Global Warming
-
I take it you've never made your own batch from worm composting. I've been gardening for years, organic and non, and nothing has ever come close to the season I had a worm composter. At the end of the growing season, my worms weren't going to survive the winter (I was forced to keep the composter in an unheated area), so I dumped what was left, including the worms into a 3 foot wide gravel alley between 2 garages, an area that gets no light. The idea was that they would at least become bird food. Next spring, the first thing to grow was a dense patch of plants from where I dumped about maybe 2 gallon's worth of half broken down compost. I figured weeds like it. 2 months later I saw 5-6' plants growing in the patch that gets no sun, and I never watered. I recognized them as tomatoes immediately. My highest yield that year was from my accidental tomatoes. I never planted seeds in there, they were from composting my own organic kitchen waste, and seeded itself. That was a few years ago, I never composted again, but that patch eventually broke down back into gravel, though each year some plants returned in the same spot, eventually weeds and rocks took over. I know it's only an anecdotal story, but worm composting is absolutely high yield. Every time I fed my plants with it, they grew noticeably right after. It was simple, as they fed off only my own veg and garden scraps and I never even added water to their mix. Anyways, the U.S. Midwest has very different soil nutrients and salinization than Australia, so you may have to depend on fertilizers more than me.
wizardzz wrote:
I take it you've never made your own batch from worm composting. I've been gardening for years, organic and non, and nothing has ever come close to the season I had a worm composter.
Actually, my best run ever was the first time I used a patch, because it had never been used. But, I have used worm compost, yes. The issue is entirely that none of these methods are commercially viable and I'm talking about commercial yields. And, no matter what I do, cauliflowers take 3-4 months to grow for me, and the farm that uses fertilizer gets them up in half the time, year after year.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
It had a chapter on global warming, also.
I didn't find the piece very informative. The stated intent was to present evidence but a lot of the verbiage was about predicted results.
Christian Graus wrote:
because the green movement has tied accepting AGW to the idea of being anti any sort of development or modern lifestyle, they are equated in the minds of people who oppose it.
That is of course because much of the the organized environment groups are pushing social issues rather than the environment. Read up on why one of the original founding members of Green Peace quit the organization for an example of that. Might note as well that the environment groups also ignore the most pressing social issue that would have a direct impact on the environment - that of population growth.
Christian Graus wrote:
and that it's a shame that science is being made a slave to ideology.
It is of course a mistake to think that any large scale human endeavor is somehow exempt from the same social conditions that other endeavors are subject to.
jschell wrote:
I didn't find the piece very informative. The stated intent was to present evidence but a lot of the verbiage was about predicted results.
yes, the Skeptics magazine did a much better job of listing the doubters claims and then explaining the science.
jschell wrote:
Might note as well that the environment groups also ignore the most pressing social issue that would have a direct impact on the environment - that of population growth.
Actually population is peaking, I've done some reading on that, too. but yes, it is the core issue and the reason that things like corn for fuel and organic farming do not scale.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The fact that it won't help anyone but the government,
Pretty sure that some people are making quite a bit of money on it.
Perhaps providers of clean alternatives can now put their prices up, because of the benefits of no carbon tax. Which does not help society, either
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
wizardzz wrote:
I take it you've never made your own batch from worm composting. I've been gardening for years, organic and non, and nothing has ever come close to the season I had a worm composter.
Actually, my best run ever was the first time I used a patch, because it had never been used. But, I have used worm compost, yes. The issue is entirely that none of these methods are commercially viable and I'm talking about commercial yields. And, no matter what I do, cauliflowers take 3-4 months to grow for me, and the farm that uses fertilizer gets them up in half the time, year after year.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I can't help but think the low nutrient levels in Australian soil to begin with just illustrates the difference fertilizer makes. How do you guys water there to counter the salt?
We don't use salt water :-) If ground is highly salted, it's just useless.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
jschell wrote:
I didn't find the piece very informative. The stated intent was to present evidence but a lot of the verbiage was about predicted results.
yes, the Skeptics magazine did a much better job of listing the doubters claims and then explaining the science.
jschell wrote:
Might note as well that the environment groups also ignore the most pressing social issue that would have a direct impact on the environment - that of population growth.
