• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Weak Foundation of Calls for Climate Action

istodolez said:
Industries can re-source raw materials if there is a supply disruption. It is harder to do when your product (agricultural products) are no longer able to be "made" (grown).

More fertilizer might help for a bit, but without the right amount of water (or too much) you're screwed no matter how well capitalized. You can't buy the right climate.

So in the case of agricultural collapse, indeed, the natural resources ARE PRECISELY what is limited.

And that's why so many societies have collapsed when their agricultural systems collapse. Technology helps but only so far.

The real problem might also be that it is localized collapse leading to resource conflicts! Societies don't always handle that well either. Again, history.
Click to expand...
Haven't you ever heard of hydroponics?
 
istodolez said:
Industries can re-source raw materials if there is a supply disruption. It is harder to do when your product (agricultural products) are no longer able to be "made" (grown).

More fertilizer might help for a bit, but without the right amount of water (or too much) you're screwed no matter how well capitalized. You can't buy the right climate.

So in the case of agricultural collapse, indeed, the natural resources ARE PRECISELY what is limited.

And that's why so many societies have collapsed when their agricultural systems collapse. Technology helps but only so far.

The real problem might also be that it is localized collapse leading to resource conflicts! Societies don't always handle that well either. Again, history.
Click to expand...
Actually, resource competition is a relatively rare source of conflict. Human ambition is about 99% of the problem.

“This is my long-run forecast in brief:
The material conditions of life will continue to get better for most people, in most countries, most of the time, indefinitely. Within a century or two, all nations and most of humanity will be at or above today's Western living standards.
I also speculate, however, that many people will continue to think and say that the conditions of life are getting worse.”
― Julian Simon
 
Jack Hays said:
Actually, resource competition is a relatively rare source of conflict. Human ambition is about 99% of the problem.
Click to expand...

Lancet said:
Torreon Creekmore, of the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity in the USA, reflected: “When crops fail and prices rise, people don't have the money to purchase food, which can lead to stealing, then riots, social unrest, and mass migrations.”
Click to expand...
(Source)

NationalGeographic said:
Armed conflict can certainly bring about dangerous conditions of food insecurity, but some scholars argue the reverse is also true: Food insecurity can precipitate violent political conflict. Most often, it is only one among several causal factors, but a sudden change in the availability or price of basic foodstuffs can trigger an explosion of social unrest. A famous example is the French Revolution of 1789, which was fueled in large part by poor grain harvests and economic pressures that led to sharp increases in the price of bread. More recently, the Arab Spring uprisings of 2011 took place during a period of historically high food prices in North Africa and the Middle East.
Click to expand...
(Source)

History is pretty cool.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but the French Revolution, about which I know quite a lot, was decades in the making, and not because of food. A bad harvest added more violence, but did not cause the revolution.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was proposed as the SOLE cause.
 
Jack Hays said:
Had the regime not been already unhinged, it would not have mattered.
Click to expand...

Not my area of expertise but given that an historian said it I will go with their view and not yours.

seem reasonable to you if I discount your area of expertise? Given that I have none I. This area?
 
istodolez said:
Not my area of expertise but given that an historian said it I will go with their view and not yours.

seem reasonable to you if I discount your area of expertise? Given that I have none I. This area?
Click to expand...
You are free to discount whatever you want. As a matter of irony, I should tell you I just today finished Simon Schama's Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution.
 
Jack Hays said:
Inside The Bayesian Priory
17 hours ago

Anyone who thinks that a description of reality is only worthwhile if it matches the output of absurdly simplistic climate models is not worth my time to investigate.
Click to expand...

Honestly, now Jack, did you read the original paper itself? How much of it did you track on? I'm asking seriously because it is TECHNICALLY dense as hell. And further, how much do you get about Bayesian vs Frequentist statistics? You're the same guy who complained that one doesn't need regression statistics to understand the likelihood of accuracy of a slope on a simple graph (you were, of course wrong) and then later complained when I mentioned the concept of "central tendency" in a distribution as if it had no value to the discussion.

So it seems to me you have found yet one more thing where someone says something you like (because it's on a denialist blog) and you go around posting it as if it has technical meaning to you. But I doubt very highly you would have had any association with Bayesian statistics before. Monty Hall Problem much?
 
istodolez said:
Honestly, now Jack, did you read the original paper itself? How much of it did you track on? I'm asking seriously because it is TECHNICALLY dense as hell. And further, how much do you get about Bayesian vs Frequentist statistics? You're the same guy who complained that one doesn't need regression statistics to understand the likelihood of accuracy of a slope on a simple graph (you were, of course wrong) and then later complained when I mentioned the concept of "central tendency" in a distribution as if it had no value to the discussion.

So it seems to me you have found yet one more thing where someone says something you like (because it's on a denialist blog) and you go around posting it as if it has technical meaning to you. But I doubt very highly you would have had any association with Bayesian statistics before. Monty Hall Problem much?
Click to expand...
So what?
 
I know who it annoys but the idea that humans control climate belongs in a comedy show.
Man can change climate course? Who recalls Red Buttons? A true comedian.
Jack brought Bjorn Borg early to this discussion. Borg is very wise.
 
Robertinfremont said:
I know who it annoys but the idea that humans control climate belongs in a comedy show.
Man can change climate course? Who recalls Red Buttons? A true comedian.
Jack brought Bjorn Borg early to this discussion. Borg is very wise.
Click to expand...
Bjorn Lomborg. I think autocorrect betrayed you.
 
Isn't the debate about what controls climate?

Some say man.

I say they are wrong to blame man.

Man is not able to control climate.

In fact the argument over CO2 has two sides.

Side A says man produces the CO2 which is the killer gas.

Side B says hey, CO2 comes after warm, not before warm.

Side B says about Temperature ...
If Death Valley CA was warmer than in 1913, a weak case could be made

But the record heat wave for death Valley is in 1913.

According to WMO's Weather and Climate Extremes archive, the hottest temperature ever recorded was in Furnace Creek, Death Valley, California, reaching 56.7C (134.06F) on 10 July 1913. The next highest temperature was set in July 1931 in Kebili, Tunisia, reaching 55C (131F).Aug 18, 2020
 
Jack Hays said:
It's from a source I trust. Please keep in mind that I'm not the topic.
Click to expand...

it does not change the fact that you, yourself, cannot explain why you prefer this view of PCA over Mann et al’s meaning you are appealing to authority and have no clue why you prefer it other than it confirms your bias.

Don’t worry, to no small extent we all do so I here but some of us are more honest about it.
 
istodolez said:
it does not change the fact that you, yourself, cannot explain why you prefer this view of PCA over Mann et al’s meaning you are appealing to authority and have no clue why you prefer it other than it confirms your bias.

Don’t worry, to no small extent we all do so I here but some of us are more honest about it.
Click to expand...
"Mann et al's meaning" is a scam. I have regarded that bunch as scammers since Climategate. I trace my skepticism back to Bjorn Lomborg, The Skeptical Environmentalist.
 
Jack Hays said:
"Mann et al's meaning" is a scam. I have regarded that bunch as scammers since Climategate. I trace my skepticism back to Bjorn Lomborg, The Skeptical Environmentalist.
Click to expand...

Then you can explain their errors in your own words. Oh and do tell how you do PCA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom