|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 22, 2014 15:23:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Dec 22, 2014 17:23:39 GMT
Not so bad: It would create the need for further government subsidies ..... for beef producers.  |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 22, 2014 20:55:29 GMT
Not so bad: It would create the need for further government subsidies ..... for beef producers. That's ok. Beef producers aren't looking for subsidies. This is a real world example of a recommendation that is actually not healthy. But it would appear, very political. |
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Dec 22, 2014 23:28:36 GMT
They will need subsidies if everyone stops eating beef.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 23, 2014 1:00:59 GMT
They will need subsidies if everyone stops eating beef. LMAO. When US citizens stop eating beef that cows teats will be rubbing the moon. |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Dec 23, 2014 3:07:38 GMT
They will need subsidies if everyone stops eating beef. LMAO. When US citizens stop eating beef that cows teats will be rubbing the moon. Can't eat beef any more. it has just gotten too damned expensive. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 23, 2014 3:29:06 GMT
LMAO. When US citizens stop eating beef that cows teats will be rubbing the moon. Can't eat beef any more. it has just gotten too damned expensive. There are ways to eat beef pretty cheaply. My rib-eye steaks are the most expensive, cost me 5.94lb. My hamburger costs me 2.96 now(replacement cost), as I had stocked up on beef loins at 2.34 lb. Still have a few left. I also cut all of my meat, grind it to hamburger etc. My sirloins were 2.78 lb when I bought them. And right now is prob the peak, as I checked yesterday to see what they would cost me. 3.06lb yesterday. But live cattle have fallen over 15.00 a CWT, so the price of beef should be coming down. |
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Dec 24, 2014 22:38:45 GMT
I listened to a cousin of mine last night who is heavily into the Green movement in Tasmania.
She was being given a hard time by a another memeber of my family, who was taking her on on the utter failure of the rainfall, tide and other forecasts foe Australia.
She simply refused to accept his comments.
She then went on to make statements like:
"the polar bears are starving and threatened"
"Greenland Ice is in imminent danger of melting seriously"
"We must control carbon dioxide to control temperatures"
"99.9 % of scientists believe in global warming and the others are in the pay of the oil companies" [Yes - she used almost exactly those words].
ie. Straight out of the Green handbook from ten years ago.
I attempted to put her straight on some of these points but she pretty abruptly told me I was wrong.
I offered to send some graphs pointing out some real facts . The response was "I'd rather you did'nt"
I gave up at that point.
It was not so much her point of view [she is quite entitled to that, but her utter refusal to accept any other point of view despite being highly intelligent.
|
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Dec 25, 2014 3:35:30 GMT
I bought half a beef this month. Lived its short life on thigh high clover. Good stuff! But I bought at a high time, I think my total cost is 3.66 butchered weight. But much cheaper than for comparable quality at the store.
|
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Dec 25, 2014 3:38:13 GMT
She does not want your graphs because she knows you are probably correct. And she is WAAAYY too invested emotionally in all her green bullshit. It is causing cognitive dissonance and that is not an acceptable feeling to her. I listened to a cousin of mine last night who is heavily into the Green movement in Tasmania. She was being given a hard time by a another memeber of my family, who was taking her on on the utter failure of the rainfall, tide and other forecasts foe Australia. She simply refused to accept his comments. She then went on to make statements like: "the polar bears are starving and threatened" "Greenland Ice is in imminent danger of melting seriously" "We must control carbon dioxide to control temperatures" "99.9 % of scientists believe in global warming and the others are in the pay of the oil companies" [Yes - she used almost exactly those words]. ie. Straight out of the Green handbook from ten years ago. I attempted to put her straight on some of these points but she pretty abruptly told me I was wrong. I offered to send some graphs pointing out some real facts . The response was "I'd rather you did'nt" I gave up at that point. It was not so much her point of view [she is quite entitled to that, but her utter refusal to accept any other point of view despite being highly intelligent. |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jan 1, 2015 19:34:27 GMT
Physics Group Splinters Over Global Warming ReviewByDeclan McCullaghCBS NewsDecember 10, 2009, 7:15 PM As the science scandal known as ClimateGate grows, the largest U.S. physicists' association is finding itself roiled by internal dissent and allegations of conflict of interest over a forthcoming review of its position statement on man-made global warming. The scientist who will head the American Physical Society's review of its 2007 statement calling for immediate reductions of carbon dioxide is Princeton's Robert Socolow, a prominent supporter of the link between CO2 and global warming who has warned of possible "catastrophic consequences" of climate change. Socolow's research institute at Princeton has received well over $20 million in grants dealing with climate change and carbon reduction, plus an additional $2 million a year from BP and still more from the federal government. In an interview published by Princeton's public relations office, Socolow called CO2 a "climate problem" that governments need to address. "It is Socolow whose entire research funding stream, well over a million dollars a year, depends on continued alarm over global warming," says William Happer, a fellow Princeton University professor and head of the Happer physics lab who has raised the question of a conflict of interest. The reason: the ostensibly neutral person charged with evaluating a statement endorsing man-made global warming is a leading proponent of precisely that theory whose funding is tied to that theory. As previously reported by CBSNews.com, Happer and other members of the APS have been urging the society to take a second look at the 2007 statement, which claims the evidence for the CO2-global warming link is "incontrovertible" and "we must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." Their letter circulated last month says: "By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate, which was and is an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen... We have asked the APS management to put the 2007 statement on ice until the extent to which it is tainted can be determined, but that has not been done." ~snip~ www.cbsnews.com/news/physics-group-splinters-over-global-warming-review/
as a side note to this artible I noticed this contained in the piece: the inconvenient truth of who gets funded by whom.
