Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Bob Armstrong]

When I get some time, I will read Sid's farming post slowly and carefully to see if, and where, it contradicts my position (See my Post # 1573 - 23/8/4).

Should there be contradictions, then it may be more source searching will be necessary.

But I can say, that although Nitrogen-base fertilizers serve a purpose in farming, they raise broader societal issues, and are problematic, at the least. This is part of # 1 in my Post # 1573 on a number of important issues re farming.)

Bob A (Anthropogenicist; own 20 acres of hayfield; rented to a cattle farmer - Black Angus - will put a number of his calves into my barn for the winter, which is part of the rental contract, in the later Fall; an application for an "Organic Farm" Licence can be made for my hobby farm; never used chemical fertilizer on my hayfields for about 30 years - use cow manure).

[Sid Belzberg]

But I can say, that although Nitrogen-base fertilizers serve a purpose in farming, they raise broader societal issues, and are problematic, at the least

The main societal issue you cite is increased Greenhouse gases) however, the paper I cite in my post proves that Nitrous Oxide emissions are insignificant as a contributor for so-called climate change.
As far as the benefits are concerned that you cite that is up to the farmer to decide, not the government. If a farmer wants to waste money with a presumably less efficient methodology, that is his or her prerogative PERIOD,
Please, no more uninformed rhetoric. You put a lot of faith in governments and even believe NGOs like the WEf are benevolent. All these crazy ideas because you don't bother reading or listening to posts that displease you. Being a secretary does not require much thought. You are overqualified to be a secretary, your time is better spent listening and learning.

[Bob Armstrong]

Farming with chemical fertilizers goes against "Sustainable Farming", a very worthwhile goal for the industry. Nature works on there being a sustainable cycle in all things; many unexpected benefits come from implementing "sustainability" wherever possible.

This is totally aside from any negative consequences of chemical fertilizers re negative climate change.

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Sid Belzberg]

Farming with chemical fertilizers goes against "Sustainable Farming", a very worthwhile goal for the industry. Nature works on there being a sustainable cycle in all things; many unexpected benefits come from implementing "sustainability" wherever possible.

This is totally aside from any negative consequences of chemical fertilizers re negative climate change.

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

That's true, but it would apply only in the case of excessive use of these products. The game-changer in global food production was nitrogen fertilizer production via the invention of the Haber-Bosch process in the early 20th century. This process, developed by Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch, involves ammonia synthesis from nitrogen and hydrogen. The ammonia can then be used to produce various types of nitrogen fertilizers. The Haber-Bosch process allowed for the large-scale, industrial production of nitrogen fertilizers, making them more widely available and significantly increasing agricultural productivity.
The introduction of these fertilizers revolutionized agriculture, contributing to a massive increase in global food production throughout the 20th century.
Farming practices, including using animal manure, compost, and other organic materials to enrich the soil with nitrogen. have been around for hundreds of years, and in the 19th century, farmers started using sodium nitrate and ammonium sulfate as fertilizers. However, there was not enough of it to significantly increase global food production.
What is going on here is excessive restrictions on the use of this chemical in the name of climate change, knowing that the contribution of either nitrous oxide or methane, separately or combined, does not significantly contributes to the climate, if at all.
Here are the facts about the Methane nonsense you have spent two years mindlessly parroting.

https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/...nd-Climate.pdf

Abstract
Atmospheric methane (CH4 ) contributes to the radiative forcing of Earth’s atmosphere. Radiative forcing is the difference in the net upward thermal radiation from the Earth through a transparent atmosphere and radiation through an otherwise identical atmosphere with greenhouse gases. Radiative forcing, normally specified in Watts per square meter (W m−2), depends on latitude, longitude and altitude, but it is often quoted for a representative temperate latitude and for the altitude of the tropopause, or for the top of the atmosphere. For current concentrations of greenhouse gases, the radiative forcing at the tropopause, per added CH4 molecule, is about 30 times larger than the forcing per added carbon-dioxide (CO2 ) molecule. This is due to the heavy saturation of the absorption band of the abundant greenhouse gas, CO2 . But the rate of increase of CO2 molecules, about 2.3 ppm/year (ppm = part per million), is about 300 times larger than the rate of increase of CH4 molecules, which has been around 0.0076 ppm/year since the year 2008.

