Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 156

Thread: Bots in amplifying denialist messages

  1. #121
    Educator
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:56 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    845

    Re: Bots in amplifying denialist messages

    Quote Originally Posted by longview View Post
    If they want to split the hair of negative impact on food production and actual food production,
    then they need to define what these negative impacts are!
    As to this incredibly complex and volatile phenomenon that we've created, are you speaking of AGW?
    So far AGW is a misfire, the predictions of amplified feedbacks, cannot be supported with the observed data,
    and for the last 20 years Earth's energy imbalance has been trending lower.
    The 167 page PDF that I posted a link to and a quote from has all of the information you need to sate your skepticism, if that's really what you're after.

  2. #122
    Educator
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:56 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    845

    Re: Bots in amplifying denialist messages

    ok, i'm done. This thread isn't about climate science weeds. It's about bots. I will not be responding to any other posts that do not mention bots.

  3. #123
    Sage
    longview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,236

    Re: Bots in amplifying denialist messages

    Quote Originally Posted by Digger View Post
    The 167 page PDF that I posted a link to and a quote from has all of the information you need to sate your skepticism, if that's really what you're after.
    You mean this link that you cited in post#109?
    https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo...FINAL_full.pdf
    P.S. it ends on page 157, and only mentions the negative impacts in a few places, without defining the negative impacts.
    From Table 2.3, shows they are mostly describing predictions not observed impacts.
    IPCC_table2.3.jpg
    SO I still very skeptical of the IPCC statement,
    Assessment of many studies covering a wide range of regions
    and crops shows that negative impacts of climate change on
    crop yields have been more common than positive impacts
    (high confidence).
    Most of my skepticism is because Crop yields look like they are us almost everywhere.
    The IPCC SPM did say this,
    Observed impacts relate mainly to production aspects of food security rather than access or other components of food security.
    So the IPCC version of negative impacts are related to mainly production aspects,
    yet we see the production is increasing.

  4. #124
    Sage
    Tim the plumber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sheffield
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    14,608

    Re: Bots in amplifying denialist messages

    Quote Originally Posted by Digger View Post
    Dude. I honestly don't know what point you're trying to make here.

    You asked for peer reviewed science, with a link and a quote, that demonstrated climate change disrupts agriculture. I delivered. Now it's time to eat some crow.





    Go on. Eat the crow. It's good for you. Admit that your epistemology is ****. Things exist that you are not aware of. The fact that you have not been made aware of something is not evidence of its nonexistence. And maybe I'm the first person who spent half an hour looking things up for you because you're kind of a jerk while you're asking.

    You've got the IPCC, which you sited (with no link or quote) earlier in this thread, saying it's already happened on four continents. And you've got the Union of Concerned Scientists explaining why it's likely going to happen in the United States. What more do you want? I'm starting to think that your skepticism is motivated.

    Can we please, please, please talk about bots now? I'm not interested in getting into the weeds of climate science. I'm interesting in bots swarming social media to impact our politics. You never answered my question. Who is running the bots and what is their agenda?
    I agree that there are people who claim that there has been disruption and damage to agriculture. I ask for details of exactly what this is and get no answer, juts general hand waving. I show, or rather Longview shows that it is utter nonesense to claim that agriculture is at all suffering. It is booming.

    I ask how any place will actually be made less productive. Where is supposed to get drier. No answer. I know you have posted quotes from and linked to papers. That does not end the argument it starts it. We can scrutinize those arguments and evidence presented in those papers. We can bring in other information arguments and data.

    Agriculture is booming. Nowhere at all has had any bad thing nappen to it so far due to warming. Nowhere will have anything bad happen. You will be unable to describe the mechanism for any such damage.

  5. #125
    Sage
    Tim the plumber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sheffield
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    14,608

    Re: Bots in amplifying denialist messages

    Quote Originally Posted by Digger View Post
    Yes, I already did. Climate change isn't uniform. It's not just generally getting warmer, it's also changing. We're getting more floods and more droughts, and less of that sweet spot in the middle that farmers hope for. Farmers are already set up with infrastructure, knowledge and skills that are suited to their specific patch of land and its climate. When that climate changes, it disrupts agriculture. Even if it'll have a neutral or even positive impact once things settle down, the transition is disruptive. Sudden change is stressful. The fact that there's a whole movement of "skeptics" out there who are insisting that everyone who's actually trying to pay attention to the issue is a culty alarmist doesn't make it any easier to mitigate the impact.

    The bots don't help either. Can we talk about those now? Who is running the bots and what is their agenda?
    We are getting less flooding and less droughts. Have you not noticed this information that has been posted on this forum a lot?

    I have seen no evidence of bots. Can you cite any?
    Last edited by Tim the plumber; 02-26-20 at 12:57 PM.

