Inhofe Exposes Global Warming Hoax

[westwall]

They're not your basic windmills dotting landscapes in The Netherlands.

Wind FAQs - EcoEnergy - Renewable. Responsible. Right now.
What if the wind doesn't blow?

And every wind power system on the panet is subsidized by taxpayer money. Not one system is capable of standing on its own. Thus it is GOVERNMENT REGULATION THAT IS ONCE AGAIN DRIVING THE BUS. As was asked previously, show us one program that doesn't entail massive governement regulation and taxpayer subsidies to keep these "green" energy companies running.

Why is subsidizing green energy any different than subsidizing the oil and gas industry? T. Boone Pickens was ready to invest $1.5 billion of his own money in windmill technology, but has since decided to scale it down because he can't afford it. Maybe the Koch Brothers can help out.

T. Boone Pickens was prepared to invest his money because he figured the governement would help him by regulation. They didn't so he tried it on his own the problem is he's a realist and figured for wind power to be viable the price of natural gas had to be around 9 dollars per million BTU's(wind costs around 7 to 8 bucks per MBTU). With government regulation he was hoping to push the price up to 11 dollars per MBTU thus netting a nice profit.

Unfortunately for T. Boone Pickens, the government didn't regulate like he wanted and the price of gas dropped to 4 bucks per MBTU. In fact today it is 3.43 dollars per MBTU and analysts see that level being maintained for the next 17 years. So now T.Boone is foisting off his very expensive wind turbines on the Canadians who have to take them.

As far as any corporate subsidy, there shouldn't be any. The oil companies don't get as much as you think they do but they shouldn't rcieve even that.

 

[MaggieMae]

Calm down, Rocks.

Now, I understand that I am criticizing your religion, but the explanion is so simple...

normal climate cycles.

You see, you are so caught up in your pseudo-science-expertise, that you refuse to allow yourself to consider
a. who are the folks involved
b. what political entity benefits
c. how the 'theory' has changed as flaws are revealed, i.e., from 'global warming' to 'climate change.'
d. progressives love to control every aspect of everyone's lives...i.e., government regulation:

"But another strand of modern liberal politics encroaches so far on the private sphere that it begins to resemble the political religions. On the excellent webcast Uncommon Knowledge, Czech president Václav Klaus recently compared “two ideologies” that were “structurally very similar. They are against individual freedom. They are in favor of centralistic masterminding of our fates. They are both very similar in telling us what to do, how to live, how to behave, what to eat, how to travel, what we can do and what we cannot do.” The first of Klaus’s “two ideologies” was Communism—a system with which he was deeply familiar, having participated in the Velvet Revolution in 1989. The second was environmentalism."
The Varieties of Liberal Enthusiasm by Benjamin A. Plotinsky, City Journal Spring 2010


I'm partial to this explanation myself:

"One spin-off of the Enlightenment was the desire to find new myths that would transcend daily existence and take one to a higher level of purification. Proto-fascist, and founder of ecology, Ernst Haeckel, invested nature-worship with the belief that all matter was alive and possessed mental attributes. In ‘monism,’ he brought together hostility to Christianity and propaganda for Darwinism, a nature cult and theories of hygiene and selective breeding."
J.W. Burrow, “The Crisis of Reason: European Thought, 1848-1914,” p. 218-19

Sorry if I ruined your epoch.

How did we get from climate change to intelligent design v. Darwinism? Once again, there are certainly more SCIENTIFIC facts to support the theory of evolution than there are some magical guy in a robe and a halo that made it all happen. As for "cult theories," all anyone has to do is look at Christian fundamentalists like Jim Jones.

Let's compare him to the anti-Christian cults: Charles Manson, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Ahmadinejad, Castro, Lenin, etc. Yes those Christians know how to wipe 'em out!

Yes, let's go there. Not today, pal. I don't feel like discussing religious effects on politics, and especially its history, which has nothing to do with "cults."

 

[MaggieMae]

Since when is the ability of CO2 to trap energy a theory? That's proven scientific FACT. You say the temps haven't gone up, but on the other hand claim there are other factors. Those factors go up and down, but CO2 is constantly going up. When they reverse themselves the contribution of CO2 will become evident to everyone. In the meantime, that's why scientists have to use "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" from other sources and winnow out the contribution of man. Hope it's not too late, when y'all finally see the light.

Why are the ice shelfs in Antarctica melting, in addition to the glacier itself, the coldest place on earth? Those shelves reach down vertically at least 3 miles, possibly further. Something is going on that cannot be denied. Whether it's trapped CO2 or a combination of other factors, it all leads to the same thing. SOMETHING is causing the planet to warm, although it may not have been a "warm winter" where I live! With the earth's population now just under 7 billion, with all of us now demanding high energy output "stuff" as part of our lifestyles, common sense tells me that MAN has a lot to do with global warming. I may be wrong, but I've seen no science that convinces me otherwise.

You might want to catch up on the Antarctic history as well. Way back in the 1820's there was an Antarctic explorer who was able to sail 500 miles further south than we can today.
Everything runs in cycles yet the alarmists refuse to acknowledge that simple fact.

I wonder if that sailor could go no further because he hit an ice shelf that went five miles deep?

NO one is saying that cycles aren't involved. NO ONE. What they ARE saying is that the warming cycle is being fast-tracked BECAUSE OF the addition of man-made emissions.

 

[westwall]

A much better solution that Cap and Trade is Fee and Dividend.

A tax on the carbon at the well head, mine, or dock. The tax to be then distributed equally to all citizens of voting age. That would not favor anyone but those that used less carbon emitting fuels than they recieved from the divident. The money from the fee could not be used for any other purpose than being distributed back to the citizens in equal shares.

Another advantage to this, it would not favor any particular alternative form of energy, the market would decide that.

This isn't "saving the world" from global warming, it is re-distribution of wealth. Every where it has been tried, it has failed or, is failing. Nice to see the real you.

Off topic, but yes, redistribution of wealth HAS failed. Redistribution of wealth to the top 2% has meant the slow decline of the middle class.

And yet tax law writtten by the wealthy for the wealthy means the wealthy don't pay taxes.
How many people in congress are millionaires? Oh really 44% of them. And looky here, it's not all Repubs who are wealthy, in fact Dems are among the wealthiest members of congress. Who knew?

The 50 Richest Members of Congress : Roll Call Special Features

 

[MaggieMae]

I also find it funny how fast the chicken littles are running away from both my request to provide a SINGLE free market solution to the threat of global warming, AND the math showing the insignificance of CO2 and our input to it.

I think it would be great if the free market took up producing energy all on its own. The question is can they and will they? It's certainly not up to me to decide. Why don't big money Wall Street investors put more energy (pun intended) into what WILL become the industry of the future, employing millions of people? Isn't that a better question? Why?

Because the likes of Goldman Sachs found that if you can get the government to regulate a gas that every living thing uses and expels you make trillions while producing nothing. It's the perfect scam, make bazillions of dollars for doing and producing nothing. You really should ask yourself a simple question why is it that no carbon trading scheme has any mechanism for reducing pollution. The companies can still pollute they just have to pay more for the priviledge and once again the taxpayer pays.

You r schemes all have one thing in common, taxpayers pay lots for nothing, no compaines are forced to reduce pollution, banking firms make bazillions of dollars for nothing. Sounds like a great deal if you're a banker.

Yeah, Goldman Sachs is at fault. You obviously don't understand the purpose behind cap and trade, which was to limit the amount of emissions. But it's a moot point anyway, because it's off the table. I didn't object to the purpose, but I didn't think it would ever work because such a tradeoff would be subject to manipulation.

 

[MaggieMae]

Since when is the ability of CO2 to trap energy a theory? That's proven scientific FACT. You say the temps haven't gone up, but on the other hand claim there are other factors. Those factors go up and down, but CO2 is constantly going up. When they reverse themselves the contribution of CO2 will become evident to everyone. In the meantime, that's why scientists have to use "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" from other sources and winnow out the contribution of man. Hope it's not too late, when y'all finally see the light.

Why are the ice shelfs in Antarctica melting, in addition to the glacier itself, the coldest place on earth? Those shelves reach down vertically at least 3 miles, possibly further. Something is going on that cannot be denied. Whether it's trapped CO2 or a combination of other factors, it all leads to the same thing. SOMETHING is causing the planet to warm, although it may not have been a "warm winter" where I live! With the earth's population now just under 7 billion, with all of us now demanding high energy output "stuff" as part of our lifestyles, common sense tells me that MAN has a lot to do with global warming. I may be wrong, but I've seen no science that convinces me otherwise.

Are there farms on Antartica now? Antartica is a desert. If precipitation is down, the heighth of ice and snow covering it will also decrease.

Whut? That has nothing to do with anything.

 

[westwall]

Why are the ice shelfs in Antarctica melting, in addition to the glacier itself, the coldest place on earth? Those shelves reach down vertically at least 3 miles, possibly further. Something is going on that cannot be denied. Whether it's trapped CO2 or a combination of other factors, it all leads to the same thing. SOMETHING is causing the planet to warm, although it may not have been a "warm winter" where I live! With the earth's population now just under 7 billion, with all of us now demanding high energy output "stuff" as part of our lifestyles, common sense tells me that MAN has a lot to do with global warming. I may be wrong, but I've seen no science that convinces me otherwise.

You might want to catch up on the Antarctic history as well. Way back in the 1820's there was an Antarctic explorer who was able to sail 500 miles further south than we can today.
Everything runs in cycles yet the alarmists refuse to acknowledge that simple fact.

I wonder if that sailor could go no further because he hit an ice shelf that went five miles deep?

NO one is saying that cycles aren't involved. NO ONE. What they ARE saying is that the warming cycle is being fast-tracked BECAUSE OF the addition of man-made emissions.

And there is not one iota of empirical data to support you. Not one. All of your claims are based on computer models. Computer models that are so bad they can't recreate what we know occured five days ago. There is a huge difference between computer models and the real world. Clmatologists though, havn't figured that out yet.

 

[Sallow]

Americans had best wake up to this encroachment by regulatory spider-webs.

Last week NYC was like Nome, Alaska..this week it's springtime.

Springtime in the middle of Feburary..yeah..that's normal.

The "new" normal.

 

[westwall]

Americans had best wake up to this encroachment by regulatory spider-webs.

Last week NYC was like Nome, Alaska..this week it's springtime.

Springtime in the middle of Feburary..yeah..that's normal.

The "new" normal.

You should look through the New York Times archives some day. You'll be amazed how many times this has happened. Your problem is you're not 200 years old so you could remember the last time it happened. Fortunately the NYT has a good archive.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh gosh.. Is Inhofe like a real scientist?

The IPCC prefers 'evidence' from students and activists, so why should it matter?

There were over 800 Ph.D's who produced publications and material at the 2010 conference. Why do you prefer to look dumb?

OMG...you can't be serious...
The only difference between Custer’s Last Stand and what I’m about to do to you is that Custer didn’t have to read the post afterwards.

Here goes:

May 27, 2008
Global warming ‘consensus’: 31,000 scientists disagreeFiled under: energy, life, media, news, politics, religion, science — tadcronn @ 12:50 am
Tags: Al Gore, fraud, global warming, scam, scientific consensus
Ads by Google
Global Warming Facts
Are you worried about climate change? Get the facts.
Get Energy Active - Value of Electricity - Supply and Demand - Climate Change - Use Electricity Wisely - Diverse Fuel - Ways to Save Energy Costs - Smart Energy Use




"Al Gore and global warm-mongers have won many converts with their claim that 2,500 scientific reviewers of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report constitutes a “consensus” among scientists that man-made warming is destroying Earth.
Not only have many of those reviewers made it known that they disagree with the U.N. conclusions, but now there is a petition circulated Dr. Arthur Robinson, director of the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, signed by more than 31,000 scientists who dispute the theory of man-made global warming. The petition states, in part:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

The 31,000 signers all hold scientific credentials; approximately 9,000 of them hold scientific Ph.D.s.

Robinson held a press conference earlier this month. Although members of the media and Congress were invited, attendance was light.

Robinson points out that over the past 150 years, scientists have found that global temperatures have been predicted with 79 percent accuracy by the sunspot index, which precedes climate changes by about 10 years. CO2, by comparison, has been only 22 percent accurate, and that number has rapidly declined in the past decade as temperatures have dipped and CO2 has continued to rise.

In fact, 70 percent of the Earth’s warming in the past hundred years occurred before 1940, while nearly all of humanity’s industrial emissions have occurred after that date. Since 1940, the climate has only risen 0.2 Celsius.
Robinson notes that the U.N. has never produced any direct evidence that mankind is causing warming, but that the IPCC report is only a summary, written by a handful of authors, of discussions among scientists invited to a U.N. conference."
http://tadcronn.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/global-warming-consensus-31000-scientists-disagree/

"Why do you prefer to look dumb?"

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Just because warming had a certain cause in the past doesn't mean it couldn't have a different one now."
Excellent! This provides a perfect opportunity to present my theory of warming...and based on your statement above, I'm certain you'll fall right in line on this one!

Having spent a great deal of time in dance clubs, I know about warming!

And my research indicates that Hip-Hop has gone up well over 40% since the Industrial Revolution!

"...CO2 has gone up 30-40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, ..."

The conclusion is obvious....need I say more?

PC, you are just so scientifically ignorant. For you the world begins and ends with your Conservative Politics. Well, reality is going to bite your silly ass in the near future.

When you think about it, the conservatives wouldn't be trying to define a very real scientific phenomenon a "hoax" if Al Gore hadn't written the heads-up book. If it had been, say, Ann Coulter, they'd have already made sure that their energy focus was on alternative fuels which do less damage to the ozone and the capitalists would be building and hiring like gangbusters.

Analogies, while interesting and often illuminating, have holes of various sizes in them...

Yours has one big enough to drive a Mack Truck through!

It doesn't speak well for you that you didn't see this coming:

"...if Al Gore hadn't written the heads-up book[/I]. If it had been, say, Ann Coulter,..."

A comparison which places you and Al Gore are on one side, and Ann Coulter and I on the other is somewhat akin to a comparison of a bamboo hut- simple, but not without some level of charm- to the palace at Versailles.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Americans had best wake up to this encroachment by regulatory spider-webs.

Last week NYC was like Nome, Alaska..this week it's springtime.

Springtime in the middle of Feburary..yeah..that's normal.

The "new" normal.

You should look through the New York Times archives some day. You'll be amazed how many times this has happened. Your problem is you're not 200 years old so you could remember the last time it happened. Fortunately the NYT has a good archive.

Hold up, Westy....I think he is 200 years old.

His high school field trip was the Gold Rush.

 

[MaggieMae]

And every wind power system on the panet is subsidized by taxpayer money. Not one system is capable of standing on its own. Thus it is GOVERNMENT REGULATION THAT IS ONCE AGAIN DRIVING THE BUS. As was asked previously, show us one program that doesn't entail massive governement regulation and taxpayer subsidies to keep these "green" energy companies running.

Why is subsidizing green energy any different than subsidizing the oil and gas industry? T. Boone Pickens was ready to invest $1.5 billion of his own money in windmill technology, but has since decided to scale it down because he can't afford it. Maybe the Koch Brothers can help out.

T. Boone Pickens was prepared to invest his money because he figured the governement would help him by regulation. They didn't so he tried it on his own the problem is he's a realist and figured for wind power to be viable the price of natural gas had to be around 9 dollars per million BTU's(wind costs around 7 to 8 bucks per MBTU). With government regulation he was hoping to push the price up to 11 dollars per MBTU thus netting a nice profit.

Unfortunately for T. Boone Pickens, the government didn't regulate like he wanted and the price of gas dropped to 4 bucks per MBTU. In fact today it is 3.43 dollars per MBTU and analysts see that level being maintained for the next 17 years. So now T.Boone is foisting off his very expensive wind turbines on the Canadians who have to take them.

As far as any corporate subsidy, there shouldn't be any. The oil companies don't get as much as you think they do but they shouldn't rcieve even that.

It all makes sense, of course. But the bottom line if private industry took over completely would still be as much profit as possible in an industry that has nowhere to go but up, and thus the cost to the private citizen would likewise go up and up and up. That would be fine if wages kept up with the pace, but if the last decade is any indication, that won't happen.

 

[MaggieMae]

This isn't "saving the world" from global warming, it is re-distribution of wealth. Every where it has been tried, it has failed or, is failing. Nice to see the real you.

Off topic, but yes, redistribution of wealth HAS failed. Redistribution of wealth to the top 2% has meant the slow decline of the middle class.

And yet tax law writtten by the wealthy for the wealthy means the wealthy don't pay taxes.
How many people in congress are millionaires? Oh really 44% of them. And looky here, it's not all Repubs who are wealthy, in fact Dems are among the wealthiest members of congress. Who knew?

The 50 Richest Members of Congress : Roll Call Special Features

True that. I was thinking more of just Citizen Joe Millionaire, however. But you're right that wealthy lawmakers have no real incentive to do anything that will affect their own pocketbooks either.

 

[MaggieMae]

You might want to catch up on the Antarctic history as well. Way back in the 1820's there was an Antarctic explorer who was able to sail 500 miles further south than we can today.
Everything runs in cycles yet the alarmists refuse to acknowledge that simple fact.

I wonder if that sailor could go no further because he hit an ice shelf that went five miles deep?

NO one is saying that cycles aren't involved. NO ONE. What they ARE saying is that the warming cycle is being fast-tracked BECAUSE OF the addition of man-made emissions.

And there is not one iota of empirical data to support you. Not one. All of your claims are based on computer models. Computer models that are so bad they can't recreate what we know occured five days ago. There is a huge difference between computer models and the real world. Clmatologists though, havn't figured that out yet.

Okay then, to discount climate change/global warming as being a hoax, what if not computer models do those folks use?

As far as dismissing computer models, I don't think we'd have space exploration or hundreds of satellites above us without computer models, so that argument is silly.

Human Space Flight (HSF) - Realtime Data

 

[MaggieMae]

The IPCC prefers 'evidence' from students and activists, so why should it matter?

There were over 800 Ph.D's who produced publications and material at the 2010 conference. Why do you prefer to look dumb?

OMG...you can't be serious...
The only difference between Custer’s Last Stand and what I’m about to do to you is that Custer didn’t have to read the post afterwards.

Here goes:

May 27, 2008
Global warming ‘consensus’: 31,000 scientists disagreeFiled under: energy, life, media, news, politics, religion, science — tadcronn @ 12:50 am
Tags: Al Gore, fraud, global warming, scam, scientific consensus
Ads by Google
Global Warming Facts
Are you worried about climate change? Get the facts.
Get Energy Active - Value of Electricity - Supply and Demand - Climate Change - Use Electricity Wisely - Diverse Fuel - Ways to Save Energy Costs - Smart Energy Use




"Al Gore and global warm-mongers have won many converts with their claim that 2,500 scientific reviewers of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report constitutes a “consensus” among scientists that man-made warming is destroying Earth.
Not only have many of those reviewers made it known that they disagree with the U.N. conclusions, but now there is a petition circulated Dr. Arthur Robinson, director of the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, signed by more than 31,000 scientists who dispute the theory of man-made global warming. The petition states, in part:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

The 31,000 signers all hold scientific credentials; approximately 9,000 of them hold scientific Ph.D.s.

Robinson held a press conference earlier this month. Although members of the media and Congress were invited, attendance was light.

Robinson points out that over the past 150 years, scientists have found that global temperatures have been predicted with 79 percent accuracy by the sunspot index, which precedes climate changes by about 10 years. CO2, by comparison, has been only 22 percent accurate, and that number has rapidly declined in the past decade as temperatures have dipped and CO2 has continued to rise.

In fact, 70 percent of the Earth’s warming in the past hundred years occurred before 1940, while nearly all of humanity’s industrial emissions have occurred after that date. Since 1940, the climate has only risen 0.2 Celsius.
Robinson notes that the U.N. has never produced any direct evidence that mankind is causing warming, but that the IPCC report is only a summary, written by a handful of authors, of discussions among scientists invited to a U.N. conference."
Global warming ‘consensus’: 31,000 scientists disagree « Tad Cronn

"Why do you prefer to look dumb?"

