New ice age beginning

People don't want to be downtrodden

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9X_Xl6kCUUI

As a Christian looking at any variation on the hopeless theme of denominational science vs denominational religion, there is another narrative going on that is so expansive if it could find its way into wider circulation.

The connection between the individual and Universal in physical terms will always encompass the life of a person who takes time to look out at the celestial arena by day or by night and it comes from the gentle heart of things. Given a chance people will bypass self-serving agendas and embrace that side of their nature which expands appreciation of creation by discovering their participation in the great motions of the Earth and its position in space.

On Wed, 27 May 2015 15:05:39 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

You take any plant native to a particular place, and try growing it in
a greenhouse, it's likely to die or fail to thrive.

Dumbass. Rose bushes are native to this area and yet they thrive in
greenhouses.

Wild roses are nothing at all like the human-created cultivated roses
they grow commercially.


Greenhouses are not used to make plants grow better, they're used to
extend the geographical or temporal range of those plants.

And yet you claim that AGW will not do that.

No I don't. I claim that changing the range of any important
commercial crops over a fairly short period is economically
devastating and politically destabilizing.

On Wed, 27 May 2015 20:08:06 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Wed, 27 May 2015 15:05:39 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

You take any plant native to a particular place, and try growing it in
a greenhouse, it's likely to die or fail to thrive.

Dumbass. Rose bushes are native to this area and yet they thrive in
greenhouses.

Wild roses are nothing at all like the human-created cultivated roses
they grow commercially.

Only in your mind.

Greenhouses are not used to make plants grow better, they're used to
extend the geographical or temporal range of those plants.

And yet you claim that AGW will not do that.

No I don't. I claim that changing the range of any important
commercial crops over a fairly short period is economically
devastating and politically destabilizing.

Only in your mind. Genetically engineered crops have been a blessing
to farmers all over the world.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Thu, 28 May 2015 05:47:18 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

No I don't. I claim that changing the range of any important
commercial crops over a fairly short period is economically
devastating and politically destabilizing.

Only in your mind. Genetically engineered crops have been a blessing
to farmers all over the world.

They offer the potential to increase food production and to compensate
for some of the damage of climate change. But they've also hurt
farmers in many underdeveloped areas because of their low
sustainability (most are sterile by design) and high cost. In
principle, they are a good thing. In practice, they aren't going to do
much to mitigate the problems caused by shifting crop ranges.

On Thu, 28 May 2015 07:11:35 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Thu, 28 May 2015 05:47:18 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

No I don't. I claim that changing the range of any important
commercial crops over a fairly short period is economically
devastating and politically destabilizing.

Only in your mind. Genetically engineered crops have been a blessing
to farmers all over the world.

They offer the potential to increase food production and to compensate
for some of the damage of climate change. But they've also hurt
farmers in many underdeveloped areas because of their low
sustainability (most are sterile by design) and high cost. In
principle, they are a good thing. In practice, they aren't going to do
much to mitigate the problems caused by shifting crop ranges.

Poppycock.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 8:10:49 PM UTC-4, Bob Neumann wrote:
On 26/05/2015 15:48, wsnell01 wrote:
On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 10:12:44 AM UTC-4, Lord Vath wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2015 07:03:20 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote
this crap:

On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 9:28:15 AM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 5/20/15 7:04 PM, Lord Vath wrote:
We've been getting colder winters for the past five years. It's
become a pattern.

It was getting colder until fossil fuel burning started raising
CO2 levels.

Then you would prefer that the climate get -colder- ?

Not me.

Me either. A colder climate would most certainly lead to a shorter growing season, a smaller harvest, and a greater risk of famine and starvation.

But it's not a choice between "a much warmer climate" and "a colder
climate"; the science indicates it's between "a very much warmer
climate" and "a somewhat warmer climate".

It can be plainly seen that "Wormley" wrote:

"It was getting colder until fossil fuel burning started raising
CO2 levels."

To which I responded:

"Then you would prefer that the climate get -colder- ?"

Try to improve your reading comprehension skills before making further comments.

On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 8:24:10 PM UTC-4, Bob Neumann wrote:
On 26/05/2015 15:58, wsnell01 wrote:
On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 10:53:15 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2015 07:40:01 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 10:27:28 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2015 07:03:20 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Then you would prefer that the climate get -colder- ?

That would probably have a lower impact on human society than warming.

That is a assertion made without either proof or evidence.

Decadal sea surface temperature oscillations (primarily in the
Pacific) produce cyclical patterns of continental warming and cooling
over the northern temperate latitudes. Cooling is associated with an
increase in moisture, warming with an increase in droughts. So crop
yields are higher with cooler average temperatures. Also, cooler
temperatures have a greater impact in winter than summer, which also
means they have less impact on people, outside of some minor
inconvenience. Cooler temperatures also reduce the intensity of summer
storms (which tend to be the most dangerous and destructive), and may
reduce hurricane intensity.

So it is hardly unreasonable to suggest that a minor, slow cooling
trend would have less negative impact on the world than the current
rapid heating trend.

Now you just made assertionS (PLURAL) without either proof or evidence.


Yebbut, you're making denials without evidence or supporting data.
Do you have data or evidence to support your contrary position?

peterson is the one making claims without providing evidence. I am under no obligation to provide any evidence, nor did I even present a "contrary position."

The fact remains that colder climates have shorter growing seasons, AEBE.

On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 8:25:45 PM UTC-4, Bob Neumann wrote:

Now you are making a claim without supporting data or reference.

Please provide references for your claim

Provide evidence and references for YOURS, dimbulb.

On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 6:20:25 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 8:25:45 PM UTC-4, Bob Neumann wrote:

Now you are making a claim without supporting data or reference.

Please provide references for your claim

Provide evidence and references for YOURS, dimbulb.

Have you ever made a cogent argument, or do you just post comments from a list of insults?

On Friday, 29 May 2015 18:17:11 UTC+2, Uncarollo2 wrote:

Provide evidence and references for YOURS, dimbulb.

Have you ever made a cogent argument, or do you just post comments from a list of insults?

I have said it befo Snellfish is going through a damaging personal crisis. His pedantry in responding increasingly rudely and negatively to every post and poster suggests he is trying to alienate everybody. It may be depression, a familial loss, illness or even a temporary loss of faith in his own, twisted political dogma, but it is making him very hard to like, or respect.

While eccentricity of viewpoint has its place it must inevitably [or eventually] lead to doubts about the foundations of the fragile castles they build in the air. Certain political stances can only be supported by isolation from doubters or potential critics. Isolation is a typical strategy for religious cults and their insane [power mad] leaders. To openly accept anything which might undermine their insupportable philosophies can even lead to further mental breakdown. There is nothing more damaging to the truly weird than to be in daily contact with a whole range of alternative theories.

Racism, sexism and misogyny are potent forces for the control of doubters. Most religions ascribe to demeaning women, simply to undermine their power to disrupt spiralling, extremist crack-pottery. It is the surest sign of a pathetically weak argument that leaders demand the isolation, slavery or destruction of such counter-intuitive forces to their leadership.

It's always [all] about personal power and the crushing of all opposition. Whether it be the Pope surrounding himself in corrupt, all-male[?] cardinals. Or Putin/Hitler/Stalin]/Assad/Kim/Jobs/Gates/Mao/Pol Pot/Castro/Mugabe/Despotx surrounding themselves entirely in loyal yes men. What they always fail to realise is that encouraging open criticism is what keeps their troops' boots safely on the ground and [all the] people's bellies full.

Isolation [from all criticism] is by far the worst form of positive feedback and always ends in tears. The non-criticism environment always favours greater extremism and bloody excess. While disloyalty to dogma is a potent force for freedom of thought and real creativity. The despot may enjoy temporary [personal] success but they must always settle for much less than the full potential of the resources available. Those who thrive in such an environment are twisted mirror images of the boss and would always fail in any other situation.

Fear of authority will always lead to incredibly poor choices throughout the chain of command. Just ask any of the hundreds of millions of victims of the despot's yes-men/sock-puppets. Those who demand respect are always the least deserving of any respect at all. Those who demand isolation, in order to ensure loyalty to their compound lunacy, openly display the poorest leadership of all. Your truest friends are those who mirror your weaknesses as well as your strengths. Or, in rather fewer words: The psychopathically selfish, robber barons in Snellfish's airy-fairy castles have no clothes. ;ø]