http://alleghenysc.org/?page_id=395

Here's something published by the Sierra Club back in 2006 where, in a long list of suggested energy policy, biofuels are near the bottom and corn based ethanol is negatively revued.

I sincerely tried to find any evidence that the environmental movement ever recommended corn based ethanol and I'm not suggesting that my 30 minute search proves no complicity, but clearly the ethanol subsidies and their blending in gasoline were primarily created by the political thrust of big ag and big business-equally supported by Dems and Repubs from everything I could find.

If anyone can find anything contradicting this I'd love to see it. It's somehow peaked my interest. I think I must be a frustrated wannabe journalist.

I have 2 comments.

1. I am saddened and disappointed by the name calling and judgements stated in the above.

2. It is my understanding of one of the above threads that Global Warming being caused by mankind is only a theory, and not fact. There are other theories such as the theory of relativity, theory of evolution, theory of plate tectonics, theory of constraints, theory of gravity, theory of black holes, and theory of the big bang. It is my belief that scientists around the world accept these and many other theories, and I hope that they have not lied to us about them for monetary gain.

Ben, thanks for the reminder of the actual definition of theory in science. The general public often defines theory as just a guess. This leads to a lot of confusion, although not among scientists, who are taught from their very first introduction into science the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.

Does this forum not have moderators? GW has so many sub forums maybe they should make a "Insulting your fellow members" forum where BambooRabbit and Harvestman can trade insults and argue with each other. I also suggest an "Extra Terrestrial Gardening" section for Konrad.

Happy New Year

MLEP,
Aw c'mon it's not that bad. We need to have clarity in our discussion and if our logic challenges us in its pursuit, it's OK.
Besides, HMan and BR are brothers and it's best not to intervene.
In the Great Encounter there will be more unifying us than dividing us and this will all be trivial. Hahaha!
Imagine all the people...!

Melike, where precisely have I insulted BR? I've been called a liar and knowitall, accused of making statements I've never made, taken parts of my statements out of context to make them mean something else, said my contributions are hot air and worthles, and just because I probably come off as pompous (I can't help it, it's my writing style and possibly my unchosen- sorry-born-that-way personality type) you're going to equate my behavior to BR.

Besides if you aren't enjoying the show why are you still here? The script has been pretty clear for a while. Obviously me and BR are having a pretty good time, as it seems are a few others still tuned in, so why condemn it? And if you're going to condemn it, at least don't act like the lame media and equate our two sides of this argument as being equal.

Actually I don't mind being equated with BR, I'm beginning to like the prk.

Noogy there is nothing wrong with debating global warming, or religion or politics. I just don't think a "Fruit/Orchard" forum is the place for it. There are many forums dedicated to discussing those topics. I'm new to growing plants in ground and I read many threads to learn. This is not the first time I've checked a thread to "learn" something and seen harvest and BR going back and forth with each other. I appreciate when they post about their growing and cultivating practices but not this other stuff.

As far as the alien stuff it was kind of funny when I first saw it in another thread but now it's distracting from the "Fruits & Orchards". I wish there was (or maybe there is) an "Other" or "Everything else" forum where members good discuss all these other things. Or at least moderators could move the threads there.

Lemme guess. Gage/damson/superior?

Yes, Green Gage, Mt. Royal and Patterson's Pride, some more on the other side, Stanley, about 2 German Prune Plums.

>>I just don't think a "Fruit/Orchard" forum is the place for itIt was started by MrsG47 and I'm pretty sure she regrets by now that she did, but some of us like to take it a bit further, you don't have to click on it....tons of other thread's or start something your own.

Melike, you didn't respond to me. My point is that this thread had long since run its course on issues pertaining to fruit trees and you certainly must have realized that some time ago. Who is making you read this stuff?

I spend hours of my time answering people's questions about fruit trees here as does BR which you clearly don't appreciate enough to let us have a little fun at no one's actual expense.

A few others have even tuned in to say they've enjoyed the thread.

Melike, in all the hundreds and hundreds of threads where I've posted answers I've only got into a run in with BR on a single other occasion. On that occasion I didn't even take the bait and every single one of my posts was about the subject of the thread.

I believe BR finds my writing style arrogant and also doesn't much appreciate the experience I bring to the table- which is fine. I'm actually grateful to him for explaining a method of pruning blueberries that I didn't know about, although it may not apply to my region.

