The Most Extra New Super Global Warming Thread

[leejo]

Originally Posted by bkelly

I completely agree. In fact, this is part of my point.

I want to communicate that GhostintheShell's assertion that biofuels are mainly responsible for current food shortages in the second and third world countries is nonsense.

GhostintheShell has been critical of global warming activists for overstating their case. He is now overstating his.

bkelly

OK, that all seems fair, especially the part where you completely agree with me.

From what I understand of the markets, we are in a spot in the cycles in which commodities are generally expensive. Still, biofuels' introduction has certainly driven up the speculation in these commodity markets and has without a doubt driven up the price, just as speculation has made oil more expensive than demand alone. I can't quantify the % increase attributable to biofuels, but I would be willing to bet all my savings that as food's value increases, the number of starving people worldwide also increases. If you don't see the connection, holla and I'll try to expand.

What I do not understand is why you seem to feel the need to "defend" biofuels. I expect that biofuels' wisdom is really independent of the global warming issue: Certainly it's possible that global warming is real and biofuels are a horrible idea. They're not mutually-exclusive. Are you just pissed at Ghost for whatnot and sticking on this point of debate, or are you really concerned about biofuels' relationship with world hunger and are reacting by trying to beat down the death estimate? I don't get why we're stuck on this point.

[bkelly]

Read your own articles.

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6319093.stm

Under the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, Mexico used to get cheap corn imports from the US, but Mexico's Economy Minister Eduardo Sojo has said that with more US corn being diverted into ethanol production, supply is dwindling.

Mexico's corn price is going up because they are getting less US government subsidized corn. This does not support your assertion that biofuels are causing the food shortages in the second and third world right now.

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=213343

But Mr. Coxe warned U.S. corn exports were in danger of seizing up in about three years if the country continues to subsidize ethanol production.

This article warns that the world will soon experience food shortages and ethanol handicaps the U.S.'s ability to help. This does not support your assertion that biofuels are causing the food shortages in the second and third world right now.

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3500954.ece

“It’s very hard to imagine how we can see the world growing enough crops to produce renewable energy and at the same time meet the enormous demand for food...”

This article makes the point that growing populations alongside increased biofuel production is unsustainable in the future. This does not support your assertion that biofuels are causing the food shortages in the second and third world right now.

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/17/europe/food.php

Diouf blamed a confluence of recent supply and demand factors for the crisis (dwindling UN food stocks), and he predicted that those factors were here to stay.

Biofuels are one of the factors causing the price of food to increase causing UN food supplies to dwindle. This does not support your assertion that biofuels are causing the food shortages in the second and third world right now.

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...Cr=afghan&Cr1=

The (Afghanistan price increases) is attributed to several factors, including higher demand for cereals in some parts of the world, particularly in Asia, the conversion and use of some grains for bio-fuels, and a poor harvest in one or two parts of the world that have traditionally had very strong wheat production.

Again, biofuels are listed as a factor in increasing food prices. This does not support your assertion that biofuels are causing the food shortages in the second and third world right now.

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...ood&Cr1=prices

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has been watching the rise in global food prices with “deep concern,” according to his spokesperson, who noted that the reasons for the shortages are many and cannot be solely ascribed to a simple trade-off between biofuels and agriculture, though this may be a factor.

And this article you gave for support actually contradicts your position. You should read what you post.


GhostintheShell, you are nowhere near supporting the position you made to which I'm objecting.

Is food getting more expensive? Absolutely
Has food prices caused unrest in some parts of the world? Yes
Are biofuels driving up the price of some agricultural products despite government subsidies? Probably
How much of these price increases are due to biofuels? We don't know. Perhaps 10-25%
Are "the economically driven food shortages in the second and third world right now" due to this price increase? Of course not!

bkelly

[Kerostasis]

Originally Posted by bkelly

Is food getting more expensive? Absolutely
Has food prices caused unrest in some parts of the world? Yes
Are biofuels driving up the price of some agricultural products despite government subsidies? Probably
How much of these price increases are due to biofuels? We don't know. Perhaps 10-25%
Are "the economically driven food shortages in the second and third world right now" due to this price increase? Of course not!

bkelly

Your last statement doesn't really follow from the others. Care to elaborate on how you arrive at the "of course not"?

It's a little difficult to comply with your requests for evidence when your response to each new piece of evidence is to brush it off with "This does not support your assertion" and no further explanation. You seem to assume that whatever logic you are using to come to your conclusions should be simple enough to be self-evident to all of us, while at the same time being unable to recognize the equally simple logic implied behind the opposing evidence.