So the contribution of methane to the annual increase in forcing is one tenth (30/300) that of carbon dioxide. The net forcing from CH4 and CO2 increases is about 0.05 W m−2 year−1. Other things being equal, this will cause a temperature increase of about 0.012 C year−1. Proposals to place harsh restrictions on methane emissions because of warming fears are not justified by facts

Interestingly that the leading profiteer of vaccines (death shots) and America's largest farmland owner and climate alarmist extraordinaire is Bill Gates himself, who is the leading investor in insect foods, and artificial meats ( highly carcinogenic) is also the leading advocate of eugenics depopulation as was his father before him who was on the board of Planned Parenthood founded by Margaret Sanger the leading advocate of wiping out all people of color in America, Her presentations were so powerful that this new pseudoscience of eugenics inspired Hitler himself in the early twentieth century. Yes indeed Bill Gates is a leading partner in the CCP-controlled WEF and WHO. Bill Gates gets along fabulously with the genocidal CCP.

Bob, you have promoted a straight flush of nonsense fed to you by the folks you think are "benevolent."

[Dilip Panjwani]

Farming with chemical fertilizers goes against "Sustainable Farming", a very worthwhile goal for the industry. Nature works on there being a sustainable cycle in all things; many unexpected benefits come from implementing "sustainability" wherever possible.

This is totally aside from any negative consequences of chemical fertilizers re negative climate change.

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

So you think farmers are so stupid as to destroy their own land (which all farmers value as precious to them, emotionally and economically), just to make a little more profit temporarily?

[Bob Armstrong]

Dilip (Post # 1580 - 23/8/7) - Yes!!

There was a time when farmers recognized that the land had to be sustainably used. Thus crop fields, having had much of the nutrients removed from a number of years of use, rotated leaving one field "fallow" for one year's regeneration. Green fertilizers, such as clover, were sown during that year, and in the late summer/fall, were "mulch cut" in order to have organics deteriorate in the field and rejuvenate that one field. Done in rotation, the system was sustainable.

Sid is absolutely right in one thing - chemical fertilizers increased both yield and profit (Yes humans in many areas destroy what they have in the headlong rush after the "Sacred Dollar"; and usually it is not "just to make a little more profit temporarily" - big profits come, and the problem of "sustainability" falls off the radar; the capitalist system demands that you maximize your profit, and we see all over the place that the negative consequences of such headlong rush to "wealth" are ignored, until the chickens (Farm animals!) come home to roost.

Have you seen "chicken farming" that maximizes egg production and minimizes expenses, and is cruel and unusual treatment of one of our co-resident species on this planet ?

Consider:

1. "Few people think about the chicken as intelligent, however. In recent years, though, scientists have learned that this bird can be deceptive and cunning, that it possesses communication skills on par with those of some primates and that it uses sophisticated signals to convey its intentions.

The Startling Intelligence of the Common Chicken"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...mmon-chicken1/

2. Have you heard of any problem in the Amazon and the rain forests, due to the headlong rush for profit of the Brazilian cattle ranching industry? No? Google "Deforestation - South America"!

Dilip - this is your "natural law" consequence when Libertarians crow about the great societal consciousness of "ALL" humans, and that self-regulation for the benefit of all society will be the gold standard. Read some of my earlier posts on the fining of companies in the grocery industry for "price fixing" (A Capitalist strategy to maximize profit, and screw the consumer).

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Sid Belzberg]

Dilip (Post # 1580 - 23/8/7) - Yes!!

There was a time when farmers recognized that the land had to be sustainably used. Thus crop fields, having had much of the nutrients removed from a number of years of use, rotated leaving one field "fallow" for one year's regeneration. Green fertilizers, such as clover, were sown during that year, and in the late summer/fall, were "mulch cut" in order to have organics deteriorate in the field and rejuvenate that one field. Done in rotation, the system was sustainable.

Sid is absolutely right in one thing - chemical fertilizers increased both yield and profit (Yes humans in many areas destroy what they have in the headlong rush after the "Sacred Dollar"; and usually it is not "just to make a little more profit temporarily" - big profits come, and the problem of "sustainability" falls off the radar; the capitalist system demands that you maximize your profit, and we see all over the place that the negative consequences of such headlong rush to "wealth" are ignored, until the chickens (Farm animals!) come home to roost.

Have you seen "chicken farming" that maximizes egg production and minimizes expenses, and is cruel and unusual treatment of one of our co-resident species on this planet ?

Consider:

1. "Few people think about the chicken as intelligent, however. In recent years, though, scientists have learned that this bird can be deceptive and cunning, that it possesses communication skills on par with those of some primates and that it uses sophisticated signals to convey its intentions.

The Startling Intelligence of the Common Chicken"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...mmon-chicken1/

2. Have you heard of any problem in the Amazon and the rain forests, due to the headlong rush for profit of the Brazilian cattle ranching industry? No? Google "Deforestation - South America"!

Dilip - this is your "natural law" consequence when Libertarians crow about the great societal consciousness of "ALL" humans, and that self-regulation for the benefit of all society will be the gold standard. Read some of my earlier posts on the fining of companies in the grocery industry for "price fixing" (A Capitalist strategy to maximize profit, and screw the consumer).

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

Sid is absolutely right in one thing - chemical fertilizers increased both yield and profit

I provided fact-based arguments showing that methane and nitrous oxide do not contribute to climate change statistically significantly and that this is the primary rationale used to put farmers out of business worldwide by restricting access to these nitrogen fertilizers. If I am wrong, please show me how especially the abstracts I have provided in posts about Nitrous Oxide and Methane.
It seems this hits the nail on the head about the main problem with climate alarmism.

Given the above is correct good farming practices can mitigate the overuse of nitrogen fertilizers that you correctly described, including those below, and given that they do not contribute to climate change is simply deliberate harm being inflicted on citizens (induced famine) the same way Stalin's collective farming murdered millions in the early 1930s.
The substitute for Stalin is a weird coalition of elite business leaders and politicians strongly affiliated with the CCP-controlled Genocidal WEF and its partner in this, the UN, that includes "depopulation" as part of its goals. They consider you and I, Bob, the carbon.

Good farming practices can considerably mitigate the negative impacts of nitrogen fertilizers:

1. Application Rate: Applying the right amount of fertilizer based on soil tests and crop needs ensures that plants utilize most of the nitrogen, leaving less to leach into waterways.
2. Timing: Applying fertilizers at the right time — when plants can take up nitrogen most efficiently — reduces environmental losses.
3. Placement: Properly placing fertilizers, such as injecting them into the soil or banding them near plant roots, can increase plant uptake and reduce environmental losses.
4. Type of Fertilizer: Using controlled-release fertilizers or stabilizers can reduce the rate at which nitrogen is available, matching it more closely with plant uptake rates.
5. Crop Rotation and Cover Crops: Certain crops can take up leftover nitrogen. For example, legumes can fix atmospheric nitrogen, reducing the need for synthetic fertilizers.
6. Soil Health Practices: Maintaining soil health by adding organic matter, reducing tillage, and promoting soil microbial life can improve nitrogen retention and utilization.

[Bob Armstrong]

Sid's Post # 1582 - 23/8/6

My Post # 1581 (23/8/6) makes not one single reference to "negative climate change".

Yet Sid's post refuses to address the issue of "sustainable farming" raised therein. He uses the deflection tactic in order not to address it, by changing the essence of my post to being one of "Farming and Climate Change", which it clearly is not.



Does anyone have a challenge to the main issue I am raising, that the goal of the future farming industry must be "Sustainable Farming"?

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Sid Belzberg]

Sid's Post # 1582 - 23/8/6

My Post # 1581 (23/8/6) makes not one single reference to "negative climate change".

Yet Sid's post refuses to address the issue of "sustainable farming" raised therein. He uses the deflection tactic in order not to address it, by changing the essence of my post to being one of "Farming and Climate Change", which it clearly is not.


Does anyone have a challenge to the main issue I am raising, that the goal of the future farming industry must be "Sustainable Farming"?

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

I just edited my post 1582. that answers this very question you pose. it is you that is "deflecting" not me. Now that the false narrative of climate change and methane and nitrous oxide do not figure into the equation you change the subject to good farming practices that happen to not conflict with the use of Nitrogen fertilizers. '

Be intellectually honest with yourself, do you think inducing a famine using a false narrative is a good idea?

I happen to agree with you on good farming practices. However, it does not preclude the use of nitrogen fertilizers especially when they do not cause climate change:

As I said you have parrotted a straight flush of nonsense fed to you by the WEF-controlled MSM and the so-called group that you consider "benevolent" all in the name of "climate change".

[Dilip Panjwani]

Have you heard of any problem in the Amazon and the rain forests, due to the headlong rush for profit of the Brazilian cattle ranching industry? No? Google "Deforestation - South America"!

Dilip - this is your "natural law" consequence when Libertarians crow about the great societal consciousness of "ALL" humans, and that self-regulation for the benefit of all society will be the gold standard. Read some of my earlier posts on the fining of companies in the grocery industry for "price fixing" (A Capitalist strategy to maximize profit, and screw the consumer).

