Pres. Al and V.P. Hillary

[TOM4CWB]

Cottonpicken,

Can you imagine what Al Gore and Hillary Clinton could do for us... IF they got elected to be President and Vice President of the US of A?

How would this change Agriculture?

[TOM4CWB]

"Gore gets a cold shoulder
Steve Lytte
October 14, 2007

ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

At his first appearance since the award was announced in Oslo, Mr Gore said: "We have to quickly find a way to change the world's consciousness about exactly what we're facing."

Mr Gore shared the Nobel prize with the United Nations climate panel for their work in helping to galvanise international action against global warming.

But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.

However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.

"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.

During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error.

He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.

"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.

He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science.

"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants.""

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html

Here is another article that makes one think....

"Beer prices rise as drought continues October 13, 2007 - 6:10PM

The price of beer and other Australian staples such as meat and bread are set to rise in NSW due to prolonged drought.

NSW Primary Industries Minister Ian Macdonald said September's lack of rain put 80 per cent of the state in drought.

With little to no rainfall last month, Mr Macdonald said the estimated winter crop for March and April next year was now lost.

Price increases of up ten per cent are expected to come in a month's time.

"What this means is that every farmer will face a grim Christmas across this state with little income," Mr Macdonald told reporters in Sydney.

"As well as that every household will be affected because of rising food prices," he said.

Wheat and barley are among the crops hardest hit with the knock-on effect hitting beer drinkers and raising the price of bread.

"We anticipate there could be prices increasing in the order of 10 to 20 cents a schooner due to the shortage of barley," he said.

Mr Macdonald said the barley shortage was unlikely to affect the taste of beer.

"It would be nice to know that you are drinking a beer over Christmas that has helped the farmers," he said.

AAP" http://www.smh.com.au/news/drought/beer-prices-rise-as-drought-continues/2007/10/13/1191696231787.html

So they said "10 to 20 cents a schooner due to the shortage of barley," that would make Malt Barley worth how much a tonne?

Facts - "* A bushel of barley yields a bushel of malt, which in turn yields a barrel of beer, which is 333 bottles."

http://www.albertabarley.com/malt/beer.shtml

Now let me see...

If the total cost of barley used in a bottle of beer... was between 10 & 20 cents/bottle... that would mean a bushel would have increased...between $33.30 & $66.60/bu?

The Myths we allow to go unchallenged... stager the mind!

[TOM4CWB]

Looks like the price of barley might be going up more in South Australia... than in other states like Victoria...

http://www.aussiepubs.com.au/talk/index.htm

"Victoria - Beer

Pony 140ml
A Beer 200ml
Pot 285ml
Schooner 485ml
Jug 1140ml


South Australia - Beer

Pony 140ml
Butcher 200ml
Schooner 285ml
Jug 1140ml


New South Wales - Beer

A Five 140ml
A Seven 200ml
Middie 285ml
Schooner 425ml
Jug 1140ml


Queensland - Beer

N/A 140ml
A beer 200ml
Pot 285ml
Schooner 425ml
Jug 1140ml"

So I used a Canadian Bottle... which according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_beer

Says:

"Bottle labelling
Government regulations require that all beer sold in Canada show the alcohol concentration (alcohol concentration by volume) on the label. A standard bottle of beer (341 mL and five percent alcohol by volume) contains 17.05 millilitres of alcohol. In most nations, the labelled alcohol percentage is either the average or maximum percentage allowed. However, as of 1927, most Canadian provinces require the minimum alcohol percentage to be labelled rather than the average. This move was meant to eliminate inaccurate nonalcoholic labelling as well as fraudulent advertisement.[1]

The rationale for standardizing alcohol content (since loosened and disproved) is that consumers would tend to select only high alcohol beers and the breweries would have a war with ever escalating alcohol content. In the USA this was solved by keeping the alcohol content a mystery to the consumer who does not make an extra effort. When alcohol content is shown on U.S. beer, it is often labelled by weight. Since alcohol is lighter than water, this can leave the mistaken impression that U.S. beer has much less alcohol, on average, than Canadian beer. A 3.2% beer in the U.S. (by weight) would be equivalent to a 4% beer in Canada (by volume). However, U.S. beer is labelled according to state laws, which unanimously dictate that the maximum alcohol percentage be labelled. As such, a 5.4% beer in the U.S. (by weight) may legally contain as little as 1% alcohol by weight. Nevertheless, many U.S. beers often label their alcohol content by volume.[2]"

Just goes to prove... not all is what it seems!

GRIN!

[cottonpicken]

My bet is president hillary,vice president obama.We'll see.

As far as global warming if 99% of scientists say its happening its probably happening.Science is a quest of truth with politics and emotions removed.If you have ever dealt with higher level science type people you relize they dont except anything until its proven and factual.But i really hope their wrong.



One thing i'm worried about is the public relations nightmare the farmers are facing with rising food costs.Were about to be "blamed" even though those higher up the food chain are doing most of the inflating.Big companies have teams of people to pass the buck but 50,000 divided farms have nobody.

Anybody have a solution to this problem?

[dalek]

Well I can certainly see how Pres. Al and VP Hillary would cause an increase in alcohol consumption.

[TOM4CWB]

"Gore sees no hope of beating Clinton

Tim Shipman in Plymouth, New Hampshire
October 15, 2007

HILLARY CLINTON'S lead in the race for the White House is now so formidable that, even with his Nobel Peace Prize, Al Gore considers her unbeatable, former campaign aides say.

The former US vice-president, whose supporters have formed a shadow campaign team in case he decides to stand, has told friends he is reluctant to take on her formidable political organisation.

One strong backer of Mr Gore said the prize win had "increased his artillery" should he decide to risk standing for the presidency a second time, but said this was now likely only if the former first lady made an unexpected slip.

Senator Clinton is well ahead in the battle for the Democratic nomination and, unlike Mr Gore, the frontrunner has been busy campaigning in crucial states such as New Hampshire.

To reporters watching her trying to reach out to voters in that key primary state - at one point she pauses in the mud to speak to a man in a wheelchair and a young family - she appears a diminutive, school-marmish figure in her dark blue trouser suit.

But, almost seven years since her husband left the White House, Senator Clinton has gone from ****olded wife whose brief foray into health-care policy was a humiliating disaster to a two-term senator who claims to be the most experienced candidate in the race.

Polls show her leading her main Democratic rival, Barack Obama, by up to 33 points and seeing off each of the leading Republicans in a possible general election.

Nevertheless, questions remain. During a run through New Hampshire last week, Senator Clinton and her team appeared paralysed by caution. She made a speech to 800 students and other voters in Plymouth, followed by a "barn party" in rural Canterbury, complete with bluegrass music, where she took questions from voters but not from the press.

The other danger she faces is that her poll lead may merely reflect name recognition. Many voters, even in election-savvy New Hampshire, are only just tuning in to the election - such as the man in Plymouth who was still oblivious to the fact that Senator Obama is black, a subject that has preoccupied the media for months.

And with Donna Brazille, a former Gore campaign manager, predicting her man will choose to "play kingmaker", he could be the making or breaking of the Clinton campaign whether he runs or not.

Telegraph, London"

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/gore-sees-no-hope-of-beating-hillary/2007/10/14/1192300600724.html