I've looked at Tad Cronn's "reports" based on the petition by Professor Robinson, found the list of categories and some of the names, but I'm wondering if that data was ever collected in a single volume, because your links to that blogsite have no such animal. I did find it interesting in the second link, in the comments section, that Tad Cronn "defends" Robinson as follows:

[Q]Source Watch has a particularly negative view of the list. Who the heck to believe!

[A]Well, OK, let me put it in starkest possible terms for you:

Arthur Robinson, who started the petition project, is a right-wing crank who wanted to throw a wrench in the spokes of the global warming bicycle (really a corn-fueled private jet at this point, but metaphor, metaphor …). He has never pretended to be otherwise, and his methods are all spelled out on his web site for the world to see. His project was simply to gather names of people with scientific training who agree with him that man-made global warming is bunk.

Got any better evidence than that flimsy stuff? You've got a list of 31,000 who may or may not have any "scientific" background in climatology, trying to "prove" that just because they say so that 2,500 members of the IPCC plus thousands of experts who are not members must be wrong. Got it.

 

[MaggieMae]

PC, you are just so scientifically ignorant. For you the world begins and ends with your Conservative Politics. Well, reality is going to bite your silly ass in the near future.

When you think about it, the conservatives wouldn't be trying to define a very real scientific phenomenon a "hoax" if Al Gore hadn't written the heads-up book. If it had been, say, Ann Coulter, they'd have already made sure that their energy focus was on alternative fuels which do less damage to the ozone and the capitalists would be building and hiring like gangbusters.

Analogies, while interesting and often illuminating, have holes of various sizes in them...

Yours has one big enough to drive a Mack Truck through!

It doesn't speak well for you that you didn't see this coming:

"...if Al Gore hadn't written the heads-up book[/I]. If it had been, say, Ann Coulter,..."

A comparison which places you and Al Gore are on one side, and Ann Coulter and I on the other is somewhat akin to a comparison of a bamboo hut- simple, but not without some level of charm- to the palace at Versailles.

I see you don't say it isn't true, though. You know damned well it is. I picked Ann Coulter only because she writes a lot of best sellers just by virtue of her general anti-liberal, anti-anything not far-out right.

 

[skookerasbil]

Americans had best wake up to this encroachment by regulatory spider-webs.

Last week NYC was like Nome, Alaska..this week it's springtime.

Springtime in the middle of Feburary..yeah..that's normal.

The "new" normal.

You should look through the New York Times archives some day. You'll be amazed how many times this has happened. Your problem is you're not 200 years old so you could remember the last time it happened. Fortunately the NYT has a good archive.

He's a kid........and easily gets caught up in all the PC shit going on. That is one thing the global warming FAITHERS have going for them = the brainwashed youngin's. Been pouring all the PC crap down their throats for 20 years now.......they never think outside the box, just like a fcukking homeless person. This asshole Sallow is a perfect example.....you see his posts in other forums. Its called epic sheepness..........these people would buy a bag of dog shit for $1,000 a pop if it were packaged just right!!


Anyway.........I live a stones throw from NYC and while it certainly was nice today at around 50 degree's, I failed to see people out on benches sunning themselves. NOBODY was walking around in short sleeves.............meathead makes it look like NYC was in a heat wave.

 

[MaggieMae]

Last week NYC was like Nome, Alaska..this week it's springtime.

Springtime in the middle of Feburary..yeah..that's normal.

The "new" normal.

You should look through the New York Times archives some day. You'll be amazed how many times this has happened. Your problem is you're not 200 years old so you could remember the last time it happened. Fortunately the NYT has a good archive.

Hold up, Westy....I think he is 200 years old.

His high school field trip was the Gold Rush.

I see you've been going to Nasty School. Does that mean we can expect more insults and fewer one-sided history lessons?

 

[boedicca]

Worst Freeze Since 1957 in Mexico.

Get ready for more food inflation that the government will refuse to recognize.

Mexico’s biggest freeze since 1957 means US produce price will skyrocket | Watts Up With That?