Trump II

[LesPalenik]

Plus most Americans are fat and can't squeeze into those little Fiats.  We need SUV's.

The metal on the Fiats is so thin, that you can easily stretch them to accommodate larger sizes.

My first car was a Citroen 2CV which was so light, that once after someone stole my starter (the hood was unlocked and opened only from outside), I was able to start the car alone by putting it into the second gear and pushing it myself on the road.  That car with its tiny 2 cylinder, 421ccm engine took me on several trips from Italy and French Riviera through the Swiss Alps all the way to the Arctic Circle in northern Finland. Who needs a SUV?

[Alan Klein]

The metal on the Fiats is so thin, that you can easily stretch them to accommodate larger sizes.

My first car was a Citroen 2CV which was so light, that once after someone stole my starter (the hood was unlocked and opened only from outside), I was able to start the car alone by putting it into the second gear and pushing it myself on the road.  That car with its tiny 2 cylinder, 421ccm engine took me on several trips from Italy and French Riviera through the Swiss Alps all the way to the Arctic Circle in northern Finland. Who needs a SUV?

Well, with a SUV, you can slip a Fiat or Citroën in the back, and use it as a spare. 

[Alan Klein]

Meaning others should also disregard environmental concerns, like the number 2 (?) polluter of the planet? Meaning others should also disinfect their chickens with chlorine? Meaning whom ever pays the lowest wages sets the price? Or who has the least efficient production process sets a higher price for others to match?

Fair?

Cheers,
Bart

I don't understand what price and wages and price have to do with tariffs.   He wants others to drop their tariffs to be equal to ours so we can compete fairly.  Maybe I didn't understand your point?  Also what do environmental concerns and chlorine have to do with tariffs and trade?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I don't understand what price and wages and price have to do with tariffs.   He wants others to drop their tariffs to be equal to ours so we can compete fairly.  Maybe I didn't understand your point?  Also what do environmental concerns and chlorine have to do with tariffs and trade?

Okay. If tariffs are not to be used to discourage undercutting of local cost/price levels (by increasing tariffs for imported goods/services in one's own country), or making locally produced goods cheaper for others (by lowering tariffs for exported goods/services in other countries), then why not eliminate all tariffs?

Production costs differ. So why not lower e.g. American wages to, let's say, Mexican levels or raising Mexican wages to American levels? Same goes for environmental protection, product safety and health issues, etc., etc.

What Trump would like is a better deal, i.e. to reduce costprice for purchasing elsewhere, and at the same time increasing costprice for selling elsewhere. That's not how economy works.

He should know better than many other that location matters. Location, location, and location, are the three main ingredients in real-estate. Same applies for production, Research and Development, availability of resources, etc., etc.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Okay. If tariffs are not to be used to discourage undercutting of local cost/price levels (by increasing tariffs for imported goods/services in one's own country), or making locally produced goods cheaper for others (by lowering tariffs for exported goods/services in other countries), then why not eliminate all tariffs?

Production costs differ. So why not lower e.g. American wages to, let's say, Mexican levels or raising Mexican wages to American levels? Same goes for environmental protection, product safety and health issues, etc., etc.

What Trump would like is a better deal, i.e. to reduce costprice for purchasing elsewhere, and at the same time increasing costprice for selling elsewhere. That's not how economy works.

He should know better than many other that location matters. Location, location, and location, are the three main ingredients in real-estate. Same applies for production, Research and Development, availability of resources, etc., etc.

Cheers,
Bart

All Trump is saying is stop the tariffs.  You can't change wage levels.  There are also issues of dumping, currency manipulation, government subsidies, etc, some we use ourselves.  Frankly, I don't think there's that much he can do or whether it's worth it.  The best America or any country can do is lower corporate tax rates, reduce regulation, reduce taxes to  bring money home that's overseas and then let free markets work.  Also get the debt and stop borrowing and printing.  A more dynamic economy with less taxes and more investment is the answer to more jobs and less angst about trade. 

[Schewe]

Or was it a joke from the beginning?

Well, Trump was a joke from the beginning...a bad joke mind you.

So...when you piss off artists, ya better expect an artistic reaction.



Anti-Trump billboard artist receives death threats

Artist Karen Fiorito knew backlash was bound to come. And it has.

Commissioned by a downtown Phoenix art gallery in January to create a billboard art piece that would comment on President Donald Trump's administration, Fiorito said what she had in mind was going to stir up a controversy.

"Billboards are perfect because you don't have to go to a gallery to see it," she said. "You're creating a dialogue with the public. You're reaching people you'd never reach with your artwork."

The completed billboard, now looming over Grand Avenue and Taylor Street, went up in downtown Phoenix on Friday afternoon amid the Art Detour event. Plastered on one side is a depiction of Trump's face staring down. The red background is mingled with mushroom-cloud explosions and dollar signs in typography imitating Nazi swastikas.

On the other side of the billboard, one word, "Unity," stretches across, accompanied by five hands spelling out the word in sign language.


A billboard sign depicting President Donald Trump's face next to explosions and dollar signs created with typography imitating Nazi swastikas went up in downtown Phoenix on March 17, 2017. (Photo: Johana Restrepo/The Republic)

The pin Trump is wearing is, of course, the Russian flag :~)

The artist, Karen Fiorito has some interesting work (the GOPers probably hate it) and she has done controversial billboards for the gallery before including the following in 2004.

A 2004 billboard by Karen Fiorito. (Photo: Courtesy of Karen Fiorito)

[Schewe]

And this...

‘That Food Saved My Life,’ and Trump Wants to Cut It Off

First, a quiz: What is the most important crisis in the world today?

A.) President Trump’s false tweets that President Barack Obama wiretapped him.

B.) President Trump’s war on the news media.

C.) Looming famine that threatens 20 million people in four countries.

Kind of answers itself, doesn’t it?

“We are facing the largest humanitarian crisis since the creation of the United Nations,” warned Stephen O’Brien, the U.N.’s humanitarian chief. “Without collective and coordinated global efforts, people will simply starve to death.”

How is Trump responding to this crisis? By slashing humanitarian aid, increasing the risk that people starve in the four countries — Yemen, South Sudan, Somalia and Nigeria. The result is a perfect storm: Millions of children tumbling toward famine just as America abdicates leadership and cuts assistance.

Yeah, yeah...#FAKENEWS and all that crap, but more people both abroad and at home will die because of Trump's budget priorities...really.

You ok with that?

Trump will Make America Great Again...assuming you live that long to see it :~(

[Schewe]

Just 8 men own same wealth as half the world

Eight men own the same wealth as the 3.6 billion people who make up the poorest half of humanity, according to a new report published by Oxfam today to mark the annual meeting of political and business leaders in Davos.

1. Bill Gates: America founder of Microsoft (net worth $75 billion)
2. Amancio Ortega: Spanish founder of Inditex which owns the Zara fashion chain (net worth $67 billion)
3. Warren Buffett: American CEO and largest shareholder in Berkshire Hathaway (net worth $60.8 billion)
4. Carlos Slim Helu: Mexican owner of Grupo Carso (net worth: $50 billion)
5. Jeff Bezos: American founder, chairman and chief executive of Amazon (net worth: $45.2 billion)
6. Mark Zuckerberg: American chairman, chief executive officer, and co-founder of Facebook (net worth $44.6 billion)
7. Larry Ellison: American co-founder and CEO of Oracle  (net worth $43.6 billion)
8. Michael Bloomberg: American founder, owner and CEO of Bloomberg LP (net worth: $40 billion)

6 of the 8 are American...and Trump wants tax reductions for rich guys?

[Ray]

I can tell you categorically that the derecho we experienced back in 2012 was the worst thing I've experienced and that includes the 2010 Snowmageddon.  I've been living here since 1978 and never experienced anything such as that before. 

What's that got to do with climate change, Alan? Every location on the planet, in every lifetime of every creature since the beginning of life, will receive a record temperature, a record rainfall, a record drought and a record storm, whether hurricane, tornado, cyclone or gusty wind.

Climate is an average of the weather events that occur over a number of decades. How many decades? One, two, ten, twenty, fifty? There's no scientifically precise definition, and that's part of the problem.

In Australia we might have increasingly dry conditions for one or two decades, then increasingly wet conditions for the next one or two decades. Is that climate change, or is it just a regular pattern or cycle of events that has occurred over thousands of years?
Research in  paleopedology, examining soils of past geological eras, confirms that this pattern of oscillating droughts and floods has been occurring for millennia, yet people still build unelevated houses in potential flood plains.

The Washington Post Weather Gang do an excellent job of documenting current trends and comparing those with past trends.

Not even the best scientists can do an excellent job in this respect because of the absence of reliable data. This is why the final draft of the 'Working Group I' submission to the IPCC fifth assessment report specifically stated that there was low confidence in any increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, due to a lack of data.

