Global Warming Culprits Finally Nabbed

Industrial Food and Farming: A Deadly Root of Global Warming

Unless we take down Monsanto and Food Inc. and make the Great Transition to a relocalized system of organic food and farming, we and our children are doomed to reside in Climate Hell.


Don’t you hate those food producers? Shutting down the world’s largest manufacturers of food will not doubt win approval from countries suffering food shortages. Starving people understand the need to take a few ppm of CO2 out of the air.

Anyway, all that food production could be shifted to more worthy ventures, like biofuels which raise food prices and decrease food availability even further.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/additive/e15/

Next time you hear warmists talking about the plight of poor people on some island, remind them that they are completely FOS.

h/t to Tom Richard



About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Global Warming Culprits Finally Nabbed

  1. MikeTheDenier says:

    I don’t claim to be a climate scientist but I am trying to educate myself on the subject so I won’t be fooled by some of the utter nonsense the alarmist put forth. I believe this article falls into the utter nonsense camp.

    Steve, would you care to comment?

    Without cap-and-trade, here’s what’s needed
    By Dana Milbank
    Sunday, October 17, 2010

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/15/AR2010101504205.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

    • In 1975, climate scientists wanted to melt the polar ice caps to prevent an ice age.
      http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

      Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

      • ChrisD says:

        No matter how many times you repeat this, you can’t fabricate a scientific consensus that did not exist in the 1970s.

        I invite all of your readers to click that link, read the Newsweek piece, and look for any actual predictions from any scientist of a new ice age. Look hard. There are none. That’s because this “new ice age” thing had virtually no support in the scientific community.

        It’s very hard to take seriously someone who uncritically recycles this ancient myth and provides nothing but mass media fluff to support it.

      • LOL

        The President’s science advisor John Holdren wrote a book about it.

        Do you really believe that Newsweek, Time, US News, The CIA, The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, etc. … made the whole thing up?

      • ChrisD says:

        Made what up? Did you find the predictions in that article?

        You have a real problem here because the actual scientific literature from that period has been reviewed and it irrefutably debunks this myth. Over the course of the fifteen years from 1965-1979, exactly seven papers predicted cooling. Seven. That’s fewer than one every other year (and I’m ignoring the fact that some of those were for long-term Milankovitch-style cooling, not anything imminent)

        If there was support for this in the scientific community, how come none of them wrote any papers about it? There are thousands of papers supporting AGW–and SEVEN supporting cooling is supposed to mean something? Are you serious?

        Meanwhile, I’ll wait here for all the specific predictions of significant near-term cooling from named scientists you can find in any of those articles. Predictions, not observations.

      • ChrisD says:

        Old enough to recognize when someone is trying to avoid responding.

        I put plenty of facts in there. Which ones can you actually refute?

      • ChrisD says:

        None of them, apparently.

      • ChrisD says:

        This is why it’s so hard to have a real discussion here. You make a point, someone posts a counter-argument, but you’ve moved on to the next dozen posts, so you don’t have to respond.

        It certainly is a handy way to avoid having to answer a lot of questions.

      • mkelly says:

        Did not Stephen Schieder (sp) the gent that recently past away do a TV episode about global cooling and the coming ice age? It was on Leonard Nimoy’s “In Search of” I think.

      • ChrisD says:

        Stephen Schneider wrote a 1971 paper that came to the conclusion that unchecked aerosol pollution would be bad. He said that sustained, significant aerosol pollution would be sufficient to cause an ice age. Few, if any, serious climate scientists would disagree with that conclusion today. Most believe that aerosol pollution was a significant factor in the cooling that occurred from the 1940s up to about 1975.

        What he did not say in the paper was that this was going to happen. It was not a prediction.

        As for Nimoy’s show, it appears that he was simply asked what measures could be taken to avoid the hypothetical ice age, i.e., he wasn’t asked for, and did not offer, a prediction. (And apparently he seemed to think that, on balance, geoengineering was not a very good idea.)

    • suyts says:

      Mike, after reading that I don’t know whether to laugh or cry! As Steve aptly points out, this vein of ludicrous suggestions isn’t anything new.

      First, most them aren’t plausibly implemented, but even if they were, the potential real damage mankind could cause by such “solutions”, are unimaginable. For great examples of man’s attempt to positively influence nature, just look at the history of Yellowstone. We’ve consistently gotten it wrong and almost always have done more damage than good. Australia is another great example.

  2. suyts says:

    Malthusian idiots! We’ll starve humanity to save humanity!

    Well, its Sunday where I’m at, so this should be appropriate. Romans 3:8 “Let us do evil that good may come?”

    Whether you’re of the religious stripe or not, the wisdom in that passage should be obvious. The circular logic the greenies are using have them spinning is circles and tripping over themselves. I does, though, expose them for what they really are. Malthusian totalitarians. We’re literally starving people so we can use a more expensive less efficient fuel.

    I saw this on another blog yesterday, and it seems apt for this posting…..

    “La madre dei cretini è sempre incinta.” ——————-“The mother of the idiots is always pregnant”

  3. Amino says:

    relocalized system of organic food and farming

    Vaclav Klaus was right to point out the similarities between global warming and communism. Marx hated farmers too.

  4. Amino says:

    relocalized system of organic food and farming

    It is unbelievably short-sighted to think you will save the world by buying organic. I do think organic is good (true organic, not the government organic) but it has absolutely nothing to do with saving the world.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4f57whozrY

  5. Amino says:

    Global Warming: The True-Believer Mindset

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwZoYV9B1BM

  6. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    But if we go back to organic farming we’d have to clear all the remaining forests in the world to make room so these people can have their stone age farming again

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *