I will, Al should have been in class with you. :lol: You know they claim that the increase in Carbon over the last 50 years has increased crop production by over 3T. Do you think that could be correct?That ranks among the most hilariously stupid thing I have ever read. I disagree. Stupid? Yes. Hilarious? No. Once again Mike is showing his deliberate ignorance. A simple search using "global warming crop yields" returned many credible articles explaining how global warming is potentially reducing crop yields, yet Mike jumped on an unknown claim that ignores all the advances in technology and attributes increase crop yields to increased carbon emissions. But why should Mike bother educating himself when he can glom onto an anonymous assertion that supports his preconceived ideas? Try this simple example of math. Drought lower crops by 10T but the carbon raised crop production by 3T. Just the same as keeping track of the amount of crop increase by using fertilizers and genetically engineered seeds. Or in your line of thinking the global warming reduced crop yields, so the fertilizers used are doing no good and does not increase the crop production. Just brilliant.
Try this simple example of math. Drought lower crops by 10T but the carbon raised crop production by 3T. Just the same as keeping track of the amount of crop increase by using fertilizers and genetically engineered seeds. Or in your line of thinking the global warming reduced crop yields, so the fertilizers used are doing no good and does not increase the crop production. Just brilliant.That specious argument shows your thinking skills are on par with your reading comprehension.
Try this simple example of math. Drought lower crops by 10T but the carbon raised crop production by 3T. Just the same as keeping track of the amount of crop increase by using fertilizers and genetically engineered seeds. Or in your line of thinking the global warming reduced crop yields, so the fertilizers used are doing no good and does not increase the crop production. Just brilliant.That specious argument shows your thinking skills are on par with your reading comprehension. Keep trying you’re going to catch you tail one of these days.
A little off-topic but GOOD NEWS for once.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Earth's protective but fragile ozone layer is beginning to recover, largely because of the phase-out since the 1980s of certain chemicals used in refrigerants and aerosol cans, a U.N. scientific panel reported Wednesday in a rare piece of good news about the health of the planet.http://news.msn.com/science-technology/scientists-say-the-ozone-layer-is-recovering!!!!!
A little off-topic but GOOD NEWS for once.That is good news. Especially for people who have to watch out for skin cancer. I was trying to remember when they told us about the ozone holes how long they claimed it would take the earth to heal if we stopped all the aerosols from going into the atmosphere. I can’t remember but it seems like it was going to be a real long time. So this is good news.WASHINGTON (AP) — Earth's protective but fragile ozone layer is beginning to recover, largely because of the phase-out since the 1980s of certain chemicals used in refrigerants and aerosol cans, a U.N. scientific panel reported Wednesday in a rare piece of good news about the health of the planet.http://news.msn.com/science-technology/scientists-say-the-ozone-layer-is-recovering!!!!!
I believe that this is right on schedule. In 1980 scientists estimated it would take 20 - 30 years for the then existing CFCs to dissipate.
It is also good news for people who use anti EDT medicines. I recebtly read that regular users of viagra, cialis, etc are more prone to developing Melanoma.
Seems like a victory for science all around… 
I said I did not know, Lausten has studied the subject, which would have given Lausten some insight on the subject. Three trillion over fifty years is 60 billion a year increase in world crop production per year. To me that number seems high. And the reason I wanted to know was so I could better understand the methods used by the hemp growers.I think I see part of the problem here. You want to better understand hemp growing so you start a conversation about global warming at the Center for Inquiry. Then you take people's words and use them however you want. Trying learning about growing things from biologists or farmers. You might do better. And, hemp and marijuana are not the same the thing.
I said I did not know, Lausten has studied the subject, which would have given Lausten some insight on the subject. Three trillion over fifty years is 60 billion a year increase in world crop production per year. To me that number seems high. And the reason I wanted to know was so I could better understand the methods used by the hemp growers.I think I see part of the problem here. You want to better understand hemp growing so you start a conversation about global warming at the Center for Inquiry. Then you take people's words and use them however you want. Trying learning about growing things from biologists or farmers. You might do better. And, hemp and marijuana are not the same the thing. Hemp is a low THC variety of cannabis, but it is an excellent CO2 scrubber and unless used for energy, products made from hemp actually sequester large amounts of CO2. Several German car makers already use hemp for interior door panels and instrument panels, etc. George Washington was a pioneer in growing commercial hemp. Sisal ropes are made from hemp plus another several thousand useful products can be made from hemp, saving on the use of wood products. Hemp matures in 4 months and trees take 20 years to mature. It is one of the most eco friendly plants the earth has produced. As usual we are just coming late to the party, so to speak.. :-)
I messed up on my last post. The 3T was 3 Trillion dollars’ worth of crop that has been produced in the same fields around the world just by the extra carbon in the air. Not tons, but trillion dollars. How they came up with that figure, who knows.You sure did - where is the source of this information you've bought hook, line and sinker? Why must you always keep such details a secret ???
George Washington was a pioneer in growing commercial hemp.Weelll, I've heard it said that George Washington's letters to his gardner reveal an acute interest in the female plant, you know the one that makes all the buds. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. … or was that Jefferson :coolsmirk:
George Washington was a pioneer in growing commercial hemp.Weelll, I've heard it said that George Washington's letters to his gardner reveal an acute interest in the female plant, you know the one that makes all the buds. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. … or was that Jefferson :coolsmirk: Well, so they grew a couple of plants for personal use. Apparently it did not impair their judgement, except as shrewd business men.
Just got back, out of town.
On the hemp/marijuana. My understanding is that hemp is the more used name for history. Marijuana came in later as slang and grew in use in the United States then spread out from there. Cannabis in used more by the scientists and medical people.
As far as Lausten commenting that I started this conversation about global warming to learn about hemp and marijuana. Lausten, check the post, I did not start the post or the conversation, I followed up. Lausten if you were looking for someone gathering information for a book, I would think you would be looking at CC. He is always wanting the source, even for things of memory and of little value. Book writers always need the source.
Lausten, we have gotten off the subject of the post now. There was other information I want to say about the Exxon captain but I did not. Because I did not want to drift too far away from the posts subject of AGW. But at the time of the Exxon spill of 1989. American was in a legal change in the IRS and other departments over the meaning of “EMPLOYER". The big labor law changes had been in the Great Society and The New Deal. Then we had the Tax Reforms of 1986. And we were still struggling with the changes of laws for the 86 Tax reforms at that time. Europe was far ahead of us in labor leasing. It had a steady growth of 15% a year here in the United States and it needed to be dealt with.
The problem was when you had companies sharing employees or union involvement in management. Then you have created a Joint Employer or a Co-Employer situation and sometimes even a duel employer situation. And as we try to work this problem out with the many State and Federal departments the IRS stepped in and declared both companies responsible. With the fair labor standard laws we had workers that did clean up and touch up work or supervising on state, federal, city and private job sites and sometimes they would have up to seventeen different pay scales in one day alone. Most computerized payroll programs were unable to handle the new government requirements.
Because of what the IRS did, the OSHA laws and regulations were now unworkable on the legal liability part. I could give you pages of examples of problems we had to deal with. But let’s fast forward this. At the time of Exxon the employer was in limbo. Ten years later when we finally got the government departments working together a little bit. A worker could have one employer for taxes (IRS). And another employer for work control. And yet another that would fall responsible under OSHA. Yet to most of the public and even to the employee it seemed like there was only one main employer. But that was not the way the insurance companies and lawyers looked at it.
This is why the Exxon case was clear to the public that the captain was wrong. And he even got convicted under state laws. But all that was thrown out and the conviction overturned and the charges dropped. Because of where the labor laws were at the time, note they used maritime law to throw the case out. But I think they did that because of the appeals that were going to be filed if they did not change the ruling. It would have been almost impossible to handle a big major case like that in the courts with laws of employer liability going through the changes at that point in time of our history. Had the spill happened three years earlier or ten years later then the employer status would not have been an issue.
Big cases like the Exxon case could have had a ruling on employer liabilities had it not been settled that would have increased the cost worker’s insurances to the point of maybe sending this country into a recession. The country did not want this in the courts, it forced the departments, especially the IRS to come to workable agreements with the private industries and other government departments.