As a psychologist, you must know that the emotional effect of any disastrous weather event will tend to influence any objective and impartial perspective on climate matters.
I'm still waiting to hear from Bart whether some of the findings in the Working Group I submission to the IPCC have been censored for political purposes.
We should bear in mind that the IPCC does not conduct any original research itself. It merely provides a summary of climatologists findings, and has the power to include or exclude any finding that it is uncomfortable with, or which is not in line with the political agenda that CO2 increases are bad.

I'm still waiting to hear from Bart whether some of the findings in the Working Group I submission to the IPCC have been censored for political purposes.
Bart, where art thou? 

I don't think CO2 can be defined as a fertilizer as the conventional definition is something that is applied to the soil to promote plant growth.

I'm getting the impression, Alan, that you haven't read much on this topic. The 'CO2 fertilization effect' is a standard phrase used in all studies on the issue. Increased levels of CO2 have a similar effect to adding chemical fertilizers to the soil, that is, increasing plant growth and biomass.
However, just as in the processes of climate change, there are great complexities. Some species of plants thrive better than others, under increased CO2 levels, for a variety of reasons which could be addressed with further research.

For those who are interested, I'll link to a very unbiased article on the issue, by Indur M. Goklany who is a science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior, where he holds the position of Assistant Director of Programs, Science and Technology Policy.
Hey! Maybe Donald Trump has read this article. 
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/10/benefits.pdf

I'll quote a few passages to get you interested, and also to satisfy Jeff Schewe who complained that I never quoted my sources like he did. 

"Evidence for enhanced plant growth

That carbon dioxide is plant food has been known since the publication in 1804 of Nicolas-Théodore de Saussure’s Recherches Chimiques sur la Végétation. Thousands of experiments since then have shown that the majority of plants grow faster and larger, both above and below ground, if they are exposed to higher carbon dioxide concentrations. The owners of commercial greenhouses routinely pump in carbon dioxide so as to enhance the growth rates of plants, and the optimal level for plant growth is considered to be between 700 and 900 ppm, roughly twice today’s ambient concentration of 400 ppm. However, plants may continue to respond positively at even higher carbon dioxide levels. For some species such as loblolly pine and cuphea, growth tops out at around 20,000 ppm or more.  Indeed, it has been shown that the addition of supplemental carbon dioxide to a greenhouse enhances the growth of lettuces even if the temperature of the greenhouse is lowered, thus causing a net decrease in the carbon footprint of the operation.

A database of peer-reviewed papers assembled from studies of the effect of carbondioxide on plant growth by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and GlobalChange (CSCDGC) shows that for the 45 crops that account for 95% of global crop production, an increase of 300 ppm of carbon dioxide would increase yields by between 5% and 78%. The median increase for these crops was 41% and the productionweighted yield increase was 34.6%.
Experiments also show that the benefits of carbon dioxide for plants are not restricted to faster and greater growth; the efficiency with which they consume water is also increased. Consequently, all else being equal, under higher carbon dioxide conditions, less water is needed to increase a plant’s biomass by any given amount. In other words, higher carbon dioxide levels increase plants’ ability to adapt to waterlimited (or drought) conditions, precisely the conditions that some environmentalists claim are already occurring – notwithstanding IPCC’s findings to the contrary – or will occur in the future.

Previously it had been argued that these increases might not be sustainable over the long term, but AR5 reports that new experimental evidence from long-term free-air carbon dioxide enrichment (FACE) experiments in temperate ecosystems show that these higher rates of carbon accumulation can be sustained for ‘multiple years’.
Idso (2013) has attempted to translate these yield increases into a monetary value.
He finds that over the past 50 years the extra produce grown by farmers has been $274 billion for wheat, $182 billion for maize and $579 billion for rice, and that the current value of the carbon dioxide fertilisation effect on all crops is currently about $140 billion a year.

Of course, these numbers cannot be precise, but note that they are based on actual experimental data and existing yields, so they are far less speculative than monetary measures of the harm due to future climate change and its impacts on food security using models that have not been externally validated.
Moreover, many crops are C3 plants and many weeds are C4 plants, which respond less to carbon dioxide enrichment. Thus as carbon dioxide levels rise, C3 crops may enhance their growth rates more than C4 weeds do. A Chinese experiment tested this idea by enriching carbon dioxide levels over plots of rice to almost twice the ambient level. This enhanced the ear weight of the rice by 37.6% while reducing the growth of a common weed, barnyard grass, by 47.9%, because the faster-growing rice shaded the weeds.

