Green new deal equals magical thinking

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

23 hours ago, brenthutch said:

From your article:   bla bla bla potentially bla bla bla could bla bla Michael Mann's baseless assertions....I stopped reading.

Again I am showing PROOF that global food production has skyrocketed during the last two decades (the hottest ever according to some)  you point to an article about a guess of what may happen in the future. 

Food production has increased because of improvements in chemicals (fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides), improvement in crop technology (GMO mainly) and improved farming methods (most farmers do much field work using GPS guidance for accuracy). 
That fact has nothing to do with the damage we've done and are doing to the planet. We simply haven't increased temps enough to affect the crop yield...

Yet.

20 hours ago, brenthutch said:

No, I don’t claim to have a crystal ball, unlike the warmists.  Not only do I look at food production, I also look at the aforementioned metrics of lifespan, climate related deaths and the trend (or lack there of) in climate related disasters.  Given the preponderance of the evidence, I see nothing to support the imminent existential catastrophe narrative.  Sorry but I just don’t.

So science means nothing to you. 

Do you check the weather forecast? Or is that just 'crystal ball gazing'?

And if you had actually read the article, it simply points out that the Trump administration is muzzling any scientific reports that address AGW. Doesn't matter if it's a 'prediction' of what might happen, or research on what could happen if (when) temps or CO2 increase. The first one noted was about how rice loses significant nutritional value when grown with higher CO2 levels. That's not 'crystal ball gazing', that's actual science (they grew rice in an environment with higher CO2). 

But it doesn't fit your narrative, so you dismiss it.
As usual.

You conveniently ignore ocean acidification, coral depletion, glaciers disappearing, and actual temperatures rising.

[JoeWeber 2,297]

4 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

You conveniently ignore ocean acidification, coral depletion, glaciers disappearing, and actual temperatures rising.

Joe,

Those things don't matter to the deniers. When I looked at the Indian Corn Production Graph I knew it wasn't the whole story so I thought to myself, Self, time to read up on Indian Corn Production so I started with the attached file. Then I thought to myself, Self, fuck Corn in India and, for that matter, Yams in Yemen, too. The reality is that nothing will sway some deniers. It could be so hot the wax in their ears was melting and they'd say: "See, it helps your hearing, too." Complete no win.

India-Maize-2014_v2.pdf

[wmw999 2,120]

It’s as useful as talking to certain other SC’rs. 

I can remember an article about a Native American man; he said that some thought his people reacted slowly. However, they listened, then thought about what they heard, then replied. Some others listened only enough to make the point they wanted to make. 

It takes far more respect to actually listen  

Wendy P.  

[brenthutch 383]

6 hours ago, billvon said:

I did:

Your search - "imminent existential catastrophe narrative" - did not match any documents.

No results found for "imminent existential catastrophe".

Time for a patented BHutch Backpedal!

Did you read your own words?  If so, do you understand what “narrative”  means?  Sorry, my spelling may have been off, but I was juggling the wife’s coffee needs with the kids pancake requests while trying to make it to the DZ on time.

You seem to claim that we have an existential threat of imminent catastrophe due to climate change, then backpedal because I misspelled a word.  

Yes I know that there are a multitude of reasons why global food production is increasing (BTW modern agriculture is very CO2 intensive) my point is that there is NO evidence that higher levels of CO2 are resulting in crop failures, or any of the other boogeyman’s prognostications. 

 

 

Edited August 25, 2019 by brenthutch

[Bigfalls 110]

You can build all the wind turbines and solar panels you want, get rid of all the cows, no more fossil fuels, no more airplanes, plant trees in every open space and everybody drive an electric car but until the world population is drastically reduced, the problem won't be solved.  Other great societies have come and gone and this one will go also.  When Lyndon Johnson was President (Nov 1963 - Jan 1969), he joked that when his grand child was born (1967), he was the 200 millionth US citizen.  We didn't seem to have the issues we have now with 330 million.  Now think of the increase in world population in the last 52 years.  Society as a whole is not willing to do what is necessary to reverse the situation.

[billvon 2,392]

22 minutes ago, Bigfalls said:

You can build all the wind turbines and solar panels you want, get rid of all the cows, no more fossil fuels, no more airplanes, plant trees in every open space and everybody drive an electric car but until the world population is drastically reduced, the problem won't be solved. 

There are a lot of ways to solve the problem.  Eliminating the use of fossil fuels is one.  Population reduction is another.  Plant based diets?  Another good idea.  Any good plan will incorporate elements of all of the above.

[brenthutch 383]

10 minutes ago, billvon said:

There are a lot of ways to solve the problem.  Eliminating the use of fossil fuels is one.  Population reduction is another.  Plant based diets?  Another good idea.  Any good plan will incorporate elements of all of the above.

Developed countries have either stable or declining native born populations.  If you want less people you should advocate for more development.  

Edited August 26, 2019 by brenthutch

[wmw999 2,120]

Frankly, there are few complex problems that are completely solved. They can be mitigated, aged out of relevance, etc, but that doesn’t mean that it’s pointless to try to improve things. We haven’t eliminated polio, but it’s not worried about any more in much of the world. Does the fact that it still exists mean that the vaccines were pointless? 

Didnt think so

Wendy P. 

[billvon 2,392]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Developed countries have either stable or declining native born populations.  If you want less people you should advocate for more development.  

Specifically, you should advocate for women's education.   That, far and away, is the #1 intervention that decreases birthrate.  Improving women's education is a side effect of development, but it's just a side effect.

[brenthutch 383]

37 minutes ago, billvon said:

Specifically, you should advocate for women's education.   That, far and away, is the #1 intervention that decreases birthrate.  Improving women's education is a side effect of development, but it's just a side effect.

Education, overall emancipation and control of their reproductive destiny.  It’s easier to develop when your entire population participates.

