North Pole Movement

Is this true? AUSTRALIA fudge numbers?...can't link now.

Dang tablets...This is the article. From Drudge.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/08/25/Australian-Bureau-of-Meteorology-accused-of-Criminally-Adjusted-Global-Warming

 

It appears falsifying data happens often. Just do a search.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct

More on the AU fudged numbers: http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/08/heat-is-on-over-weather-bureau-homogenising-temperature-records/

 

So what's all this business with fudge now?

 

Well, if fudge is heated (artificially) above its' normal range and is served to the public, panic should ensue.

 

Hot fudge eh, on some ice cream eh? It's gotta be better than the north pole warming up and moving around, freeing up all the zombies to move about.

 

It's not looking good for AG and his predictions. The poo bears should all be swimming now, but look- more polar ice than ever.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html

How can AG possibly even show his face. And who told him the future was so gloomy? Because, AG ain't no scientist. Just greedy.

Remember, it was: " the earth is heating, polar icecaps melting, water levels rising, nations underwater, etc etc".
Now the story will change.

 

Maybe he is a major stockholder in Burger KIng and will move to Canada eh....

 

Whereaboots?

 

Prolly Montreal. They give good massages there. No questions asked. And AG likes a good rub down. Just look it up. He's the hetero version of John Travolta.

 

He's just trying to stay alive....

 

Changing = warming. No change of goal posts AFAIK.

Farmers' Almanac deals with the weather, I suppose. Not the same as the climate, which is a much more complicated thing, I should think.

Yes, it's all about the money and power - of the oil etc. companies, that is. I suppose one can still find "scientists" paid by tobacco companies who still argue that smoking is not causing cancer...

Am aware that you think and say so. As I explained before have been talking about the food safety, nothing else. In a long survey about a myriad of different aspects the ones about e.g. food supply or progress directions do not count here.

You are misreading. Those ranks you quote are for "quality and safety" combined. I have been talking about the safety only. Read again.

I suppose there never will be any survey which you would be happy about - except if it agreed with you...

Feel free to search the net for the statistics you prefer. I already did it for far too long. This study based on money spent is totally relevant enough to proove that abt 75 % of the food consumed in Finland is domestic.

Indeed prior to WW2 and especially during it Finland was a significant importer of foods. Now, 70 years after, the situation is luckily competely different. The productivity of farming has improved massively: tractors instead of horses, lots of new farming land, use of fertilizers and modern crop varieties have totally changed the picture. There was even a time few decades ago, when one of the biggest problems of the Finnish agriculture was overproduction! Currently we do import again more than we export, but the share is nothing like 70 years ago.

I managed to find few tables (in Finnish) of Finnish food imports and exports, respectively, which give the following info:

All food imports in 2013: 2,982,861 tonns, 4,277 Million euros.
All food exports in 2013: 1,368,309 tonns, 1,489 Million euros.

So, according to that information, if money wise the Finnish domestic food usage is 75 %, the domestic usage share by mass is higher, since the imported food seems to be lighter in mass.

http://www.etl.fi/www/fi/liitetiedostot/tilastot/tuonti_vienti/Elintarviketuonti_taulukko.pdf
http://www.etl.fi/www/fi/liitetiedostot/tilastot/tuonti_vienti/Elintarvikevienti_taulukko.pdf

Nobody is ignoring anything. Since there are many possible food problems concentrating only on one is not correct either.

It would be very odd if the scientific world would not talk publicly about obvious problems and/or solutions. Sounds too much of a conspiracy theory...

I agree that we should tackle with all the problems. It still should not prevent us doing anything, while we continue endless arguments about what might be the whole picture/worst problem/easiest to solve problem and so on.

So, do we agree now that man is to blame for a significant part?

Your source seems to be highly suspicious.... Use e.g. this instead: http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/

BTW - isn't that exactly what happened (GWB stole the elections)...?

 

If this is "Global" warming, then I say Keep it up! We had a good snow fall this winter, and the summer has been a very mild one.

Yes, climate change is more complicated.

For instance, the scientists are telling us that the planet is "warming"...Go figure, we are coming out of an ice age. Further, they are trying to squeeze "climate change" - that takes place over thousands of years, out of, maybe, 100 years of useful observation. Given their past flip-flopping, I will wait and see what their predictions will be in another 20-30 years.

It is quite hard to give a book report if you have only read the first two pages.

Seems to me that the "money and power" is with the other side. Given the plethora of new "environmental" laws and regulations.

 

Which proves absolutely nothing, as you should know.

What they are saying is, that the planet is warming rapidly, because of us, which is harming our lives - and especially the lives of our children.

Maybe you would also wait and see if you saw a runaway truck rolling towards you? After all it might pass you without any harm - or not...

It does not seem so to me.

 

Exactly!

Yet, you are giving the "Global warming" claimants a "free pass", when their observations are just as incomplete. Again, predicting a "trend" of thousands of years, based on 100 years of observation.

They are saying many things

1.) The planet is warming, how rapidly we cannot say.
2.) The planet is warming because of us, but we're not sure.
3.) The planet is warming which is harming our lives, we think.
4.) The planet is warming and harming our children, maybe.

