Jim Rogers calls a next bubble in food again

[doom&gloom]

Re: Jim Rodgers calls the next bubble - Food

Remember, it pays to be careful with "cheap" agricultural land.

There's been HEAPS of American and Australasian farmers jumping in head first into South American agriculture...some have done amazingly well...and there's been a few high profile failures as well.

Cheap land is relative......especially when you factor in local/regional infrastructure and costs to reach market.

One thing I've learned with farming is that while business models can be replicated reasonably well to a certain degree...it's not a McDonald's franchise by any means when it comes to best practices...best practices in farming are often quite localized and regionalized and can be very expensive to develop.

It is a real challenge....which appeals to some...and can be quite frustrating and expensive for others

never buy cheap unless you are buying cattle land. you pay for what you get, and the better the land the better the yields. Potato land (which is good for many crops but not all land is good for potatos, ran about $4k/ac in WA State (see: http://agr.wa.gov/fof/docs/Potatoes.pdf) in 2007. Similar land in Urugay has cost me the same or less depending on the state of development, though I will not grow potatos due to the high labor costs involved. Wherever you can grow good potatoes you can grow good corn. Or other grains like soy.

[aaron]

Re: Jim Rodgers calls the next bubble - Food

1) in times of tight or rationed oil, farmers will be high up on the food chain because...
2) governments fall to starving people

That is a terrible assumption. I am more inclined to believe your safe Uruguay farm will be taken away from you for the "greater good". You think they will allow you to profit when people might starve?

3) increasing world wealth and demand for meat products means more grain allocated to feed at between 3-7 inputs per meat output
4) people used to eating meat will NOT return to eating grain as their staples, they will give up iPods and new clothes and whatnot first

That is another terrible assumption. I rarely buy steaks because they are expensive. Otherwise, I would eat them every day. People definitely change their diet in the face of hard times. How many restaurants went out of business during the last recession? How many iPods were sold?

5) science is no longer making meaningful increases in yields in the field
---> We should close the patent office

6) higher fuel prices will price out marginal land, not bring it online, due to poor yield return against input costs
--> Fuel prices will squeeze profits.

7) population growth will eventually outstrip quality land for planting
The growth is in the cities, not in agricultural areas. And, with food being important and all, I'd expect laws and regulations to become stronger to protect it.


8) dropping water tables in prime farming areas will take productive land out of the equation
Yeah, but when ? As far as I know, this is a distant (decades) problem.


9) longer wave weather patterns will wreak havoc on yield more frequently
Yields have been increasing for decades. I see no evidence of increasingly bad weather patterns. Of course, that can change. Al Gore says it will.

10) food security will become a greater concern for nations, just like fuel security, partly because
11) food is fuel, for the body, or converted to fuel for transport (as insane a policy as it may be)

Which makes me think you are apt to lose your farm to some government policy.

Plus, with a flip of the pen Obama (or the next President) can double the corn production in the U.S. That will mess with profits big time.

[doom&gloom]

Re: Jim Rodgers calls the next bubble - Food

Is this not the evidence that clue has been asking for ? Why did you wait?

Also, you are claiming something is a good investment - thousands of people see your posts. Clue's questions are valid. (He he has been nicer than normal too.) It is important to realize you are posting investment ideas publicly. If you are wrong, you may cause great HARM to people who might actually take your advice.

aaron,

I have ad several itulip people contact me privately for more info. i have no problem sharing. one itulip person came down to uruguay, went farm hunting with me, and bought a farm. their first crop goes in this spring, we shall see how it goes. I cannot divulge indentity by request, sorry.

Anyone who would take anything at face value from anyone on the net, without further due diligence, needs to get a real clue. I did plenty of reading on the subject before i invested in ag. I had a list (as you have seen) as to why ag was a good investment. there is stuff EVERYWHERE on the net, all it takes is about 5 minutes ad you will be deluged with information.

c1ue kept puttin words in my mouth and asking me to prove what I had frankly never claimed -- things like 'end is near' and 'meet the cliff'. He has been coming from some other direction I simply never understood. I listed the reasons I personally liked ag as an investment, and all of a sudden i have to justify it because he asks? aaron, justify for me why you're even a part of this thread. Why?, well hey, because i am asking you to prove you deserve to be here! get it? It might be different if there were no web to do some basic research, but really, it is just everywhere.

For example, i knew the cost of WA potato land because I had looked into that, as well as OR onion land. But to show an example, i did a quick google search and got data from a university stating what I already knew. This is not rocket science. It took me less than a minute.