Sometimes it is disheartening how little appreciation there is for the effort made to share information in the computer age when everyone takes free access to info for granted.

MLEP,
Debating global warming is directly relevant to plant culture as temperature is a limiting factor in plant growth. If the portrayal of societies base structures (religion, politics, economies) as interfering with the processes of critical thinking causes some cognitive dissonance, so be it. Our survival as a species depends upon if we can work through the static.

I've noticed that sometimes we read into text on an emotional level and sometimes our reaction is a reflection of our own subconscious, insecurities, and ego defenses.

!Viva las Plantas!

NASA faked the landing of the men on the moon.
The medical establishment is hiding the cure for cancer.
The president's birth certificate is fake.
The UN has secret military bases in America ready to establish one world government.
Human activity has no effect on the climate.
And you'll NEVER convince me otherwise. I know because I'm much smarter than you. If you challenge my unsubstantiated assertions and irrelevant facts, you are obviously a stupid, gullible sheep and a liar. None of your "facts" make any diference to me because they are all lies made up by scientists who conspired together to fabricate all their so called "research" just so they can get grants from the government. I know this because I'm not gullible like you.

Poales Rodentia

Concern over global warming has been the wrong thing to get people motivated to make changes. It is hard to prove, easy to dispute, and is not happening according to the predictions (let the record freezes in N. America, Europe, and Asia over the last two winters speak for this, as well as the negligible warming trend over the past decade).

And let's face it, global warming is much better than global cooling for life on the planet. BUT, the myriad other more tangible environmental problems we cause by our abuse of resources should be paid more attention to. What ever happened to conserving simply for the sake of using less?

Fab, your analysis simply in no way is in sinc with the vast majority of people who study this issue,study and accumulate the data and are trained to do the analysis. Of course the exact map of changes is impossible to construe accurately and specific predictions are not going to be accurate.

In the vast majority of the scientific community, the only logical debate going on about global warming is how much economic sacrifice is justified to bring about a reduction in green house gasses. There is a logical argument that reducing the use of oil would cause more economic damage than than the ecological benefits.

Your examples are irrelevent because they are about local weather issues. If you read what has been posted here you would find data that leaves absolutely no doubt of a steady rise in global temps. The experts have said all along that local weather changes would be erradic. Weather events globally will tend to be increasingly extreme on both sides of the thermometer as well as weather events in general.

This in no way means that it is impossible that some unknown factor could render the theory or the predicted outcomes as being wrong. Does this mean we should ignore the possible consequences if the moderate predictions of experts might be overblown? I guess that should be up to an informed public to decide, but to suggest that there is a controversy about the general reading of accumulated data isn't really true, unless you consider anything a controversy that hasn't reached 100% consensus.

Some of the media likes to portray this as a legitimate controversy, but you should read some of the dialogue that goes on between people who have some credentials for knowing what they are talking about(i.e. climatologists)before you buy into that, I think.

Benny,

The major difference is comparing man made global warming theory to the big bang theory, evolution or the theory of relativity ect ect is quite simple. With none of those other theories is there an agenda. None of those other theories are they hugging a tree or trying to save momma earth and using that as a basis to skew their data or opinions intentionally or not. Those other theories that are unproven have no real affect on us as a nation or a people.

With the man made global warming theory if we do what the world wants us to it will cost the USA trillions of dollars and millions of jobs and put us at a dramatic economic disadvantage in the world.

Konrad, I regret nothing. We all have opinions, that is why this is called a forum. I have learned so much about my trees, soil, and their culture in this forum that my question was answered through the first to third post.

OK..good!.. I'm glad your'e still with us.

Happy growing!

Whew!

Ha, yes the sun is heating up, which is why 'global warming' is happening. It's melting the dry ice caps on Mars and turned one of Jupiter's icy moons (Io I believe) into a huge slush ball. Earth's magnetic poles are overdue for a major shifting, and don't forget, this year is the year that the Mayan calender resets to '0'. Edgar Cayce predicts that there is supposed to be a major upheaval for the earth, with parts of it sinking, while other parts will rise (see "Edgar Cayce on Atlantis"). Even the Bible (New Testament) predicts that a massive earthquake will cause 3 1/2 years of trials for those of us on earth. I've noticed a lot more earthquake activity in the USA, so who knows. Should make for an interesting year.
The whole 'carbon dioxide is a pollutant' is really misguided, as carbon is one of the major elements on Earth! Also, plants absorb carbon dioxide, maybe if it's such a 'hazard', then shouldn't there be a moratorium on clearing forests to put in new housing developments? Shouldn't everyone plant more trees? Sounds like a good idea, less building, more trees! Maybe all those chemtrail planes are contributing to all the 'global warming', they sure aren't helping with their super polluting jet exhaust.