Edited August 26, 2019 by brenthutch

[JoeWeber 2,297]

52 minutes ago, billvon said:

Specifically, you should advocate for women's education.   That, far and away, is the #1 intervention that decreases birthrate.  Improving women's education is a side effect of development, but it's just a side effect.

That's it. And with education comes the realization that reproductive choices can be true science based decisions not the 6 week "it's a fetal heartbeat" horse shit.  The resistance will be, as it always is, religion. Sure there will always be secular groups opposed to a womens right to choose just as some people of faith will be pro choice. And, sorry Kieth, the man needs to shut up and not have a vote. It's her body, her life and her decision. Period. For Christs sake, they're our team mates, right? 

[billvon 2,392]

8 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

That's it. And with education comes the realization that reproductive choices can be true science based decisions not the 6 week "it's a fetal heartbeat" horse shit.  

That's a small part of it.  Bigger parts of it are that educated women:

-tend to know how to use birth control

-generally have life options other than being a wife supported entirely by a man, an thus are less likely to blindly obey unreasonable demands

-are less likely to be child brides

-do long term planning for families more effectively (and the survival rates of their children are higher as a result)

-have more contact with other women, and thus have a wider support network

 

 

 

[JoeWeber 2,297]

1 minute ago, billvon said:

That's a small part of it.  Bigger parts of it are that educated women:

-tend to know how to use birth control

-generally have life options other than being a wife supported entirely by a man, an thus are less likely to blindly obey unreasonable demands

-do long term planning for families more effectively (and the survival rates of their children are higher as a result)

-have more contact with other women, and thus have a wider support network

 

 

 

All true. And one important life option they also have is better access to the financial system that men take for granted. Everyone wins.

[kallend 1,622]

6 hours ago, billvon said:

That's a small part of it.  Bigger parts of it are that educated women:

-

 

 

. . . . make better political choices:  Trump  won 35% of college-educated white women and 56% of white women without college degrees.

[brenthutch 383]

8 hours ago, billvon said:

 

-are less likely to be child brides

 

You have it backwards Bill, emancipation comes first.  A ten year old girl, no matter how educated, doesn’t have a choice on whether or not she be wed to a 45 year old man.  Education doesn’t lead to choice, choice opens the door to education.

 

[wmw999 2,120]

21 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

You have it backwards Bill, emancipation comes first.  A ten year old girl, no matter how educated, doesn’t have a choice on whether or not she be wed to a 45 year old man.  Education doesn’t lead to choice, choice opens the door to education.

 

An educated woman is far less likely to think a child marriage is desirable  

Wendy P. 

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

An educated woman is far less likely to think a child marriage is desirable  

Wendy P. 

In much of the world nobody cares what a woman thinks educated or not.  Take a look at how educated women fare in Afghanistan 

[billvon 2,392]

5 hours ago, brenthutch said:

You have it backwards Bill, emancipation comes first.  A ten year old girl, no matter how educated, doesn’t have a choice on whether or not she be wed to a 45 year old man.  Education doesn’t lead to choice, choice opens the door to education.

An uneducated woman doesn't know she has a choice at all.

[brenthutch 383]

34 minutes ago, billvon said:

An uneducated woman doesn't know she has a choice at all.

In the countries I’m talking about the educated women knows she has no choice.

[billvon 2,392]

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

In the countries I’m talking about the educated women knows she has no choice.

If you tell her that, then that's certainly true. 

In any case, I don't think you are giving women enough credit.  Not all of them are as helpless as you imagine.

[wmw999 2,120]

5 hours ago, brenthutch said:

In much of the world nobody cares what a woman thinks educated or not.  Take a look at how educated women fare in Afghanistan 

I guess if you can’t make everything perfect (whatever that means), then screw it, why bother?

In the parts of the world where women are property (a decreasing number), then you’re right, it might not matter. However, even in the parts where women don’t have external presence, they often wield considerable influence within the home. And an educated woman knows there are more choices in life. 

Perfect system? Nope. Just look at some of the Fundamentalist Mormons. But disseminating a small amount of power via education is better than a top-down approach that is resented by the worst paternalists — and they’re often the ones in the government. Look at the US, and how long it took to begin to seriously address codified racial discrimination. 

Not every problem is best solved by a man deciding how much power to cede.

Wendy P.  

Edited August 26, 2019 by wmw999

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

2 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Not every problem is best solved by a . . . man deciding how much power to cede.

Hi Wendy,

I like it better this way.

Jerry Baumchen

[wmw999 2,120]

I do too. Thanks. 

Wendy P. 

[DJL 232]

On 8/23/2019 at 4:19 PM, brenthutch said:

From your article:   bla bla bla potentially bla bla bla could bla bla Michael Mann's baseless assertions....I stopped reading.

Again I am showing PROOF that global food production has skyrocketed during the last two decades (the hottest ever according to some)  you point to an article about a guess of what may happen in the future. 

And on further reflection this statement is ridiculous and not just because you consistently post rubbish that claims to use scientific data to predict the future that doesn't stand even a basic test of facts.

You're stating as fact that a trend of improved food production in the last two decades is proof that one thing yet refuse to acknowledge that the fact of a trend of rising temperatures is proof of another.

[brenthutch 383]

No, I don't see a (small) trend in rising temperatures as a problem.  Historically the planet has fared much better in times of warmth than in times of cold.  You mentioned a guess of future crop failure, I show proof of current record crop production, (thanks not only to increased CO2 levels but to CO2 intensive modern agriculture and longer growing seasons). The retreat of some glaciers uncovering 1000 year old forests that thrived when it was warmer than it is today should inform your thinking.  Please show me some EVIDENCE of the CATROSTROPHY that you claim is underway. 

Edited August 27, 2019 by brenthutch