Actually population is peaking, I've done some reading on that, too. but yes, it is the core issue and the reason that things like corn for fuel and organic farming do not scale.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Actually population is peaking,
You mean that growth is slowing versus evidence that it will actually plateau? But I misspoke a bit anyways. Environmental issues along with a number of other issues would be more readily solved or would become non-existent if the population went down.
-
No, none of your questions have anything to do with the topic so I am not getting on that ride with you.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
If you mismanage the soil you mismanage the soil.
True. And?
Quote:
And rape, pillage and burn (farms) was a popular pastime as well.
And?
Quote:
Utter and complete nonsense.
Do research before responding.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
And?
You were romanticizing something while ignoring the reality.
ryanb31 wrote:
Do research before responding.
I already am aware of the claim that you made and the refutations of it. I suspect that if you have in fact done any research that you did so by ignoring the basics of scientific inquiry.
-
Perhaps providers of clean alternatives can now put their prices up, because of the benefits of no carbon tax. Which does not help society, either
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Actually population is peaking,
You mean that growth is slowing versus evidence that it will actually plateau? But I misspoke a bit anyways. Environmental issues along with a number of other issues would be more readily solved or would become non-existent if the population went down.
jschell wrote:
You mean that growth is slowing versus evidence that it will actually plateau?
It's odd to me that people are convinced that population is exploding, yet we all know that our next big crisis is an aging population, which is what happens as we breed less.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
This is not true at all. There are villages in India which do not use fertilizers. Their yields are same may be more than one with fertilizers use. We just need to understand the various insects, bacteria etc and how they fit into this big food chain. They do help improving soil quality which in turn means better yield. Check this[^] out. Sikkim state in India is known for it's organic farming.
"The worst code you'll come across is code you wrote last year.", wizardzz[^]
yes, you do use fertilizer. It's called: "shit".
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
jschell wrote:
You mean that growth is slowing versus evidence that it will actually plateau?
It's odd to me that people are convinced that population is exploding, yet we all know that our next big crisis is an aging population, which is what happens as we breed less.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
It's odd to me that people are convinced that population is exploding
Actually I was asking a real question... Are you suggesting that someone else (presumably) has floated the idea that for the population of the world (not a country) that the growth is not only slowing but is showing evidence that it will plateau?
Christian Graus wrote:
yet we all know that our next big crisis is an aging population, which is what happens as we breed less.
In terms of the environment, I doubt that is significant.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
It's odd to me that people are convinced that population is exploding
Actually I was asking a real question... Are you suggesting that someone else (presumably) has floated the idea that for the population of the world (not a country) that the growth is not only slowing but is showing evidence that it will plateau?
Christian Graus wrote:
yet we all know that our next big crisis is an aging population, which is what happens as we breed less.
In terms of the environment, I doubt that is significant.
jschell wrote:
Are you suggesting that someone else (presumably) has floated the idea that for the population of the world (not a country) that the growth is not only slowing but is showing evidence that it will plateau?
Oh, OK. Yes, I've read a book on population that says that all available evidence points to a plateau followed by a decline. The people most likely to have a lot of kids, apart from people making babies for Jesus, is people with high infant mortality, so as work is done to lower that, people have more interest in family planning. Of course, the people in those areas, don't use a lot of resources in any case.
jschell wrote:
In terms of the environment, I doubt that is significant.
Yes, you're right. The age of the population does not matter as much as the raw number of people. But the age is getting older, because less babies are being made, on an ongoing basis for some time now.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
jschell wrote:
Are you suggesting that someone else (presumably) has floated the idea that for the population of the world (not a country) that the growth is not only slowing but is showing evidence that it will plateau?
Oh, OK. Yes, I've read a book on population that says that all available evidence points to a plateau followed by a decline. The people most likely to have a lot of kids, apart from people making babies for Jesus, is people with high infant mortality, so as work is done to lower that, people have more interest in family planning. Of course, the people in those areas, don't use a lot of resources in any case.
jschell wrote:
In terms of the environment, I doubt that is significant.
Yes, you're right. The age of the population does not matter as much as the raw number of people. But the age is getting older, because less babies are being made, on an ongoing basis for some time now.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.