{{gwi:126100}}

Wow, I thank you for that pic. I can point some things out.

See those "chemtrails" or smoke trails from the jets, The atmospher 30 years ago, those would disappear faster, way faster.

We're about 800 year's away when we have a better world....but first we have to work on that.

I found these predictions from the old prophets very interesting.

PREDICTIONS OF THE PROPHETS JEREMIA AND ELIA

Here is a link that might be useful: PREDICTIONS OF THE PROPHETS JEREMIA AND ELIA

The Cause of this Climate Change Problem

This is a partial insertion from the Bulletin 2007
Ptaah
However, that thereby irresponsible know-it-alls - in particular those in any relationship to scientists with doctoral and professorial titles who are devoid of responsibility - publicly still offer their nonsense and lead terrestrial humanity into error with their stupidity; that should be punishable, because their acts are criminal.

Still to say is that, as a rule, all the irresponsible gentlemen doctors and professors, and so forth, who name themselves scientists, and dispute the climate debacle, earn much money with their nonsense, because they often work, profit-greedily, for multinational industries, and so forth, and construct for them, through false climate models, analyses which are foreign to the truth, and which have nothing to do with reality and truth.

Here is a link that might be useful: The Cause of this Climate Change Problem

Gee, Konrad, thanks for closing the debate so effectively. Nice to know the ET's are on the side of reason. Let's see BR come up with a rebuttal to the man from the stars.

Anything's possible, I guess (and I'm not talking about BR and his rebuttal).

harvestman, there are one or two in every group/forum on Gardenweb.
They seem to know more & grown more then the most of us.
Are always willing to tell what they did & what works for them.
Thank you for being one on the Fruit forum.

Yes, there has been a very small amount of temperature rising in the last 100 years......and yes, we are still not as warm as Greenland was when Leif Ericson "discovered" America and some still thought the world was flat......and yes, the scientific "community" would disparage anyone who questioned global cooling in the 1970s....an idea that was considered a scientific "no-brainer" at the time.
These theories come and go and scientists have to be continually humbled.
As someone who works part time in a public school system I can see how a certain "agenda" can get pushed as science and how people can be silenced who oppose it.
It is clearly NOT true that all scientists support the notion of global warming. While you might get a field of biologists who support it (and are also intimidated from teaching anything different) I happen to know that the scientists and very very bright PhDs who have an interest in some of this at our Naval Weapons Research lab almost universally do NOT believe in global warming. So neither optical engineers or biologists are climatologists and even the climatologists are influenced by who pays their paycheck.
What does any of this have to do with gardening? Well, nothing in a way. But I work with a lot of groups of people who really want to plant fruit trees and they want to do this because they believe they are saving the planet. Hardly any of them have the fruit expertise of just about anyone on this forum, but they are starting to want to learn as the locavore and environmental movements are really taking front and center right now.
I don't argue with them....I just think that by planting a fruit tree and learning to care for it, they are saving something all right....it ain't the planet....but a part of what makes us caring human beings.....and so I work with them.....they with their agenda and I with mine.

Donnie, I've seen objective and comprehensive surveys of climatologists and related experts and from that it appears to me the consensus is almost as close to unanimous as it could be for something so complex. Do you have an objective source that indicates more controversy amongst these people? I don't think I'm exaggerating but am very open to other sources.

To give you an idea, we are still coming out of the last ice age. We are in a ice age right now, the end.

I cant say it again, the level of co2 (past 350 ppm) in the air is the problem. The level of co2 and o2 is off, we have off set that. There was more "air" in the air "back then". Its a FACT. This is just what I heard on the radio!!

Going back a few posts...
H-man, my message was not intended to be any kind of analysis -- rather just an observation about how global warming is portrayed to the public and how it plays out in the public mind. I am well aware of the consensus on this issue, studied it in graduate school in fact, so I have seen a great deal of the data you refer to. I am not refuting the existence or absence of human caused global warming, but saying that there are better ways to mobilize people to make positive environmental changes.

