Ag Policy Blog
Chris Clayton DTN Ag Policy Editor

Wednesday 02/13/13

GAO Cites Federal Risks on Climate Change
On Thursday, a Government Accountability Office report cited the fiscal exposure facing the federal government due to the increasing impacts and costs of weather disasters once considered "rare."[Read Full Blog Post]
Posted at 10:21AM CST 02/13/13 by Chris Clayton | Post a Comment
Comments (6)
Why would anyone believe corrupt lying politicians and bureaucrats? See http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
Posted by Lon Truly at 7:19AM CST 02/15/13
The IPCC review on climate change is an extremely conservative and thorough process--- if the IPCC says climate change is human caused, then the evidence has to be overwhelming and irrefutable. Plus, 500 years of ice core samples and EVERY published scientific article on the subject suggest that we should be entering another round of global cooling or a new ice age. Instead we are breaking record temperatures and witnessing successive rounds of catastrophic weather events. The only uncertainty is over the extent of human involvement, but even on this issue the evidence is tough to deny... human activity (especially since the start of the industrial revolution) has been spewing increasing amounts of greenhouse gases at accelerating rates into the atmosphere that far exceed normal global processes. For someone to suddenly claim that the scientific community is in disagreement on this issue simply is not consistent with published scientific research where the agreement is nearly unanimous. I would be very skeptical of any �survey of so-called scientists� published in Forbes that suddenly finds evidence to the contrary. Denying climate change isn�t just denying the evidence, but it is becoming increasingly immoral with each passing year.
Posted by Randy Schnepf at 10:13AM CST 02/15/13
The Forbes article cited by Mr. Truly relies on a survey of largely petroleum engineers and scientists from the oil-producing Canadian province of Alberta. Follow the link in the Forbes article to the scientific paper. One line from the paper: "We use an instrumental case to examine the debate among these professionals who dominate the oil industry in Alberta, with the oil sands as a source of particularly â?˜dirtyâ?™ oil." Numerous statements from the paper that Forbes cites actually support the idea of a scientific consensus for global warming, and the need for action, one being: "Climate change could irreversibly affect future generations and, as such, is one of the most urgent issues facing organizations (Hoffman, 2007; Porter & Reinhardt, 2007)." Also, "We agree with Hoffman (2011a, 2011b) that in order to understand this defense and resistance and to move forward with international policies, organizational researchers must gain more in-depth understanding of the subtleties of the contestation and unravel the whole spectrum of frames including those of climate change deniers and sceptics." The Forbes article is clearly an example of slanted and out-right dishonest journalism, and illustrates the lengths deniers will go to try to overcome actual data. It's amazing someone like this Taylor guy (Forbes article author) can even sleep at night, conducting his job in this fashion.
Posted by chris jones at 10:25AM CST 02/15/13
Sending large sums of our money to Oboma and his precious IPCC which is basically run by a bunch of tinhorn dictators is going to help us how ? enviromentalism is the new home of communism . Be very skeptical of anything coming from this liberal government if they were not going to gain monetarialy from some cap and trade scheme thet would not even mention the climate. The middle class that they are always pandering to will be the ones to get screwed the most. It is almost impossible to point to anything that is not touched by oil.
Posted by GORDON KEYES at 10:37AM CST 02/15/13
Where are the free-market, conservative voices for reductions in government spending on crop insurance subsidies? If anything is unsustainable, it is trying to beat Mother Nature as she wields her actuarial table.
Posted by THOMAS FARLEY at 1:28PM CST 02/15/13
The worst human contribution to climate change is simply, WASTE. Turn down the thermostat in Winter, walk when you can or stay home, take the bus to work, eat all left-overs for lunch. Stopping people with agendas flying around Amsterdam or Washington etc. would be the easiest and most effective carbon reduction plan. Everywhere one looks there is a government program to promote waste, under the guise called the economy and developement. I reference these type of activities as destruction, in more than one way.
Posted by Bonnie Dukowitz at 8:14AM CST 02/16/13
 
