The Real Inflation Fear - US Food Prices Are Up 19% In 2014

Tyler Durden's picture

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

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Dr. Engali's picture

You had me up until the global warming comment.

Flakmeister's picture

Oh well... One day you will get it...

So, just to be clear are you saying that it is not warming?

Dr. Engali's picture

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.

Flakmeister's picture

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?

Spastica Rex's picture


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.

Flakmeister's picture

Well, this is a pretty good intro into the basics of the green house effect:

Jeremy Grantham, whose writing are that basis of many ZH articles, put this together a few years back

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:

The effect of the sun, volcanoes, C02, El Nino's/La Ninas....

And the latest update:

Spastica Rex's picture

Thanks for taking the time to point those out.

I'm interested to see if the other side will counter.



RichardENixon's picture

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.

Flakmeister's picture

Re CapN'Trade: See my comment below...

Seer's picture

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).

Herd Redirection Committee's picture

Elevated CO2 as the cause of 'global warming'? 

WTF?  Single handedly?  Without equal or greater impact from the sun, and water vapor?

Oh Kunstler...

Flakmeister's picture

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:

Herd Redirection Committee's picture

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.

Flakmeister's picture

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"... 

Herd Redirection Committee's picture

SOME are proposing?

Its the only goddamn proposal.

Abaco's picture

Which subsidies are those?

Flakmeister's picture

Start here

You can also look up depletion allowance if you want some real detail...

Golden Rule's picture


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


Flakmeister's picture

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....

Golden Rule's picture

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.


Flakmeister's picture

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...

Golden Rule's picture

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.

Spastica Rex's picture

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?

Flakmeister's picture

A bit off topic, but this is pretty cool...

The potential to be a historic Nor'easter....

Flakmeister's picture

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...

Abaco's picture

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."




FredFlintstone's picture

Please post your curriculum vitae that points to your expertise in this subject matter. Otherwise STFU.



MeelionDollerBogus's picture

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.

MeelionDollerBogus's picture

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.

Seer's picture

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.

MeelionDollerBogus's picture

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.

Dr. Engali's picture

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. 

Flakmeister's picture

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:

That dog don't hunt....


And you got to explain 800,000 years of temperature and C02 data...

Abaco's picture

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.

Flakmeister's picture

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:


If you add everything that we know you get the following:

If you have detailed questions about the above plot, I suggest you ask the experts here

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...

Calmyourself's picture

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..

Flakmeister's picture

Could you tell us where the IPCC said that...

Or are you just making shit up, yet again...

Flakmeister's picture

You clearly have a reading comprehension problem....

The IPCC made and endorsed no such statement....

general ambivalent's picture

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?

madcows's picture

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.

Flakmeister's picture

Because the only people caught faking data were the deniers...

Google Wegman Report and read this

Edit: You will be hearing a lot more about the above fakery in the Mann Libel trial...

Seer's picture

"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...


MeelionDollerBogus's picture

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.

MeelionDollerBogus's picture

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.