For the record, the very weather data I mentioned that feed the non-believers (in global warming), are matched by the high temp data that cause folks to give the global warming cry, despite climatologists pointing out that you really can't attribute individual local weather phenomena to global warming.

Fab, I get it, but I think that we need to overcome the political power of the faith based community in order to make any meaningful progress in terms of tactical adjustments to increase the odds of the continuing survival of our species.

The age of enlightenment was about allowing science to lead our religious interpretations of the universe, but the resistance to this has never gone away. If you combine the political power of the part of our population that believes no matter how much we screw up the planet God will fix it if He wants it fixed with those who have their shortsighted focus on profits and wealth you may well have a plurality that will vote humanity into oblivion.

I think the global warming issue may be a pivotal battle for science based political decisions. Whether the subject is energy policy, education policy, or economic policy if we go by guts instead of brains we are bound to lose.

23 here this morning in central Florida. Below freezing in Tampa also...........if this man made global warming gets much worse I may just freeze to death.

"the part of our population that believes no matter how much we screw up the planet God will fix it"

Hman, I believe in God, yet I don't believe that. A cursory glance at history shows we pretty much have always slept in the bed we've made.

At times suffering has even come from what appeared to be no fault of our species, and yet there was no miraculous rescue. The bubonic plague didn't just last 100 years. It killed for 14 centuries. At its worst, some pretty grim accounts. People fearful not understanding how it could spread from one town to the next like an invisible malice. Carts ran daily to haul away dead like a trash service. Prayers, fasting, weeping, did nothing for those towns which 95% of the inhabitants died from the black death. They were not rescued.

When I said earlier, "For that matter one could reason that a conscious Nature may rescue us in the end?", I don't believe that myself but was merely responding in logical progression to what I thought you might believe.

I'm still unclear why you are disturbed at the extinction of our race. If humans are Nature's consciousness and humans become extinct, there is no pain/remorse/loss after extinction, since the human consciousness would cease.

Again we are not talking about extinction vs. no extinction, we are talking about when the extinction will take place. Like death and taxes, extinction is a given.

Olpea, this is a pretty weighty philosophical question. It reminds me of when I was a very young man and my father told me he didn't see the point of life insurance because if he wasn't there how would it make a difference?

In his defense I should mention that he didn't mean that therefore he should keep that money for himself but instead wanted to gift his family while he was alive so he could enjoy his generosity, therefore doubling the value of the investment for all involved and infinitely increasing his own.

Extinction is not inevitable IMO just almost inevitable. I like the idea of making life a sport of survival. As an individual I can only win the game for so long but it's been a great game so far and I'd like to extend it for as long as my pleasure exceeds my pain.

The greatest pleasure in my life comes from my relationships with my wife, son, and other close family. This now includes a 1 year old grandson.

So my reasons for wanting to postpone our extinction as long as possible is primarily emotional and based on an empathetic desire for all these people to have as many interesting and pleasurable days as I've enjoyed and am going to enjoy. I know my grandson will probably wish that for his children and grandchildren should they join humanity.

About the chance of humanity permanently avoiding extinction- well anything's possible. I could provide you with some science fiction scenarios including the idea of humanity creating such an advanced technology that it could transcend its biological self and create a consciousness that could survive the big bang, or whatever the universe can dish out, maybe even rewrite its rules. If we could stick around for a few million years maybe we could become God. Anything's possible.

Maybe we really are God's children, waiting to grow up.

Yes..your'e getting there, HM.

One has to look in how creation was made or how did our universe and our world come into existence?

Here is a link that might be useful: How did our universe and our world come into existence?

Hman,

I concede an emotional bond with loved ones motivates measures for their well being, whether the matter is life insurance or green house gases. Anyone truly human feels it.

However, it breaks down after a certain number of generations in the future. That same bond is lost. The converse is also true. Most people have no special affection for ancestors, say, 20 generations past. Indeed in most cases people don't even know who their relatives were 20 generations ago.

In that case, the only emotional bond relevant would be what one feels for humanity in general. However, even that would be negated if our species were doomed to certain extinction. A sinking ship is going to eventually lie on the bottom of the ocean, no matter how hard you bail.

