Now I still owe Jerry a more detailed post on Climate Change, but I don't have the time for that extended effort yet... However this CNN piece is fascinating to me. Thoughts?
Wiki Risk Management
Risk Management Guide
When I do FMEA's at work... Risks that may result in the injury or death of an operator, maintenance person and/or by-stander must be managed whether they are likely or may rarely occur.
Wiki Risk Management
Risk Management Guide
When I do FMEA's at work... Risks that may result in the injury or death of an operator, maintenance person and/or by-stander must be managed whether they are likely or may rarely occur.
62 comments:
http://www.hoover.org/research/flawed-climate-models
The models are worthless as a basis for public policy. What else ya got?
If you want to do FMEA analysis to answer that "simple question" feel free, but do it right. The odds against being wrong-- of "catastrophic global warming" actually occurring-- are astronomical, the cost of prevention is likewise, the probability of detection is high, and the cost of adaptation when and if is relatively small. In other words, the only correct action at this time is to do nothing.
Hoover Flawed Climate Models
Where do you get these sources?
About the Hoover Institute
David Henderson Bio
Charles Hooper Bio
Now if we want to reference the Stanford Climate experts... It looks like we would go here...
Stanford Woods Institute
Personally I think the odds of detection are very low for the Climate change deniers. There are all kinds of changes surrounding us and yet many still deny any significant change is occurring...
And since this is a situation where the consequences occur decades after the initial action. I am not sure how much the cost of adaptation will be or how many lives will be lost.
It is unfortunate that the Baby Boomers left us a HUGE DEBT because they spent too much for decades and did not collect enough taxes. (ie good for them, bad for us and our kids)
This could be much worse for our kids and grand kids. I am happy to pay a bit more today to eliminate the risks for them. Not to mention all the great jobs and technology that can be created.
After thinking about it, what do you think "detection" is in this case?
And if the ocean rises 3 feet, what does adaptation mean to you? Currently our coast protection systems and ports are apparently designed for today's storm surges. Now we need change them all to deal with another 3+ feet, or recreate them further inland? Seems kind of expensive, especially for the folks on the coasts...
See, that's where you get confused. The "odds of detection" of Global Warming are very high. Temperatures and sea levels go up, we notice, and we can take action as needed. BUT, and this is the biggie... The "odds of detection" of MANMADE global warming are essentially non-existent, and rely completely on those irretrievably flawed climate models. And if you use them as the predictor of how effective our "preventive measures" would be, you find that what we do doesn't matter much at all. Your FMEA analysis falls apart if you go down that road.
And by the way, the climate economists have already worked it out-- the "cost of prevention" is about $70T and the cost of adaptation, if and when, is about $7T.
We will need to disagree more later, I am at the Detroit airport and headed for China and South Korea.
Do the math yourself
Since you will not believe what the EPA and IPCC say when they use actual numbers rather than alarmist blather, and since you will not believe even your own experts in this matter, let alone mine, I suggest that you do the math yourself. If you doubt any of these numbers you can look them up on the Internet as easily as I did.
First, let us do a quick sanity check on the theory. The alarmists are concerned that since "preindustrial" (1880) times to the present, the "global average temperature" has risen roughly 1.4°F. In that same 140 years, atmospheric CO2 has risen from 280 ppm (parts per million) to 400 ppm, or roughly 140% of its "preindustrial" value. If we want to attribute the rise in temperature entirely to atmospheric CO2, then we must conclude that the world will be warmer by 1°F for each 100 ppm that CO2 in the atmosphere increases (140 ppm raises the temp 1.4°F). Now the other thing to remember is that most of the climate models base their predictions on a doubling of atmospheric CO2, from the current 400 ppm to 800 ppm (and about four times the rate during the past century). Using this same linear correlation, we should expect that, over the next 100 years, global temperatures will rise by 4°F or 2.2°C, just slightly under the average of the (latest) IPCC computer models. Basing the expected increase in temperature on that expected rate of increase (4ppm/year rather than 1 ppm/year) gives you the same projected global temperature rise of 4° F or 2.2° C. Pretty close, if you want to simply assign all global warming to CO2, which is exactly what all of these political "actions" do. [I should also point out that the Paris agreement considers anything below 2° C to be acceptable. We are practically there now if we do NOTHING!]
