tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post3891671736485755550..comments2024-02-02T05:45:33.724-06:00Comments on Incoming: John Phippshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03245790061133614986noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-50394120841277585942009-06-23T14:51:58.068-06:002009-06-23T14:51:58.068-06:00What is the evidence? As I recall from the good ol...What is the evidence? As I recall from the good old days at SIU-C "Survival of Man" Classes, greenhouse gases can cause either warming or cooling. Just because a few polar bears have to move a little farther north, so what? No one can really prove by the scientific method one way or another. See the back of Doanes, June 19 issue. There is 'science' on both sides. I understand your position. There are folks like me that don't buy the evolution crap either, and never will. There are other folks that remind me of story about the "Emperor's New Clothes". They go along with the crowd on faith. Believing in man caused climate change and that monkeys came from frogs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-38013401442823102352009-06-18T16:38:31.559-06:002009-06-18T16:38:31.559-06:00brandon:
You are conflating my arguments. The as...brandon:<br /><br />You are conflating my arguments. The assertion of a non-science (faith) position applies I believe, if you cannot answer yes to the question I posed - Is there any amount of evidence or voice of reason that would change your mind? If the answer is no, the science does not matter at all.<br /><br />The consensus comparison is another point entirely. Currently in the scientific community applicable to the areas involved similar ratios of support pertain - about 80-90% of scientists agree with anthropogenic global warming and GMO safety. I used this comparison to illustrate what standard of proof we use on other issues.<br /><br />I do not suggest this ratio applies to the remedial action. Bjorn Lomborg is an example of former skeptic who now agrees but argues against mitigation as hopeless. <br /><br />I'll post his latest soon.John Phippshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03245790061133614986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-9380254983470871242009-06-18T15:23:42.483-06:002009-06-18T15:23:42.483-06:00It's not that we naysayers accept GMO science ...It's not that we naysayers accept GMO science while rejecting the global warming science, it that we accept the OTHER good science that says there is NO man-made global warming. Or the good science that says there is no warming at all. There is plenty of science on both sides. It is totally politics and power and money and common sense that is influencing the acceptance or rejection. Not faith.Brandonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-6494346247001500462009-06-17T19:49:44.919-06:002009-06-17T19:49:44.919-06:00Ignore all of the naysayer comments John. Some da...Ignore all of the naysayer comments John. Some day there will be more farm auctions and they will have to move into an apartment in town (if they are not already there) because they failed to consider all of the possibilities and plan for the future. They deny the information that is right in front of their nose and as a result they risk not being in the agriculture of the future. Ag will be better off without them.<br /><br />On another point, I really don't understand the Congressman from Minnesota's unyielding stance. Maybe it is all about political posturing (like a banty rooster) and a reasonable compromise will be reached. But my fear is he will play brinksmanship and we will all lose as a result.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-45167476558004606672009-06-17T18:02:58.608-06:002009-06-17T18:02:58.608-06:00Let me throw a bit of dirt into this thought machi...Let me throw a bit of dirt into this thought machine here.<br /> Mi-T-fine bit of bureaucratic reporting there. A couple of things pop out to me.<br />There was no mention as to how much Oxygen is being produced by Farmer's. Yes it puts some CO2 into the air to plant, maintain and harvest but no mention of how much OX is produced. This may be the stumbling block for the Ag sector in the current legislation. The findings of this report seems more like a conglomeration of facts that have been floating around for decades. Not much new news there.<br /> Very few solutions to a proposed problem to me.<br /> I do agree that we all effect the environment in different ways. Larger cities need to do more to cut down their footprint thru uses of mass transit rather than expansion of highways. Lord knows politicians talking less would help.<br /> We should all strive to leave this land in better shape than we got it. But many of the policies that are trying to be adapted are boarding on scare tactics rather than fact. Do these folks have a crystal ball that sees what we don't?? I still don't see how a company can better save the Earth more so than a farmer with a meager education and some good Ol Common sense.<br /> Take care of the land and it will take care of you.Ol Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08104714377087960892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-8909868831399948792009-06-17T16:49:24.598-06:002009-06-17T16:49:24.598-06:00VA, Steve:
I always acknowledge the vast majority...VA, Steve:<br /><br />I always acknowledge the vast majority of agriculture disbelieves in anthropogenic warming.<br /><br />The larger question is this: Is there any body of evidence or voice of reason that could persuade you otherwise? If the answer is no, your position is faith-based and my arguments will not be helpful.<br /><br />If you actually read the report you will find clear replies to your objections. For example, we do have CO2 records going back millions of years thanks to air bubbles in ice.<br /><br />Regardless, I respect your right to choose when you will apply logic and when you will go with some other method of determining belief.<br /><br />What I find inconsistent is reliance on science for matters like GMO safety and refusal to consider the conclusions of the same scientific community on climate change.<br /><br />I am not convinced our optimal use of resources is to adapt to climate change or attempt to mitigate it. But I do not consider "disadvantaging myself" a valid reason for choosing inaction. I am a member of the wealthiest sector is the most privileged society in the history of humankind. If anyone should bear an extra burden, it is I.John Phippshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03245790061133614986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-85813800644165464912009-06-17T11:15:38.500-06:002009-06-17T11:15:38.500-06:00virginia said it well. The earth has been here mil...virginia said it well. The earth has been here millions of years. We have records for about 100 years. Yet, we think we KNOW what is going to happen based on that snap shot in time. Worry about something else....stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07582771427765173702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-1562159476735139362009-06-17T11:12:29.707-06:002009-06-17T11:12:29.707-06:00John,,how do you keep your head from exploding wit...John,,how do you keep your head from exploding with all the info you are surrounded with ...we too have infested heavily in tile and have everything at 33`or 30 ``centers.........and guess what,,hasn`t rained for a month now..regards-kevinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-80429857595983247652009-06-17T10:19:08.314-06:002009-06-17T10:19:08.314-06:00Since our experience of the last ten years does no...Since our experience of the last ten years does not fit any of the models and since they still cannot accurately predict 3 days weather so I can consistently make good hay, my skepticism remains very high. On top of that, even if you assume the doomsayers are correct, if China and India don't play, we cannot effect any meaningful change. So, we only disadvantage ourselves without any benefit to the planet.From Virginianoreply@blogger.com