I can see believing the human race may escape extinction provides a way out of the emotional dilemma. It could provide a great deal of utility believing one's actions (in a small way) could help secure a permanent future for mankind.

In reality, my own views are not near so severe and sterile as I'm making them out here and somewhat similar to yours.

I feel a sense of duty and a level affection for humans in general and hate to see gratuitous suffering. I also see a difference in nature causing extinction and pain vs. human beings accelerating it unnecessarily (the latter being worse). Lastly my belief in God would dictate he would probably be displeased with the premature extinction of mankind. Even if we become extinct, I believe he will continue, so there would still be someone around to feel the loss.

That said, I've no idea the solution (if there is one) to the greenhouse phenomena. Sometimes we as human beings want to do something to fix a problem, even if that something won't really fix it.

For example, cutting defense might make a significant impact on greenhouse emissions, but it could also destabilize what is perceived as a balance of power, emboldening nations into more wars. A large war releases lots of C02 in the atmosphere. Not saying this would happen, just using it as an example of the possible complications to a given solution.

As stated, no one is really going to voluntarily sacrifice enough to afford any serious action to this problem. Heck, many nations (U.S. included) don't even have the discipline to run a balanced budget. If we can't even do that, knowing we will eventually pay the piper (like Greece) how can we even talk seriously about the severe sacrifices required on a world wide scale to reduce greenhouse emissions?

Barring some disaster that wipes out most of the population, reducing the birth rate is probably the only realistic long term solution to CO2 release.

This is a hot topic for me,

If a person looks at things logically, and gathers the real information from science, its a no brainer, the Earth is getting warmer, Heck we do not need scientist to even tell us this. we can see it happening around us, Pole ice is shrinking, glaciers are disappearing etc.

Some would prefer to believe an outlandish conspiracy theory, where tens of thousand of scientist from every religious, political and social background all conspired to make up a big hoax, in order that Al Gore can make money.

That is what some media outlets, would have you believe. it has now become just another political tool.

The REAL question is, how much of the warming is man made if any?

A failed logic many put forth are:

The Earth has been through warm cycles before, etc.

The failed logic here is, since it can happen naturally it must mean the current trend is natural.

If that was true, then using the same logic, all forest fires must be natural right? - wrong.

Another big fail I see, is, when someone comments on how cold it is outside. There is a BIG difference between local weather and global climate. other factors such as sunspots, El Ni�o, La Ni�a, volcanic activity can affect world or regional climate to some degree for a period. so yeah cold records will still be broken, in some areas, when scientist speak of Global warming, they are only talking about a few degrees, over many decades on average.

Then we get to all the Hoax theory pushers, another argument is, Someone is going to make money of this global warming thing, so it must be false. again, fail logic. Firemen make a living putting out fires, does that mean fires are a hoax? of course not.

I agree with many, I do not like the so called Carbon Tax, solution, it really doesn't do much to help global warming. or stop the heavy polluters, which are allowed to keep doing business as usual, while just paying out some cash.

I have seen all the arguments, for example.

Other planets are getting warmer, so its the suns fault.

FALSE, Mars was warmer, for a period, because sand storms, lifted up darker sand, and absorbed more heat from the sun, other Planets have not warmed up, and solar monitoring, if anything, has shown the Sun actually putting out less energy due to its currently low sunspot activity.

Another story thats popular, some pseudo scientist , put up a chart showing as proof, that the Earth is actually getting cooler.
Again, False, he cherry picked, data, picking a year with higher than normal temps, and a later year with a below normal temp, drew a line, and said, see? Earth is getting colder , sadly many people actually believe this crock. you do not Cherry pick data, that you like, and leave out what you do not.

And finally, The so called Greenland was warm not long ago.
Ice core samples have shown this to have been a regional warming not global, again we are talking GLOBAL not regional or local climate.

And one more point, why are people fighting the global warming thing so much, who is to gain if we all get together and find cleaner ways to live on this planet, even IF tere was no global warming at all, it makes sense for health and economic reasons to get off our addiction to coal and oil. and to not pollute our Oceans, rivers, air, and food with Chemicals and other toxic substances, so again, who is pushing for the Global warming is a hoax, who is spending money pushing the hoax theory? yes I believe there is a bit of conspiracy going on, but its not the thousands of scientist, its more like a few dozen who have something to lose if we start going green.

