North Pole Movement

I disagree but in even that would refute Karjala's position which is one side is completely right and the other side is not. I would not agree with either of your quoted statements above either. For an example of what I'm talking about if one looks at those who claim CO2 is the main problem many/most/all of them postulate a half life of CO2 in the atmosphere of something in excess of 20 years and some use over 30 years in their models. On the otherhand I've seen several what at least appear to me to be strong cases for the half life of CO2 in the atmosphere being something less than 10 (I recall it being around 6 or 7) years. This has a huge impact but those who promote the importance of CO2 in global warming have not attempted to refute those studies they simply ignore them. There's also a tendency for the CO2 proponents to ascribe anyone who suggest that there's a decent case to be made for global warming as agreeing with them which is clearly not the case.

 

Suppose that was pretty mild for an insult...

I do recycling every day...

At least I am not only blaming the industry but also especially those individuals, who refuse to see any problems and continue making extremely polluting personal choices. Still we can all improve.

 

Well - actually that is not the case. See page 17.

http://lpr.oxfordjournals.org/content/2/1/25.full.pdf

Surely some of the deniers have made valid remarks, and surely not all of the supporting research is flawless. Still more and more of the top ones agree: 1. climate is changing 2. we humans are a factor in it.

Here's some more. I'm no expert but e.g. these guys should be:

"Food Sentry continues to analyze the scope and types of international food safety violations.
...
The top five countries with reported violations were China, the United States, India, Vietnam and Japan.
...
This report closely examines U.S. food safety violations reported in the last 15 months, and the results are a little surprising. It’s often said that the United States has the safest food in the world. While this may or may not be true, it is true that there are some 48 million estimated cases of food poisoning in a given year, with 140,000 or so of us being hospitalized and more than 3,000 deaths attributed to food poisoning, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Food and Drug Administration and the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture have already issued more than 100 food recalls so far this year.
Just from United States domestic data and reporting, it’s clear that there are measurable and broad risks associated with our food.
...
When we examined contaminants, we found that pathogens were by far the number one problem reported with U.S. foods, accounting for 45 percent of all reported violations. The pathogens discovered were Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella, Escherichia coli and Vibrio parahaemolyticus.
...
Mycotoxins (toxins produced by various fungi, most often by species within the Aspergillus genus of mold) were the next most commonly reported food safety violation. ... They can be potently carcinogenic and have a range of toxicity that can include immunosuppression and kidney damage. It is unusual for such high levels of mycotoxins to be found in U.S. products, but mycotoxin contamination has been increasing. There is current speculation that this may be indirectly related to global warming.
Toxic metals were present in 15 percent of samples evaluated, almost all in seafood. Cadmium was the only toxic metal identified and it was found in oysters, lobster and various types of crabs. The United States FDA does not routinely test for toxic metals but foreign countries commonly do, setting very low limits for allowable toxic metal content.
...
Pesticides were detected in lab testing at violative levels, primarily on fruits and vegetables. In contrast to the Chinese data we reviewed, where 32 different pesticides were identified, tested U.S. products showed only 11. Only three products showed multiple pesticide residues (blueberries, carrots and peaches)....
Meat products exported by the U.S. showed a range of contamination, although the number of meat products that produced violative results was small. Lab testing detected the presence of the drug ractopamine (banned in the EU, Russia, China and Taiwan), the antibiotic chloramphenicol and contamination with E. coli in various samples.
Excessive use of preservative chemicals was detected in fruit, with laboratory testing identifying sulfur dioxide, various sulfites, benzoic acid and sorbic acid.

http://www.foodsentry.org/the-united-states-and-global-food-safety-violations-a-surprising-look/


75 % of the food sold in Finland is domestic (2008).


Finnish food regulations are quite extensive, like in every country.


"Legislation of food hygiene proficiency

Food hygiene proficiency is regulated by the general EU regulation on the hygiene of foodstuffs (852/2004/EU, Appendix I, part A section 4 subsection e and section 5 subsection d, as well as Appendix II Chapter 12 section 1) and the national Food Act (23/2006, amendment 1137/2008).