So now let's look at the mathematics of the proposed actions. In order:
• Total greenhouse gases are 2.5% (.025) of the atmosphere.
• Total CO2 is 1.6% (.016) of that.
• A quick cross check, multiplying the above, gives us a total CO2 of 400 ppm, exactly the measured value.
• Of the total CO2, the human contribution is 4% (.04),
• The United States contributes 16% (.16) of that, and
• The most radical proposal to "control climate change" would have us reduce that by 50%.
Therefore, the total effect on the atmosphere of any radical proposal to curb US CO2 emissions would alter the composition of the atmosphere by:
.000400*.04*.16*.5 = ~1.3 ppm
Now, using our quick correlation established above, we can take 1.3 ppm*1° F per 100 ppm, we discover the effect of a radical change in US CO2 output on the global climate as roughly 0.013 degrees! Now if you would rather believe the EPA numbers of 0.018 degrees, rather than your own math, feel free. I think for rough numbers, that is a pretty good correlation and an indication that the EPA's math belies the myth, no matter whether you believe them, or your own lying calculator.
Why would I do all of that work when I can just look at what the IPCC is forecasting?
IPCC Forecast
And what about this curve looks linear? And I assume the human addition of pollutants into our atmosphere somewhat tracks our population.
Have a good day from Liuzhou China...
OK, but you notice that your simplified, linear math gives about the same results as those complex IPCC models? The only difference is that the models are driven by TOTAL CO2 (which probably is not correct, but assume for now), while completely HIDING the fact that manmade CO2 is an insignificant portion of that total. In other words, we are likely to have 2 degrees of warming-- what they claim is acceptable-- whether we "do something" or NOT. I vote not. Fossil fuel burning will NOT noticeably effect global temperatures. You have the proof.
Oh, and CO2 is not a pollutant. Chinese coal power is, but that produces cooling-- less sunlight reaching earth. I wonder how somebody got that beautiful, clear picture of Liuzhou?
And just look at what their "predictions" openly show! They have a "range" of predictions of about 12:1. So, should we replace 100% of our coal and gas power plants with windmills that magically take CO2 out of the air, or is the "warming" so small it can be ignored? Both of those actions are within the range of what is necessary, according to these projections. And notice that the average and "most likely" scenario can be said with 95% confidence to be too high, compared with actual measurements?
I give complete credence to the one piece of evidence you make abundantly clear-- that this is the most successful pseudoscientific hoax in history.
"Fossil fuel burning will NOT noticeably effect global temperatures."
They already have.
On closer inspection, what do you mean by "effect global temperatures"?
Anonymoose
It's not my words. They're those of EPA head Gina McCarthy in Congressional testimony. I take them literally, because they were in a response to a question as to whether or not the EPA's =own estimate= of a 1/100 of a degree "improvement" in global warming due to Obama's "Clean Power Plan" (aka the War on Coal)(and a supposed 35% decrease in CO2 emissions) was significant. Her answer, quite obviously, was "no."
And I point out that there is, in fact, no evidence that fossil fuel burning has "already" raised global temperatures. Yes, CO2 has increased. Yes, global temperatures have increased, slightly. One can suppose that the tenuous correlation between TOTAL CO2 and temperature provides a hypothetical causal link, but proving that link with TOTAL CO2, let alone the tiny manmade portion of it, has simply NOT been done. The best evidence we have are the climate models, which have been proven wrong with regard to Total CO2, and when used to project the effects of reduced fossil fuel burning, show clearly that it is insignificant.
In short, there is incontrovertible proof-- from the climate models, which is all we have-- that fossil fuels do NOT cause "noticeable" global warming. As one scientist said, that if we stopped all fossil fuels over the whole planet, it would make a difference roughly equal to the change in temperature, on the average day, between 9:00 AM and 9:05 AM.
The quantity of denialist kool-aid I'd have to drink to take seriously your second paragraph could drown the entire population of the planet.
If you think my statement above sounds ridiculous, then you already know how you sound to reasonable people. There's no way to take you seriously when you write such obvious nonsense.
Anonymoose
OK, Anon, please offer that incontrovertible mathematical proof-- not just unsupported assertions-- that manmade climate change is a problem to be taken seriously. When the head of the EPA states openly that curbing CO2 will have no effect on global climate, I for one am inclined to believe. Why won't you?
Read again the mathematical proof I have provided, supported by both the EPA and IPCC. Then continue to deny the truth behind those actual numbers. I swear sometimes I feel like Mayor Shinn.
"Using this same linear correlation..."
Why?
Anonymoose
Because it is simple and because the results match closely with the results from the models.
John, I took a look at your IPCC forecast link again, and I may have found something that will help your understanding. The IPCC establishes various "scenarios" of population and energy production, etc. and from that derives assumptions about CO2 "emissions" that in turn drive the climate models. But the "emissions" they talk about are TOTAL CO2, not the tiny manmade portion. Once that critical distinction is made, then even if you take the models' predictions as accurate, you find that human reductions in CO2 emissions can do almost nothing to alter those predictions.
Now, if someone comes up with a marvelous new energy source that is cheaper and more reliable, we're all going to buy it-- no mandates or incentives needed. If it incidentally produces less CO2, so be it, but that will NOT be the reason to use it.
"Because it is simple and because the results match closely with the results from the models."
The question, of course, is why you believe that this whole process will be linear. Once the oceans can no longer absorb excess CO2, do you think it will still be linear?
Anonymoose
That is not an unreasonable question, and I can tell you for certain that almost nothing about our climate system is linear. For example, the greenhouse impact of CO2 is logarithmic, with each succeeding ppm producing less warming than the last, yet most of the models continue to treat it as linear. And linear guesswork is just as good as the more complex guesswork. One scientist has said that "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim with 95 percent certainty that they completed a 5000-piece puzzle using only eleven pieces. The pieces are shown in the Radiative Forcing diagram (Figure 1) from AR5. By their assessment, they have high confidence in only five of these pieces."
To me the more relevant question has always been, "since you cannot predict within +/- 10 degrees the temperature here a week from now, why should I believe a prediction you make +/- 0.01 degrees 100 years from now? We will only definitively know the temperature on April 14, 2117 on the following day, at which time the "theory" (actually no more than a hypothesis) will be proven, or not. Right now the odds on the average of the model predictions being right are running right about 20:1 against.
Jerry,
So to take a different tact... Are you arguing that we should keep using coal?
Coal emissions in India
Should we just burn coal without mandating all possible technologies to reduce emissions from the stack?
What emission reduction goals are you really concerned about?
An interesting statement from wiki India pollution
"India was the third largest emitter of carbon dioxide in 2009 at 1.65 Gt per year, after China (6.9 Gt per year) and the United States (5.2 Gt per year). With 17 percent of world population, India contributed some 5 percent of human-sourced carbon dioxide emission; compared to China's 24 percent share. On per capita basis, India emitted about 1.4 tons of carbon dioxide per person, in comparison to the United States' 17 tons per person, and a world average of 5.3 tons per person."
Now as the developing regions like India, China, Africa and South America demand our modern amenities, what example do you think America should set for the rest of the world?
Should we encourage them to be like we currently are? Or should we encourage them to emit fewer chemicals into our global atmosphere? And hopefully sell them the technologies we have developed and proven? In essence leading by example...
Or should we ???
John, once again you are doing the Warmists' trick of scrambling unlike things together and claiming homogeneity.
Yes, I claim we should keep using coal. Why? Because it won't matter to "climate change."
Should we be mandating "all possible technologies" for burning coal more cleanly and efficiently? Absolutely not. First of all because CO2 is not a pollutant; it is the essential byproduct of adding O2 to C through combustion, thereby releasing energy. And the true pollutants that come from smokestacks-- mercury, fly ash, SOx, etc.-- have already been reduced in the US by 95% or more. If we can reduce that still further, or burn the coal more efficiently (which accomplishes the same thing, and the folks at Ohio State have some great ideas) without increasing the cost, we should do that. Efficiency in particular actually SAVES money and is worth doing for its own sake. I know somebody working on in situ gasification and generation that I think holds promise.
Of course you know that, as a general rule, each succeeding increment of, in this case, [real] pollution reduction, costs increasingly more than the previous increment. At some point it's not cost-effective, even counting the "social costs." There's no way to reduce CO2 from coal plants without burning less coal and producing less electricity. Ask South Australia how that's working out.
If we can sell those technologies to other countries, by all means let us do so. You are NOT going to sell them many windmills, or even solar until the cost comes down greatly.