Conclusion to Part I

Both satellite and in situ data show that biological productivity has increased globally for a broad range of managed, lightly managed and also unmanaged ecosystems. Although this increase is not universal, in aggregate increased biological productivity has increased food resources per acre over what they would be otherwise for both human beings and the rest of nature. Consequently, the earth is greener, farms are more productive, and the planet can support both a larger biomass and more human beings, precisely as surmised by Arrhenius over a century ago."

Well, there you have it. Have a pleasant read. My purpose is to stimulate rational and objective thought.

[stamper]

Why don't you start another thread about the subject?

[LesPalenik]

Increased levels of CO2 have a similar effect to adding chemical fertilizers to the soil, that is, increasing plant growth and biomass.

CO2 has effect also on the quality of lake water. In Canada, we have about 2 million lakes.

Carbon Dioxide in the Water
Carbon dioxide, also called CO2, is found in water as a dissolved gas. It can dissolve in water 200 times more easily than oxygen. Aquatic plants depend on carbon dioxide for life and growth, just as fish depend on oxygen. Plants use carbon dioxide during the process of photosynthesis. Sometimes carbon dioxide levels in water become too high. Pollution can produce too much carbon dioxide. In these conditions, fish have a hard time getting the oxygen they need from the water. They can even suffocate and die. Keeping a good balance of carbon dioxide and oxygen is one reason why plants and animals are both valuable in a lake. Each makes what the other uses.

[Alan Klein]

Ray: Thanks for the report showing the good effects of C02.  It's the kind of information that we're not getting.  The politicians, scientists, and media are only interested in showing the negative effects to get us to spend money where, like climate change itself, there too will be winners and losers.  There's a sense that we're being lied too.  That causes people to deny climate change.  When you see crony capitalism and government grants to Sylandra as a political payoff, and people like Al Gore making millions off the politics, you feel you're being conned. So your reaction is to deny the whole thing despite real evidence that change is real.

I'm a layman.  But even to me it seems obvious there are positive as well as negative effects of climate change.  There are winner and losers.  All you hear about is the poor polar bear who in any case is adapting to less ice by finding different prey on land.  But no one talks about the fact that warming in the north is creating more arable land for crops.  Areas that were too cold to support much life, now have opened huge areas for expansion of grizzly, brown bear, wolves, trees, insects, birds, etc where there were none or few. 

By focusing only on the negatives,  and not even mentioning the positives, this feeling of being lied to has turned the whole thing into a political mess.  People like Trump will then use it to get his supporters and then shut down the EPA.  Instead of continuing the research into the effects, we might stop all of it.  If we were all honest and give all the facts, everyone would feel that we should continue to look into it.  Having all the facts will provide better information for policy makers.  If we do start to write laws and spend money, we want to do it in a way the provides the most benefits.  Otherwise will spend a lot of money and get nothing for it.

[LesPalenik]

Publishing the facts and explaining the science related to climate change is a good thing. Denying / hiding the real data and resorting to alternative facts is counterproductive regardless which side does it.

However, the temperature change is only one factor and ignores other man-related causes leading to future problems. Consequences of pollution, building up of more roads and parking spaces, draining lakes, killing bees and butterflies, conversion of rain forests and northern tundras to agricultural uses will be even more detrimental for the future generations. 
 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Why don't you start another thread about the subject?

Yeah, Ray, why don't you!? So that Stamper can enjoy only Trump bashing in this thread. God forbid someone would dare to provide counter-arguments (a.k.a. alternative facts).

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

What's that got to do with climate change, Alan? Every location on the planet, in every lifetime of every creature since the beginning of life, will receive a record temperature, a record rainfall, a record drought and a record storm, whether hurricane, tornado, cyclone or gusty wind.

While true in general, we're not talking about outliers but rather about a number of trends that basically point in the same direction.

Climate is an average of the weather events that occur over a number of decades. How many decades? One, two, ten, twenty, fifty? There's no scientifically precise definition, and that's part of the problem.

That's beside the point, and it's not a problem. It can actually be helpful for understanding a phenomenon or do exactly the opposite if the wrong choice is made. We're not defining whether a year or a decade or more decades can be linked to the definition of Climate. But when the trend shows that e.g. the last decades all show subsequent increases, we can say that the trend is increasing. One could also have used a moving average or other statistical process.

