know, the one they started suggesting 25 years ago. The one they just seem to impotent to ASSess. That's a lot of tax money not collected (25 x 6% x carbon used). WOW! AGW just a scam to tax and still nothing. Them UNrs sure are patient.
And somehow they also failed to get their guy Al Gore into the WH to get that tax flowing. I thought they were the all-powerful PTB? WTF?
Judging by what we read about income/wealth inequality, it looks like TPTB made off with the carbon tax equivalent $ while the Turkeys argued and argued about AGW for twenty five years. TPTB milked that for all it's worth so now it's tax time? Time will tell.
Don't worry Tom, tax now is probably too little too late anyway. Tits on a bull. Do tell us the Tall Tale Tom.
EVERYTHING gets politicized!
As much as I hate this I can state that that doesn't mean that something is necessarily right or necessarily wrong from any one "side."
There is no such use.
This is the analysis of logic: what you do assert as true or false shapes your dialogue, as facts are not how you are operating here, and what you assert to be truth or falsehood is also ambiguous in some of your comments.
We've tried to get straight answers out of you & you refuse to give them.
If you now refuse to answer simple yes/no questions it's not Hegelian, it's how you sniff out fraud and it means the fraud is you.
"What I disagree with is the Politicized Agenda to use it as an excuse to involve Government (which has rarely ever done ANYTHING CONSTRUCTIVE) and assess taxation."
Then you have no argument with Flak or with me because neither one of us is espousing a government action, merely making sure anti-scientific statements posing as science are corrected properly.
Does junking someone affect the quality of their statement? I was always wondering why people proudly state that they don't "junk"? WTF cares? Why should you? Does being junked change facts?
I really want to know. Is this site filled up with such a bunch of pussies that they worry about being "junked". Fight club? LOL
It only matters in the sense that even though I disagree with his position, I still respect his beliefs. Frankly for myself, I don't give a damn if people junk me. Fight club doesn't mean we have to treat each other like dirt. We get enough of that from TPTB.
understand. I think that respecting each others view should not be tied to junking or not junking. I thought that was an entry condition. Everyones view should be respected (outside of trolls).
I have very rarely just replied complimenting someone that I agreed with their statement; most times I just up arrow or down arrow. I do not view it as "junking" per say. I am not expecting any action from anyone based on my clicking an up arrow or down arrow.
To not use arrows for fear of someone feeling teated "like dirt" seems like wasting a tool.
The good Dr. is very aware that many people here down vote me purely on principle...
Personally, I only throw greenies at truly funny comments or well thought out posts that I may or may not completely agree with...
Principle? And here i thought it was because you're a pompous horses ass, on your monthly fucking "climate change" bender once again.
It beats the fuck about arguing with naive idiots about the intellectual bankruptcy of libertarian thought...
No one discusses the markets anymore...
People here are oblivious to a remarkable scientific observation announced last week, that if verified represents an incredible intellectual achievement...
Arguing about the how the petro-dollar game really ends is futile when most people here think the FED is actually printing cash...
The Jew-haters and bigots have been quiet of late....
Peak Oil is now mainstream here, thanks in no small part to my efforts...
So an article about rising food prices in light of AGW fueled droughts is pretty much all there is...
And it ain't my fault that people here are in the denial about the science and implications of AGW...
So if you don't like what I write, ignore it, no one is forcing you to read it...
2 C of ECS warming by 2036 announced in Scientific American?
robertscribbler explains.
Observation of B-mode polarization in the cosmic microwave background radiation...
Or in other words, strong evidence for Cosmic Inflation through observation of the effect of primordial graviational waves...
If verified it will be a Nobel Prize in Physics....
that was my second guess
Do you know what's up with that (pun intended) instrument that went up to the ISS on the 2nd or 3rd last shuttle that was a very expensive unit built to do some sort of physics work (dark matter or energy or ?)
Nope...
Maybe you are you thinking of the AMS experiment?
It;s goal was a search of anti-matter in cosmic rays...
Lookinf ahead, my fingers are crossed that the James Webb Telescope doesn't get derailed....
yes that's it. I remember the lead AMS guy talking about it the day of the launch. It was all way over my head but it struck me as super-science. I found myself quietly hoping it arrived safely and would discover great things. We watched the final three missions closely.
iiRC correctly not long after the last shuttle mission, a rocket that was heading up to deploy an aerosols lab failed : (
Hope the James Webb fares well.
thanks Flak : )
Engali...If you respect his tactics on presenting a Hegelian Dialectic argument (Either...Or...which leads to a predetermined conclusion) then that is your choice.
Personally I have no respect for duplicity.
Re: Duplicity, nor do I, that I why I call out the Global Warming bullshitters who proffer doctored graphs intended to mislead the unaware...
-----
BTW, tell us again about that cosmic Red Shift thingie...
\facepalm....
And yet no such duplicity has been presented by Flak.
What beliefs? Flak hasn't expressed a belief, merely evidence.
Belief has no place in rational discussion.
" Is this site filled up with such a bunch of pussies that they worry about being "junked". Fight club?"
The "pussies" are those that junk and do NOT provide a counter-argument. That is, they're throwing bricks from afar and are NOT actually engaging in "Fight Club."
I personally beleive that most empty-jumkers are Party Pussies, folks that are programmed and incapable of thinking for themselves... When someone bothers to write something up (and not just doing a bunch of copy-pasting) I can respect that they're putting some effort at thinking (whether I agree or not). And when people start name-calling or dragging in tired old political pinatas I see it as childish BS.
Very well said...
"Agree to disagree"? That is not possible when dealing with fanatics :)
Funny how you're referring to the one person who sticks to facts only as the fanatic.
You call man made weather fucking....global warming?
Pollutions bad, HAARPs bad, government mandated tax pools are bad and people thinking co2 comming out of their mouth is bad?
I laugh cause its easier.....
RIPS
Go away troll...
The adults are trying to have a discussion...
hey Pot, meet Kettle...
It ain;t trolling when you have the science and the facts on your side...
Deal with it....
But you do not have the facts and science on your side because you skew the facts to make the cause anthropogeic when it is not all due to human activity.
Much of the Climate Change has other causal factors. The Sun is a variable star. Solar Radiation is cyclical and not a constant.
Furthermore while Atmospheric CO2 acts as a reflector of Solar Radiation, trapping that within our atmosphere, the affect happens two fold. Solar Radiation is also reflected back into Space by the same CO2. Thus there is a Net Zero Sum result. (Venus' atmospheric Heat comes from Vulcanism and is trapped by the CO2 atmosphere. It is not Solar in origin as Venus' albedo is rather high. Our World shares a high albedo as a characteristic.)
I am so fatigued by your duplicity as you promote a statist taxation agenda.
Correlation between Rising Temperatures and rising CO2 levels are not indicative of causation because of the Net Zero Sum.
While I will agree that the Physical Evidence of Short Term increasing Global Temperatures exist (there is no denial of that) I will debate the causality.
So you can repeat your "algorean mantra" and it will be rejected because the Science Model is faulty as it only considers radiation being reflected back into Space but does not consider that Solar Radiation, because of the same CO2, never makes it to the surface of the Globe in the first place..
. dup
Sorry...
As a rule I don't "engage" people that are incoherent at worst, or scientific poseurs at best....
----
BTW, C02 is transparent to the incoming shorter wave visible light, however, the long wave IR radiated at the earth's surface is not transparent, but is absorbed by the C02 (and H20) and re-emitted isotropically....
If you really knew what you were talking about, you would already know that....
Skewed nothing. Flak provides facts 100% and 0% opinion, skew or bias.
"Correlation between Rising Temperatures and rising CO2 levels are not indicative of causation because of the Net Zero Sum."
There is no such "zero net sum". There's an influx of solar radiation which is transparent to CO2 & methane, & normally a higher amount of infrared (sourced from the Earth's surface) that is bled out to space, not absorbed by CO2 & methane.
Do you deny this?
Where CO2 & methane have not diffused so heavily into the atmosphere this cooling is still happening and we can see this using infrared images from satellites.
Do you deny this?
These are facts, not opinions. I am incapabale of forming or using belief or faith of any sort.
The earth, she's a flat!
No, the earth, she's a round!
"She's a flat anda round, like a pizza pie!"
Long TurdBurgers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP_nNemsNT8
isn't that what bitcoins are made from?
The new toilet paper rolls are now 3/4 the size in width. About a 25% price hike. Companies are raising prices by decreasing size.
The government must keep the sheeple thinking there is no inflation.
Wait until the US dollar gets really hammered, when everyone wants out of it. One huge ponzi scam.
In the mean time the war mongering neocons in Obama's cabinet theorize the US can win a nuclear war against Russia. Insane people in Obama's cabinet.
"In the mean time the war mongering neocons in Obama's cabinet..."
That is funny! Only communists and socialists in his cabinet and this is what communists do. Because of their Marxist teachings they destroy civilizations all because, on paper and what they have read guides their decision making. No basis in reality or understanding of the long or short term consequences.
\facepalm...
This one ranks up there among the stupidest posts ever here....
Not a commie nor socialist among them. Not a one.
A communist believes all must be forced to be equal: we see no such thing.
A socialist believes the people (not corporate overlords, not the government elite) should own, use & benefit from the means of production collectively rather than individually.
None of that either.
What you're looking at is the Fascist Bankster Empire. That is by definition 100% anti-communist, anti-socialist, anti-capitalist.
http://youtu.be/4Ml7-aDXrgQ
What is Fascism - John T Flynn - Von Mises - youtube
Whew. I thought I had been drinking too much.
Well you know what, it's about time. Those toilet paper rolls were way too wide. So wasteful.
All you really need is one smidge of paper, placed on the tip of the index finger...and circular motion.
Just install a garbage disposal unit as your shower drain. Man that cracks me up for some reason.
Don;t forget your thimble....
Party Pussy?
ALL empires end. Obama is nothing but a chain in a long chain of events that take place in the life of an empire: and in this case it's the "end" part.
Here's a bit of history on 3,000 years worth of empires, note that NO ideology saves empires:
http://www.rexresearch.com/glubb/glubb-empire.pdf
I am constantly amazed at how economists and such can stress "fundamentals" so much yet fail to acknowledge the one highly flawed fundamental of it all, the source of all our failures: (that we base everything on) perpetual growth on a finite planet; this IS THE PONZI OF ALL PONZIS!
Any of you here ever thought of buying the machinery to make your own rolls of toilet paper?
If you look at the figures going back, it's not that alarming of a chart.
http://www.crbtrader.com/data.asp?page=chart&sym=BWY00&name=BLS%20Foodst...
Yeah, well the resulting higher prices of inflation (increase in the money supply) is a delayed effect.
I agree except the real effects of the CA drought have not fully impacted food prices yet. That will begin in 3 months. The press might even have an article or two on this, Obama permitting, of course.