>> NASA faked the landing of the men on the moon.And you'll NEVER convince me otherwise. I know because I'm much smarter than youSince I can't comment on these because you're smarter then all of us, I have looked what ET say's on the moon landing.
Apparently it was fake but only the very first landing on July 20th, 1969.

To claim NASA was right, they have shown pictures, "FAKE"
most likely from other landings.

Here is a link that might be useful: Swiss Prophet Predicted NASA�s Fake Photos

Olpea, of course any action is a roll of the dice, but advocating alternate energy sources and voicing a willingness to suffer some economic loss to do so might be just the action that ultimately tips the balance- like I've said (and I think a few others) anything's possible.

Same for advocating for a government not so under the influence of corporate money so decisions can be a little more objective. The industrial military complex comes to mind since you brought up reducing the military. I think corporate muscle may be clouding the reading of climate science as well. Something as fundamental as campaign finance reform might help form a more responsible government.

Incidentally, I don't think we have to worry too much about the U.S. government spending more than it brings in at the present time. I believe that we are the first country in the history of civilization that can simply print money when we need it and the rest of the world is forced to accept it without devaluing it. It's really an amazing phenomena that most people fail to grasp and the politicians don't want to grasp. Anyone that wants us back on the gold standard is insane- this is the best hustle of all time.

As I understand it, we've tripled the volume of our currency since the bank crash and the rest of the world just keeps acting as if the dollar is worth about the same. The empire may have no clothes but those Chinese shoes and coats are sure keeping me warm. The rest of the world does our bidding (makes us the stuff we want) and the main thing we do really well is print money the rest of the world believes in.

Hman,

I'm all for advocating alternate energy sources. Global warming aside, eventually we are going to run out of oil and coal. I'm just saying reducing green house emissions to any level that would make a substantive difference would require sacrifices beyond what most people could imagine.

The last statistic I heard was that Americans use about 32 barrels of oil (fuel and other petrol related products) per capita. Typical oil statistics are lower but I don't think they take into account all the imported oil related products/packaging etc.

China and India are around 2 barrels per capita. The problem is these countries are trying to pattern their economies after the other industrialized nations but China and India have 4 times the populace of the U.S. each. When these countries finally become industrialized (which they will) the world won't be using less fossil fuels, but more, no matter what the U.S. and other current industrialized nations do. Africa will eventually follow suit.

Unless there is some clever new energy source developed, humans will use fossil fuels at an increasing rate until they're gone, regardless of what the U.S. and other current industrialized nations do.

I don't fault developing nations for trying to raise their standard of living. Life is very hard, and it's natural for anyone to want to make it less so. I'm just pointing out anything we do likely won't really address the problem, rather will just make people feel good they are doing something.

One the subject of money, the reason for the relative strength of the dollar is due to foreign (Chinese) purchase of our debt (keeping demand for dollars high). Eventually that debt will have to be paid back.

When that happens all the "good" things that have occurred (i.e. cheap foreign goods) to keep our standard of living artificially high, will happen in reverse.

I agree reverting to a currency backed by precious metals is preposterous. As we've already discovered, it's impossible to keep the government set price of the precious metal equal to the market price. In the past it produced constant market speculation and the government had to continually "revalue" the currency. Continually revaluing a currency based on precious metals is no different than the fiat currency we have now.

Insane weather this afternoon.... for early Jan...warmer in South Dakota then Cancun, Mexico.

{{gwi:126101}}

{{gwi:126102}}

Olpea, as long as the debt is paid with dollars we only have to keep the printing presses running. I know it sounds crazy but I've run it by a couple of economists and while they were well aware of what I was saying they'd never thought about it the way I stated it. That is that this is the biggest hustle ever played by any nation on the rest of the world.

The Europeans are trying to make the Euro an alternative currency but there's no way for manipulating their currency right now the way we can. No one country can just print them.

The Chinese are in a bind. Their only power is to say that the dollar is no longer worth a dollar which it shouldn't be after we tripled its quantity out of thin air, but they have to pretend the empire has clothes or they are as naked as we are. If the dollar is worth less their goods will cost more and the economic engine stalls with all their billions of people needing it to continue expanding.

Of course this can't be perpetuated indefinitely but for the foreseeable future we have it made in the shade like no other country ever has.

I agree with every point you make about the oil and coal being used up no matter how any of us feels about it. I stated as much about 80 comments ago. I still believe in fighting the good fight, but maybe that is naive. The only way we can put any dent in this is with an international treaty which includes China and India. China is certainly investing heavily in alternative energy sources as I'm sure you know.

Hman,

It is likely we will print our way out of debt. It's the easiest way and in dire times nations generally can't resist that temptation.

Of course paying the debt back with worthless dollars has problems of it's own. Likely it would cause the same hyperinflation Germany experienced in the 1930s, or Argentina experienced in the 1980s.

In the late 1980s I worked for a commodities company that did business in Argentina. Some of the managers involved told me it was extremely difficult to do business in that environment.

Because inflation was so high, managers had to spend all their time trying to keep their products priced correctly to make a profit. Because prices changed continually, the day to day efficiency of the operations didn't matter. Everyone's time was spent managing finances. It encouraged a very inefficient economic model. Argentinans are still feeling the effects from that debacle.

I think our situation could be much worse. Because we are larger there won't be anyone (like the IMF) to bail us out. You've heard the phrase, "too big to [let them] fail" applied to various business during this recession. The U.S. will be too big (to be able) to save.

What will probably compound the problem is that at the same time we are trying to inflate our way out of debt, the U.S. dollar will probably cease to be the dominant world currency. Nations don't want to tie themselves to a worthless and unstable currency. The effect of this would add to inflation.

In worse cases, hyper inflation encourages a barter economy (very inefficient), unemployment, and political instability.

As a side note, we talking about printing money, but I'm sure you're aware the gov. doesn't even have to fire up the printing presses to increase the money supply. Only about 5% of the money supply is actual dollars. Most of the "money" is in "demand deposits" i.e. checking accounts, etc. All that's necessary to increase the money supply is to add a few zeros to the end of the U.S. Treasury's account.

Olpea, the historic examples I'm well aware of as everyone keeps bringing up German's hyper inflation. Google Krugman at NY Times and you will get a better explanation than I can give of why our situation is not the same as pre-war Germany and Argentina. Suffice it to say that neither were the center of capitol. Their positions were weak to begin with.

Your thinking is widespread, but not so much amongst economists, although as usual there is no unanimous consensus. But it is another case where people, including politicians, trust their guts more than their experts. Everyone believes that they are the rare person with common sense.

You can give me examples where countries have borrowed their way into hyper inflation, but how about some examples of where austerity has helped governments avoid a depression when confronted with deep recession?

I admit that I really don't understand economics- I haven't spent my lifetime studying it. My entire adult life has been an obsession of learning about music and plants- in that order. It's still important to try to have enough understanding to assume a responsible political position. I figure that's what we're doing here.

Maybe we should continue this conversation on e-mail as other members seem to have dropped out anyway and I could sure use my spell-check.

I've been reading about "tidal mills" as a possible alternate source of energy. Its been used for well over a thousand years as a power source. I've also read about generators that use wave motion for power. Here in Kansas we have unbelievable wind power but its not guaranteed or contstant - it seems that tide or wave power would be a great constant source of energy - what's the downside if there is one? I know you would have the initial construction but what are the hidden costs?

The environmentalists would never allow it as its construction may hurt a fishes feelings.

I'm an anthropogenic GW denier - but I'm hedging my bets: I'm planting both Southern and far-northern pecan varieties.

Here is a link that might be useful: Ice Age Now

For those of you who are interested,.. some great information/video with Wendelle Stevens, Michael Horn & a representative from FIGU, Christian Frehner, Switzerland.

Here is a link that might be useful: UFO Convention 2006 about Billy Meier

Dear Konrad, I love your photographs and great growing insights and information, but I do believe you need to start a new thread for your UFO and Extra-terrestrial information. New people come to this site everyday and want information about cultivation of fruits and fruit trees, please respect the basic questions. Many thanks, Mrs. G

Ups...I understand, sorry for bothering you,.. will that include the
economics?

there is a solution to both global warming and population pressures, but you may want to be very careful in its implementation... nuclear winter... just a thought.

Hi Y'all,
My mom who lives south of Saugatuck, Michigan, Zone 6,
harvested the remaining 15lbs of brussel sprouts left from her ...er...winter garden. No green house needed. Just think of what she could do with a green house!
This morning it's in the low 20's.