Skip to content

Corn Stocks Plunging to 1974 Low as China Adds Brazil-Sized Crop to Demand – Bloomberg

June 20, 2011

Corn Stocks Plunging to 1974 Low as China Adds Brazil-Sized Crop to Demand – Bloomberg.

What makes me smile and think “Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy” is that we’re using part of our food source, corn, to create a fuel-additive to satisfy the greenies and to SAVE THE PLANET!

 

Advertisements
9 Comments
  1. Michael Eaton permalink
    June 20, 2011 11:39 am

    “There is a storm developing in agriculture,” said Jean Bourlot, global head of commodities at UBS AG in London. “If we have the slightest disruption in any part of the world, the effect on the price will be considerable.”

    Why? Drenching floods. Where could that come from?

    I refer you to this quote:

    “to satisfy the greenies and to SAVE THE PLANET!”

    You have a circular argument: it is not caring about our planet that leads to dwindling food supply.

  2. June 20, 2011 4:44 pm

    So Mike, when we had floods and other natural disaters BEFORE 1920, were they caused by anthropomorphic global warming/climate change as well? Just wondering since apparently your entire case is built on saving Mother Earth so we won’t have tornados/hurricanes/floods/droughts any more.

    Because somehow when they happened in biblical times, they must have been the SUVs and jet planes…

    (eye roll)

    But remember, its not the weather that represents climate change… unless we want it to be…

  3. June 20, 2011 6:28 pm

    Even more important, there is a global hops shortage! No beer is the end of the world!

  4. Michael Eaton permalink
    June 21, 2011 5:37 am

    “Just wondering since apparently your entire case is built on saving Mother Earth so we won’t have tornados/hurricanes/floods/droughts any more.”

    Actually, not, its not. It is the increasing severity and intensity of weather phenomenon that can be lessened. But you know that, you are, again, being obtuse.

  5. June 21, 2011 11:11 am

    And Mike, you know that you can never.. ever… ever.. prove that ANY of your green initiatives would ever “reduce” the intensity or severity of ANY weather phenomenon, any more than you can prove that the current severe weather is CAUSED by man’s influence. As I said, there have been 100 year floods and severe droughts all throughout history…. before man started destroying the eco-systems with a gusto…

    Seriously, you got a weather machine in their too? Perhaps a tonic we can all drink to make it sunny skies when we want, and rain when the crops need it.

    Perhaps you can tell us to do a rain dance? Or a sunshine dance…

    They say that the “green eco” movement resembles more of a religion where faith in man controlling the weather takes center stage…. I see it’s true in your statements…

  6. Michael Eaton permalink
    June 21, 2011 11:29 am

    “any more than you can prove that the current severe weather is CAUSED by man’s influence.”

    Actually, you refuse to accept ANY of the science involved, so “proof” is a rather odd word for you to use…

    “there have been 100 year floods and severe droughts all throughout history…”

    Not every year, and repeated again and agin, hence the term “100 year”.

    “Perhaps you can tell us to do a rain dance?”

    No, that is the conservative solution to fires and drought… rather than actually doing anything.

    “faith in man controlling the weather takes center stage”

    No, it isn’t about controlling the weather. It is about minimizing impacts. It is silly to think that 6 billion people+ has no impact on the world. The planet just isn’t that big for there to be no impact. So you seriously don’t think that billions of tons of matter thrown into the air has any effect? You seriously shrug off millions of tons of sludge poured into our waters has no resulting impact? Wow. Head in sand much?

  7. June 21, 2011 4:08 pm

    “Actually, you refuse to accept ANY of the science involved, so “proof” is a rather odd word for you to use…”

    You probably should have put the mock quotations over the “science” portion of that comment. You have no science that shows any correlation between the theory behind global cooling global warming climate change global climate disruption and severe weather. None. You have people SAYING that that will be the result. Which is like saying that global warming will cause the sun to rise and set, and then when it happens, VIOLA!, proof!

    There has always been severe weather, droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, earth quakes (my personal favorite they were happening before

    But don’t worry. I will fear ManBearPig.

    I’m super cereal!

    “Not every year, and repeated again and agin, hence the term “100 year”.

    Yeah Mike, I understand why its called “100 year” flood, drought, storm, whatever. The point being is that there are floods and other natural disasters that occur BEFORE the invention of the internal combustion engine. We’re not having 100 year floods every year. Not even close. And most droughts, by definition, are long term, so they do happen year, after year, after year… or they’re not a drought…

    I’m reminded of the hurricane predictions for 2006, following the horrific results displayed in Post-Katrina New Orleans, when that crisis continued to unfold and was fresh in everyones minds.

    The U.S. was going to be in the grip of a global warming induced Hurricane Apocalypse. The end was near, and we must LISTEN to the SCIENCE!!!!!11!!!!

    Yeah. It was a bust. The Predictions and Prognostications never came to pass.

