doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com pesticide

Craig, it's easy to distinguish it. It was a scam based on poor science from the beginning and was only valuable to those who profited from it. It's effect on farm land/habitat, on decreasing availability of farm land for other crops, on the heavy use of chemicals to make marginal land productive and every other result were all predictable.

Again, so it's clear.....corporate welfare that is excused by many here while they vilify other types (that at least once had the gloss of reasonableness). Ethanol was the first real junk science used to dupe us out of public money to pad the profits of a relatively small group. Set the stage for the gullible public to buy into MMGW. (Sorry, Climate Change. Hahahaha!)

If(?) we like our CRP lands, maybe we should sell it better? Since when has good or bad science had anything to do with it? I bet there's a bunch of excellent science that goes into getting reelected as a US rep. for the district compton falls in.

I wish that was all that was needed. Sadly, I don't think it is half the battle. Even where we have expanses of excellent habitat, we have fewer birds. And fewer everything else. It is not just habitat that is a problem out there. I'm not even sure habitat is the biggest issue anymore (though it certainly was). Now I think it may be toxicity, or something similar anyway. There just aren't the bugs there used to be even down on the bottom lands, even away from the ag fields. Something ain't right.

There was a hell of a lot of science that screamed that EtOH was a bad thing - but it was all shouted down at the time as being just part of a liberal agenda.

Climate Change is coming boys. And anthropogenic it is. Get used to it.

In this discussion, I'm not arguing for or against CRP. I'm simply pointing out the obvious from the beginning bullshit of the ethanol deal. Bad from the start, sold to a gullible public and supported by those who profit from it.

Not doing ethanol is no argument for automatically doing (or not doing) CRP. But while we are at it, lets be clear...CRP is another form of corporate welfare. As hunters we happen to be major beneficiaries of it. Doesn't mean we should be paying farmers for not farming. However, at least with CRP there is not junk science involved and there is are benefits gained that help all of society, not just hunters and farmers.

Sorry Brent, that's not correct. The left wasn't "shouted down". It was one of the few times the left and a group that pretend they aren't on the left, those who would profit by the program, were in alignment. The same people banging on about Global Warming were the same people advocating Ethanol.

But while we are at it:

[James Hansen issued dire warnings in the summer of 1988. Today earth is only modestly warmer.


James E. Hansen wiped sweat from his brow. Outside it was a record-high 98 degrees on June 23, 1988, as the NASA scientist testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources during a prolonged heat wave, which he decided to cast as a climate event of cosmic significance. He expressed to the senators his �high degree of confidence� in �a cause-and-effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and observed warming.�

With that testimony and an accompanying paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research, Mr. Hansen lit the bonfire of the greenhouse vanities, igniting a world-wide debate that continues today about the energy structure of the entire planet.

President Obama�s environmental policies were predicated on similar models of rapid, high-cost warming. But the 30th anniversary of Mr. Hansen�s predictions affords an opportunity to see how well his forecasts have done�and to reconsider environmental policy accordingly.

Mr. Hansen�s testimony described three possible scenarios for the future of carbon dioxide emissions. He called Scenario A �business as usual,� as it maintained the accelerating emissions growth typical of the 1970s and �80s. This scenario predicted the earth would warm 1 degree Celsius by 2018. Scenario B set emissions lower, rising at the same rate today as in 1988. Mr. Hansen called this outcome the �most plausible,� and predicted it would lead to about 0.7 degree of warming by this year. He added a final projection, Scenario C, which he deemed highly unlikely: constant emissions beginning in 2000. In that forecast, temperatures would rise a few tenths of a degree before flatlining after 2000.

Thirty years of data have been collected since Mr. Hansen outlined his scenarios�enough to determine which was closest to reality. And the winner is Scenario C. Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Ni�o of 2015-16. Assessed by Mr. Hansen�s model, surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect. But we didn�t. And it isn�t just Mr. Hansen who got it wrong. Models devised by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have, on average, predicted about twice as much warming as has been observed since global satellite temperature monitoring began 40 years ago.

What about Mr. Hansen�s other claims? Outside the warming models, his only explicit claim in the testimony was that the late �80s and �90s would see �greater than average warming in the southeast U.S. and the Midwest.� No such spike has been measured in these regions.

As observed temperatures diverged over the years from his predictions, Mr. Hansen doubled down. In a 2007 case on auto emissions, he stated in his deposition that most of Greenland�s ice would soon melt, raising sea levels 23 feet over the course of 100 years. Subsequent research published in Nature magazine on the history of Greenland�s ice cap demonstrated this to be impossible. Much of Greenland�s surface melts every summer, meaning rapid melting might reasonably be expected to occur in a dramatically warming world. But not in the one we live in. The Nature study found only modest ice loss after 6,000 years of much warmer temperatures than human activity could ever sustain.

Several more of Mr. Hansen�s predictions can now be judged by history. Have hurricanes gotten stronger, as Mr. Hansen predicted in a 2016 study? No. Satellite data from 1970 onward shows no evidence of this in relation to global surface temperature. Have storms caused increasing amounts of damage in the U.S.? Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show no such increase in damage, measured as a percentage of gross domestic product. How about stronger tornadoes? The opposite may be true, as NOAA data offers some evidence of a decline. The list of what didn�t happen is long and tedious.

The problem with Mr. Hansen�s models�and the U.N.�s�is that they don�t consider more-precise measures of how aerosol emissions counter warming caused by greenhouse gases. Several newer climate models account for this trend and routinely project about half the warming predicted by U.N. models, placing their numbers much closer to observed temperatures. The most recent of these was published in April by Nic Lewis and Judith Curry in the Journal of Climate, a reliably mainstream journal.

These corrected climate predictions raise a crucial question: Why should people world-wide pay drastic costs to cut emissions when the global temperature is acting as if those cuts have already been made?

On the 30th anniversary of Mr. Hansen�s galvanizing testimony, it�s time to acknowledge that the rapid warming he predicted isn�t happening. Climate researchers and policy makers should adopt the more modest forecasts that are consistent with observed temperatures.

That would be a lukewarm policy, consistent with a lukewarming planet.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/thirty-year...d-up-1529623442 [size:14pt][/size]

Perhaps you're correct BrentD. I will add this. Prior to the ethanol "boom" and the wide spread removal of mid west CRP to feed it the pheasant hunting was of nearly historic proportions in SW MN. Within two seasons a ghost of its former self.

https://youtu.be/2cjRGee5ipM


__________________________
Just keep movin�, man.
https://youtu.be/4t61BmPyWV8