ELM327 wrote: » There's nothing louder than the screeches of the liberal left when someone dares have an opinion different to what they deem as acceptable in their "tolerant" utopia
KyussB wrote: » The loudest screeches in this thread were those of "Communism!" when discussing the Green New Deal. Any discussion of the need for massive government spending and involvement in directly tackling climate change, and the denialists go ape shit trying to brow-beat it, to shut down discussion.
Tell me how wrote: » Those against Greta - 'We don't want to hear the opinions of 11,000 scientists.' Also those against Greta - 'Here's a video of some Russian ceremonial dancing' Every logical thinking person -
KyussB wrote: » The typical "blind to everything except that which can be positively spun" garbage, that you get from denialists. The upsides in crop production elsewhere don't matter because the discussion is about the triggers for mass migration, from the mid-to-lower latitudes.The downsides aren't 'balanced out' by upsides - that's False Balance - the downsides cause mass migration regardless of any upsides elsewhere.
This Map represents the case of beneficial carbon fertilisation processes
Many temperate regions will likely see increased crop yields under future climate, due to warmer temperatures and the CO2 fertilization effect. Depending on the extent of global trade and cooperation, these yield increases could help to partially ameliorate decreases experienced elsewhere. Many agricultural impact projections don’t include the CO2 fertilization effect, due to uncertainty, but in reality this effect will probably help soften the blow of climate change to some extent. (For example, global wheat production may be more likely to increase than decrease; Liu et al. 2018 Global Change Biology1.)... For example, over the historical period of global warming, technological advancements have increased yields by 100-200% in spite of any negative impact of climate change. Even if this yield trend were to reverse, the total production of calories might not be affected if economic forces cause more land to be used for agriculture. In other words, if yields were to be reduced by 10% that does not translate directly into 10% less food available. It is likely that the reduction in yield would stimulate increased land use for agriculture. In this example, if 10% more land were used for agriculture, total production would remain unaffected....All these factors would need to be reckoned with before one could make any credible projection of reduced food production in the future
gozunda wrote: » Lol Its your own GARBAGE! And as for 'blind' well yes indeed - I was quoting from your own map graphic which is detailed as the benefits of carbon fertilisation processes !!! Have you even seen that - seriously??? here it is:https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/projected-impact-of-climate-change/trend09-1m-soer2010-eps/image_large -See left hand panal for details about that map The projections on yields etc are also theoretical as has been pointed out and the 'facts' your spouting about lower agricultural yields yada yada are simply projections based on science which is stated on that map which is 'uncertain And no it's not just me who are saying that there are balances and technological solutions. The scientists are!!! Are they 'denialists' really? * But no worries bro - its easy to make a mistake like that ... *https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/prediction-extinction-rebellion-climate-change-will-kill-6-billion-people-unsupported-roger-hallam-bbc/
Akrasia wrote: » It’s impossible to project accurately global food production 50 or 100 years from now, which is why climate scientists use scenarios to model different outcomes dependent on different assumptions for uncertain variablesThere are some scenarios where climate change is harmful but manageable, best case scenarios, and there are some scenarios where climate change causes a literal apocalypse (resource shortages causing conflict, mass immigration ultimately leading to WW3)And then there are all the scenarios in the middle, of which there are many plausible outcomes that have very negative outcomes including runaway climate change if we breach certain tipping points.The scientists who know the most are extremely concerned because they know that the most likely outcomes are very damaging in the medium term and potentially catastrophic in the long term (climate change doesn’t just stop at 2100)
KyussB wrote: » The loudest screeches in this thread were those of "Communism!" when discussing the Green New Deal.Any discussion of the need for massive government spending and involvement in directly tackling climate change, and the denialists go ape shit trying to brow-beat it, to shut down discussion.
gozunda wrote: » Most likley identified as such due to the fact that the green new deal you were endlessly promoting in a thread about gretas travels in the US was shown to be a large pile of political poo. If what is posted doesnt stand up to scrutiny and others point that out - that is not being 'brow' beaten - it is simply discussion. Some people dont seem to like that oddly enough ...
Tell me how wrote: » A venn diagram of those on Boards denouncing Greta and those with issues with refugees is a perfect circle it seems.
KyussB wrote: » The typical "blind to everything except that which can be positively spun" garbage, that you get from denialists. The upsides in crop production elsewhere don't matter because the discussion is about the triggers for mass migration, from the mid-to-lower latitudes. The downsides aren't 'balanced out' by upsides - that's False Balance - the downsides cause mass migration regardless of any upsides elsewhere.
FreudianSlippers wrote: » They're all poor losers as well who believe that maybe some day if they keep... idk, cleaning toilets or whatever the poors do... will maybe be rich!
KyussB wrote: » What exactly about it was 'political poo'? I took down pretty much every criticism of it.
...turns out I've traveled half around the world, the wrong way,"
Deleted User wrote: » oh my god. that's just best left tuisceanch youve made really interesting posts in this thread, cheers
gozunda wrote: » Lol - Not to derail the thread any further- take a read back - absolutely nothing was taken down. It is and remains a political piece of garbage dreamed up by the US Democrats activists in a bid to get back into power - and not even a very good effort at that. Not just me saying it's a pile of poo btw ...https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2019/02/11/the-problem-with-the-green-new-deal
gozunda wrote: » Poor poor try my friend. And no I cant help you with your lack of comprehension. But If you really wish to find out about the Guardian Newspapers lack of editorial independance / being funding by a US 'think tank' (a much favourite phrase hereabouts by some) and why that is relevant - it's already been detailed. But you already know that. Now welcome to the ignore list.
FreudianSlippers wrote: » That's a cost criticism with really little to do with the idea itself being flawed. Try again.
FreudianSlippers wrote: » That's a bit rich from you isn't it?
gozunda wrote: » Is it or are you just scoring cheap points whilst discussing nothing? If you like to point out any particular instance of a lack of comprehension as detailed in my comment above - then please do so. Otherwise keep your **** throwing where it belongs. Thanks.
gozunda wrote: » So you are claiming the economist is wrong? And that any criticism which points out its flaws is wrong yes? And no - Not going to go into that ****e again just for your amusement. There's pages and pages of why the GND is a pile if crap slready. knock yourself out - perhaps even start a thread on it ...
Tuisceanch wrote: » However reverting to the central point of your observation regarding the effects of migration I think it could be useful, in terms of moving the discussion forward, to link to the following article:https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/climate-change-already-driving-mass-migration-around-globe "Given the oversize role that migration plays in our current political discourse, you’d think there would be more emphasis on the one factor military and security experts believe will affect future migration patterns more than any other: climate change." " In a report to Congress last week, the GAO criticized the manner in which the Trump administration has sought to remove any acknowledgement of climate change from our foreign policy and diplomatic strategies, keeping experts in the dark about an issue that’s growing only more urgent as a shifting climate—and all that comes with it—displaces millions of people and disrupts societies across the globe."
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1a8522b26abe4367117071263a70671.svg)