Global warming overblown?

What is interesting about chestnuts is the price. They're no more expensive now than it was many, many, years ago.

Apparently the American Chestnut was far more flavorful (judging from stories) than the current version, but I'm not sure I've ever had the pleasure of trying one myself.

In the Early 1900's Chestnuts were a major industry, and a way of life for many street vendors in New York and other cities.

rosborne, About 15-20 years ago, we used to go chestnut harvesting, and the owner of the land charged us about $3/pound. I see chestnuts on sale, especially at Asian supermarkets, for about that same price.

Where the chestnuts you were buying 15-20 years ago American Chestnuts or Asian?

I honestly couldn't tell the difference. ;(*

Well, I guess what I was suggesting is answer to your comment about the price not going up.

I'm guessing that one reason the price hasn't gone up since the early 1900's is because it's a different product. The original product which was so popular in American culture at that time is now exceedingly rare, and the Asian variety is not nearly as valuable or desirable.

By 1950 virtually all the chestnuts available would have been of the Asian variety.

Had the American Chestnut survived, I would guess that it would have gone up in value the way everything else did. And Planters would probably sell them in cans.

rosborne, You're probably right; the Asian markets also sells precooked prepackaged chestnuts for a little over $1, but the quality is so-so. I buy it once in awhile, because I like chestnuts.

Italians seem to eat a lot of chestnuts, cook with chestnut flour, etc. Maybe there are more than two varieties? Back after I google a bit.


Here we go, they are different. Here's a link from Brittanica - about chestnut trees

Could I please go back to the title of this debate? Anybody who has any doubts about global warming being an extreme catastrophe waiting to happen should look at the pictures and read the text of course in High Tide: News from a Warming World  by Mark Lynas. He visited many countries to see the current effects of the warming world, and it is not a pretty sight. Why is it that Americans use 25% of the world's fossil fuels? How can the rest of the world be expected to cope with the disaster if this rate of deterioration goes on - by 2050 perhaps New York and other seaboard cities will be threatened enough to make the government think, but it will then be too late to do much about it.
Lynas proposes a scheme of entitlements - each person on the planet being entitled to an amount of energy a year, and those that don't use so much can sell their entitlements to the greedy first world. Lovely idea but since the governments of the world aren't yet taking the issue seriously enough, pie in the sky.
It has to be an electoral issue in the properous democracies - any ideas out there?

I read somewhere just recently that the energy gurus have identified oil reserves equaling at least as much as we have ever known to have existed. Has anybody else seen anything like this? Is it possible that the earth is continuing to manufacture oil down deep?

Some are lauding the trend to swtich city busses, etc. over to natural gas. But isn't natural gas also a fossil fuel from approximately the same source as crude?

When we think of all the amazing technology that has been developed just in the last 20 years, let alone the last 100 years, I have every confidence that we will have technology using new energy sources long before crude oil becomes a problem.

Meanwhile, my original concern remains. I am not yet convinced global warming apart from any normal phenomenon exists and I am unwilling to give up personal freedom or comforts unless it is for the common good. So far I am not persuaded that a good deal of what is being reported is not junk science.

The problem isn't running out of oil, though, Foxfyre.

I have also been sceptical, but science has persuaded me. The dustbowl in Mongolia, the rising water level in the Pacific Islands, and dramatic loss of glaciers are all documented by reputable scientists.

These so-called reputable scientists are just making stuff up as part of a global-warming conspiracy so they can become wealthy off of all the grant money they are getting from the government. Haven't you been keeping up ?! :wink:

Well I think its a fact the ice caps have melted somewhat in recent decades and the water levels may be a bit higher. But is this due to anything humans are doing? If so, then we need to deal with it. If not, then we need to adapt to normal phenomenon.

That's why I want reliable science, not junk science. But I resist adopting policy because something MIGHT be true.

I ABSOLUTELY agree with you. For a long time I thought it was just another scaremongering story, like overpopulation in the 60s. But I am convinced by this one. We now have more carbon dioxide in the air than at any time in the last 50 million years. It isn't all due to human activity, sure, but quite a lot of it is. And if we could work together as nations, surely that would be a wonderful thing for world peace and all the other social clichés that are none the less important for being clichés.

I'm sure human ingenuity could come up with ways of getting cheaper energy and conserving forests, but capitalism is notoriously short-sighted and motivated by profits NOW. More money goes on research into perfumes for soap and detergents than onto renewable resource management.

You know it makes sense!

Clary - unfortunately it isn't just Capitalism that is short sighted. Democracy (at least our particular form in the States) is quite short sighted as well. Few if any of our "leaders" seem particularly concerned about anything past our next election.

From what I've read, most of the technical problems to building a fusion reactor are solved. The major stumbling block is to find somewhere around ten billion dollars in financing to build the first actual plant. (10 billion. You know - 5% the cost of our Iraq adventure). But since there is no constituency for fusion power, it is only being funded enough to keep the project barely alive.

It isn't lack of funding I think. It is the concept of NUCLEAR being an uncontrollable danger. Too many Americans look at it that way and strongly resist having a reactor bulit anywhere close to them or anywhere on the continent for that matter.

Mebee so, but I don't think there would be the radiation and waste disposal there is with fission, Foxfyre.

And here's another perspective to add to the mix:

Welcome to the Greening Issue: The Good Side of Carbon Dioxide

Despite a staggering $1.8 billion a year U.S. Global Change Research Program budget, three fundamental questions are being ducked:

1. How much has the increase in carbon dioxide levels contributed to feeding the world so far?
2. What is it likely to contribute in future?
3. How much of this benefit will be lost if the carbon dioxide increase is slowed or halted?

At issue is something called the Greening Theory. This is the concept that an increase in CO2 levels will lead to increased plant growth, because CO2 is the food of plants. This growth response is called the greening effect.

The Greening Theory has been pretty well confirmed. In fact the Clinton administration is asking for several hundred million dollars for "sequestration" research next year, much of it by the Department of Agriculture.This research will look at how changes in farming practices might cause plants to remove more CO2 from the air by growing more. The practice of sequestration assumes the truth of the Greening Theory.

But the U.S. government, as well as the United Nations, does not want to admit the beneficial implication of the Greening Theory: It is likely that some part of the world's incredible ability to feed itself over the past few decades, despite enormous population growth, is due to the increase in CO2 in the air. If this is true then it is likely just as true that a continued increase in CO2 will be needed to continue feeding the world, for the population is still growing rapidly.

The United States, and the United Nations, have taken the position that increasing CO2 levels are dangerous and must be stopped. But given the greening theory it might be even more dangerous to do this, because it could lead to mass starvation in the poorer countries of the worlds, where most people live. The U.S. and UN appear to be ducking this incredibly important issue because they have already made up their minds what they want to do.

On these pages we will explain this issue in more detail, including a sample greening effect analysis for Bangladesh, and provide links to other resources for further information and research. Detailed information regarding regional and national crop yields and use of agricultural technologies is available from the United Nation Food and Agriculture Organization.

FAO also provides an extensive online statistical database: FAOSTAT. The FAOSTAT database contains over 1 million time series records covering over 210 countries and territories and 3,000 items in the areas of Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry and Nutrition.

http://www.bydesign.com/fossilfuels/greening_benefits/

Roger writes:


I think you're probably right. But in order for there to be passion and pressure for us to do something that is expensive and new, there has to be a belief that it is important that we do it. As we are seeing in this thread, there is no consensus that it is important to wean off fossil fuels as quickly as possible. With the wild swings in 'scientific opinion' occurring on a regular basis, most I think believe there is time to let things sort themselves out so that we don't rush willy nilly to do something more dumb that we've already done.

The fact that we are having a 'warming' trend in our weather pattern have been proven; arctic ice is melting, snow caps are lessened, and draughts are more common occurance. However, we do not know whether these are 'normal' cycles of planet earth. We all know there have been several 'ice ages' on this planet. What humans can do is to lessen our impact to our environment irregardless of whether we are in a normal weather cycle or not. That seems to be the most common sense way to protect the future for our children.