• 
  General food hygiene regulation (852/2004/EU)
  
• 
  National Food Act (23/2006) (Only in finnish or swedish)
  

Several regulations regulate on the handling, storing, transporting, selling, serving etc. of food. You may find these regulations via the Finlex web pages: www.finlex.fi "

http://www.evira.fi/portal/en/food/hygiene+proficiency/legislation/


"The European Food Safety Agency has determined that Finns consume the purest food in the European Union.


...a fresh study by the European Food Safety Agency EFSA indicates that the food in Finland is cleaner than anywhere else in the EU.
The study looked specifically at residual pesticides in food and found that apart from Finland, food in other Nordic countries and Austria was most likely to be free of pesticide residues.

According to the findings about 72 percent of Finnish food products contain no traces of pesticides, compared to about 50 percent in the entire EU. Foods produced according to organic farming practices are usually the cleanest of farm produce. The highest level of pesticide residues was identified in foods from outside the EU, particularly in imported fruits and vegetables."

http://yle.fi/uutiset/farmers_paper_food_cleanest_in_finland/6539282

I was talking about an amateur making his/her own survey and the credibility of that.

 

Amazing... Do you make any attempt at all to read your sources? Note a couple of things with this one.

First of all it starts out stating:

Which makes it clear that it is not by any means an accepted standard at least at the time it was written.

Then of course the "Beyond any Doubt" level is clearly not warrented by the anthorpomorphic CO2 is the cause of global warming theory if you look at the examples. And indeed even ascribes a Baysian probability of 100% to this level.

Thanks again for proving yourself wrong.

 

Was talking about climatology...

But that is not what I have said. I haven't said "one side is completely right and the other side is not" - but I do think that the other side is much more right than the other.

I also haven't said that the CO2 is the MAIN problem - although it can be - but surely I think it is a big problem. I can't see why we should waste time ignoring the CO2 just because there are also other problems.

I do...

It does not need to be a "standard". It still clearly shows how "without any doubt" does not mean 100 % certainty, like you argued earlier.

It did not happen, but you're welcome anyway - for nothing.

 

Back to strawmen I see. I doubt you could find a single rational scientist on either side of the debate who would suggest that climate is not changing. By its very nature it's dynamic. Very few would disagree that humans are a factor either. The debate is over the nature and the extent of the anthropomorphic impact.
Well they certainly think well of themselves i.e. describing themselves as: "an elite team of food analysts". However I don't see any names or acedimic credentials so the question is rather open at this point.

Here's some more. I'm no expert but e.g. these guys should be:

The question here is what type of violatoins and what are the inspection processes. A country with less contaminated food that does more or more through inspections may well have higher reported violations.


Note that they don't reject the postulate that "the United States has the safest food in the world". Furthermore if you look at the bacterial conamination related pages (25-29 and 73-77) in http://www.schoolofpublicpolicy.sk.ca/_documents/_publications_reports/food_safety_final.pdf which you so kindly posted for us earlier. You will find that 1. The US inspection protocol is rated supperior to that of Finland and of the 4 pathogens for which there is data in the last year for which the data was published Finland had higher rates in 3 of the 4 pathogens.

So based on the data we have Finland is in worse shate than the US for the most common problem with US foods.

Sources Please.

Looks like their definition of "pure" is based entirely on the level of pesticide. Such a measure is not going to correlate well with food safety.

That is certainly the impression one gets from your postings.

Why should we concentrate efforts and resources on something that might not even be a serious problem when there are clearly other serious problems that need to be addressed. The term "penny wise and pound foolish" comes to mind.

Actually on page 41 it essentially does. Equating "beyond any doubt" with 100%. So yes it clearly did.

 

"Strawmen"...? (FYI: I do know the meaning of the word...)

So far I been under the impression, that in this forum there are still posters, who do not think that the climate really is changing (instead of just naturally varying from year to year) nor/or that the humans have anything to do with it. I'm glad to see that you are not one of them and apologize for thinking so.

So, after getting that straight, I do admit that AFAIK we don't know the exact nature nor the extent of the human factor. Still there is a consensus that the effect is negative and substantial. It would be foolish not to act accordingly.

It's there, please use your mouse and click accordingly...

Robert J. Silver seems to be their Chief Scientist:

"Bob is a graduate of the State University of New York College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry with a Bachelors of Science in Biology and Masters of Science from the Institute of Safety and Systems Management at the University of Southern California. Bob is also the Associate Director of The Center for Animal Health, Food Safety and Bio-Security, College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences at New Mexico State University where he is responsible for programs in food safety, food defense and managing the scientific output of two laboratories. In addition, he is also an adjunct instructor with the University of Tennessee-Knoxville School of Veterinary Medicine, teaching classes in food safety and information and intelligence sharing related to food transportation and importation."





http://www.foodsentry.org/about-us/meet-our-analysts/

to be continued...

 

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I certainly haven't seen a single post that gave me the impression that any posters here thought that climate didn't change. Not sure it makes sense to talk of climate change on a year to year basis though, I would think one would want to at least look at decades. Of course how much of the change is natural is another question (natural change is still change so there is no oppositoin there). I'm not sure if I've even seen any that suggest that there is no anthropomorphic element in recent climate changes. The question is just how much impact it has (and indeed in what directions as some human activities would also promote global cooling).

I disagree that there is consensus on that. There is a majority opinion to that effect but that's as far as I would go. The problem with acting on it is you really need to know what the problem is and how to best correct it. For instance it may well be that the lack of global warming in recent years is a result of the fluro carbon ban (due to them being "credited" with the "ozone hole"). They also were pretty significant green house gasses and from what I recall reading were quite persistant. If you look at the timeing of the ban and allow for a bit of lag it's not unreasonable. This is I think a case of what we need to look for. It was a pretty clear case of chemicals that weren't good for the environment on several levels, they could also be replaced reasonably cheaply and without causeing significant cultural or economic disruption. Going after CO2 at this point seems to me to not only be unwarrented but likely to distract efforts from areas where much more could be gained especially for the resources being commited.

I can see why they didn't publisize it. He has a "Degree in Science" (a reference to a radio show called "Doctor Science"). The lack of a doctoral degree would be seen as a negative by many, I'm reasonably impressed though a broad background is quite useful in this sort of thing.

 

In over a decade of following this stuff, I have never seen or read anything that utterly convinces me man is solely to blame for global warming. Seen plenty of self-righteous huffing-and-puffing from self-styled "guardians of the planet", plenty of attempts to shut down any debate (remember the Aussie journo who wanted "climate change denial" declared a criminal offence? Then there's "the debate is over" etc etc) by claiming consensus, or insinuating that those who don't follow the herd are somehow suffering from Dunning-Kruger Effect, laughable since it would also describe the arses trying to use it as an insult.
I'm not convinced. So sue me.

 

So what exactly does all this climate change stuff have to do with the north pole movement? That's what this thread is supposed to be about. There's several locked down threads that debates the climate change theories to death for those who want to peruse them at their convenience.

 

Because if the North Pole moves, the Zombie Apocalypse Invasion from Mars clause triggers, in response to which the Bavarian Illuminati plan to raise global temperature causing a 60 meter (200 foot) raising of mean ocean levels, in a mad attempt to drown out the martian zombies. This of course, will cause the stars to align, and awaken dead Cthulhu from his sleep.

 

NSFW

George Carlin says it all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4

 

Please dig deeper if you feel like it. For me that's quite sufficient at the moment. However be assured that if there's a food problem in Finland it won't stay a secret.

They don't support it either.

So it appears to be in that research. One should still keep in mind, that the inspection procedures does not correlate directly with the food safety. E.g. if the food is clean, it is clean even if it is not inspected that often.

Here's another research about all kind of food related things. According to it the USA is on the top, because the food is cheap and it is available. However in the food safety section the US score is 17.1 % above average, the Finnish score is 20,7 %.

http://foodsecurityindex.eiu.com/Country/Details#Togo

Oh please...! Is it so difficult to believe that 75 % of the food in Finland is domestic?!

"The proportion of domestically-produced food consumed in Finland has declined to about 75 percent, according to a study by a state research institute."

http://yle.fi/uutiset/finnish_food_is_75_domestic_--_not_counting_the_tractors/6268069

Seems like the European Food Safety Agency EFSA does not agree with you. Which one to believe, that's the question...?

Maybe you could read my posts more carefully...?

I have not written that we should only concentrate on CO2. That's still one problem which the majority of the scientists (I know - you don't think so..) find serious enough. The concensus about other possibly serious problems is not the same - at least not yet.

Since I know you enjoy splitting hairs, to be precise, the term used was "without any doubt". So it did not.

I however used that chart to show, that there are different terms with different degrees of probability. And alhough I did not find (and don't bother looking any further) the exact term I'm convinced that it means "bloody believable".

Somebody else might cry "strawman" now...

Neither have I seen nor read anything saying man is SOLELY to blame. However I've seen plenty of stuff saying man is to blame for significant part, which e.g. I have been talking about.

Don't think I'll sue anybody...

 

Magnetic North pole moves. A lot. It looks like the ice recedes and advances in a dance with pole movement. Remember that AG's argument was that the ice is receding (due to rising temperatures- caused by man- ), and polar bears had no where to sleep. sniff.

But now the goal posts have changed, and it is: the weather is "changing". No longer "warming".

Did you not read the -Man called Da Da post I linked, Fiddy?

Also, the Farmers Almanac has about an 80% accuracy rate in predicting weather. Why "scientists" can't replicate that success rate is due to their trying to bend information so it fits the agenda they want us to follow. It's all about money and power, not our general well being...Yes man sucks, and creates a mess which should be regulated and heavily fined. But don't (taze) tax me bro.

-gs, the zombie bits are hilarious. Keep it up, your slime shows more and more each day.

 

And again, so have I, and I'm still not convinced.

 

You are welcome to believe what ever you want but insisting others are wrong with the facts on hand either don't support or actually falcify you position is rather annoying.

Which is irrellevant to the point under discussion. You claimed that Finnish food was safer than the food in the US. If that was easily provemable it would refute the claim that US food is safer. Since they didn't refute it the question apparently remians open.

???? Looking at: http://foodsecurityindex.eiu.com/Country/Details#Finland
and http://foodsecurityindex.eiu.com/Country/Details#United%20States
Finland is ranked #14 for quality and safety while the US is ranked #5. Furthermore while your numbers appear to come fron the food safety subset if one looks into the details of it at:
http://foodsecurityindex.eiu.com/Home/Methodology
some of the measures appear to be questionable and outside what we were discussing.

I'm curious as to how it was measured (I can think of at least 3 different ways) and just what was taken into account. From discussions of the WW2 period it also sounded like Finland was a significant importer of foods. So yes I would like to see your sources on this. IN the case of the study you link it's based on the amount spent on the food rather than the mass, calories, or food value.

Since the most significant problem with food in the US is pathogens it's pretty clear that ignoring them is ignoring a huge chunk of the food safety issue. I would really be surprised if someone from such an agency really dissagreed with that.

I probably could but I don't see that it would make much difference in how I interpret them. I think you are pointing the finger in the wrong direction as far as the source of the problem goes in this case.

There is no consensus but even if there was consensus on CO2 being a huge problem it wouldn't necessarily be the best one to tackle. Indeed there may be more of a consensus on the other issues than on CO2 but the publicity simply hasn't been there.

"Without a doubt" is semantically eqivalant to "beyond any doubt". That's what we were talking about. That one can use other less defintitive terms is obvious although what they mean may not be.

"Significant" is a rather overloaded term. Something can be statistically "significant" and not practically "significant" or visa versa or both or neither. Furthermore if you look at anthropomorphic effects you really should look at the whole picture. Much of what I've seen has focused on a subset (and arguably a small subset) of those activities that might contribute to global warming (i.e. ignoring the activities that would counter it).

 

Sorry, delete this.

 

Have you heard about the Great Global Warming Scam, advocated by Al 'I-used-to-be-the-next-president-of-the-United-States-but-George-W-stole-my-election' Gore? Now he has to live on a lie....LOL!
Well, here's what actually happens with 100% certainty:

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/07/03/global-temperature-standstill-lengthens-no-global-warming-for-17-years-10-months-since-sept-1996-214-months/

 

That can't be true. The vast majority of PBS says so.

Poor wittle poo bears

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/arctic-bears/polar-bears-make-a-difficult-decision/782/