Missouri Examines Nutrients Reduction
Nutrient reduction work similar to the proposed plan in the state of Iowa, has started in Missouri as a committee headed by the University of Missouri-Columbia is trying to get a handle on how much of nutrients loading flows from the state to the Gulf of Mexico.[Read Full Blog Post]
Posted at 10:21AM CST 02/13/13 by Todd Neeley | Post a Comment
Comments (2)
I just gave a "farmers perspective" to the Corridor Conservation Coalition here in Eastern Iowa on Monday. Sierra Club President loudly proclaimed afterwards that regulations must occur now. Others have trouble understanding why ag should be treated differently than point sources. I couldn't make them understand that weather is our variant and field and tile runoff would be impossible to monitor in all but a very few locations. Apparently, regulations are a mindset that will prevail.
Posted by Curt Zingula at 8:01AM CST 02/14/13
Not to deny there are in fact issues and some problems in the food production industry. I question whether some self appointed saviors of the environment will ever acknowledge that, such areas as the greater Chicago area, generates about 20% of the hypoxia issue in the Gulf.
Posted by Bonnie Dukowitz at 7:17PM CST 02/14/13
 

Tuesday 02/12/13

President Doesn't Touch on Agriculture, Rural America
In Washington, the president laid out a liberal-oriented agenda. Some rural lawmakers had hoped Obama would reference the farm bill in his remarks, but that did not happen.[Read Full Blog Post]
Posted at 10:04PM CST 02/12/13 by Chris Clayton | Post a Comment
Comments (2)
I guess he didn't have to say a whole lot since ag hasn't been this good in recorded history!? About all he could have said was we can save billions by doing away with unneeded farm subsidies? But yeah for the NFU which is probably the only group that stands for farmers and not corporations like the Farm Bureau and Soybean association! Has anyone here heard of Hugh Bowman? He is taking Monsanto to the Supreme Court over what Monsanto calls "unorthodox use of soybeans",,, aka using them as seeds! The Soybean association is behind Monsanto on this as I suspect many other so called farmer groups.
Posted by Jay Mcginnis at 7:25AM CST 02/13/13
Quoting From Jon Rappaport's Comments: The droning of the laundry list is, of course, a reflection of the fact that big government has its paws and nose in every facet of our lives. I was waiting for Obama to talk about an adequate supply of toilet paper and paper towels in public-park restrooms, and the danger of pictures of guns brought to school. And how about those unsightly vegetable gardens growing on front lawns? Would be bring in the FBI and the ATF and DHS to solve that problem? Would he push for free sex-change operations for all college students? Radioactive body scanners in coffee shops? I think the system for assigning names to hurricanes and blizzards should be subjected to a task-force study. When tonight Obama said the only way to make progress was for us all to work together, he didn�t just mean the Congress. He meant the American people, aka the television audience. But I�ve never understood that idea. What are we all working together to accomplish? What�s the program? Giving away more of our income to the federal government? Agreeing to more surveillance of our movements? Supporting the invasion of more countries? Refraining from photographing the police making arrests? Restricting our Facebook posts to happy faces and rainbows? Are we all working together to surrender our guns in exchange for movie tickets and candy? Are we pretending to be overjoyed that the federal government wants to force everyone to get vaccinated and eat GMO food, and take SSRI antidepressants that demonstrably cause people to go crazy and kill others? Is that it? Are we somehow working together to print endless amounts of money? Are we working together to push the percentage of Americans collecting free government money from 40 percent to 60 percent? Is that the glorious goal? Are we working together to give money to alternative-energy companies so they can go broke and declare bankruptcy? Are we working together to protect and defend the World Trade Organization, so ravenous mega-corporations can export jobs to China and roam the global landscape, raping and pillaging resources and labor? Are we working together to accept Obamacare, which will steadily eliminate natural-health alternatives and enroll more people in a medical system that kills 225,000 people (actually a lot more) every year like clockwork? Is that the goal? Are we working together to pretend we have two very different major political parties in the country, instead of one party with two heads? Are we working to assure that no bankster is ever sent to prison for scamming the American people out of trillions of dollars? Are we working together to take guns away from people who would only use them to defend themselves and their families against criminals, while at the same we work to ignore gang violence stemming in part from the fact that Mexican drug cartels use these gangs as subcontractors, under the protection of the federal government? Are we working together to imagine that our troops are really fighting wars to protect and defend the nation? Are we working together to hide the fact that, although interest rates are artificially low, we�re spending more and more money every month to buy what we need to survive? Are we working together to hamstring every small business in America with red tape and taxes? Are we working together to ignore the absurd insanity called climate-change science, so the government can install carbon taxes and penalties and lop the top off of American industry? Are we all working together to frame attractive free incentive packages for unlimited numbers of immigrants who come to America, while untold numbers of Americans are going hungry every night, and people can�t find jobs anywhere? Is that the objective? Destabilization of society, under the cynical guise of humane gift-giving? Are we working to dream that when the president says he�s going to focus on jobs in his second term, this means he�s actually going to do more than squint at the sun? Are we working to find more foreign enemies we can invade, as our military advance teams pave the way for imperial corporations and continue to launch some sort of ridiculous �surround Russia� operation? Are we all working together to drown the Third World in �free� medical drugs and vaccines that destroy immune systems, rather than cleaning up contaminated water supplies and installing simple sanitation systems (at a millionth of the cost of the drugs)? Are we all working together just �to work together� and continue the fine tradition of destroying the nation from the inside? That�s what I thought. Yes, that�s what I thought. Hell of a speech, Mr. President. You and GW and Bill and Bush the Elder and Ronnie and Jimmy and Gerry and Nixon really know your laundry lists. You talk, and the government gets bigger. It�s magic. There�s always more to do and the government has to make it happen. Otherwise, what are you there for? I ask myself that question all the time. I�m still looking for an answer, other than, �We�re all in this together.� Who is this WE you keep taking about? And what is this TOGETHER? You mean we who are watching on television and you who are talking on television? You mean you who are slicing the Constitution into little pieces while ridiculing it as a Neanderthal document? You mean you who are covert agents of Globalism? You mean you who have been vetted to make sure you�re on board with the op to take American down into a planetary management system that will bring a thousand years of peace to people made over into androids? That�s what I thought. You talk and the government gets bigger. You bankroll education and students are brainwashed into �uplifting social themes,� and become more dumb. You talk and the state-corporate media strain themselves into hernias to praise your erudition or passion. You talk and thousands of lobbyists who have the inside track on your souls parse your words and plan their new strategies. You talk and the American people desperately try to imagine you�re making a grain of sense. You talk and the winds blow and the snow falls and Somebody Actually Important, at a much higher level of the Mob, pats you on your shoulder and folds you up like a puppet and drops you in his pocket and walks upstairs to the Residence and puts you to sleep. Asleep, you dream of a strange and alien thing: the freedom and power and independence of the individual. For you, it�s a nightmare. Yep, that about covers it.
Posted by Ric Ohge at 9:37AM CST 02/13/13
Blog Home Pages
February  2013
S M T W T F S
               1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28      
Subscribe to Ag Policy Blog RSS
Recent Blog Posts
  • RFS Decision Could Alter Biofuels, Corn, Soybean Markets
  • Is Keystone XL Back to Square One?
  • Chevrolet Buys CO2 Credits from Working Ranch Grasslands
  • Sign up for ARC or PLC Next Week? Surely You Jest!
  • Top Donors to House and Senate Ag Leaders
  • Farm Groups Want Tax Extender Legislation in Lame Duck
  • Republicans Sweep Key Senate Races
  • Biotech Label Battles Continue at Ballot Box
  • Cattle Industry, Land Group Presses Feds to Pull WOTUS Rule
  • USDA Moving Ahead with Beef Checkoff Plans
  • Politicos Weigh in on USDA APH Yield Exclusion
  • Views in Congress Vary on COOL
  • Vilsack Addresses Checkoff Controversy
  • GAO: 'USDA Needs to Better Communicate Climate Plan'
  • Offering Advice on Farm Bill Choices
  • Governors, Attorneys General say CWA Rule a Legal Threat to Farmers
  • Dem Senators ask President to Leave RFS Alone
  • Senators Push for Withdraw of Endangered Species Act Rule
  • ARC and the PLC Reference Price
  • Beef Promotion Leads to Beef Politics