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

Bob, Libertarianism does not need a slew of imperfect and inefficient laws to prevent damage to Nature. A simple and appropriate 'compensation tax' (like the Carbon tax) does the trick better than 'laws, laws, laws'. The only law you need is the Natural Law!

[Dilip Panjwani]

Dilip (Post # 1580 - 23/8/7) - Yes!!

There was a time when farmers recognized that the land had to be sustainably used. Thus crop fields, having had much of the nutrients removed from a number of years of use, rotated leaving one field "fallow" for one year's regeneration. Green fertilizers, such as clover, were sown during that year, and in the late summer/fall, were "mulch cut" in order to have organics deteriorate in the field and rejuvenate that one field. Done in rotation, the system was sustainable.

Sid is absolutely right in one thing - chemical fertilizers increased both yield and profit (Yes humans in many areas destroy what they have in the headlong rush after the "Sacred Dollar"; and usually it is not "just to make a little more profit temporarily" - big profits come, and the problem of "sustainability" falls off the radar; the capitalist system demands that you maximize your profit, and we see all over the place that the negative consequences of such headlong rush to "wealth" are ignored, until the chickens (Farm animals!) come home to roost.

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

No, Bob, farmers are not at all stupid as far as sustenance of their beloved land is concerned; they are already following the six good farming practices Sid has listed.
Let us thank them for producing the large quantities of food that they are producing, so that some of us do not starve to death from lack of it...

[Dilip Panjwani]

a straight flush of nonsense fed to you by the WEF-controlled MSM and the so-called group that you consider "benevolent" all in the name of "climate change".

Sid, I think Bob was calling WEF 'benevolent' just sarcastically ... is that right, Bob?

[Bob Armstrong]

The WEF, in terms of the majority influence, sees itself as "Benevolent".........it seeks a better quality of life for all........but its priorities are screwed.

It is asking society to trade off freedom for material gain, and an easy lifestyle. This is a wrong ordering of the values critical to maintaining our human nature.

And yes, there is a minority involved, as always, that is working with the majority, but has its very own hidden agenda of establishing a dictatorship, where they will be the dictators. This is simply unavoidable with human nature in its current stage of evolution (Libertarianism is somehow going to impose a "compensation tax" to counter this........best of luck......)

This is why the Anti-New World Order/Anti-Great Reset movement is so critical. The forces, well-intentioned, and ill-intentioned, have much influence in choosing the human path forward. It will take a collective action on the part of ordinary people to prevent us from going down the path proposed by the WEF, and those behind it.

Bob A (Anti-NWO)

[Bob Armstrong]

There is prior post reference to a future of starvation of some.........false totally.

Farming can produce enough food to feed many more than are currently populating the Earth.

But to maximize productivity, and to maintain fairness (Libertarian "Natural Law"?), carnivore-directed farming must be stopped from gobbling up tremendously more production resources than non-carnivore-directed farming. This is not happening.........why?.........Carnivore-directed farmers, as a force in the world, is quite influential, and backed by whole industries based on the products of carnivore-directed farming. This lobby works hard at justification to the public of this unfairness, and its limiting of food security, which is best maintained by non-carnivore-directed farming......many articles on the great disparity between the two types of farming.

Again, it is going to be up to the elector to elect parties that are not beholden to this lobby, and who will pass laws to achieve full food security.

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Bob Armstrong]

Libertarianism

1. Oversight of human activity is unnecessary because humans are naturally good, and will self-regulate.

Response - already proven false; see multitude of Anti-combines cases in court.

2. "The only law you need is the "Natural Law". And court enforcement is not necessary for this wonderful law.

Response - This fuzzy concept is never set out in detail - it seems to be some variation of the "Golden Rule" of various religions re how to treat the stranger. Under this concept it will be rule by the strongest.

3. Evil can be stopped by mere "compensation taxation".

Response - Even the fines imposed for law-breaking civilly by today's "meddling" governments have no deterrent effect. Law-breaking reaps huge profits. Fines, to the evil-doers, are just chump-change - a licence to keep acting illegally.

In Summary - Libertarianism is optimistic and believes in the "good". It is a pipe-dream. Do not swallow this fairy-tale politics. It is a recipe for disaster wherever a Libertarian party might be elected (And it is almost never (Never?) successful.........people are not stupid, and see past its well-intentionedness).

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)