Why use a fixed period such as a decade  in the first place? Well, for one it smooths out the effect of outliers, thus making patterns more easily visible. Another thing is that a given fixed period can amplify cycles (due to auto-correlation) which may help with better understanding of the phenomenon that's being studied. We may, or may not, want that correlation to happen, depending on how useful that is for the phenomenon we're describing. Nothing to do with conspiracy theories of governments hiding stuff, but noise removal just like we do with long exposures with low signal, to improve the S/N ratio.

*** Small practical example ***
We have a long-standing tradition in our country (described in poems back in 1749, now a formally organized event since 1909), and that is an organized trip that visits 11 cities in the north of our country during one day, but it is only possibly to do during severe winters because the trip (the eleven-city run) is done on ice skates along the almost 200 km stretch of frozen-over canals and waterways that connect those cities.

The years that the trip was held on ice that was thick enough to support the weight of the crowds (upto 10,000 skaters and cheering crowds with checkpoints, music bands, and stands with hot beverages along the stretch) were:
1909, 1912, 1917, 1929, 1933, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1947, 1954, 1956, 1963, 1985, 1986, 1997, and not possible since then.

While too short to describe a multi-century trend, there are 2 interesting observations.
1. It is becoming increasingly rare, which would correlate with a global trend of increasing average temperature,
2. There seems to be kind of a correlation with the 11-year solar sun-spot activity cycle, which is recognized by scientists to show up on local scale phenomenae in many places around the world, but not at a global scale when taken together.

So using an 11 year period may locally introduce noisy data that distracts from the underlying trend, and that are the insights that scientists may stumble upon, and have to discuss, and agree on how to tackle the distractions.

Not even the best scientists can do an excellent job in this respect because of the absence of reliable data. This is why the final draft of the 'Working Group I' submission to the IPCC fifth assessment report specifically stated that there was low confidence in any increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, due to a lack of data.

You seem to have difficulty in understanding how such a document evolves before being published. Different members contribute sections to such a document, as a kind of discussion points. The group members then try and find consensus from the larger groups until a relatively stable agreement is reached after which the final report can be published. It's similar to the Scientific method, which usually starts with a hypothesis, which is then under peer review either accepted or rejected. The final document is not a version that is falsified to please governments, but the generally accepted version based on the available data at the time. Sometimes the underlying data is somewhat modified versus earlier reports, because new/additional/more accurate data is available (because advances in technology make new analysis possible).

I'm still waiting to hear from Bart whether some of the findings in the Working Group I submission to the IPCC have been censored for political purposes.
Bart, where art thou? 

Besides this post, I don't see much reason having to keep disproving your conspiracy theories, because they are a bit of an off-topic distraction if they continue too long. You have your mind made up, fine. The large majority of Scientists around the world do not agree with you, and I know who to give more credit.

There is one more observation to be made that may bring us a bit more back on topic.

There is a large audience, particularly in the USA, that is skeptical of science in general. This phenomenon would be worth a study by itself, although the outcome would probably be distrusted

What populists like Trump/Putin/Erdogan/etc. do, is similar. They claim (despite objective observation) it is false news, it's dishonest media, it someone else, and even inject Alternative facts (known falsehoods) into their responses. That is all done in order to make people doubt objective observations (could there be another explanation, is the earth flat after all?), and create enough confusion to distract from the real issue. It's all very transparent, but the sheeple fall for it, so it's effective to create an outside enemy, and have the supporters gather behind their visionary leader, the emperor without clothes.

I for one try to not fall for such tactics, but I will try to expose them for what they actually are, in the hope that some people will wake up from their state of cognitive dissonance.

Conspiracy theories can make nice entertainment, but this topic's subject is too serious, and I try to avoid too much (deliberate) distraction.

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. some more reading on the skepticism about Climate Science:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money/
and
https://arstechnica.co.uk/staff/2015/12/ars-science-qa-how-do-deal-with-science-denialists/

[Robert Roaldi]

It would be interesting to know if science deniers insist that their surgeons use latex gloves or sterilize their medical instruments. And ask them why.

I love the idea that climate scientists the world over are part of some conspiracy. What would be their goal, exactly? In my experience, you can't get three researchers in the same room to agree on what colour the wall paper is.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

G20 financial chiefs agree open trade is key to growth: Schaeuble
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-g20-germany-schaeuble-idUSKBN16P0L2?il=0

I appreciate that Reuters is trying to give a neutral account of what's officially communicated, but reports in my local press indicate that there is a bit more going on behind the scenes of the G20, and that the Germans are not pleased that this is happening under their chairing of the meetings.

The clear understanding about resisting all forms of protectionism, didn't make it in the official statements this year. Apparently, the USA delegation was opposed to having such a statement included, which was a disappointment for Germany who chair the conference this time.

Translation from the local media:
"At the G20 summit, the ministers of finance and central bankers have for the first time broken with the tradition of renouncing protectionism and making their support for open trade known.

The Trump government instead aims at protectionism and wants to significantly increase US import duties, in order to protect its own economy.

Also, a paragraph about the financing of activities to reduce Climate change is missing from Saturday's statements. Trump has called global warming rather a fabrication by China. Beijing purportedly wants to inflict damage to the competitive power of the USA by raising the issue of climate change."

The article then goes on mentioning the things that the members did agree on, like fighting tax evasion and how to address the unwanted financing of terrorism.

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. also a preliminary summary here:
http://news.forexlive.com/!/protectionism-and-climate-change-removed-from-final-g20-statement-20170318

P.P.S. Markets welcome G20's FX stance, wary on trade split:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-g20-germany-markets-analysis-idUSKBN16Q0H4

[Alan Goldhammer]

As a psychologist, you must know that the emotional effect of any disastrous weather event will tend to influence any objective and impartial perspective on climate matters.

Don't know where you got the idea that I am a psychologist.  I have a PhD in biochemistry.

I'm getting the impression, Alan, that you haven't read much on this topic. The 'CO2 fertilization effect' is a standard phrase used in all studies on the issue. Increased levels of CO2 have a similar effect to adding chemical fertilizers to the soil, that is, increasing plant growth and biomass.

Not true, I have read a lot on this topic.  CO2 is fixed by the photosynthetic pathway in plants and converted through the Calvin cycle into carbohydrates that can then be metabolized for cellular energy as well as the structural components of plants.  The three major metabolic products of most plants/trees are cellulose, hemi-cellulose, and lignin that are the structural components.  Nitrogen and phosphorous fertilizers are required for the production of amino acids that are further metabolized into proteins/enzymes.  Phosphate is part of the key energy compound Adenosine Triphosphate that is the central part of energy metabolism in virtually every living being/cell.  So much for the biochemistry lesson.

However, just as in the processes of climate change, there are great complexities. Some species of plants thrive better than others, under increased CO2 levels, for a variety of reasons which could be addressed with further research.

the paper that you cite (which is just a very cursory review of the topic and lacks some of the required nuances to better understand the author's conclusions).  the data in Table 1 (Page 5) comes from a single paper that I don't have access to and won't pay $40 to purchase it.  I would be interested in understanding why he believes cotton yield increases are mainly a result of CO2 increases.  Cotton is one of the most modified plants using genetic engineering and most of the yield increases come from breeding in resistance to the cotton bollworm and herbicide resistance allowing improved week control.  Soybeans have similarly been engineered for herbicide resistance as has wheat.  Against this any evaluation of CO2 enhancement must be evaluated.

For those who are interested, I'll link to a very unbiased article on the issue, by Indur M. Goklany who is a science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior, where he holds the position of Assistant Director of Programs, Science and Technology Policy.

Dr. Goklany is not necessarily an unbiased scientist.  His degrees are in electrical engineering and not climate science.  The pamphlet that he has authored is a polemic just as many others are.  Furthermore, he has done work with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a group that I know quite well.  I know the founder and general counsel very well.  One of their members was on the Trump transition team and advocated the severe budget cutbacks that are in the Trump budget proposal.  CEI gets a large amount of their funding from the petro-chemical industry.  they are an advocacy group for reduced government regulation in many areas.

I'll leave it at that since this is a Trump thread as others have already pointed out.  The incontrovertible fact about climate change is that we will see rising sea levels.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Pressure builds on Trump to back off wiretap accusations:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN16Q0LL

Germany rejects Trump's claim it owes NATO and U.S. 'vast sums' for defense:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-germany-defence-idUSKBN16Q0D8

The allies are not amused.

Cheers,
Bart

[Farmer]

Trump believes in free trade as long as its fair.  If you tax our exports and we don't tax your exports to us, that's not fair.  Trump will threaten to put an import tax on your exports to us but would rather you drop your tax on ours.  Then we'll have free and fair trade.

Get rid of your subsidies, then we can talk about fair trade.  That's the hidden "tax" that's used to make international trade unfair.