  6. #126
    Sage
    Tim the plumber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sheffield
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    14,608

    Re: Bots in amplifying denialist messages

    Quote Originally Posted by Digger View Post
    Climate change study finds that maple syrup season may come earlier -- ScienceDaily

    "By the end of the century, most of the areas containing sugar maples in the U.S. are projected to see decreases in maple syrup production while areas in northern Ontario and Québec may see moderate to large increases in production."
    Yes. Maple syrup has suffered in the US. Although the farmers have used improved technology to actually end up with twice as much as before. The main Maple syrup production is now done in Canada as the climate has warmed a bit.

    The areas where Maple syrup is produced in the US have seen increased production of all other crops. The farmers are very much able to produce lots more food than when the climate was cooler.

  7. #127
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:14 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,040

    Re: Bots in amplifying denialist messages

    What *exactly* constitutes a bot?
    TDS: Turning liberals into unhinged lunatics since 2016

  8. #128
    Sage
    longview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,236

    Re: Bots in amplifying denialist messages

    Quote Originally Posted by Digger View Post
    ok, i'm done. This thread isn't about climate science weeds. It's about bots. I will not be responding to any other posts that do not mention bots.
    Bots do not usually make typos, you could program one to do so, but
    state table would produce unpredictable results that would have greater chance of revealing you are talking to a bot.

  9. #129
    Educator
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:56 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    845

    Re: Bots in amplifying denialist messages

    Quote Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
    I agree that there are people who claim that there has been disruption and damage to agriculture. I ask for details of exactly what this is and get no answer, juts general hand waving. I show, or rather Longview shows that it is utter nonesense to claim that agriculture is at all suffering. It is booming.

    I ask how any place will actually be made less productive. Where is supposed to get drier. No answer. I know you have posted quotes from and linked to papers. That does not end the argument it starts it. We can scrutinize those arguments and evidence presented in those papers. We can bring in other information arguments and data.

    Agriculture is booming. Nowhere at all has had any bad thing nappen to it so far due to warming. Nowhere will have anything bad happen. You will be unable to describe the mechanism for any such damage.
    You just moved the goal posts. You wanted peer reviewed science supporting a very specific claim, and I provided it. Now it's not good enough. You want more specifics. Well I'm not made out of time. This is never gonna end. Whatever answers I find, you'll ask another question and complain that I haven't answered it, continuing to drag this thread further and further off topic.

    I've described the mechanism twice now. I've linked you to a peer reviewed scientific paper. I even tossed in a bonus peer reviewed paper that says climate change will reduce Maple production in the US.

    Now you're beyond skepticism and into simple denial. You are baldly stating the opposite of what the peer reviewed scientific paper you asked for says. you cited the IPCC earlier in this thread, and now you won't accept them as a source because you don't agree with what they have to say. I am done.

    I told you that if you want me to do any more homework for you, you're gonna have to pay me. My last effort took about half an hour. I charge $30/hr to look up research. You'll have to prepay because I don't trust you. I can PM you my Paypal account if you'd like.
    Last edited by Digger; 02-26-20 at 01:15 PM.

  10. #130
    Sage
    Tim the plumber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sheffield
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    14,608

    Re: Bots in amplifying denialist messages

    Quote Originally Posted by Digger View Post
    You just moved the goal posts. You wanted peer reviewed science supporting a very specific claim, and I provided it. Now it's not good enough.You want more specifics. Well I'm not made out of time. This is never gonna end. Whatever answers I find, you'll ask another question and complain that I haven't answered it, continuing to drag this thread further and further off topic.

    I've described the mechanism twice now. I've linked you to a peer reviewed scientific paper. I even tossed in a bonus peer reviewed paper that says climate change will reduce Maple production in the US.
    Yes. And I have pointed out that whilst some crop may well not grow as well the area will produce more food as it gets warmer. The maple syrup thing is a very good example of that.

    Just because you can find a single bit of supporting evidence does not automatically win the case. That is what argument is.


    Now you're beyond skepticism and into simple denial. You are baldly stating the opposite of what the peer reviewed scientific paper you asked for says. you cited the IPCC earlier in this thread, and now you won't accept them as a source because you don't agree with what they have to say. I am done.

    I told you that if you want me to do any more homework for you, you're gonna have to pay me. My last effort took about half an hour. I charge $30/hr to look up research. You'll have to prepay because I don't trust you. I can PM you my Paypal account if you'd like.

    That I do not fold when the first thing you find that you think supports your case is not my problem. That you are upset is also not my problem.

    I will discuss stuff. I will examine the case you present. Don't expect me to agree to stuff I see as wrong. Don't think that I will ever be intimidated by you.

    P.S. I thought you were only going to talk about Bots here... just unable to let somebody else have the last word?

Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •