tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post5551621487050236837..comments2023-08-07T16:41:49.660+02:00Comments on Die Klimazwiebel: ALARMISM'S NOT DEAD!!!eduardohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-64883548920038724892011-02-17T00:35:35.508+01:002011-02-17T00:35:35.508+01:00To post #35/"denier", "'solutio...To post #35/"denier", "'solution'", "conspiracy":<br /><br />We read:<br /><br /> "There will never be any 'solution' with deniers. Just because deniers deny that there is any problem (only a conspiracy to further some kind of leftist conspiracy to control everyone's life, based on fraudulent data). Without a problem there simply is no need for a solution."<br /><br />(1) I don't think that this label "denier" is working. F.ex MIT's (climate-) researcher Richard Lindzen said about this word:<br /><br /> "<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/p009yfwl/One_Planet_Climate_change_pot_plants_and_small_frogs/" rel="nofollow">I actually like 'denier'. That's closer then 'skeptic'. 'Realist' is also not bad.</a>" (Lindzen on BBC World Service, 30 Sep 2010.)<br /><br />I have never seen Lindzen beeing paranoid at all; I never saw him claiming that there would be (only???) a conspiracy. Did I get it/him wrong?<br /><br />In my opinion in most cases it is more fruitful whensoever you argue; because it's more promising then just calling certain people - whose views/solutions might oppose to yours - "them" or "deniers". That means to argue in plain language your opinion what precisely your "concern" is about.<br /><br />(2) How would that "solution" look like? Is there maybe only one solution?<br /><br />(3) And what means: *No problem - only a conspiracy*?<br /><br />Wouldn't a possible conspiracy be considered as a (potential) problem?<br />For example intransparent IPCC proceses (since the first assessment report) are not irrelevant for solutions which shall be trusted by nearly the whole world, are they?<br /><br />We in Europe are considered as enlightened people (cf. <a href="http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2011/01/all-things-considered-modern-mans.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>). Proponents of enlightenment took some strong positions; f.ex. in favor of "openess" and against "appeal to authority" (cf. also A. Camus: "[I]s [it] possible to live without appeal"? (<a href="http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/11/luxurious-life-of-ipcc-lead-author.html?showComment=1290953306241#c5210594964898161314" rel="nofollow">here</a>)), against implicit/blind trust (cf. "trust" <a href="http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/12/climate-science-politics.html?showComment=1292562212234#c3522358271324745199" rel="nofollow">here</a>).<br /><br />Daniel J. Solove writes (see "<a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID920282_code249137.pdf?abstractid=283924" rel="nofollow">Access and Aggregation: Privacy, Public Records, and the Constitution</a>"):<br /><br /> "According to the Senate Report for FOIA, the APA was 'full of loopholes which al-low agencies to deny legitimate information to the public' and that in-formation was often 'withheld only to cover up embarrassing mistakes or irregularities.'"<br /><br /> "The House Report likewise noted that under § 3 of the APA, '[g]overnment agencies whose mistakes cannot bear public scrutiny have found >>good cause<< for secrecy.' H.R. REP. NO. 89-1497 (1966), reprinted in 1966 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2418, 2423".<br /><br />See also Solove's forthcoming book <i><a href="http://yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300172317" rel="nofollow">Nothing To Hide</a></i>, which is an expanded version of his paper "<a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1098449_code249137.pdf?abstractid=998565" rel="nofollow">'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy"</a>.<br /><br />namenlosAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-14343255196061608462011-02-17T00:33:23.987+01:002011-02-17T00:33:23.987+01:00Just briefly:
A long time ago Joh. Gottf. Herder,...Just briefly:<br /><br />A long time ago <a href="http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/12/silke-beck-are-climate-skeptics-gaining.html?showComment=1292074148773#c1443104409623976560" rel="nofollow">Joh. Gottf. Herder</a>, in his later "career" 'Dekan' and 'priest' of the secret Weimar <i>Illuminaten</i> house, tried to interpret the <i>Bible</i> - and here especially the <i>Book of Job</i>, aka the "Apocalypse"[*]. Herder considered the <i>Bible</i> as a result of Hebrew poetry[**] which he called <i>Naturpoesie</i>. He regarded <i>Naturpoesie</i> as beauteousness which was in his opinion represented especially in the biblic <i>Apocalypse</i>. Indeed, Herder translated in a - long lasting - Faustian mood[***] already 1767/8 long parts of that apocalyptic book in which he saw also Egyptian motives.<br /><br />I do not know if a poetry (of catastrophism) has been or will ever be a "<a href="http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/12/its-snow-in-siberia-stupid.html?showComment=1294356773139#c1310783646847878576" rel="nofollow">mass genre</a>", but it appears to be reasonable to assume that it was never dead and arose at least since Zoroastrian time.<br /><br />- - -<br /><br />[*] Cf. the "problem of <a href="http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&client=firefox-a&hs=v9n&rls=org.mozilla%3Ade%3Aofficial&q=site%3Aklimazwiebel.blogspot.com+evil+OR+AND+monocausal&btnG=Suche&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=" rel="nofollow">evil</a>"; also cf. f.ex the "four horsemen of the apocalypse" which were also included into Jerry Ravetz's social-constructivist P[ost]N[ormal]S[cience] as the "<a href="http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/10/jerry-ravetz-reply-to-various-comments.html" rel="nofollow">‘four horsemen of the scientific apocalypse’</a>" ("shoddy science, entrepreneurial science, reckless science, and dirty science [...]; all involved with runaway technology [Ravetz (1996): <i>Scientific Knowledge And its Social Problems</i>, p. xiv]."<br /><br />[**] See e.g. <i>On the Spirit of Hebrew Poetry</i> (1782-83); <i>Vom Geiste der Ebräischen Poesie</i>, SWS (<i>Sämtliche Werke Suphan</i>), Bd. XI, p. 280-291, 301-320, 423-428 (cf. also <a href="http://books.google.de/books?id=6toFAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">here</a>).<br /><br />[***] Cf. f.ex Günther Schwab's novel <i>Dance with the Devil.</i> The (right-wing) online news site <i><a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/the_nazi_origins_of_apocalypti.html" rel="nofollow">The American Thinker</a></i> writes: "At one point in his novel, Schwab opines on the fragile relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Assuming the planet has only about 100 years remaining, Schwab frets over the continuing rise of carbon dioxide that 'will absorb and hold fast the warmth given out by the earth. This will cause the climate to become milder and the Polar ice will begin to thaw. As a result, there will be a rise in the level of the ocean and whole continents will be flooded.'"<br /><br />namenlosAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-38797463383755855362011-02-15T09:17:02.789+01:002011-02-15T09:17:02.789+01:00@ Flin
Spelling the d-word five times in a short ...@ Flin<br /><br />Spelling the d-word five times in a short post, can hardly be outmatched. But what are records in calling names when we talk about respect?<br />Maybe you should think about the historiographical genesis of the term before you use it in such an inflationary and inappropriate manner.<br /><br />The sun does of course affect earth's climate. Its contribution to the observed warming in the last century remains one of the most interesting questions in climate science.<br /><br />If there is a higher solar influence to be considered than previously assumed: it would not only affect earth's climate but parts of the global warming hypothesis at the same time. Should we stop thinking about whatever could call into question what we believe to be "valid"?<br /><br />Here's some interesting research on the subject ...<br /><br />http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7316/full/nature09426.html<br /><br />http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/10/06/study.sheds.new.light.how.sun.affects.earths.climate<br /><br />RalphAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-25605115859176450042011-02-14T20:05:44.579+01:002011-02-14T20:05:44.579+01:00@_flin_
I thought respect for the opinion of other...@_flin_<br />I thought respect for the opinion of other people is taught at highschool in our democracies. But it is also my experience with people. Each human being is unique and has the right to be judged according to his/her deeds, not according to his/her opinion. I am not in the position to know motivation and the line of thinking how somebody derives his/her conclusion. Everbody I meet usually is a good parent or a tax payer and should be respected. What else? <br />My experience is that people almost exclusively have motives and arguments they consider right. You rarely find someone who thinks he is wrong. Therefore, if you want to develop solutions with people the best strategy is to respect every opinion and seek for the truth behind each argument, no matter how false you perceive it from your perspective. Moreover, I do not know the carbon footprint of somebody you call “denier” and I do not know your carbon footprint. So, who are we to judge.<br />No, my conclusion is simple. Whoever is really interested in a solution, better respect the people and their opinion.<br />Best regards<br />GünterGünter Heßhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756797784428357652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-19416167799703192052011-02-14T18:51:58.272+01:002011-02-14T18:51:58.272+01:00No 36 has been deleted because of inadequate langu...No 36 has been deleted because of inadequate language. -Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-79960320993110996552011-02-14T17:33:27.579+01:002011-02-14T17:33:27.579+01:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-53922708939184684332011-02-14T11:31:59.271+01:002011-02-14T11:31:59.271+01:00@Günther Heß: Why do you have to "respect eve...@Günther Heß: Why do you have to "respect every argument in a democratic discourse"?<br />If somebody says "It's the sun, because the sun controls our climate", and there are about two papers each year showing that the sun is not responsible for most of last century's warming, how will you be able to continue to "respect the argument"?<br />Isn't there a point when one can say: This argument has been valid once, it has been disproved time and time again with a multitude of studies, lets move on. Or is there something I do misunderstand about the "respecting each argument"?<br /><br />IMHO it is rather irrelevant whether calling deniers deniers affects the possibility for a solution. There will never be any "solution" with deniers. Just because deniers deny that there is any problem (only a conspiracy to further some kind of leftist conspiracy to control everyone's life, based on fraudulent data). Without a problem there simply is no need for a solution. That's why they are called deniers._Flin_noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-42320998577595165472011-02-13T20:24:45.754+01:002011-02-13T20:24:45.754+01:00There are many variables in the food markets
- bi...There are many variables in the food markets <br />- biofuels lower the maximum possible food grains production by reducing the acreage. Having better biofuels (like Igniscum) will help a lot. More biofuel acreage leads to higher volatility.<br />- extreme weather events (droughts, floods, hail storms) lower the production => prices rise<br />- Rising demand for meat, which is suboptimal from a calorie-per-acre point of view => prices rise<br />- Oil and phosphate prices are important, oil is used for transport and machinery, phosphates as a fertilizer. Both are becoming scarcer and more expensive.<br /><br />Current developments make prices rise on both the demand and the supply side.<br /><br />Wheat was rising heavily during the Russian drought summer. Agriculturals as a whole, however, <a href="http://www.onvista.de/index/cx-agriculturals-index-usd-15049165/kurs?ID_NOTATION=16247006&MONTHS=12#chart" rel="nofollow">paint the same dark picture</a>._Flin_noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-31163888208177461612011-02-13T17:13:49.099+01:002011-02-13T17:13:49.099+01:00Probably Krugman is right in correlating high food...Probably Krugman is right in correlating high food prices with social phenomena - at least "in very poor countries". In former times presumably most people had the bad luck to live in such countries - if they did not belong to the pharaos or local analogs. Seemingly there exist empirical data that indeed show an effect of changing climate (weather?) conditions on some phenomena, a "series of serious social problems". The key point of this paper is: in all the different regions and through all the different times, it was the COOLING that produced the problems, starting with less food to eat.<br /><br />Is there any flaw in this paper, in the general conclusion?<br /><br />" ... We show that long-term fluctuations of war frequency and population changes followed the cycles of temperature change. Further analyses show that cooling impeded agricultural production, which brought about a series of serious social problems, including price inflation, then successively war outbreak, famine, and population decline successively. The findings suggest that worldwide and synchronistic war-peace, population, and price cycles in recent centuries have been driven mainly by long-term climate change. ... "<br /><br />Zhang DD, Brecke P, Lee HF, He YQ, Zhang J (2007) Global climate change, war, and population decline in recent human history. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:19214-9<br /><br />http://www.pnas.org/content/104/49/19214.longGerdnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-348175738630965832011-02-13T15:26:10.882+01:002011-02-13T15:26:10.882+01:00@Werner Krauss
And that is my point. Being “scepti...@Werner Krauss<br />And that is my point. Being “sceptic” is an integral part of this process as was “raising concern” in the first place. People who label other people, bringing skeptical arguments forward, as deniers in their publications leave this democratic process behind and start the nucleus to an unhealthy debate and hamper the way to a solution. <br />In a democratic process you don’t have to follow each argument, but you have to respect each one. It might be difficult, but this is the only way to “reconciliation”.<br />Regards<br />GünterGünter Heßhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756797784428357652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-81888316312405298992011-02-13T13:46:14.298+01:002011-02-13T13:46:14.298+01:00@ Günther Heß #27
Thanks for your contribution! R...@ Günther Heß #27<br /><br />Thanks for your contribution! Reading it a second time, I thought: you deliver a good description of how things actually work! Leaving your disagreement with the way things are aside - that's exactly the way it goes!<br /><br />Your suggestions are already part of the democratic process. There are winners and losers, and sometimes losers turn into winners vice versa. Such is the case with bio-ethanol: obviously, it was agreed upon and, even more important, it was possible to put the idea into practice. Once established, it turns out that there are more negative effects than expected. How to get rid of it? Nothing but trouble...<br /><br />Think through the case of wind energy; up to now, more or less a success story. Critics are a part of it - think of all the regulations, decisions, conflicts involved! Once established, every technology gains a life of its own - not everything can be planned in advance. Even the promoters of wind energy are surprised how well this new technology became established and integrated. It's a new industry.<br /> <br />Once being concerned that the sky falls in on us: we have to act without knowing better. We know that there is no independent 'truth' teaching us what to do. Scientists do their research and give advice; engineers construct and invent technologies; economists check the feasibility; new industries come up; citizens reject or embrace; new parties come up and old parties change....that's the way it goes, that's what we do all the time! There are no solutions outside this complex process. Instead, we have to learn more about this process. <br /><br />I think it is highly unlikely that we wake up one day and read in the newspaper: "Problem of climate change solved, perfect solution at hand!" or "Scientist found out that climate is fine! No CO2 reduction necessary!" I think this won't happen, unfortunately.<br /><br />There is only the process that we have started already - obviously, we can't do much better, even though we try, inclusive skeptics and alarmists. The blind leading the blind - doesn't sound very promising, but as long as nobody sees the future, we have to anticipate it. Improve the IPCC; improve dialog; get rid of bio-ethanol; improve renewables and keep on weighing arguments... what else should we do?Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-63482098581801990692011-02-13T13:40:36.962+01:002011-02-13T13:40:36.962+01:00Heber Rizzo/26 - one of the problems (which make t...Heber Rizzo/26 - one of the problems (which make the issue interesting and the debate possible) that "we" are unable to define what "the" basics are.<br />we peak about all these issues, climate change, global warming, global warming, but also about: climate, climate impact, climate perception, climate beliefs, climate policy, climate catastrophe, climate hoax, climate movies, climate poetry ... and many other somehow related issues. In all (or at least: most) of their names the the word "climate" is included but with very different meanings, illustrating the fascinating multiplicity of cultures.Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-53681755853536544472011-02-13T13:07:56.602+01:002011-02-13T13:07:56.602+01:00@Heber Rizzo #22
I am sure you are not less wise. ...@Heber Rizzo #22<br />I am sure you are not less wise. Maybe wise in a different way? Anyway, here's my answer: your question is part of the problem we are talking about.Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-19380416272954122062011-02-13T09:19:47.998+01:002011-02-13T09:19:47.998+01:00@Werner Krauss
I don’t like the phrase “raising co...@Werner Krauss<br />I don’t like the phrase “raising concern”. I watch the “Morgenmagazin” for half an hour every day. I observe that the journalists, day by day interview people including scientists that raise concern. I think “raising concern” is our nature. Our second nature is to an “alarm” or to a “concern” is that we try to act immediately according to the very first solution that comes into our minds. Being sceptic against that, is necessary in order to focus our resources to the real problems.<br />Now I think the discussion separates in the public media according to my observation. The “alarmist” or ”concernholder” seems to welcome and justify any solution that comes into mind, which promises “CO2” reduction, even without validation. <br />The “sceptic” seems very often to disagree with any proposed solution stating there is no problem at all. <br /> I do think most of the contributors in this blog differentiate much more, so I apologize, but for the sake of my argument I painted black and white. In order to strive for “reconciliation” it is very necessary to separate the “problem description” and “root cause finding” process from the “solution finding” process.<br />This means a solution for CO2 reduction, like mixing bioethanol into gasoline, should neither be justified nor disqualified by the personal view if a problem exists or not. Such a solution should only be implemented if it is validated according to its CO2 reduction targets, ecological impact and cost targets, etc. The targets should be agreed upon by the society.<br />I know that this is very difficult, because there are a lot of vested interests in all aspects of the problem solving process. However, I think the only way to move toward your intention of “reconciliation” is to discuss “bioethanol” separately from “global warming” or “greenhouse gases”. <br />Moreover, I would think that the IPCC should be separated and divided in different organizations according to their working groups.<br />Problem description, impact on the world, solution finding needs to be separated and done by different groups of people.<br />Best regards<br />GünterGünter Heßhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756797784428357652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-69614077538455730272011-02-12T19:29:39.898+01:002011-02-12T19:29:39.898+01:00Excuse me for my intervention. I am surely less wi...Excuse me for my intervention. I am surely less wise and learned than most of you (no pun intended, it's just plain true), but... wouldn't it be better to start claryfing the basics of the debate?<br />I mean, what we are talking about here? Is it climate change, global warming or anthropogenic global warming? Those are very different things, you know, and the conclusions would be very differente too.Heber Rizzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04793498789901743769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-77050841838236693112011-02-12T16:24:11.335+01:002011-02-12T16:24:11.335+01:00ghost,
I don't see anywhere in my short comme...ghost,<br /><br />I don't see anywhere in my short comment that I attributed all the change in food prices around the world to ethanol production in the US. I would hope that anyone with any sense would understand that there are a myriad of factors on both the demand and supply sides of any economic good or service which affect its price. If you want to be a bit more accurate in your little lecture, I would suggest you also include a discussion of the cross-elasticities of demand and supply regarding substititue goods, etc.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01575178552426939685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-84942341552262654082011-02-12T16:02:16.727+01:002011-02-12T16:02:16.727+01:00My pleasure. Thanks.My pleasure. Thanks.Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-54154939801690424492011-02-12T16:00:04.527+01:002011-02-12T16:00:04.527+01:00Ja, Werner, very "very much 'reconciliati...Ja, Werner, very "very much 'reconciliationist'!". This was a <b>very wise</b> assertion. Applause.Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-67408709206185677742011-02-12T15:55:38.487+01:002011-02-12T15:55:38.487+01:00I agree. But let's get back to the climate deb...I agree. But let's get back to the climate debate: the (climate debate) skeptic is critical of the alarmist, sometimes with good reasons (just as in the Krugman case in this thread). The skeptic points with her finger and says: wrong here, erroneous here, uni-mono-something here. Fine. 1:0 for the skeptic. But there is something AT STAKE: the discussion between the skeptic and the alarmist is only an academic entertainment as long as it remains on this level. <br />Let's switch perspective: now we see a conversation between the skeptic and the alarmist about something else, which is exactly climate change and its political ecology. The conversation is indeed about droughts, floods, extreme weather, greenhouse gases and so on. BOTH should be concerned and join forces for the sake of "something else" (and not for their own sake or for being right and you wrong). <br />(Doesn't that sound very much 'reconciliationist'!)Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-9377058058676113842011-02-12T15:46:52.957+01:002011-02-12T15:46:52.957+01:00Sure, alarmists can be skeptical as well - but In ...Sure, alarmists can be skeptical as well - but In would assume that their skepticism, as well as that one of many skeptics, is a but "uni-directional". Skepticism is a methodical attitude, less so related to political agenda, I would thinkHans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-79163561146222567352011-02-12T15:44:06.588+01:002011-02-12T15:44:06.588+01:00Glad to hear that, Hans. So how can the skeptical ...Glad to hear that, Hans. So how can the skeptical scientist raise alarm or concern? The skeptical alarmist - how does that sound to you?Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-77772797847201905332011-02-12T15:35:12.876+01:002011-02-12T15:35:12.876+01:00Werner, in my value-catalog (as a scientist) skept...Werner, in my value-catalog (as a scientist) <b>skepticism</b> is a key entry. That does not mean that I like everything, which got or demands the label "skeptical".Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-6115233957162370652011-02-12T15:31:12.031+01:002011-02-12T15:31:12.031+01:00Corn, bio-energy, ecology, economy, Russia, China,...Corn, bio-energy, ecology, economy, Russia, China, US, EU, Egypt, rebellion, food prices, droughts, floods, climate change and so on...who will ever write the political ecology in an ever more interconnected world? <br />I still think that there are good reasons to raise alarm; to raise alarm without using unilear - monocausal - or onedimensional or other oversimplifying arguments.<br /><br />Maybe to 'raise alarm' is not a good expression. What about: to raise concern (if this is proper English)? I always liked Latour's (the French sociologist) expression "matter of concern". <br />It is not enough to be skeptical of alarmist arguments (such as Krugman's). Being skeptical is not an end in itself. It is the first step to the improvement of an argument. There are reasons to be concerned about the political ecology in times of an obviously changing climate, even more so when so many human factors play a decisive role in this "political climate-ecology complex".Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-3150954640655671792011-02-12T14:31:35.351+01:002011-02-12T14:31:35.351+01:00@Stan
the price of corn is not only determined by ...@Stan<br />the price of corn is not only determined by the bio-ethanol production in the US. For example, last year the US corn production was lower than expected because of high temperatures and drought. Furthermore, China imported much more corn than before, because of different eating habits (much more beef) and China had floods and droughts in the last year, too. W/o floods the Chinese do not import corn. Worldwide, the corn production was not so successful in 2010. Argentina had an increase... but that it was, and the demand is increasing, etc. etc. Last, why using corn for HFCS? Nobody needs this. You cannot even eat the corn for starch or HFCS. At last, speculating also determines the prices. <br /><br />But, well, the bio energy is a difficult problem. There is no simple solution.<br /><br /><br />And the final, most important question is: are the corn or more general the food prices even the reason or trigger of the Arabic revolutions? That I doubt it. <br /><br />However, I would say, #15 summarized the problem very good. Thank you.ghostnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-45265737298202869732011-02-12T03:57:49.697+01:002011-02-12T03:57:49.697+01:00Hmmm, you would think that an economist might pick...Hmmm, you would think that an economist might pick up on the price implications of burning a large portion of the US corn crop in autos. But although that clearly causes food prices to go up, that answer is inconvenient for environmentalists. So Krugman ignores it.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01575178552426939685noreply@blogger.com