Discussion on:

Will coffee soon be a thing of the past?

This sounds like a tea drinkers conspiracy COUGH scientific report from the United Kingdom COUGH

... and the Planet will stop spinning in December .....

The clergy of the Church of Man Made Climate Change simply don't give up do they? [;>}

...and go buy some beach front property.

There is no science for "man made". Climate change has happened over and over again in the past. The idea that human-caused CO2 increase is ludicrous. The pacific rim is heating up. Volcanic action belches more gasses in a second than all of mankind could make in a year. I'm guessing I'm literally far more connected to the science than you could even imagine.

Volcanic action belches more gasses in a second than all of mankind could make in a year.

It's not even close. In an average year all volcanoes together emit about 1% of the CO2 that human emissions do. Even the biggest eruption in the past century, Pinatubo in 1991 only emitted around 42 million tonnes of CO2 compared to 23 billion tonnes by humans in that year. Lately human emissions have been hovering around 30 billion tonnes/year.

in order to keep trying to get the ignorant to believe your version of "science".

So, tell me, which scientist or researcher has ever stood at the mouth of a volcano and measured the actual amount of CO2 emitted? I would say: NONE! What can't be measured, can only be guessed at, and, the guessing always favors the one who needs to make a point in his direction.

Try your beliefs when the science is not part of an agenda, and when your science is open to scrutiny and doesn't massage the data in order to fit your pre-defined results/conclusions.

Are you truly that scientifically illiterate?

Vulcanologists can use remote sensors and sampling to measure the level of different gases and the rate of release. They don't have to personally be there. Of course they're not getting exact measurements but "in the ballpark" estimates but since volcanic emissions are 2 orders of magnitude less than human emissions even if they're off by half volcanoes still don't come close to human emissions.

and major errors in measurements.

Vulcanoes exist everywhere on the planet, and most are even underwater, which makes it virtually impossible for vulcanologists to take accurate measurements, and which also means that, most volcanoes will go "unmeasured" ,which again brings up the question about the accuracy of any estimates. Estimates are prone to major errors. That's why estimates don't enter into the requirements of good scientific research.

The estimate that volcanic emissions are 1% of human emissions would have to be off by a factor of 100 to even equal let alone outstrip them. Do you really think vulcanologists are that clueless?

They really do know where most of the underwater volcanoes are located, along the mid-Atlantic rift and other rift zones around the world. There's a new Hawaiian island forming south of the Big Island that will break the surface in 5,000-10,000 years. Any major underwater volcanic activity is likely to produce enough effects that we'll notice it sooner or later.

and miscalculations.

There are not enough sensors to accurately calculate emissions of volcanoes, and certainly, not enough accurate research to draw accurate conclusions from the data. The research that attempts to draw conclusions from the "gathered data", has major flaws in the capture of the data, and in the picking and choosing of the data, and in the models used to analyze the data, and in the methods used by those researches to attempt to massage all of the above in order to arrive at their predefined set of conclusions that they were after to begin with.

IOW, the science is corrupt from beginning to end, and the analysis from volcanoes is part of that flawed research.

It sounds like you think the vulcanologists don't know a damned thing about their science. I tend to think they do know a thing or two and unless I get real evidence to the contrary I'll continue to believe what they say. When I use the term "ballpark" I'm never talking about something that is off by a factor of 100.

What can't be measured, can only be guessed at, and, the guessing always favors the one who needs to make a point in his direction.

Yes the guessing will always favor the government sponsored climate change scientists that needs to keep proveing that man causes climate change (NOT) so that he can keep his government sponsored grants to research climate change coming.

The same government that is going to impose regulation on us all in the name of "climate change" is soon going to spend billions restoring property along the Jersey and New York shores.

If "climate change" is to be taken seriously, all property destroyed by the storm should be condemned. Doing anything other would be a joke.

Agreed, the coast line should be abandoned by government support. Only private money should choose the risk.

In 1788, a hurricane hits the Jersey and New York coast, laying waste to what was then Manhattan. Preachers pronounced it as an "act of God" in retribution for man's misbehavior.

In 2012, a hurricane hits hits the Jersey and New York coast, laying waste to New Jersey and New York. "Experts" pronounced it as an "act of nature" in retribution for man's misbehavior.

Very little has changed.

.

extinct in the wild. and like the one guy said and the earth will stop spinning. right

This totally ignores breeding creating varieties that produce even better in the same locations even if the environment changes Not many wild varieties of wheat and corn being produced the world would starve if that was the choice

If the storms hitting NYC and NJ haven't caused alarm, this should scare the **** out of any coffee drinking conservative. Can you imagine a street full of non caffeinated New Yorkers trying to navigate their daily commute without ripping of the heads of those around them.

You can shrug off the flooding of Bengal, but don't mess with the coffee supply.

As long as it is New Yorkers ripping the heads off of other New Yorkers then this means thaey are doing their part to reduce CO2 emissions.

I think coffee can easily be replaced over the next 50 years! We have electronic cigarettes.

Add rice to the wheat and corn list -- breeding & innovation there is even greater

In order to achieve Scalosian levels of acceleration.

...that SmartPlanet would cease to exist if we didn't have our morning coffee.

Uh oh.