It looks like we're going to have to take the leap from implied logic to explicit logic. Do you want to go first or shall I?

[War.mongeR1]

Originally Posted by bkelly

Is food getting more expensive? Absolutely
Has food prices caused unrest in some parts of the world? Yes
Are biofuels driving up the price of some agricultural products despite government subsidies? Probably
How much of these price increases are due to biofuels? We don't know. Perhaps 10-25%
Are "the economically driven food shortages in the second and third world right now" due to this price increase? Of course not!

bkelly

I confused. :/

It seems that you brought forth evidence supporting the very theory you don't seem to believe. You might want to explain your view a bit more explicitly for us common folk.

[GhostintheShell]

Now I'm totally confused and not even sure why we are arguing this...

I read my own articles.
It's very very simple, increased food prices = less food for the third world = an economically driven food shortage.

When someone in the third world goes to buy a kilo of corn it used to cost him/her 60% of his wage to feed their family. As an example of corn prices doubling and quadrupling now it costs them 120% to 240% of their wage. In actuality they can't afford more than 100% of their wage for food. This means they go home from their local market with half the food they had before or less.

This is by definition an "economic food shortage".

I'm not saying there is no food available to them but there is simply no food that is affordable to them anymore. It's also not as if you can move to a different food source that is cheaper than their current diet. They weren't living extravagantly before eating filet mignon and now they have to eat ground beef, they can't move any further downwards without eating dirt.

Biofuel production is up (I've read numbers as high as 1200%) this year as more and more farmers sign on to sell their crops to biofuel production instead of as food stocks....


These are the cold realities of the decisions we make regarding global warming. These decisions have real human consequence. I suspect it's the embarrassment of yet another failed environmental interference is why you are so argumentative about this topic.

[bkelly]

I've taken a couple of days to step back and craft a concise, solid answer to the last couple of pages. There seems to be a big misunderstanding regarding my objection of GhostintheShell's statement and the furor with which I've pursued it. The backlash from everyone has surprised me and this just reinforces the need to make this point clear. I hope to do better.

In an attempt to be more coherent, I'll pick an choose pieces of people's posts that fit the flow.

Originally Posted by War.mongeR1

You might want to explain your view a bit more explicitly for us common folk.

I really wanted to avoid explaining myself for reasons that I'll explain later. However, I will do it this time since you and Kerostasis seem genuinely lost about my position.

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

Biofuels are also responsible for the economically driven food shortages in the second and third world right now as well.

I challenged this statement by GhostintheShell for many reasons:


1) Bio-fuels are not definitively responsible for the recent worldwide price increases of food.

Consider:

* While more corn in the US goes to ethanol the US produces more corn.
* Energy costs are going up and energy prices are significant in agriculture.
* If the price increases are due to bio-fuel demand then why has the price of sugar, which is used heavily for ethanol in Brazil, remained fairly steady?


2) Bio-fuels are not yet widespread enough to affect the entire second and third world.

Food shortages, like famines, are regional phenomena because getting a lot of food to people a long way away is difficult and expensive. If Africa has a sudden shortage of corn, it is because something has happened with their local production and distribution, not because the US tossed their corn into the ethanol hopper.


3) The price increases have occurred too recently to cause actual shortages of food.

The actual delivery of goods does lags significantly behind the market. Consider gasoline prices in relation to crude oil. These two graphs show that while crude oil peaked in December 1979 because of the Iran-Iraq war, gasoline prices didn't peak until March 1981 and we still haven't seen the full crude oil price increases in 2007 at the pump. It is my opinion that we haven't yet seen the effects of the recent price increases.


4) The statement is vague and can be broadly interpreted.

Given the statement above, I can argue:

* Food shortage occurs when food supplies within a bounded region do not provide the energy and nutrients needed by that region's population. (http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbook...e/uu22we09.htm)
* An "economically driven food shortage" is therefore lack of energy and nutrients for economic reasons.
* The chief reason for world hunger is poverty. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnutrition)
* Poverty is an economic condition.
* Worldwide malnutrition isn't an issue in first world countries by definition. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_world)

Therefore - Bio-fuels are responsible for current world hunger.

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

You seem to assume that whatever logic you are using to come to your conclusions should be simple enough to be self-evident to all of us, while at the same time being unable to recognize the equally simple logic implied behind the opposing evidence.

I thought it was self-evident that GhostintheShell wasn't supporting his statement and just hand waiving.

Here's the kind of assumptions he would need to prove to support his statement:

1) Bio-fuels are the primary cause for the recent worldwide price increases of food.
2) These price increases are the primary cause for food shortages.
3) These food shortages account for all the current "economically driven food shortages" in the second and third world.

But the articles he posted showed:

1) Bio-fuels are just one of many factors causing the recent price increases.
2) A few protests on food prices were cited but nothing on actual food shortages.
3) Nothing about food shortages across the second and third world.

I recognize the facts in his articles and do not dispute them. They do not support the statement I challenged.

Originally Posted by War.mongeR1

It seems that you brought forth evidence supporting the very theory you don't seem to believe.

My bad. I wasn't trying to make an argument but illustrate that the final statement doesn't automatically follow from the four above it. Instead of "Of course not!" I should have said something like, "We can't know from the above statements."

Originally Posted by leejo

Are you just pissed at Ghost for whatnot and sticking on this point of debate...?

I am sick of GhostintheShell's debate style. For four months he's been making broad, damning statements that he just pulled out of his ass. For example:

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

The problem with these types of "links" is that they are very quick to proclaim that every negative environmental condition is caused by global warming, while ignoring the other half of the facts that tell us that the condition has little to nothing to do with man made global warming.

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

Global warming is a distinct possibility, man made global warming is improbable in every possible aspect.

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

Don't even talk to me about the estimation of historical temperature data, it's uncertainty is beyond unacceptable to the point of speculation.

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

Most major scientific communities do in fact agree with what you say but what you fail to mention is that while the "organization" itself supports the theory many many scientists within these organizations do not.

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

There is very little accurate data about the rate of advance/retreat of more than a few dozen glaciers in the entire world.

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

We cannot make accurate predictions about glacial retreat or advance because we don't have enough data and not nearly enough accurate historical data.

I have challenged him on many of these statements and asked for evidence. I have yet to see a single article, fact or name that actually supports the challenged assertion. The best he does is posts articles that are in the neighborhood, infers his conclusion and then states, "See? It's that simple! Just think about it!"

Many times I have spent days researching his claims, often proving a negative, and post my findings. He'll either dismiss everything or, in cases where's he's really cornered, vanish from the board for a couple of weeks only to return with yet another broad, damning assertion.

I am done spending two days researching a rebuttal to his two-second fantasies. It's obvious to me that he has made up his mind on global warming and is making assumptions that support that belief and they are not open to debate. I really wouldn't care except that he seems to have a need to convey these lies on a public forum. I'll continue to identify his crap when I see it however I am done disproving it.

He needs to start producing material that actually supports what he is saying or the people here ought to be very skeptical of anything he says.

Originally Posted by leejo

What I do not understand is why you seem to feel the need to "defend" biofuels.

I'm not defending bio-fuels, I'm fighting for truth. I don't really care if you're for or against bio-fuels provided your beliefs have some basis in reality.

If you're for them, knowing what they are really doing to food supplies will help minimize their effect. There are also plenty of reasons to oppose bio-fuels without believing the fiction that they have already caused many in the second and third world to starve.

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

It's very very simple, increased food prices = less food for the third world = an economically driven food shortage.

Hey GhostintheShell, I have another "very very simple" equation for you:

*Carbon dioxide has a proven greenhouse effect.
*Humans have increased world atmospheric carbon dioxide by 31%

Therefore - The world is experiencing a man-made greenhouse effect.

bkelly

[GhostintheShell]

"Historically, famines have occurred because of drought, crop failure, pestilence, and man-made causes such as war or misguided economic policies"

Corn production isn't nearly as regional as you think..."Maize is widely cultivated throughout the world, and a greater weight of maize is produced each year than any other grain. While the United States produces almost half of the world's harvest, other top producing countries are as widespread as China, Brazil, France, Indonesia, India and South Africa. Worldwide production was over 600 million metric tons in 2003 — just slightly more than rice or wheat. In 2004, close to 33 million hectares of maize were planted worldwide, with a production value of more than $23 billion."

There is much less economic pressure on sugar in terms of it's demand as a primary food source. Also, Brazil also has a kind of unique market for sugar dedicated to ethanol don't you think? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil

It's unfortunate that you are sick of my "debate style", I still respect your posts but it doesn't bother me if you don't like my style. You don't have to read or answer my posts if they bother you so much. The ignore button is an available option although I would hope that no one would have to resort to that. I tried it with GW and it was unpleasant. It is a good reaction for you to go off and read a bit when I come in and throw out my opinionated (and surely often imperfect) comments. I do the same thing when I read your posts.

