Comments on: Wheat Growers Now Oppose Cap-and-Trade Bill

By: hotoffthepress2

hotoffthepress2 — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:48:13 +0000

Thanks Dan! I believe it's all GLOBULL WARMING.

By: Dan Miller

Dan Miller — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:45:53 +0000

Russell C offers sound-science advice in urging the NAWG leadership to read the 2009 report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), “Climate Change Reconsidered.” I hope NAWG takes Russell’s warning to heart that any cap on carbon emissions inevitably will restrict economic growth not just in agriculture but throughout the world in all industries.

And for what? Carbon emissions don’t cause global warming (see NIPCC report).

By: hotoffthepress2

hotoffthepress2 — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:03:59 +0000

There is definitely a big problem. I call it GLOBULL WARMING.

By: Russell C

Russell C — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:59:19 +0000

Kudos to the NAWG Board, but there’s still a hitch with their capitulation that ANY kind of CO2 regulation might still be valid.

I immediately emailed the NAWG and urged them to study S Fred Singer’s and Craig Idso’s “Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the NONgovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)”. This is the 880 page report found at this web site, http://www.nipccreport.org/ that is a thorough rebuttal of the IPCC.

I also urged the NAWG to prominently support the US Chamber of Commerce’s request for the EPA to hold a very public hearing about the fundamental science of global warming (see CofC page here: http://www.chamberpost.com/2009/08/transparency-science-and-the-epa-revisited.html ), so that all of us can resolve the differences between the IPCC followers and the skeptic scientists who say global warming is the result of unalterable natural causes.

Further, I asked the NAWG to consider that skeptic scientists are pointing out how IPCC reports fall short of EPA guidelines requiring highly influential scientific assessments to meet a variety of standards for transparency, data availability and due diligence, while also noting that people behind CO2 regulation actually censor debate of the underlying science of global warming.

There is a much larger problem here beyond effective or ineffective CO2 regulation economic costs.

By: hotoffthepress2

hotoffthepress2 — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:39:01 +0000

Right on, Henry!

By: Henry chance

Henry chance — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:22:40 +0000

I have worked as a custom wheat harvestor and hauled wheat to the elevators in Enid when in High school. It is about time that farmers realize cap and tax will make the price of fertilizer and fuel escalate. You have it from me that the carbon credits will not exceed a few pennies per dollar if at all for raising crops. Carbon trading will be a trillion dollar scam.