What peeved me about this whole episode was not the request for "proof" it was the approach. I have gladly spent more time gratis with more people on more things in life than I really cared to here because of it.

[doom&gloom]

Re: Jim Rodgers calls the next bubble - Food

okay aaron, now you want to play? lets play a little shall we...

Regarding items 1 & 2, anyone with a modicum of historical knowledge knows that when governments nationalize things like farmland, yields go down, not up. Go read up on what has happened in Africa each time this happened. Who si gonna make the people work the land? In fact, who really CARES about what comes off the land if they get paid to do some work with no heart into it. Would you work harder because the US gov't owned your company? I thnk not.

Regarding items 3 & 4, unless you are a vegetarian/vegan type, you eat chicken, hamburger, veal, pork or even farmed or wild fish. the latter two may not be big grain consumers, but the first couple are on the grain chain bub. People stuck on diminishing SocSec payments may have to trade down to cheap burger, or even dog food if necessary, but it's grains all the way. And if you price out the cost of veggies and fruits nowadays compared to the quality of protein for your body, you would be a fool to give up chicken. And though beans are not very expensive, unless you have a taste for beans and rice every day like the poor of Mexico, that gets rather boring fast.

Regarding item 5, you make yorself look foolish. srsly.

Regarding item 6, supply and demand drive ag prices (plus speculation) and until they outlaw the basic concepts of trade and suppy/demand, this will continue. This, input costs on marginal lands will drive producers to not work them, output will go down int he face of demand that should (i say should because everyone could decide to go on a hunger fast or perhaps a plague kills off a third of the world) continue to remain stable or increase, thus driving prices up for the remaining producers.

Regarding item 7, now you're being silly. of course growth is in the cities. Food comes from farms. How much of your own food can you grow on your condo balcony? How many chickens can you keep? But a better question might be how much quality land has been lost to expansion of cities into prime ag land? this is supposedly a BIG problem in China, let alone how much land has been polluted out of production. how about Japan? they got hit in some pretty productive land as well. There is only so much land that is really worth working to get a good return, and there will be increasing demands placed upn this land.

Regarding item 8, parts of Nebraska have already seen their ground water dry upfor irragation, as the Ogallala Aquifier has been receeding along the edges. A town in Texas recently was in the news for running out of water. This was 3 seconds of google search -- try it sometime.

http://geology.com/usgs/high-plains-aquifer.shtml
Ground Water Depletion in the High Plains Aquifer

Water Levels in Some Areas Have Declined Over 150 Feet

http://hrd.apec.org/index.php/The_Og...rican_Resource

The Ogallala aquifer was virtually untouched until the
1910s, but the post-depression wartime government of the 1940s readily
subsidized irrigation projects drawing from the aquifer as drilling technology
improved. The dry grassland states of the central United States were quickly
developed into major crop producing regions. As of 1980, “20% of the irrigated
land in the United States overlay the Ogallala, 30% of the irrigation ground
water in the United States was being pumped from it, and 40% of the grain-fed
beef cattle slaughtered in the United States were being fattened in the six
states of the High Plains.” The aquifer’s use for irrigation supports
significant fractions of the nation’s economy, 15% of the domestic corn and
wheat as well as 25% of the cotton crop are raised on Ogallala water. This
extreme reliance on the Ogallala aquifer has taken a dramatic toll on the ground
water supply, both quantitatively and qualitatively.



The Ogallala lies under one of the driest portions of the United States.
The plains states cannot support profitable agriculture without irrigation
because dry farming there would be economically unfeasible. Today the aquifer
is being drained at such an alarming rate that an alternative source will have
to be found in the next fifteen years at most. In most areas covering the
Ogallala the water table has dropped 10-50 feet since groundwater mining began,
with drops of over 100 feet recorded in several agricultural regions. Two main
factors are contributing largely to this observed drop in the water table.

and this is some of the better farmland in the US...

Regarding item 9, I have no faith in AlGore, but I do see and understand how sunspots, changes in the Pacific Decadal Oscillator, deforestation and similar can definitely affect long range weather.

Regarding items 10 & 11, in a country where almost half the population is tied up in the ag business, plus a dependence on trade and banking with foreigners as their lifeblood, I doubt this comes to pass easily.



Finally, i doubt Obama could flip a pen and make it hit the floor, let alone double corn production in the US. This is again silly of you to say.

[doom&gloom]

Re: Jim Rodgers calls the next bubble - Food

here aaron, some suggested reading (which I have already done so I can recommend them).

http://www.amazon.com/Resource-Wars-...5894359&sr=1-1


http://www.amazon.com/Water-Follies-...5894516&sr=1-2


http://www.amazon.com/Cadillac-Deser...5894568&sr=1-1


The last is a personal favorite, and i was turned onto it on a river rafting trip by a water lawyer out of Santa Barbara. Quite an eye opener...

[doom&gloom]

Re: Jim Rodgers calls the next bubble - Food

A friend took the time to send me an investment letters from 2008 analyzing farmland. I am not comfortable putting it up as it is not mine, but i'll put up a link. They basically state the same thesis I have, and had been exploring off and on since 2005.

Much of their emphasis in on land appreciation, which is NOT my particular focus.

Enjoy!


http://farmlandinvestmentpartnership...imer082108.pdf

perhaps after reading this both c1ue and aaron can challenge these guys and all the varouls data sources they used as well.

EDIT: Since I had never seen their site, I started poking around a bit. they have a nice selection of data here:

http://farmlandinvestmentpartnership.com/research

[c1ue]

Re: Jim Rodgers calls the next bubble - Food

Where have I ever said "meet the cliff"? Where do you come up with this stuff you write? That must be some good stuff you smoke before you reply to me.

You stated that all the would cause inexorable demand and/or cause inexorable decline, and use this as a basis for your case for ag land as an investment.

I've done nothing but inquire for the data by which you derive these views. When you do finally bring them forth, I examined them in the cold light of analysis.

The links you've put forward do provide useful information, but it is quite clear the context you see them in is vastly different than the one I do.

Your BRIC/emerging country switch to meat driver is significant, but doesn't change the game significantly.

Your population vs. farm yield improvements is in fact a non-issue.

The worldwide farm yield improvement is in fact far greater than I had thought. This is perhaps unsurprising since my view was derived from Iowa corn yield improvements in the past 50 years while in contrast the rest of the world likely doesn't employ the scale of technology, automation, and expertise which farmers of the wealthiest nation in the world employ.

As farm outputs rise in price, as well as poorer nations get wealthier, it is logical that more such expensive yield enhancements will be introduced.

This is a huge counter-factor to the generic food demand growth curve due to population.

This won't be forever, but certainly is a very big factor in the coming decades - which is all anyone can be looking at in terms of investment.

In any case, you've clearly made your bed and desire to lie in it.

As I've noted before, that's great.

Your attacks frankly amuse me. I've seen far worse in the climate wars, and I'll see far worse in the future.

I've only held back because your amateurish ad hominem efforts do far more to discredit your views than anything I'm going to say.

http://www.amazon.com/Resource-Wars-...5894359&sr=1-1


http://www.amazon.com/Water-Follies-...5894516&sr=1-2


http://www.amazon.com/Cadillac-Deser...5894568&sr=1-1


The last is a personal favorite, and i was turned onto it on a river rafting trip by a water lawyer out of Santa Barbara. Quite an eye opener...

A very instructive list.

If you look to just confirm your own views, unsurprisingly you'll always find someone willing to pander to them.

[doom&gloom]

Re: Jim Rodgers calls the next bubble - Food

c1ue, your spin does not work with me. your selective use of your own chosen "facts", lame as they may be, does not work either. you fail to answer the questions put to you, but you keep putting them to me. i give you basic info you could find yourself, but you dismiss it or selectively spin it. the problem is not a lack of objectivity on my part, nor my research or decision process, it is your hard-on for either Rogers, ag investment, me or any combination.

You have yet to PROVE ME WRONG. You cannot spin that important fact c1ue. You can try, but I am smarter than that.

I have NEVER used the words "inexorable demand" or "inexorable decline" -- EVER. Again you try to spin my words and stuff them in my mouth. You just keep selling, even though I won't buy. I imagine most who ave read this thread have to wonder WTF is going thru your head to keep this up, but we can keep playing if you want. So far I see this as a major fail on your part, because you have NOT proven my thesis incorrect -- in fact you have proven exactly nothing other than a desire to ignore what can be found on the net with a modicum of effort.

And c1ue, there is no attack on my part. there is just me pointing out the fallacies in your chasing this thread round in circles. if I was really attacking you, you would know it.

So let's try this one last time, shall we?

PROVE ME WRONG.

oh yeah, and tell me (honestly) how much of your wealth (%) you put into gold back in 2001 showing your faith in the gold thesis. I am dying to know YOUR committment to such analysis.

[BlackVoid]

Re: Jim Rodgers calls the next bubble - Food

3. The "damage" these companies do is feeding millions who otherwise would starve. Corporate farming and the advances made possible by it is much more productive than a peasant with a wood plow and 3 kids hauling it around his back yard.
5. A tomato grown in your back yard costs far more than one grown on a huge farm. With nobody buying the stocks out of their sense of moral superiority it would cause more hunger, not less.

3. Large scale agriculture is only efficient in terms of manpower use. In energy terms, it is grossly inefficient, using 10 fossil fuel calories to produce 1 food calorie.
5. See above. A tomato grown in your backyard has negligible energy inputs, while it has greater manpower input.

Due to Peak Oil and diminishing returns, in the near future human labor will be cheap, while fossil fuels and transportation will be expensive. This spells doom for the large agri companies, but obviously they will be bailed out as long as that is possible. Regardless of that, I believe that small-scale, labor intensive, non-credit based farming will be very competitive in the near future.

Farmland may not be a very good investment now, but it is surely a good insurance policy. And yes, you can learn farming from the internet, but it will take some practice too. And no, it is not rocket science. Anyone can grow tomatoes, peppers, scallions and many other crops.

You can start in your background with this book.
http://www.amazon.com/How-Grow-More-.../dp/0898157676

[doom&gloom]

Re: Jim Rodgers calls the next bubble - Food

FAR before ag loses access to oil, the urban commuter will lose it. Feeding people has much more "importance" in the world than Mr. Smith driving 45 miles from his house to go code another software program, sell crap at the Best Buy, or jaunting off for a haircut on the weekend.

[c1ue]

Re: Jim Rodgers calls the next bubble - Food

c1ue, your spin does not work with me. your selective use of your own chosen "facts", lame as they may be, does not work either. you fail to answer the questions put to you, but you keep putting them to me. i give you basic info you could find yourself, but you dismiss it or selectively spin it. the problem is not a lack of objectivity on my part, nor my research or decision process, it is your hard-on for either Rogers, ag investment, me or any combination.

You have yet to PROVE ME WRONG. You cannot spin that important fact c1ue. You can try, but I am smarter than that.

In fact I have completely proved you wrong.

I've demonstrated using the links you touted that your belief of BRIC/emerging market meat demand is not an overwhelming factor.

I've demonstrated using the links you touted that world population is not, in fact, outstripping increases in farmland productivity.

You keep screaming that you're right, but every actual data point brought forth screams the opposite.

[aaron]

Re: Jim Rodgers calls the next bubble - Food

I appreciate the response.

[doom&gloom]

Re: Jim Rodgers calls the next bubble - Food

Sorry, you have proven nothing. There is article after article, study after study, paper after paper, ALL discussing the strains further growth in population (along with oil, water, etc) will put on the ag sector.

You toss up crap against the wall, as one-offs, and tell me what is not happpening NOW. I do not care about what is not happening NOW, I have invested for a VERY LONG TIME. There are people who look to make gains in farmland appreciation. I do not care about that less that it keep up with inflation. I care to be a FARMER in my own right. You ask me to prove the future to you but I cannot, no more than you can prove the future to me. I can only look at trends in this arena, and extrapolate from what I read about where I believe those trends will go. That is not enough for you. You are the only guy on this board who seems to have a crystal ball and can tell me I am completely wrong. Well bully for you champ.

Sorry c1ue, there is NO PERFECTION in investing. Maybe you are the "perfect investor", and you can call them all right, and you can tell us ALL where we should put ALL our money (like gold, which you still refuse to acknowledge your involvement in in 2002), but the rest of us are just not as "smart" as you I guess. Not even EJ, who put his money in gold, silver and Treasuries. Maybe YOU need to take over iTulip and gve us all investment advice since you seem to have all the answers. I'm sure you're the number one morning call from Goldman Sachs, Warren Buffet, and a host of others. (*rolls eyes*)

Here you go, you have all the answers, tell them ALL they are wrong, and the mighty c1ue is right.

http://www.marketfolly.com/2009/10/c...edge-fund.html
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/a5cf5...#axzz1Xzzm593j
http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=84983
http://contraryinvesting.com/commodi...r-agriculture/
http://www.barings.com/smc/ProfessionalAdvisors/074056
http://www.db.com/us/docs/Ag_whitepaper_062409.pdf (especially in-depth and looks at a lot of vriables with lots of data)
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications...01/WRS0801.pdf
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/N...note_apr08.pdf
http://www.fapri.org/outlook/2008/te...ookPub2008.pdf
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4252e/y4252e00.htm
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...5937800800099X
http://www.presentationsistersunion....d_Grabbing.doc
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/enviro..._security.html
http://www.slideshare.net/IWMI_Media...-food-security
http://www.slideshare.net/cringler/a...owing-scarcity
http://www.slideshare.net/IWMI_Media...colin-chartres
http://www.slideshare.net/euforic/in...s-presentation
http://www.slideshare.net/AmericanFa...farmland-trust
http://www.smith-gordon-publishing.c....-Mitchell.pdf
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.o...554/2927.short
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l379v22245473533/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/fw645377u3587404/
http://apjcn.nhri.org.tw/server/APJC...31_590-597.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/6218436850848628/
http://www.crops.org/publications/cs...plement_1/S-33
http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/10/2827.full
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&...curity&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&...page&q&f=false
http://epsem.erin.utoronto.ca/desroc...mb.pdf#page=47
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.o...t/365/1554.toc

Just think, all the people who put together the information above, and many thousands of their peers who have published many tens of thousands of articles on water scarcity, population growth, food security,climate change, biofuel impacts, etc etc. -- ALL of them could just give it all up c1ue. They can just drop YOU a PM, and you can assure them there is nothing to worry about.

You accused me of attacking you in the past. I assured you I wasn't. But now I will. You're being a self-centered and lazy ass for acting the way you are in this thread. I have no idea what your hard-on is for the ag sphere, Jim Rogers, or farming, or whatever. You certainly NEVER answer the one question I put out to you over and over. And you keep claiming you won in the face of countless scholarly articles on the net that back up my thesis, if YOU would just take the time to do a little of your own research.

I've said it before, I will say it again. I have run into others like you on the net who have "win" at all costs thru bullying others or whatever. You won't win that way with me c1ue. Not on this one. You have lost this debate because you CANNOT PROVE I AM WRONG. But I can find sudy after study, paper after paper, by professors, governmental institutions, health institutions, authors, etc etc that point to many of the aspects that led me to invest in agriculture. I did the reading, you shot from the hip. Hope all your toes are still there cause your gun never left the holster. Misfire.

Good luck with beating up others on this forum, or on the net, or wherever c1ue. You won't beat me champ. Not on this one. Google is my friend!

Oh, and BTW c1ue, one reason you DON'T see me opining on many subjects on this board is that I defer to others who, in my judgement, have a better grasp of issues that I do. Yo may want to think about that strategy as regards agriculture posts.

[c1ue]

Re: Jim Rodgers calls the next bubble - Food

Well, let's take a look at this long list you put up.

The first link: A hedge fund, touting ag land/ag commodities, splashes up a link from "Pioneer" showing how ag demand is inexorable.

A Google search for 'Pioneer ag demand' was somewhat inconclusive; the only similar product was DuPont who sells a Pioneer seed variety.

Further searches revealed a "Pioneer Market Economics" as the source of this demand data.

However, there is no actual entity - at least to Google - called Pioneer Market Economics.

But, a search of ["Pioneer Market Economics" ag demand] revealed this link:

http://www.delawarebbr.org/images/pr...tion_brody.pdf

Slide 2 shows data from "Pioneer Market Economics" on the left, all inside a presentation by Steven Brody, Director, Pioneer (A DuPont Business)

A later link: http://portal.asfmra.org/userfiles/f...You%20List.pdf

showed a Chris Taylor from Pioneer Market Economics Group, email address @pioneer.com

Going to Pioneer.com shows:

pioneer.jpg

So Pioneer, Pioneer Market Economics, Pioneer Market Economics Group - these are all pseudonyms for the marketing department of Pioneer - the hybrid corn seed sales division of DuPont.

A fine example of astroturfing:

Definition for astroturfing:

Astroturfing denotes political, advertising, or public relations campaigns that are formally planned by an organization, but are disguised as spontaneous, popular "grassroots" behavior. The term refers to AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to look like natural grass.. More »
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing

For that matter, you keep attacking me rather than present information - maybe you are also astroturfing.

Whatever - the quality of data you present thus far either contradicts your statements or came straight from a salesperson pushing product.

Your credibility keeps dropping.

When I'm in need of amusement, I'll look further down your list of "credible" sources which thus far have not been.

[doom&gloom]

Re: Jim Rodgers calls the next bubble - Food

How to debate on iTulip as c1ue:

1) Pick a position counter to someone else
2) Demand proof of a concept or thesis that will take years or decades to play out
3) Toss up selective and meaningless data to refute anything the other party says
4) Attack data the other party puts up selectively and with spin
5) Never do your own work to dispel what you are attacking
6) Try to position yourself as emotionally above the fray
7) avoid specific questions put to you -- always
8) keep claiming you won no matter how bad it looks that you are losing.

Let's follow the chart above shall we?

Point 1: You dislike Rogers/ag/me/whatever, so we'll turn this into a point of contention and take the opposite side of the arguement, even though we really know nothing about the subject whatsoever, and have probably never read anything in the industry

Point 2. Despite the fact tht the environment is large, the sphere and scope of the issue beyond the ability of one person to synthesisze it all, we're going to keep demanding proof of concept to a level that would make a PhD college professor blush with pride

Point 3. We will "pick our battles" by ensuring the least possibly (in our view) defensible data point is the one we adopt and attack.

Point 4. Our latests example of "astroturfing" is to choose one data point for a list, and look for a possible chink, and extraoplate that to the entire data set presented. Under the c1ue concept of astroturfing, no American should ever use the services of BullionVault or GoldMoney, as they have "skin in the game". Nor should we believe Bayer aspirin will work for our headaches, nor Tylenol. We should not drink milk because the Milk Boards promote it, and God help us if we take a harder narcotic like Vicodin because a drug company has told us it will take the pain away. Certainly no one "in the industry" might potentially ever tell us any truth about anything whatsoever. Under that thesis, we will personally engage in selective distortion of the data, ignoring the scholarly papers, investment firm reports, books etc that also make up the list because it is harder to spin those to our liking.

Point 5. As usual, we will do NOTHING to PROVE ME WRONG while we will continue to demand more and more data (which we will selectively again choose one data point to assasinate from our point of view)

Point 6. We will hope to drive the other party to frustration, so as to point out they are emotional about the issue, while we assume the pure posture of cool rationality

Point 7. We will NEVER , EVER, EVER address any point put up by anyone else that may counter our own personal bias in the issue, nor will we EVER answer any specific question put to us, no matter how many times it is put forth.

Point 8. We will keep claiming we have won, because in our own mind we know we are losing, and to lose this battle is to lose credibility in all past and future battles. And we NEVER lose, because WE make up the rules of debate and expect everyone else to follow the rules our way and our way only. It is our game.



You must have something to do with politics, or public relations, or coaching the debate team at the local HS or something. The last I met who was as obstinate a spin-meister as you was of all things a political lobbyist, and a master of spin. He liked to argue to the end and would do so especially harder when he was losing.

(pssst.... I have you pegged, and from a few other contacts on this board, others have you pegged as well)

This has actually been loads of fun for me. I am watching a guy who likes to dominate debate self-destruct in the public sphere because he is too lazy to do his own reasearch and PROVE ME WRONG. And the best part is, I know there are plenty of others watching this as well. Whereas I just found you annoying at the start, I am actually starting to enjoy dissecting your debate style in public for all to see. Certainly the ONLY person who could believe you are winning at this would be you.


The list I put up was about 30 minutes of work (we should never ask you to put forth such effort). I attempted to chose my data from a wide variety of sources, and selectively attempted to not include a lot of AGW based stuff. Thus, were you not so lazy and biased in your debate style, you truly would find book excerpts, papers from bodies of science, professors, authors and the like. One particular link in there would probably take you an entire evening to read and digest, and I must admit, I took most of this data, skimmed it, and read the conclusions before putting it up. OTOH, you took one point of data, and tried to assasinate the whole list of it with your own personal spin about corporate involvement. I'll remember that the next time I take a Vicodin when my back hurts, and chuckle about it.

Ok c1ue, so where shall we take the game next? Want to accuse me of attacking you some more? Go ahead, because I am, if you consider dissecting a lame debate style as an attack.

You might, and I say MIGHT, still win this debate if you did your own reasearch, came back, and were able to PROVE ME WRONG. but we all know you are too lazy to do so. That would mean picking more than one data point and putting your own spin on it, as have constantly done. You might even get a few points up on the board if you would answer a few questions yourself honestly, but that does not fit the debate style of c1ue.

So where do we go next? Business involvement is "astroturf", scholarly papers are ignored, books that support the thesis are authors just trying to sell something. Where do we go for answers c1ue when you won't do the research and selectively choose frommine to try and win?