    “No, that is the conservative solution to fires and drought… rather than actually doing anything.”

    You still haven’t told me what you think “conservatives” should do to end the fires and drought…. other than “go green” and “hug a tree” and “buy CFLs and LED bulbs” and “buy a prius”, etc. etc. etc.

    Might as well be selling snake oil….

    “No, it isn’t about controlling the weather. It is about minimizing impacts. ”
    …….
    “So you seriously don’t think that billions of tons of matter thrown into the air has any effect?”

    Actually, I know it does, especially on the micro level (by looking at the pictures of smog at any major metropolitian area). I’m just not convinced that Mother Earth, Gaia, Nature, whatever the Religion of Gore is calling it this week, is facing a global “warming”, “cooling”, “climate change”, “global climate disruption” that requires a massive shift in resources, money, and governmental control, on a global or national level, in order to combat this “crisis”.

    Everytime I read about “carbon footprints” I just shake my head sadly…

    And then I think of this group…. if only more greenie eco-hippies would join them….

  8. Michael Eaton permalink
    June 21, 2011 4:53 pm

    “You have no science that shows any correlation between the theory”

    See, you have the common (conservative) misunderstanding about what the word “theory” means in science. That is understandable, you went to aTm. It is the same thing that confounds those who refuse to accept the “theory” of evolution.

    “A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.[1]
    “A scientific theory is a type of inductive theory, in that its content (i.e. empirical data) could be expressed within some formal system of logic whose elementary rules (i.e. scientific laws) are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.[2]
    In the humanities, one finds theories whose subject matter does not (only) concern empirical data, but rather ideas. Such theories are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories. A philosophical theory is not necessarily scientifically testable through experiment.” But a scientific “theorY’ is not that.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

    “I’m reminded of the hurricane predictions for 2006”

    No, Craig, you are letting your ignorance show (and I’m not blaming you, it isn’t your strength… I am more ignorant of deep water drilling than I might be, but hey, I’m a pilot). Predictions of a specific period in time (i.e. 2006) are just that, prediction. It is the climactic trend that we are talking about. Saying that because 2006 didn’t have as many hurricanes as predicted is proof that global warming is not occurring is beyond silly. We can’t predict with pure accuracy that this year will be the hottest on record, but we can say that the trend is that this decade likely will. We can’t say that a massive hurricane will hit Florida this year, but we can say that the trend is for larger and more devastating weather patterns due to climate change.

    “I’m just not convinced that Mother Earth..requires a massive shift in resources, money, and governmental control, on a global or national level, in order to combat this “crisis”.”

    That’s funny… I don’t recall you saying that it requires even a single cent, a single effort, or even discussion. In fact, you relish ANY destructive energy source. It doesn’t have to be the all or nothing that apparently you assume. I agree, we would have a hard time making “massive shifts” however trending to better, more efficient and lower carbon-based energies is absolutely something that can and should be done. It ain’t political, yet at every turn, your side tries to make it so, using Gore as a punching bag rather than discussing the issue intellectually.

  9. June 21, 2011 5:48 pm

    I’m well aware of what a theory is. Much like the theory of evolution.

    And because neither can be empirically proven, they’ll remain theories. Sorry if I’m not going to take a theory as a law, and then make

    “Predictions of a specific period in time (i.e. 2006) are just that, prediction. ”

    And when. time after time, the predictions fail to materialize, well, we’re told don’t confuse the weather with “climate”. We’re only told to focus on this “crazy weather” when it fits the prevailing… what’s the word again…

    oh yeah…

    Theory..

    You are wanting to take something that is ALWAYS changing… the “climate”, and then every time it changes, use that as evidence of… get this… climate change… and especially climate change caused by man.

    If there is no bad weather, you say, just wait. I’m sure it’ll be here next year. And when it doesn’t happen that next year you’ll say, don’t worry, it’ll trend that way. And then two years later when the Mississippi floods and tornadoes level a town or too, you shout LOOK! SEVERE WEATHER CAUSED BY GLOBAL WARMING! It’s following the trend!

    Hey look. The sun rose. Imagine that.

    “however trending to better, more efficient and lower carbon-based energies is absolutely something that can and should be done. It ain’t political, yet at every turn, your side tries to make it so, using Gore as a punching bag rather than discussing the issue intellectually.”

    Mike. I actually want to get off petroleum based energy, because I want energy independence and to stop funneling our wealth over to people who’d rather put us into chains and or kill us.

    What I don’t want is the federal government DICTATING which direction we should go. Then we find ourselves subsidizing at a net loss things like the brilliant corn-based ethanol solution.

    Gore is a punching-bag because he’s a Chicken Little who won a Nobel Peace Prize (har!) for his work on “climate change”, as well as an Oscar for his “documentary” on the same. He’s a charlatan selling life jackets on a ship he’s claims is sinking…. That’s why he’s a favorite to poke in the eye…

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: