Bots in amplifying denialist messages

Digger · Feb 25, 2020

Tim the plumber said:
Try getting your head around the idea that I may have done some statistics.

That is difficult, as every word you type screams otherwise.

It is not necessary to have a massive sample size if the degree of precisoin you are after is not all that tight.

Well, as long as you admit that you're not attempting to be precise. But it's worse than that. You don't just have a small sample size. You have huge sampling error. And you've done nothing to remove your bias from the survey. It's therefor no surprise that your results match your expectations. This is not science.

I do not claim that all the Alarmists are of the sort who will not discuss the issues. I claim that most are, especially those on the internet. You are a prime example. I evidence this claim by asking again;

Here we have a great example of your sampling error. You declare that I am an Alarmist, despite the fact that you've never seen me write anything alarming. You use the fact that I won't answer your loaded question and let you drag me off topic as evidence of my being unreasonable, where a more neutral observer would note that I'm being very reasonable and not at all culty, which was your initial characterization of Alarmists. Now that you've lumped me into this group, I'm getting tarred with the same broad brush. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to observe confirmation bias happening in real time.

As an example; What do you think is bad about a warmer world as per the IPCC's numbers on climate?[2]

I'll not get bogged down in the weeds with you yet. You're trying to pull this thread even more off topic.

Tim the plumber · Feb 25, 2020

Digger said:
That is difficult, as every word you type screams otherwise.

Well, as long as you admit that you're not attempting to be precise. But it's worse than that. You don't just have a small sample size. You have huge sampling error. And you've done nothing to remove your bias from the survey. It's therefor no surprise that your results match your expectations. This is not science.

Here we have a great example of your sampling error. You declare that I am an Alarmist, despite the fact that you've never seen me write anything alarming. You use the fact that I won't answer your loaded question and let you drag me off topic as evidence of my being unreasonable, where a more neutral observer would note that I'm being very reasonable and not at all culty, which was your initial characterization of Alarmists. Now that you've lumped me into this group, I'm getting tarred with the same broad brush. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to observe confirmation bias happening in real time.

I'll not get bogged down in the weeds with you yet. You're trying to pull this thread even more off topic.

It's page 11. We are allowed to follow the discussion now.

That you will not tell me what your position is is my point.

You fit my impression of Alarmist doom mongers. You fit in well with the other Alarmist doom mongers here in that. If you have any difference of opinion from that please do tell;

What do you think is bad about a warmer world as per the IPCC's numbers on climate?[3]

Digger · Feb 25, 2020

Tim the plumber said:
It's page 11. We are allowed to follow the discussion now.

That you will not tell me what your position is is my point.

You fit my impression of Alarmist doom mongers. You fit in well with the other Alarmist doom mongers here in that. If you have any difference of opinion from that please do tell;

What do you think is bad about a warmer world as per the IPCC's numbers on climate?[3]

Your impression is just, like, your opinion, man. I don't really care if you think I'm a cultist or a bot or if you can't distinguish between the two, because it's just your opinion and you haven't supported it with anything but your personal experience. And you've demonstrated that you have no method of distinguishing between information and noise, and no method of suppressing your bias for observation. Your own personal impressions have no relation to the truth.

Some people have been mean to you on the internet. That's all you've said this whole time, and you treat it like some sort of grand epiphany. It's getting tedious.

Fine. A warming planet is bad because sudden change is stressful. Sea level rise will force us to build expensive infrastructure on the coasts or abandon the infrastructure we've already built. Changing weather patterns will be difficult for farmers to predict, disrupting agriculture. Arable land will dessertify as tundra thaws, which will disrupt agriculture. The land that farmer Joe's grandparents paid top dollar for will become worthless, along with all of the infrastructure on it, while some land in Canada with no agricultural infrastructure will become valuable.

Now I'm sure you'll change all of your opinions based on new evidence. Because that's what a skeptic such as yourself does. Amirite?

Tim the plumber · Feb 26, 2020

Digger said:
Your impression is just, like, your opinion, man. I don't really care if you think I'm a cultist or a bot or if you can't distinguish between the two, because it's just your opinion and you haven't supported it with anything but your personal experience. And you've demonstrated that you have no method of distinguishing between information and noise, and no method of suppressing your bias for observation. Your own personal impressions have no relation to the truth.

Some people have been mean to you on the internet. That's all you've said this whole time, and you treat it like some sort of grand epiphany. It's getting tedious.

I do not complain that people are nasty to me. I am frustrated that people will not answer basic questions. You have now answered though below. Good.

Fine. A warming planet is bad because sudden change is stressful. Sea level rise will force us to build expensive infrastructure on the coasts or abandon the infrastructure we've already built.

How much sea level rise do you expect to happen?

The number I use is from the IPCC. Their 4th report had a worst case scenario fo 59cm by 2100 and the 5th 1m with no change in the science. The rate of sea level rise from observation is at 30cm by 2100 or a bit less.

Changing weather patterns will be difficult for farmers to predict, disrupting agriculture.

Can you find any actual science that shows this? That actually tells us how much of disruption is likely to happen?

I'll give you a clue no such peer reviewed published papere is out there it is just hype.

Arable land will dessertify as tundra thaws, which will disrupt agriculture.

??????? Nobody grows anything on the tundra.

The land that farmer Joe's grandparents paid top dollar for will become worthless, along with all of the infrastructure on it, while some land in Canada with no agricultural infrastructure will become valuable.

Can you cite any particualr land that you think will be worthless, or even significantly adversely effected by a +2c rise in temperature?

Now I'm sure you'll change all of your opinions based on new evidence. Because that's what a skeptic such as yourself does. Amirite?

Certainly will. Please show me the evidence and reason why.

Tim the plumber · Feb 26, 2020

double post.

Digger · Feb 26, 2020

Ugh. Fine. I'll let you drag this thread totally off tooic.

Tim the plumber said:
I do not complain that people are nasty to me. I am frustrated that people will not answer basic questions. You have now answered though below. Good.

**** you.

How much sea level rise do you expect to happen?

I dunno. Enough to be a problem. My friend in Florida says there are already roads under water at high tide.

The number I use is from the IPCC. Their 4th report had a worst case scenario fo 59cm by 2100 and the 5th 1m with no change in the science. The rate of sea level rise from observation is at 30cm by 2100 or a bit less.[/quote]

Um, ok. Are you gonna show me the peer reviewed study that says that's no big deal?

Can you find any actual science that shows this? That actually tells us how much of disruption is likely to happen?

How come you get to form your opinions by pulling them out of your personal experience's ass, but you hand me such a high burden of proof? It would be more surprising if changing the atmosphere did not change the climate, or changing the climate did not disrupt agriculture. The burden of proof really should be on emission proponents to demonstrate that global warming is not going to disrupt agriculture. But regardless, is this good enough?

Climate Change and Agriculture | Union of Concerned Scientists

I'll give you a clue no such peer reviewed published papere is out there it is just hype.

And how do you know that, exactly? Have you performed an exhaustive search? Have you seen a peer reviewed scientific paper that tells you about this lack of peer reviewed papers? For a skeptic, you are awfully sure of your own beliefs with some very week epistemology.

??????? Nobody grows anything on the tundra.

The tundra is thawing, and will one day provide a lot of food. But it will take a while for farmers to get the land and build infrastructure on it.

Can you cite any particualr land that you think will be worthless, or even significantly adversely effected by a +2c rise in temperature?

The issue isn't a general 2c rise. Some places heat up more than others. Some places actually cool down. But a degree here or there isn't the big deal. The issue is that we have more extreme weather. More floods and more droughts.

Certainly will. Please show me the evidence and reason why.

[/quote]

Ok, back towards the topic. First in, last out. Let's start with your first off topic subject you raised. I've given you lots of reason, and my evidence is your complete lack of evidence. That which can be submitted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. So I dismiss it, and so should you. Furthermore, I postulate that if you are in the habit of treating people the way you've treated me in this thread, than they have good reason to avoid engaging with you.

Ok, onto the subject now. I have a question for you. Who do you think is running the bots that are disrupting our political discourse? And what do you think their agenda is?

Tim the plumber · Feb 26, 2020

Digger said:
Ugh. Fine. I'll let you drag this thread totally off tooic.

**** you.

I dunno. Enough to be a problem. My friend in Florida says there are already roads under water at high tide.

Florida is sinking. This is a plate tectonics thing. The world sea level rise is at the rate of 3mm/yr or so. I suggest that the sea defences which should be protecting those roads are improved if the roads are worth the effort. And the surface of the road raised a bit. If the roads are worth the effort.

The number I use is from the IPCC. Their 4th report had a worst case scenario fo 59cm by 2100 and the 5th 1m with no change in the science. The rate of sea level rise from observation is at 30cm by 2100 or a bit less.

Um, ok. Are you gonna show me the peer reviewed study that says that's no big deal?

You are the one making the psotive claim. You claim that there is some trouble from increased bad weather. Well, how much of an increase? What? Where? When? How often? To what degree? If we have answers to these questions we can asses if we should do things about them. If we have no idea as to the severity of it then wew may well be panicing because of the mouse rather than the tiger.

How come you get to form your opinions by pulling them out of your personal experience's ass, but you hand me such a high burden of proof?

I get to form my opionins as do you. You get to question why I have the opinions I do and I get to question your opinions. If you make a claim that means that I have to change my life then I will demand that the claim is properly supported.

It would be more surprising if changing the atmosphere did not change the climate, or changing the climate did not disrupt agriculture. The burden of proof really should be on emission proponents to demonstrate that global warming is not going to disrupt agriculture. But regardless, is this good enough?

Climate Change and Agriculture | Union of Concerned Scientists

No. It is not at all anywhere close to decent peer reviewed science.

And how do you know that, exactly? Have you performed an exhaustive search? Have you seen a peer reviewed scientific paper that tells you about this lack of peer reviewed papers? For a skeptic, you are awfully sure of your own beliefs with some very week epistemology.

I know it because if there was such supporting science it would be quoted at me all the time. After a time of exhaustive searching by lots of other people I can see that there is no Loch Ness Monster. It's real simple.

The issue isn't a general 2c rise. Some places heat up more than others. Some places actually cool down. But a degree here or there isn't the big deal. The issue is that we have more extreme weather. More floods and more droughts.

There has been a drop in the level of such extreme weather in the last couple of decades. They have seen less storms and other extreme events than you would expect. There is no peer reviewed paper showing the mechanism for this supposed increase in extremes. If you can find one I will read it. Make sure you quote from it something that supports your argument when you link to it though as I will consider that just a link means you have not read it. I get that a lot, people posting links to stuff they have not even had a scan of.

Ok, back towards the topic. First in, last out. Let's start with your first off topic subject you raised. I've given you lots of reason, and my evidence is your complete lack of evidence. That which can be submitted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. So I dismiss it, and so should you. Furthermore, I postulate that if you are in the habit of treating people the way you've treated me in this thread, than they have good reason to avoid engaging with you.

Ok, onto the subject now. I have a question for you. Who do you think is running the bots that are disrupting our political discourse. And what do you think their agenda is?

I don't think there are any actual bots I have encountered. I have encountered lots of people who are very extremly empassioned but who have no clue. They post stuff continually which is drivel and link to stuff they have not read and are generally incapable of reading.

Digger · Feb 26, 2020

Tim the plumber said:
Florida is sinking. This is a plate tectonics thing. The world sea level rise is at the rate of 3mm/yr or so. I suggest that the sea defences which should be protecting those roads are improved if the roads are worth the effort. And the surface of the road raised a bit. If the roads are worth the effort.

You are the one making the psotive claim. You claim that there is some trouble from increased bad weather. Well, how much of an increase? What? Where? When? How often? To what degree? If we have answers to these questions we can asses if we should do things about them. If we have no idea as to the severity of it then wew may well be panicing because of the mouse rather than the tiger.

I get to form my opionins as do you. You get to question why I have the opinions I do and I get to question your opinions. If you make a claim that means that I have to change my life then I will demand that the claim is properly supported.

No. It is not at all anywhere close to decent peer reviewed science.

I know it because if there was such supporting science it would be quoted at me all the time. After a time of exhaustive searching by lots of other people I can see that there is no Loch Ness Monster. It's real simple.

There has been a drop in the level of such extreme weather in the last couple of decades. They have seen less storms and other extreme events than you would expect. There is no peer reviewed paper showing the mechanism for this supposed increase in extremes. If you can find one I will read it. Make sure you quote from it something that supports your argument when you link to it though as I will consider that just a link means you have not read it. I get that a lot, people posting links to stuff they have not even had a scan of.

I don't think there are any actual bots I have encountered. I have encountered lots of people who are very extremly empassioned but who have no clue. They post stuff continually which is drivel and link to stuff they have not read and are generally incapable of reading.

You seem to be under the impression that if you haven't seen something, it must not exist. If an "alarmist," that you spend most of your time on the internet broad brush slandering, doesn't present you with evidence on a silver platter, it means that evidence must not exist. I ask you what your opinion is about all of these bots getting involved in our political debate, and your only opinion is that you haven't encountered them. As if I care who you've encountered. As if not noticing the ocean you swim in means it's not there.

Now I'm gonna go do some homework. You're gonna eat so much crow.

*grumbling* Union of concerned scientists isn't good enough for him. Wants a quote from a peer reviewed study. But he gets all of his opinions from his personal experience and hasn't presented one bit of evidence from anybody else yet about anything. And he's "skeptical."

Digger · Feb 26, 2020

EDIT :

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

Page 50. This is not predictive. This is describing what has already happened. There's a graphic that shows that climate change has had major impacts on "food production" in Australia, Africa, and South America, and minor impacts in Europe and Asia.

Page 51, top of the right column :

"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). The smaller number of studies showing positive
impacts relate mainly to high-latitude regions, though it is not yet
clear whether the balance of impacts has been negative or positive
in these regions (high confidence). Climate change has negatively
affected wheat and maize yields for many regions and in the global
aggregate (medium confidence). Effects on rice and soybean yield
have been smaller in major production regions and globally, with
a median change of zero across all available data which are fewer
for soy compared to the other crops (see Figure 1.11c). Observed
impacts relate mainly to production aspects of food security rather
than access or other components of food security. Since AR4, several
periods of rapid food and cereal price increases following climate
extremes in key producing regions indicate a sensitivity of current
markets to climate extremes among other factors (medium confidence). {WGII SPM A-1}"

That took me half an hour. If you want me to look anything else up for you, I'm going to ask you to pay for my time.

longview · Feb 26, 2020

Digger said:
EDIT :

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

Page 50. This is not predictive. This is describing what has already happened. There's a graphic that shows that climate change has had major impacts on "food production" in Australia, Africa, and South America, and minor impacts in Europe and Asia.

Page 51, top of the right column :

"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). The smaller number of studies showing positive
impacts relate mainly to high-latitude regions, though it is not yet
clear whether the balance of impacts has been negative or positive
in these regions (high confidence). Climate change has negatively
affected wheat and maize yields for many regions and in the global
aggregate (medium confidence). Effects on rice and soybean yield
have been smaller in major production regions and globally, with
a median change of zero across all available data which are fewer
for soy compared to the other crops (see Figure 1.11c). Observed
impacts relate mainly to production aspects of food security rather
than access or other components of food security. Since AR4, several
periods of rapid food and cereal price increases following climate
extremes in key producing regions indicate a sensitivity of current
markets to climate extremes among other factors (medium confidence). {WGII SPM A-1}"

That took me half an hour. If you want me to look anything else up for you, I'm going to ask you to pay for my time.

I am curious, the IPCC says,
"Climate change has negatively affected wheat and maize yields for many regions and in the global
aggregate (medium confidence).[/B]"
I wonder where wheat was negatively affected, they do not specify.
A quick look shows countries in Africa are higher.
factfish Wheat, yield for Zambia
factfish Wheat, yield for Namibia
India
factfish Wheat, yield for India
Mexico
factfish Wheat, yield for Mexico
Australia
http://www.factfish.com/statistic-country/australia/wheat, yield
Brazil
http://www.factfish.com/statistic-country/brazil/wheat, yield

So I wonder where these negative effects claimed are occurring?
None IPCC data says yields of just about everything is increasing.
https://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields
It is easy for the IPCC to say such things, but if they are not backed up by the data, do the statement mean much?

Digger · Feb 26, 2020

longview said:
I am curious, the IPCC says,
"Climate change has negatively affected wheat and maize yields for many regions and in the global
aggregate (medium confidence).[/B]"
I wonder where wheat was negatively affected, they do not specify.
A quick look shows countries in Africa are higher.
factfish Wheat, yield for Zambia
factfish Wheat, yield for Namibia
India
factfish Wheat, yield for India
Mexico
factfish Wheat, yield for Mexico
Australia
factfish Wheat, yield for Australia
Brazil
http://www.factfish.com/statistic-country/brazil/wheat, yield

So I wonder where these negative effects claimed are occurring?
None IPCC data says yields of just about everything is increasing.
https://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields
It is easy for the IPCC to say such things, but if they are not backed up by the data, do the statement mean much?

It doesn't say production has declined overall. It says that climate change has had a negative impact on food production. The fact that there are some places where food production has increased, and even that it has increased over all, does not negate the fact that climate change has had a negative impact on it.

Stop muddying the water.

Your tag team buddy sited the IPCC earlier in this thread (without a link or a quote) and you didn't jump in and complain then. Eventually we're going to have to stop quibbling about sources and *gasp* trust the scientists that we've hired to figure out this incredibly complex and volatile phenomenon that we've created.

Tim the plumber · Feb 26, 2020

Digger said:
You seem to be under the impression that if you haven't seen something, it must not exist. If an "alarmist," that you spend most of your time on the internet broad brush slandering, doesn't present you with evidence on a silver platter, it means that evidence must not exist. I ask you what your opinion is about all of these bots getting involved in our political debate, and your only opinion is that you haven't encountered them. As if I care who you've encountered. As if not noticing the ocean you swim in means it's not there.

Now I'm gonna go do some homework. You're gonna eat so much crow.

*grumbling* Union of concerned scientists isn't good enough for him. Wants a quote from a peer reviewed study. But he gets all of his opinions from his personal experience and hasn't presented one bit of evidence from anybody else yet about anything. And he's "skeptical."

Rant noted. I hope you will be fortified with the scientific evidence you need to understand the subject enough to form your own reasoned opinions.

Tim the plumber · Feb 26, 2020

Digger said:
EDIT :

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

Page 50. This is not predictive. This is describing what has already happened. There's a graphic that shows that climate change has had major impacts on "food production" in Australia, Africa, and South America, and minor impacts in Europe and Asia.

Page 51, top of the right column :

"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). The smaller number of studies showing positive
impacts relate mainly to high-latitude regions, though it is not yet
clear whether the balance of impacts has been negative or positive
in these regions (high confidence). Climate change has negatively
affected wheat and maize yields for many regions and in the global
aggregate (medium confidence). Effects on rice and soybean yield
have been smaller in major production regions and globally, with
a median change of zero across all available data which are fewer
for soy compared to the other crops (see Figure 1.11c). Observed
impacts relate mainly to production aspects of food security rather
than access or other components of food security. Since AR4, several
periods of rapid food and cereal price increases following climate
extremes in key producing regions indicate a sensitivity of current
markets to climate extremes among other factors (medium confidence). {WGII SPM A-1}"

That took me half an hour. If you want me to look anything else up for you, I'm going to ask you to pay for my time.

Food production, crops, have been increaseing in all those places. I don't see why they need to have confidence brackets about that sort of data?

Tim the plumber · Feb 26, 2020

Digger said:
It doesn't say production has declined overall. It says that climate change has had a negative impact on food production. The fact that there are some places where food production has increased, and even that it has increased over all, does not negate the fact that climate change has had a negative impact on it.

Stop muddying the water.

Your tag team buddy sited the IPCC earlier in this thread (without a link or a quote) and you didn't jump in and complain then. Eventually we're going to have to stop quibbling about sources and *gasp* trust the scientists that we've hired to figure out this incredibly complex and volatile phenomenon that we've created.

Can you explain how any such crops have in fact been negatively impacted by climate change?

I ask because generally hotter wetter places grow more food than colder drier places.

Digger · Feb 26, 2020

Tim the plumber said:
Food production, crops, have been increaseing in all those places. I don't see why they need to have confidence brackets about that sort of data?

Climate change is not the only thing impacting food production. Therefor food production can go up even while climate change has negatively impacted it. I'm starting to think you're playing dumb.

They have confidence brackets because that's the sort of thing that scientists do. Scientists are very rarely absolutely sure of anything. They have various degrees of confidence, which they tell you about, because being wrong about something you stated with certainty is very bad for their careers. You don't read very much of these scientific studies from which you demand quotes, do you?

Interesting phrasing, though. "I don't see why." You're expressing your ignorance. That's good. Recognizing your own ignorance is the first step towards skepticism. Now show some humility.

Tim the plumber · Feb 26, 2020

Digger said:
Climate change is not the only thing impacting food production. Therefor food production can go up even while climate change has negatively impacted it. I'm starting to think you're playing dumb.

They have confidence brackets because that's the sort of thing that scientists do. Scientists are very rarely absolutely sure of anything. They have various degrees of confidence, which they tell you about, because being wrong about something you stated with certainty is very bad for their careers. You don't read very much science, do you?

Well, given we have very very data about the food wwe have already grown I see no reason to talk about confidence levels for that data.

Projecting forward when you don't know what is going to happen is different. Then they make sense.

Digger · Feb 26, 2020

Tim the plumber said:
Well, given we have very very data about the food wwe have already grown I see no reason to talk about confidence levels for that data.

Projecting forward when you don't know what is going to happen is different. Then they make sense.

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.

Can you find any actual science that shows this? That actually tells us how much of disruption is likely to happen?

I'll give you a clue no such peer reviewed published papere is out there it is just hype.

I know it because if there was such supporting science it would be quoted at me all the time. After a time of exhaustive searching by lots of other people I can see that there is no Loch Ness Monster. It's real simple.

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?

Digger · Feb 26, 2020

Tim the plumber said:
Can you explain how any such crops have in fact been negatively impacted by climate change?

I ask because generally hotter wetter places grow more food than colder drier places.

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?

Digger · Feb 26, 2020

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."

longview · Feb 26, 2020

Digger said:
It doesn't say production has declined overall. It says that climate change has had a negative impact on food production. The fact that there are some places where food production has increased, and even that it has increased over all, does not negate the fact that climate change has had a negative impact on it.

Stop muddying the water.

Your tag team buddy sited the IPCC earlier in this thread (without a link or a quote) and you didn't jump in and complain then. Eventually we're going to have to stop quibbling about sources and *gasp* trust the scientists that we've hired to figure out this incredibly complex and volatile phenomenon that we've created.

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.

Digger · Feb 26, 2020

longview said:
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.

Digger · Feb 26, 2020

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.

longview · Feb 26, 2020

Digger said:
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/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_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.

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.

Tim the plumber · Feb 26, 2020

Digger said:
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.

Tim the plumber · Feb 26, 2020

Digger said:
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?