At this point kicking me off looks like a cowardly move.

[choff]

So, you were totally cognizant of the fact that Canada grows wheat, then, why ask how much repeatedly. Guess what, we don't need aquafiers either. BTW, those big oil representatives that support all these anti-AGW sites have representatives on the boards of NGO's, foundations and trusts dedicated to saving the environment, so I guess we shouldn't trust them either, should we.

I'm sorry for you that your devastated by the loss of the old growth in the Pacific Northwest. Trees aren't immortal, and that land wasn't always evergreen, it's changed constantly over the last 40,000 years. Scientists no longer believe in 'the balance of nature', or 'bio-diversity' or even 'ecosystems'. It's chaos, like your judgement.

[Schneibster]

So, you were totally cognizant of the fact that Canada grows wheat, then, why ask how much repeatedly.

Because it's less than the US, and it's still likely to be less than the US did even when it's warmer farther north, because the light season is shorter. It's just global warming, not an axis shift, after all.

Guess what, we don't need aquafiers either.

Yep, and you still don't grow as much as the US.

BTW, those big oil representatives that support all these anti-AGW sites have representatives on the boards of NGO's, foundations and trusts dedicated to saving the environment, so I guess we shouldn't trust them either, should we.

I don't believe you, and here you are making claims without any proof again, just like you did above where you lied about what I said, and still haven't apologized or admitted it. I think you're lying again. Call it intuition.

Name these individuals and the organizations each is associated with, and I'll look into it-- and into what else they're involved in, too. That last is the part you're probably going to have a big problem with. Lots of accusations of ad hominem attacks and so forth, without really knowing what that actually means, and plenty of other smokescreen too. Maybe some more attempts to get me kicked off.

This has been a real soap opera.

Seriously.

I'm sorry for you that your devastated by the loss of the old growth in the Pacific Northwest. Trees aren't immortal, and that land wasn't always evergreen, it's changed constantly over the last 40,000 years.

You always have an excuse for larger and larger devastation, without anyone actually being any better off for all the clearcuts. The beetles creep farther and farther north and you deny and deny. You don't know crap about chaos; you think it's stochasticity. The key is, not all chaos is stochastic. Some of it's chaotic but not random.

Scientists no longer believe in 'the balance of nature', or 'bio-diversity' or even 'ecosystems'. It's chaos, like your judgement.

But it's not random, like yours. It's deterministic chaos. Like I said you don't know crap about chaos.

Scientists don't "believe in" things.

Natural systems are often homeostatic. It's an observation; a fact, not a theory. I can see you haven't read any biology lately. That's "the balance of nature." It's not "the" anything, really; that was biologists being poetic, which I suppose is OK but some people find kinda confusing. It's a whole bunch of balances; in fact, that might be all life is, a bunch of balanced systems. It's as consistent a definition as I've seen. A homeostasis of homeostases.

Natural systems conserve mutations, and express them in times of stress in a desperate bid to create offspring that have novel characteristics and can survive. The rate of mutation is an epigenetic trait that works across generations. It can be triggered in the children of people who experience starvation and survive; these children are more likely to have mutations. This is a proven statistical fact; they checked it in the survivors of one of the USSR purges of "kulaks" that were starved out. Dude, do you even know what epigenetics is? Do you understand that epigenetics is a mechanism by which there is feedback from how much food is available and how reliably, to how many mutations people (and most mammals!) express in their children? This is a driver of speciation. This is the mechanism of evolution.

Ecosystems exist, as model entities, as they always have. Actually there is only one "ecosystem" (with the possible exception of some folks who have been trying various experiments of living in isolation to test biosystem engineering for future space travel). But you can break it up, if you can show that the interrelationships of one clade of animals separate them from other clades. Then, as long as you pay attention to external influences, you can model the ecosystem; this lets you test theories of biology. If something weird happens then either you screwed up (usually) or Something Cool Happened. And then you go on from there, trying to make it happen again and making hypotheses and testing them and all that, you know, sciency stuff.

But nowadays? Now the old new thing is called fitness landscapes. And even that's a couple decades old. You're talking about stuff even older than that; from the '60s and '70s and stuff; ecosystems, biodiversity, and the first steps toward our modern understanding of life as a huge collection of homeostatic cycles. At all scales, from virii to whales. And even among collections of animals who influence one anothers' fitness landscapes and drive their coevolution. Surely you don't think cheetahs evolved alone. The cats got a little faster, and the antelopes got a little sleeker. Coevolution.

As far as chaos, yes, in fact most animals north of nematodes introduce chaos into their offsprings' gene sets by engaging in sex. In fact, that's what sex is for. At random, one gene set or the other dominates each gene. Almost all of the two gene sets is identical; but many of the details vary, and in fact which details it is precisely can determine the fitness of a phenotype. This is the origin of traits like eye or hair color, that children inherit in complicated fashion from both parents even though they only imitate one (or, occasionally, neither). Indeed, true chaos, that is stochasticity, true randomness, ensures the fitness of the offspring, collectively. You're right, it is chaos; but you don't understand what chaos is. Or that from true randomness can arise order. Even though you see it all around you.

No, son, I feel sorry for you. I'll be dead and gone when you're recalling this conversation wondering why you didn't listen.

Good luck. You'll need it.

[choff]

http://sppiblog.org/news/the-log-in-the ... greenpeace

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/04/ ... oil-money/

http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/1473

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/ ... -gas-money

http://www.infowars.com/big-green-oil-m ... tch-shell/

The only thing I'm worried about with the environment is Fukishima or some other reactor cooking off. You need only look at the MWP and LIA to know that we're not even close to that level of temperature variation. There's a record of a viking swimming 2 miles to an island off the tip of Greenland to recover a sheep. Current water temperatures are about 6 degrees in the area, to make it alive would have required a water temperature of minimum 50 degrees. Where you can grow Barley you can grow Corn, and they've found burnt Barley in Greenland Viking waste.

The Hudsons Bay Co employees used to constantly complain about the indians burning the forest every summer in the 1800's. If the forest survived all those fires, it will recover from the beetles, one cold hard winter will do the job. Where the forest sits there used to be glaciers, then swamps, and everything in between. Just because it was there when the white man arrived doesn't mean it was always there before. The money wasted trying to prevent climate change would be far better spent helping people adapt, since climate is never constant, but then the NGO's would't get the payoff.

[paperburn1]

Cram them full of non-combustible data, chock them so damned full of 'facts' they feel stuffed, but absolutely 'brilliant' with information. Then they'll feel they're thinking, they'll get a sense of motion without moving. And they'll be happy, because facts of that sort don't change. Don't give them any slippery stuff like philosophy or sociology to tie things up with.
[/quote]
choff wrote:
If you know that Canada grows wheat, you don't need to ask how much as if to imply total disbelief or the conviction it's some irrelevant quantity. Anyone else on planet earth will tell you I'm not lying when I say the impression from your statement is complete ignorance on your part that Canada grows wheat. Don't think so, get a few hundred people to read the complete dialog and have a vote.
Schneibster
You can't quote it or you would.

You're lying again.

Nice try skippy.
Last edited by Schneibster on Wed Oct 09, 2013 6:14 pm, edited 3 times in total. [/quote]


For those than can not read past the first few lines of wiki And just to clarify about the dust bowl and drought of the 1930s In its height in the mid thirtys it extended from the Canadian border and beyond to Texas.
On November 11, 1933, a very strong dust storm stripped topsoil from desiccated South Dakota farmlands in just one of a series of bad dust storms that year. Then, beginning on May 9, 1934, a strong, two-day dust storm removed massive amounts of Great Plains topsoil in one of the worst such storms of the Dust Bowl.[12] The dust clouds blew all the way to Chicago, where they deposited 12 million pounds of dust.[13] Two days later, the same storm reached cities in the east, such as Buffalo, Boston, Cleveland, New York City, and Washington, D.C.[14] That winter (1934–1935), red snow fell on New England.
On April 14, 1935, known as "Black Sunday", 20 of the worst "black blizzards" occurred across the entire sweep of the Great Plains, from Canada south to Texas. The dust storms caused extensive damage and turned the day to night; witnesses reported they could not see five feet in front of them at certain points. Denver based Associated Press reporter Robert E. Geiger happened to be in Boise City, Oklahoma that day. His story about Black Sunday marked the first appearance of the term Dust Bowl; it was coined by Edward Stanley, Kansas City news editor of the Associated Press, With their land barren and homes seized in foreclosure, many farm families were forced to leave. Migrants left farms in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, Colorado, and New Mexico,

[GIThruster]

The Hudsons Bay Co employees used to constantly complain about the indians burning the forest every summer in the 1800's.

It's important to note that in the East, forest fires seldom result in trees burning. That normally only occurs at higher altitudes with light conifers. Usually when there is a forest fire in the east, it is just the brush and leaves that burn. While I don't know why the native Americans would be intentionally lighting forest fires, my guess is they wanted to clean brush and make hunting easier. It's important to note that forest fires in the East seldom do anything we would consider real harm to the environment. The wildlife survives the fire and the first rain turns the ash into fertile soil. Forest fires are not a destructive force unless trees and homes burn.

On the Dust Bowl, also note the large numbers of people who died of respiratory failure. Breathing in dirt killed thousands--especially the very young and old. All told, it was certainly one of the worst environmental disasters of all recorded history except that strictly speaking it was NOT a natural disaster. It was caused by poor farming practices.

[Schneibster]

http://www.infowars.com/big-green-oil-m ... tch-shell/

Alex Jones?

Really?

Really?

[choff]

He gets 300 million views, how many do you get?

Of interest, sequoia are now dependent on man made fires to thrive.


http://envirosci.net/111/succession/fire_ecology.


Sequoia - The Sequoia gigantea or Sierra redwood grows to hundreds of feet tall, over 20 feet in diameter, lives thousands of years, and requires fire to assure its dominance. Without fires sequoias slowly are replaced by competing spruce and fir. Controlled burns are being used in Sequoia National Forest to maintain the historic dominance of the big trees.

[Schneibster]

He gets 300 million views, how many do you get?

Gee, almost as many as the Scientologists.

ETA: Serious sources. Not Alex Jones or the National Enquirer or Billo the Clown.

[choff]

Wow, you get that much traffic, amazing! Personally, I really, really don't want you to be banned from the sight, things were getting very sleepy without any polywell news, being under tight wraps by the Navy and all. You've given us purpose again, please stay. Why should I want you banned when I've got all the patience in the world and can enjoy slowly wearing you down over the next decade or two.

BTW, if the Vikings could grow Barley in Greenland during the MWP, we should have no trouble growing more wheat on the praries once the frost line moves farther up. There's a guy growing potatoes in the North West Territories right now. Another guy in Greenland is already doing the same thing, high altitude variety from the Andes. The days are long in the summer the farther up you go, compensates for the low light.

[choff]

We grow over half as much wheat as the US, not half bad considering one tenth the population.

[Schneibster]

Wow, you get that much traffic, amazing!

Straw man lie detected. Deflector shields engaged.

[Schneibster]

We grow over half as much wheat as the US, not half bad considering one tenth the population.

We pay farmers not to grow wheat. So they don't drive the price so low no one can afford to grow it.

Maybe you forgot.

[choff]

Read about getting paid for not growing wheat in Catch-22.

"As ye sow, so shall ye reap"

[Schneibster]

Read about getting paid for not growing wheat in Catch-22.

Or in the newspaper.

"As ye sow, so shall ye reap"

So, can you do any math at all?

[Schneibster]

>much blather about dust bowls<

So, you were so drunk you couldn't keep track of what I agreed with and what I didn't?

Just askin'.