As for "leading by example," that's what Obama claimed we were doing, and he was dead wrong. His own EPA Secretary said that US CO2 would have =no impact= on global climate, but that our "success" would be in getting the whole world to follow our example. It's pure poppycock. If the US cannot affect climate but about .018 degrees while contributing 16% of the CO2, then if the whole world follows our example we reduce the temperature rise by 0.11 degrees. Whoopee! It might work, too, because China and India have already committed to holding their emissions per unit of GDP to that of the US. But notice the standard? They will not reduce CO2, even if we radically do so. And AGAIN, it will NOT matter if they do!
Rather than cripple our own economy, trying to be on our moral high horse and benefiting by an unmeasurable amount 100 years from now. Why don't we put our efforts into becoming competitive with these growing economies in as many businesses and industries as we can?
And by the way, I do peruse your links, and your "union of concerned scientists" are not real scientists at all. Their first sentence is "(CO2) emissions [are] the primary cause of global warming," which has been scientifically disproven many times over. I suggest simply dismissing anything that follows.
The good news is that they seem to actually have climate scientists on their payroll
"Cripple our economy"... Coal is already on the ropes because of natural gas and renewables.
I think are economy will be fine.
If coal is replaced by something cheaper and more reliable (which renewables are NOT), that is exactly what should be happening, and the fact that some of these sources emit less CO2 is irrelevant to whether they should be adopted or not. Coal still provides something like 1/3 of all electric power, and natural gas, a fossil fuel, remember, provides another 1/3.
Natural gas = 33.8%
Coal = 30.4%
Nuclear = 19.7%
"I think are economy will be fine. "
Only if government mandates and rules are eliminated and the free market allowed to work. At one time, government rules and regulations were required to make a SENSIBLE cost/benefit analysis. Rules that supposedly "fix" "climate change" fail miserably on that score. I mean, $20B or more for 0.018 degrees? Does that make any sense?
I am thinking that renewables are coming on pretty fast...
Source Source
I mean wind is already up to 5.6% and it is not that old... And the generator size just keeps climbing.
And what is the cost of that electricity? What percentage does it contribute when the wind isn't blowing, or blowing too hard? What percentage would it be without the government mandates and subsidies? Don't you have to ask WHY utilities would build hugely expensive new facilities that were unreliable and produced electricity at two-three times the cost of coal or gas? And still have to build the gas plant as backup?
And then there is the terrible math involved. To produce 20% of the nation's power from wind, it would be necessary to cover the state of Minnesota with windmills-- no cities, no farms, no lakes, just windmills. And the backup power plants would have to be in North Dakota. In the space of a dozen 5MW windmills, you could have a 2000MW nuclear plant. And kill fewer eagles.
I think your data is dated. New technologies are a wondrous thing.
Cost Comparison 1
Cost Comparison 2
How solar was under rated
I like this blogs name..
The Grumpy Denier Cost Comparison
And of course... An opposing view...
Of course the grumpy guy used 3 MW turbines. Looks like current size is
8 mega watt
The newest wind turbines
You've done it again. Grumpy Denier uses real math, the "opposing view" uses "estimates" and "assumptions." The EPA /allows you to assume/ that manmade CO2 drives climate, but when they do actual math the theory utterly fails. So, all of this fancy talk about how fuel costs for wind and solar are so low do not excuse the huge capital costs to make that transition, as the Google engineers discovered. And the whole question of WHY anybody would undertake that expense remains a mystery, unless you believe the actual numbers (and not the cant) the EPA and IPCC use to support their "reducing manmade CO2 to save the planet" scam.
Sure, in places like Dubai with constant sunshine and no coal, it makes sense. In Minnesota, with nearby coal and gas and 3 short days of sunshine in January (I counted), it's absolute foolishness. Unless, of course, government mandates such stupidity, which Minnesota does.
"Sure, in places like Dubai with constant sunshine and no coal, it makes sense. In Minnesota, with nearby coal and gas and 3 short days of sunshine in January (I counted), it's absolute foolishness. Unless, of course, government mandates such stupidity, which Minnesota does."
Germany and the UK prove your statement to be utter nonsense.
And furthermore, I continue to hear deniers say that humans simply can't affect the global environment on such a large scale. For those people, there are two words: ozone hole.
Anonymoose.
I also point out that reality sometimes intrudes on these magical, mystical, "free energy" claims. For example, I read recently that the "solar tower" at Ivanpah (what I thought was a brilliant idea until I saw it, and heard how many birds it killed) produces less value in electricity than it costs to clean the mirrors. And until the problem of cheap storage is resolved, it's not going to make economic sense in but a few places. And there are no environmental benefits if all you worry about is CO2. Now, if you could use massive solar cells to shade parts of the desert and pump (or extract from the air-- another good idea) a little water onto them and raise crops or grass for livestock, maybe you would have something.
"Germany and the UK prove your statement to be utter nonsense."
Please prove that the UK and Germany are NOT running pell-mell from their unreasonable commitments to renewables. Or, prove that solar cells in MN make economic sense. The few installations I have seen, all mandated by governments, have had payback periods over 100 years, when the expected life of the cells is 25 years.
As for the ozone hole, I note that the scientific basis for a manmade effect was proven in the laboratory and verified by math and measurement before "doing something." Not the case with CO2 and climate. (Basically, CFCs were manmade, not every CO2 molecule is.) Every attempt to recreate the famous Al Gore/Bill Nye experiment proving CO2 is the primary determinant of temperature has been a complete failure. One suspects a hoax.
Do you discount the correlation of atmospheric CO2 and temperature?
Anonymoose
Moved from different location. John
""For example, all this effort to "stop climate change"...
I know. Those scientists who told us we were causing the hole in the ozone and told us we could fix it by changing industry...why believe them?
Oh...hey...turns out they were right.
Anonymoose. "
Anonymoose,
Do you have any good scientific links that clearly explain how the world pushing a trifle more CO2 into the atmosphere matters?
Here is one from Skeptical Science
The question being is why is nature not able to adjust to use more CO2?
I mean man made is apparently a tiny number...
"But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).
Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2."
"The question being is why is nature not able to adjust to use more CO2?"
That's an interesting question. I wonder what effect the tearing down of the planet's lungs (forests, rain forests) has on the inability of the planet to use up some of the excess CO2.
Anonymoose
John, that is a reasonable argument, except it assumes that Nature does not increase CO2 on its own. Saying that human CO2 is the sole contribution to "excess" CO2 makes no sense, logically or scientifically. And NASA has already discovered a remarkable "greening" of the planet because of the increased CO2. And since we know that the correlation between temperature and TOTAL CO2 is so weak that causation can only be assumed, the human contribution to warming is almost negligible.
And Anon gets something right. One piece I read says that deforestation creates almost as much manmade CO2 as the burning of fossil fuels. And I applaud free-market efforts to stop it.
"I know. Those scientists who told us we were causing the hole in the ozone and told us we could fix it by changing industry...why believe them?"
Because they had the scientific evidence, and because substitutes for CFCs were readily available (not quite as good, but...).
I am all for believing the scientists, with the evidence behind them, who say that human CO2 makes a negligible difference to climate. Will you?
"And NASA has already discovered a remarkable "greening" of the planet because of the increased CO2."
A link would be nice. Is the greening because of CO2 or warming? You know...places that used to be too cold to be green can become green due to warming.
"I am all for believing the scientists, with the evidence behind them, who say that human CO2 makes a negligible difference to climate."
I am all for believing the great majority of scientists who say or agree that human CO2 is causing global climate change.
Anonymoose
"And I applaud free-market efforts to stop it."
So you support the effort to get people to stop eating meat?
Anonymoose
Anonymoose,
Now I am use to Jerry spouting opinions as facts with no proof...
Hopefully you can do better...
"That's an interesting question. I wonder what effect the tearing down of the planet's lungs (forests, rain forests) has on the inability of the planet to use up some of the excess CO2. Anonymoose"
Here is a related link.
And Links are EASY...
And yes I can understand that wastefully burning the forest results in the release of the Carbon that is stored. Just like when we dig coal or oil out of the ground and burn it. There is a one time release.
But when the trees are replaced with corn or soybeans that grow quickly and are plowed back in the soil... Better or worse?
And here is another... Though the idea that it releases most of the carbon in the Winter puzzles me... Since the grain goes some where and the stalks are usually plowed under.
"I am all for believing the great majority of scientists who say or agree that human CO2 is causing [catastrophic] global climate change." --Anon [because if it's not catastrophic and it's not manmade, do we really care?]