We are obviously on different sides of a couple of fences....don't take that personally.

[GlobalWarmin]

Bush urges halt of CO2 emission growth by 2025
http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/n15182721-usa/

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

Bush urges halt of CO2 emission growth by 2025

BWHAHAHAHA!

Hee-hee, President Bush should be careful - his hot air doesn't help the problem.

*giggle*

bkelly

[AMosely]

Any comments on Bush's recently announced proposal to stop greenhouse gas emissions in the US by 2012? Bush is no longer doing things for the sake of politics - his ship has sailed and sunk. If even this man sees a reason here, is there anyone left calling this a non-issue?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0080416-6.html

All this coming on the heels of reports that China has officially surpassed the US in atmospheric emissions, specifically in CO2. We now have fingers clearly pointing both ways - the US can cite China as the leader in pollution production, while China can cite the US as the greatest polluter per person - something they are already doing. This will all prove extremely helpful in finding the truth and honestly doing something about it.

[leejo]

Originally Posted by AMosely

Any comments on Bush's recently announced proposal to stop greenhouse gas emissions in the US by 2012? Bush is no longer doing things for the sake of politics - his ship has sailed and sunk. If even this man sees a reason here, is there anyone left calling this a non-issue?

Your facts are incorrect about his proposal. It was to stop emissions' growth and it was to occur by 2025, not 2012. In other words, he'll get right on that.

Is there anyone left calling this a non-issue? Absolutely this is an issue. It's a political issue, and Bush is a politician who wants his party to win the next election. Is it a scientific issue? Sure. Is it a scientific fact worthy of throwing the world's economies into a tailspin? Ah, there's the debate.

Is it a religious issue? You betcha. The Church of Mother Earth is rising to power, and woe betide any heretics out there.

Fortunately, and in a roundabout way, this is primarily an economic issue. Suppose, for example, that China became the first nation to become independent of fossil fuels by using an emerging technology. Imagine their economic power! And so, the race is on.

It'll be interesting to see who most resists adopting the new technologies when they emerge. Those who are most loudly demanding a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions today? Surely not! Would they?

[AMosely]

Yup, I did make an error in presenting the data here - Bush is proposing a cut in growth by 2025, which is laughable in my opinion and not at all suprising. I submit that my error was purely freudian in nature and not at all intentional.

You do make some valid observations regarding the varied ways in which this issue is being dealt with, but I think it's important to draw a distinction between the real issue (atmospheric health and climate) and the 'issues' that are being formed out of it - such as your illustration of the economic 'issue' somehow also being part of the solution, specifically international competition as a catalyst for energy independence and fossil fuel reduction. This may indeed play a role in an economic sense, but in my opinion it is the human mentality towards environmental health and protection that must ultimately be reckoned with before any true progress can be made toward the very real issue of atmospheric health and climate. In a way, that is mainly what I am speaking to when I refer to people calling it a non-issue.

[xTYBALTx]

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/ma...e-fact-of.html

" At a time when the world’s top climate experts agree that carbon emissions must be rapidly reduced to hold down global warming, Italy’s major electricity producer, Enel, is converting its massive power plant here from oil to coal, generally the dirtiest fuel on earth.

Over the next five years, Italy will increase its reliance on coal to 33 percent from 14 percent. Power generated by Enel from coal will rise to 50 percent.

And Italy is not alone in its return to coal. Driven by rising demand, record high oil and natural gas prices, concerns over energy security and an aversion to nuclear energy, European countries are expected to put into operation about 50 coal-fired plants over the next five years, plants that will be in use for the next five decades."

[War.mongeR1]

Isn't coal cleaner than oil plants? You'd think they'd all go nuclear/wind, though. Here in Texas, we're the nation's leader in windtricity. Eat THAT Europe! Get with the program. Our wind farms out here in West Texas (from Abilene to Midland and from I-20 south to I-10) are HUGE!!! In fact, by Abilene, we have the largest on-shore wind farm IN THE WORLD. I've even personally met with Jerry Patterson, Commissioner for the General Land Office in Texas (he and my dad were roommates in college at A&M) and he showed me the proposed off-shore wind farms they'll be putting off the Texas coast, and man is the scope of it impressive.

Read this article:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...h/4216776.html

Read this to see what Texas and Jerry Patterson are doing:
http://www.glo.state.tx.us/news/arch...se_100207.html
Really good stuff.