yes, congress would face an angry farming sector, and would pass the anti-manna bill.

"thirty-three years of pain - downtrend in real prices - for the foods"

So if food just fell from the sky, that would be "painful"?

Climate change was a lie then, it is a lie now, and it will always be a lie! Tax money distribution is the root cause of the lie. RLS

to fundamentalist:
yeah, real estate had a boom in 1973-74, as did all the commodities. but those were the days before the democratization of credit, so the property bubble was infinitely smaller than today. to me, only agricultural property has the winning combination of low debt, and likelihood of rising earnings.

thirty-three years of pain - downtrend in real prices - for the foods, until 2007. in 1972 the breakout from the previous trading range ushered in very much higher prices. i am expecting similar behaviour in the next years.

http://www.futuresbuzz.com/wheatlt.html

America the richest also has the shortest memory...it is Holliday time. Don’t expect change.

Listen to the ultimate ranter on the subject. (Warning - some people may consider this offensive).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTGLpqFGyYM

Fundamentalist:

"learn the sad truth about the real bills doctrine. It has been a disaster everywhere anyone has tried it"
The real bills doctrine says that banks should only issue new money in exchange for assets of adequate value. That's the process that any bank naturally follows, so of course it has been tried in many times and places. Sometimes the banks manage to maintain adequate assets, and the money holds its value, and sometimes the bank fails to maintain adequate assets, and the money loses its value. Of course, a doctrine that has been around as long as the real bills doctrine has been stated and mis-stated in many ways. That's why I prefer to use the term 'backing theory' to distinguish it from the misunderstood caricature that RBD critics have constructed.

No one can calculate the needs of the planet therefore everyone can treat it like trash? Who knows, maybe you could be become a good defence lawyer 'Calculation Argument'.

No one can calculate the needs of the planet therefore everyone can treat it like trash? Who knows, maybe you could be become a good defence lawyer 'Calculation Argument'.

@PP
Your first shot at the definition was directly appended to the word "objectified" in the original statement:

"— defined, specified, and demonstrated..."

---------------

Your second chance to get it was in the closing sentence of my next reply:

"... unambiguously concretized and demonstrated"

----------------

Here's your last chance:

objectification : concretization of an abstraction.

.

It's only 18 years, usually much much less and you can do whatever you want. The legal system can even shorten it further but abolishing it? Come on!
This is a small compromise for a social engineer to satisfy both sides.
By the way, prior invention is positively, and rightly acknowledged in pharmaceutical cases.

No central planner can calculate the needs of the planet. No central planner can calculate the most rational green activity. No supercomputer can predict the climate since there are too many variables: it would have to be so big that it affects the climate in the process of predicting it.

Kevin Trenberth's response to Paul Hudson's BBC article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

See the data from the Met Office here: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/policymakers/policy/slowdown.html

When I saw that they are trying to say the change is due to "internal climate variability," I thought the same thing as Trenberth:

"Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation. What are the physical processes?"

Apparently, the climate models didn't predict the current cooling period and Mann didn't exactly want to admit it:

"Kevin, that's an interesting point. As the plot from Gavin I sent shows, we can easily account for the observed surface cooling in terms of the natural variability seen in the CMIP3 ensemble (i.e. the observed cold dip falls well within it). So in that sense, we can "explain" it. But this raises the interesting question, is there something going on here w/ the energy & radiation budget which is inconsistent with the modes of internal variability that leads to similar temporary cooling periods within the models. I'm not sure that this has been addressed--has it?"

Trenberth to Tom Wigley:

"How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!"

Mann essentially says:

"there is always the danger of falling a bit into the 'we don't know everything, so we know nothing' fallacy."

In other words, the important thing is what we happen to make up.

See:
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1054&filename=1255532032.txt

They certainly don’t know everything:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/cloud-forecasting-and-cosmic-r.shtml

"Climate change pushes poor women to prostitution"

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/177346/climate-change-pushes-poor-women-to-prostitution-dangerous-work

And now there is no global warming? Another ACORN business opportunity down the drain!

"unions have always inflicted injustices and disrupted production."

CEOs have always inflicted injustices and disrupted production. The liquidation-threat system should be outlawed.

"Free market" means anyone is free to buy and sell anything with anyone else at any price they agree on. If a group decides that a buyer's bid isn't high enough, they are free not to sell. If a group of workers decides that an employer's bid isn't high enough, they are free not to sell their labor to that employer. That is the free market.

"it presents an equally devastating argument for the superiority of the free market in the determination of the wage rates of labor."

Threatening to strike is part of the price discovery process. It *is* the free market.

DD, besides the mainstream coverage in the links provided by NewLiberty, it's now been covered by...
The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=1&ref=science
The Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
The Associated Press: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ikaqlFpp9jCRHWN0zNuamKXfyeMgD9C441LG0

PS, Read Rothbard's history of the Fed and you'll discover that it has attempted to implement the RBD for almost a century, and the result has always been disastrous inflation. But they always blame greedy speculators for it.

Brian Macker:

"What happened to your constant lumping of copyright and patent under the umbrella, IP, to discredit it all as the same thing? You've been doing that for quite some time."

It is tiresome to have to respond to such a comment. IP is an umbrella term used in positive to describe types of law that have some common characteristics, but that are different in other ways. The two main ones and the two most unlibertarian ones are copyright and patent. I oppose patent and copyright law; they both share some of the same basic defects; but there are some differences too: just as antitrust law harms the economy in different ways than wage and hour legislation harms the economy, but both are unlibertarian "regulations."

"Copy rights are about property rights not IP as I've pointed out numerous times in great detail. Copy rights are perfectly legit."

I don't know what "copy rights" mean and I am sure you don't either. But I do know that copyright law is unlibertarian, and patent law is too--and for the same fundamental reasons.