Please find a single one of them who actually has the scientific and mathematical backing for such a statement, and link it here. HINT: You won't find it from the EPA or the IPCC, only totally unsupported statements like "we believe human CO2 is causing global climate change." (John, that string of gibberish is NOT that easy).
And remember that science is not up for a vote. One guy with the proof overturns the 97% believing the hoax. And about that... the "97%" figure constantly bandied about turns out to be a very limited survey in which 75 of 77 scientists agreed with the nebulous statement that human activity had an effect on climate. The other 8,000 did not respond, meaning the actual "consensus" came from about 1%, not 97%. Not exactly convincing.
As the "non-denier" / "non-believer" commenting here, I would like to say that neither side has made much progress in convincing me. :-)
Then you haven't done your math homework yet. I find it conclusive.
"But when the trees are replaced with corn or soybeans that grow quickly and are plowed back in the soil... Better or worse?"
Much, much, much worse, as an ecosystem has been destroyed and replaced with a monoculture that requires the use of fossil fuels.
Anonymoose
Actually, it depends on your frame of reference. Since I cannot eat trees, but I can eat corn and bean products, it is obviously vastly preferable to have food than to have pretty trees. Odd how so many environmentalists believe an "ecosystem" does not include any humans.
OTOH, trees DO produce less CO2 than agricultural crops, especially when fuel usage is considered-- that is what makes ethanol an energy "loser" by the way. A couple of interesting facts:
Deforestation accounts for up to 15 percent of global emissions of heat-trapping gases.
In one day, one large tree can absorb up to 100 gallons of water and release it into the air, cooling the surrounding area. [And water vapor is a greenhouse gas!]
the proof of consensus
"Since I cannot eat trees, but I can eat corn and bean products, it is obviously vastly preferable to have food than to have pretty trees."
Then clear the trees and plant food crops, not industrial crops, all of which must be processed to be eaten as 'food', and most of which goes to feed animals. That is a colossal waste of energy.
Anonymoose
I am glad to see you allowing me to eat, but now you want to tell me what I should eat.
What you see as a waste of energy I see as a desirable one. What you see as a threat to the planet-- CO2-- I see as a beneficial improvement in plant growth. I think we all do best when we make our own choices, unless there are "externalities" that do more damage to others than the benefit to ourselves. Fortunately that is NOT the case against making CO2 with fossil fuels.
Jerry, You still are not doing much to convince us...
Thankfully many folks disagree with you.
"Despite some skepticism about climate scientists and their motives, majorities of Americans among all party/ideology groups say climate scientists should have at least a minor role in policy decisions about climate issues. More than three-quarters of Democrats and most Republicans (69% among moderate or liberal Republicans and 48% of conservative Republicans) say climate scientists should have a major role in policy decisions related to the climate. Few in either party say climate scientists should have no role in policy decisions.
To the extent there are political differences among Americans on these issues, those variances are largely concentrated when it comes to their views about climate scientists, per se, rather than scientists, generally. Majorities of all political groups report a fair amount of confidence in scientists, overall, to act in the public interest. And to the extent that Republicans are personally concerned about climate issues, they tend to hold more positive views about climate research."
"I am glad to see you allowing me to eat, but now you want to tell me what I should eat."
On the contrary, I'm telling you how the crops that you suggested be planted are actually used. Apparently, you think that people eat corn and soybeans from the fields. That would be the most ignorant thing I've heard from you, which is saying a lot
Anonymoose
The many Uses of Corn
The man Uses of Corn and Soybeans
My friends in China love tofu by the way... Personally I dislike it... May it is all the hours I spent walking soybean fields for weeds or shoveling soybeans...
I am as aware as anyone of all the things that corn goes into, and ethanol is one of the more objectionable, but of course that came about because of the belief we should "fight global warming" and the government mandate to switch from food to-- something else. Now since most studies say that the total production cycle for corn ethanol creates almost as much (or more) CO2 than does just plain gasoline, it doesn't help the planet even IF manmade CO2 was driving global temperatures.
In short, this is simply one more example of government creating a crisis, and then stepping in to "solve" it by making a worse crisis and doing nothing for the original. I don't know too many other ways to say this: Global Warming is the most successful pseudoscientific hoax in history. greatest hoaxes
Now, notice #1 on that list? It is number one because it "contributes to global warming"!!
Post a Comment