|
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jan 5, 2015 7:00:22 GMT
New, privatized African city heralds climate apartheid
Nigeria's Eko Atlantic augurs how the super-rich will exploit the crisis of climate change to increase inequality and seal themselves off from its impactsMartin Lukacs It's a sight to behold. Just off Lagos, Nigeria's coast, an artificial island is emerging from the sea. A foundation, built of sand dredged from the ocean floor, stretches over ten kilometres. Promotional videos depict what is to come: a city of soaring buildings, housing for 250,000 people, and a central boulevard to match Paris' Champs-Élysées and New York's Fifth Avenue. Privately constructed, it will also be privately administered and supplied with electricity, water, mass transit, sewage and security. It is the "future Hong Kong of Africa," anticipates Nigeria's World Bank director. Welcome to Eko Atlantic, a city whose "whole purpose", its developers say, is to "arrest the ocean's encroachment." Like many low-lying coastal African countries, Nigeria has been hit hard by a rising sea-level, which has regularly washed away thousands of peoples' homes. To defend against the coastal erosion and flooding, the city is being surrounded by the "Great Wall of Lagos", a sea defence barrier made of 100,000 five-ton concrete blocks. Eko Atlantic will be a "sustainable city, clean and energy efficient with minimal carbon emissions," offer jobs, prosperity and new land for Nigerians, and serve as a bulwark in the fight against the impacts of climate change. At least that's the official story. Other facts suggest this gleaming city will be a menacing allure to most. In congested Lagos, Africa's largest city, there is little employment and millions work and scavenge in a vast, desperate informal economy. Sixty percent of Nigeria's population – almost 100 of 170 million people – live on less than a dollar a day. Preventable diseases are widespread; electricity and clean water hard to come by. A few kilometres down the Lagos shoreline, Nigerians eke out an existence in the aquatic slum of Makoko, built precariously on stilts over the ocean. Casting them as crime-ridden, the government regularly dismantles such slums, bulldozing homes and evicting thousands. These are hardly the people who will scoop up square footage in Eko Atlantic's pricy new high-rises. ~snip~ www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2014/jan/21/new-privatized-african-city-heralds-climate-apartheid
|
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jan 5, 2015 7:03:32 GMT
Cluster of Concerns Vie for Top U.S. Problem in 2014by Lydia Saad PRINCETON, N.J. -- In 2014, four issues generated enough public concern over enough months for at least 10% of Americans, on average, to identify each of them as the nation's most important problem. Complaints about government leadership -- including President Barack Obama, the Republicans in Congress and general political conflict -- led the list, at 18%. This was closely followed by mentions of the economy in general (17%), unemployment or jobs (15%) and healthcare (10%). www.gallup.com/poll/180398/cluster-concerns-vie-top-problem-2014.aspxclimate change didn't make the list.
|
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Jan 11, 2015 7:38:12 GMT
Courtesy of Steven Goddard:
Rules For Climate Radicals
.Refuse to believe any historical Arctic ice data which is not from satellites
.Ignore any Antarctic sea ice data which is from satellites
.Refuse to believe any temperature data which is from satellites
.Arctic air is very warm, until it comes to the US, where it becomes very cold
.Any cold location is weather
.Any warm location is climate
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 11, 2015 15:54:26 GMT
Courtesy of Steven Goddard: Rules For Climate Radicals.Refuse to believe any historical Arctic ice data which is not from satellites .Ignore any Antarctic sea ice data which is from satellites .Refuse to believe any temperature data which is from satellites .Arctic air is very warm, until it comes to the US, where it becomes very cold .Any cold location is weather .Any warm location is climate Good one Cutty! |
|