And the clincher...

5.) Keep that grant money rolling in so I don't have to work, because of a very limited skill set, at McDonald's or Walmart.

Of course, at that great a distance, it is too soon to tell exactly where the truck will be. At the immediate point of observation, I could move 100 feet to the left, and it would hit me. But, had I waited and observed the general path of the incoming truck, I would have a much better idea of where it is headed - as opposed to making a knee jerk reaction and moving to soon.

Thanks for making my point for me.

Yes, this we know.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html

 

Hopefully you read the hole article...? This is a quote from it:

"Yesterday Dr Ed Hawkins, who leads an Arctic ice research team at Reading University, said: ‘Peter Wadhams’s views are quite extreme compared to the views of many other climate scientists, and also compared to what the IPCC report says.’
Dr Hawkins warned against reading too much into ice increase over the past two years on the grounds that 2012 was an ‘extreme low’, triggered by freak weather.
‘I’m uncomfortable with the idea of people saying the ice has bounced back,’ he said.
However, Dr Hawkins added that the decline seen in recent years was not caused only by global warming. It was, he said, intensified by ‘natural variability’ – shifts in factors such as the temperature of the oceans. This, he said, has happened before, such as in the 1920s and 1930s, when ‘there was likely some sea ice retreat’.
Dr Hawkins said: ‘There is undoubtedly some natural variability on top of the long-term downwards trend caused by the overall warming. This variability has probably contributed somewhat to the post-2000 steep declining trend, although the human-caused component still dominates.’"

In other words - although the extent of the polar ice cap varies (also) due to natural causes. the long term trend is still the same: diminishing. It seems, that even if the previous predictions of the speed of the diminishing have been too pessimistic, the overall trend still have not changed. Al Gore, among others, is still in principle right here.

Are you equaling your personal observations of the recent local weather to the scientific research of the world's top climatologists? That research is not only based on observations during the last century, but AFAIK covers at least the last 130,000 years.

So what it the warming might be slightly slower? It still gets warmer.
So what if we are not 100 % sure of the share of the human involvement? The scientists still think so.
So what if we are not 100 % sure of the exact consequencies? They are still not positive, neither to us nor our children.

I doubt that the only other work options for the world's top climatologists would be to work at McDonald's or Walmart - or that they don't work now.

Except that with the climate you can not move to the side to avoid it...

 

Not really. Climate change can include a fair number of different possibilities many of which are not mutually exclusive. Global warming rather narrows the field.

Actually the statment that started this sub thread off was:

If you are talking health them it's about three things quntity, quality, and safety. Your statement based on the evidence you provided looks rather flawed. Attempting to equate pesticides with food safety was anther key error. The tons of pesticide used per acre is almost completely useless. Different pesticides represent considerably different levels of threat and in any case the threat from bacterial contamination appears to outweigh that due to insectesides. I certainly haven't seen any articles on significant numbers of people getting sick because of pesticides in recent years.

All surveys are flawed to some extent. Useful analysis can be performed with the data from some of them however. Your analysis however has been very flawed and the sources you have listed simply don't support the conclusions you have drawn.

No reason to. Your the proponent and you have failed to support your position. Indeed you have posted data that comes closer to refuting it than to supporting it.

Or not, it very much depends on what is being imported.

But how does food exported translate to food not exported and consumed locally? Imported food likely has transportation costs embedded as well that aren't in exported food. There simply isn't enough data to draw any valid conclusions at this point.

 

I'm personally in the "we're headed back into another ice age" camp. This warm spell we've had the 50-75 years or so was us just coming out of the little ice age. This summer here was not as savage as it has been in summers past. So far we have had zero days in excess of 100F. And the last several winters have been a little cooler than we've had lately. Not so many days in the teens and 20s, but a good deal of days in the 30s and upper 20s. Of course just a few years of taking note of the weather patterns probably won't convince the Al Gore types, but really does anyone care about what they think anyway? A sane, level headed person anyway?

Karjala, take it away!

 

Yes, really. In general the climate change is warming up, although locally it can vary.

Indeed it was. What I meant by it, not being a food scientist myself, was safety, which I suppose I have clarified by now.

I already have presented you two credible sources counting BOTH monetary value AND mass. That's totally enough to prove my statement of "75 % of the food consumed in Finland is domestic". If you are not happy with them it's your job now to prove me wrong. Demanding endlessly new sources appears to be no more than arguing for arguments sake...

if you are really interested in what is imported it's all there in my link, in Finnish. I you want me to translate some of it let me know.

Also I don't quite get your fixation on this minor detail. What's your point continuing to argue about this trivial matter? The fact remains: abt 3/4 (or more) of the food in Finland is local. So what?

The last statistics are from the Finnish customs. I don't think they include the transportation costs.

As been discussed before, the individual experiences of local weather prove absolutely nothing. The global general climate change is too small and the local yearly weather variations too great to make it possible to judge by amateurs. Globally the small change is however very substantial.

I prefer to trust e.g. the official food specialists of EU, instead of your opinions.

My sources have backed my points, although admittedly not the different ones you picked.