Global Warming -- LOL

Nope. I simply pointed out your posts contained information that is in direct conflict with the actual empirical evidence.

It’s certainly not my “opinion” the geologist is misinforming the public. It’s a fact because her opinion has no supporting evidence and there is overwhelming evidence against her opinion.

Here is the definition of “opinion”.

What I’ve posted is based on knowledge of facts. What you and the geologist have written is completely unsubstantiated with any facts or evidence of subject knowledge.

Is AGW an opinion?

I haven’t dismissed any concerns. None. I’ve simply posted facts. Posting facts on a subject is not dismissal of the subject. Quite the contrary.

Do you think honesty has any value or should we lie to get funding for pet projects?

Oh dear. You are unaware of corporate funding of public research? When I was leaving university I turned down a research opportunity on mineral supplements for ruminants because it was corporately sponsored. I had great respect for the university personnel involved but not the funding.

How do you think public institutions get returns on research? Never heard of patent royalties?

I’m not really. You are the one concerned with the economics. I simply stated I think more resources should go to research that leads to actionable mitigation, not just rehashing effects of greenhouse gas emissions on climate.

Are populist media personalities teaching school now? Wow.

I’ve never looked into actual curriculum content kids are taught on climate today. Where would you find it? It might be interesting to know for sure. I suspect there is some disinformation and a lot of lies of omission though based on the opinions I see bandied about by younger folks.

If kids are being told warming climate is causing more human deaths from non-optimal temperatures they are being lied to. If they are being told agriculture is suffering from climate change they are being lied to. I know the media is lying. I suspect most schools teach similar things to what journalists are reporting, but I’m open to evidence either way.

 

Yeah, get rid of all of the computers.

 

My kids are hearing all the lies from their teachers. They tell me, and we talk through it.

Most kids don't have parents who are very well informed either though, so the misinformation is doing damage.

 

You can really find idiotic things to complain about.

The graph only goes up to 290. If you have any understanding of the subject then you should know that when Keeling started measuring CO2 in 1958 it was at 315, off the top of that chart. Now we are passed 400. You do not seem to comprehend the purpose of the graph.

 

Withheld? No. It's not being emphasized, indeed amplified, by the media. If you really want to educate people, teach them how to research.

But it is.

I didn't see any mention of the politics around using nuclear energy to generate electricity.

Water is a national and international problem. We're next to Canada and they have a lot of water they could sell to us. Would they? My take is they will not, at least not now and under the present economic circumstances.

Will you have to fight more southern states for the water? What you presented was PR, not a comprehensive analysis of the water situation.

I don't fault you for your lack of a comprehensive analysis, but any claim you fully addressed the issue would be absurd.

The management is political and better management involves exigent political and economic considerations. For example, can we get Canadian water? Do we want it, at what cost?

This is only discussing one aspect of a water problem facing USA agriculture.

 

Why are you making up positions for me? You're the guy who made the claim above.

So, you can't support your claim?

 

That’s unfortunate. I’m glad you have such a good relationship with your kids. They will have a huge leg up on most of their peers.

 

Nothing here.

You dismissed my example of things you don't consider. I deliberately picked something minor as an example to see how but you'd handle it.

Straw man time?

There is limited private funding of public research.

If you don't get voters to fund public research, a lot of important research just doesn't happen. A private cancer researcher I know got a government NIH grant to investigate whether or not drinking green tea reduces the likelihood of getting lung cancer. Who will get a return on the results of the research? Who is incentivized to do the research?

Do you talk down to everyone?

My father (RIP) had a drawer full of patents. I did the engineering drawings for some of his designs. I thought I might want to be an engineer at one time and wanted to be in on the action.

Public institutions make money off patents. But they also get government grants to do research.

I'm concerned with economics because they're important. I'm also concerned with any aspect of the problem, including obviously the growing information you present.

There are state curriculums. School districts develop their own, too. Figuring out what students are taught is difficult to assess. Economics, for example, is taught in high schools, but it's a course often taught by liberal social studies teachers who have no understanding of even the laws of supply and demand. What the teachers don't understand, they sometimes ignore. The curriculum says the laws of supply and demand are taught, but they just aren't and no one does anything about it.

Climate tends to be taught in two places--social studies and science courses. Unfortunately, the social studies courses tend to overlook technology and focus on simply stopping burning fossil fuels. Even in the Arctic, I've asked, and I've had the reply, "Especially there." They don't understand.

They spend a lot of time learning to virtue signal.

Some part of the media knowingly lie, but they mostly hide behind the propaganda churned out by one side or the other and then present the propaganda to viewers, listeners and readers. They're promoting conflict because it keeps people tuned in. They don't really care who says what. Truth is a business casualty.

Can you get your point across in the media? Yes, you can if you know how.

We beat a $2b garbage dump with money exclusively from my pocket. We held meetings at my house. We had community meetings in churches and schools gyms, and appeared before city councils. We created a narrative of an interesting story the media wanted to cover--can these guys (us!) beat the pols? In the end, we got the pols to join with us and we heaped credit on them for preserving land for higher uses. It's a lot of work to make sure the media have news releases when they need them and have the message discipline to not get baited by those with a vested interest in the proposed dump.

You can dismiss what I wrote above, but politics and economics count, too.

 

I linked you a lecture by an actual scientist that walks you thru the physics and observations.

But since you don't care about the actual science and facts, you will conjure goblins to justify not watching it.

You live in the realm of belief, not science; and, anything that challenges your beliefs is heresy.

 

Global warming solved by one lecture? Amazing.

And you do? You learned to link and think posting a link is debating?

You're typical of rightwing climate change deniers who invite the beast into the room, have it eat your face off, then wonder if engaging the beast was a good idea.

I just don't have the interest in beating you down, so you can keep your face--this time.

 

Lol

 

I understand it perfectly.

They used it to make the claim that this is evidence of AGW.

It's just a chart that is put into a video and used as "evidence" by people who don't notice either the extremely small PPM or the extremely short time scale.

"Recorded history" isn't enough time to examine anything that's outside the norm.

Of which, when it comes to Earth, is obviously vastly different than what it was 50-60 million years ago when primates appeared.

 

oooo scary.

 

It’s being withheld. For example if your geologist is truly a scientist as she claims she would have researched her opinion piece. If she had researched her piece she would have read studies like I’ve posted here. She would have read studies showing tomato plants absolutely do handle heat and drought better at elevated CO2 levels instead of making this false claim.

When garden plants like tomatoes are temperature and moisture stressed, CO2 fertilization absolutely DOES help those plants!

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2018.00328/full

And:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6275242/

And in C4 plants that at one time were assumed to not benefit from CO2 fertilization because they are already more efficient than C3 plants.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21676489/

This lady is definitely withholding information. She’s pushing disinformation and withholding information. Oh, turns out she IS a teacher. Holy cow.

If you would be interested in some tips on how to do your own research instead of relying on people like the geologist who is either incompetent or dishonest or both, I am willing to help you. But you have to demonstrate a willingness to actually learn. If there is no thirst for actual knowledge it will not bear fruit.

Only because some choose to use food as a political weapon. You can choose not to do so.

I didn’t see any mention of nuclear power or politics in my original post you responded to. Nor in your initial response to me. Or in the link you provided in your initial response to me. This means of course you are engaging in strawman fallacy. I’m really not interested. But here’s a clue. The 43 year timespan of the construction of the most recent reactor in the US was a result of politics.

Always has been. Where I grew up (a virtual desert) in the ‘70’s and 80’ the saying was “whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting”. My dad was ditch rider for the main irrigation ditch in the area for a while. His predecessor was shot by an angry water share holder.

Colorado has tried to buy our groundwater in Nebraska and haul it to Denver. It was stopped either by law or economics can’t remember which.

If I was Canada I’d keep the water I had.

Not aquifer water. They are already getting water we add to the aquifer here by pumping it out “downstream” in their states. Fortunately, as my earlier post showed we have been responsible enough to keep the aquifer fully sustainable. Others can do so as well.

Kansas, Nebraska, and Colorado have had disagreements over surface water since irrigation began.

Did someone claim my post was a comprehensive analysis of aquifers? You claimed aquifers were something I nor the scientists producing presented research have considered. I’m simply pointing out not only have I considered them, I have practical experience managing aquifers and have studied many aquifers around the world including the two I posted about here.

You probably didn’t read the link I provided to learn that the Natural Resource Districts that manage the aquifer in Nebraska are independent democratically controlled organizations at the local level. It’s a partnership between different water users set up to ensure sustainability and purity of the aquifer. It’s not a top down political organization from the state or federal government. My own neighbors are who do the internal work in the organization and the rest of us put them in that position through direct election.

So I provided evidence I’ve considered aquifers in relation to climate change and evidence in a pull quote the studies I’ve presented do as well.

Would it be less costly to just live where there is water instead of in a freaking desert as in the case of much of the western US that needs water? Good question. But totally irrelevant to the subject here which is whether or not agriculture is benefiting from a changing climate.

Of course. An aspect you brought up by claiming I and the studies I’ve presented don’t account for it. But we have. So I suppose you can try another strawman argument and I can debunk that with actual evidence.

 

Do you talk down to everyone?

Is AGW an opinion?

No. I didn’t dismiss anything. I simply pointed out your accusations of me and the scientists producing the studies have not considered specific things is a false accusation. You claimed drought and flood were not accounted for in studies but pull quotes I provided from those studies shows those factors were key inclusions in the study design.

Me showing that your accusations are incorrect with actual presentation of evidence is not me dismissing your examples. I addressed them very specifically and showed they ARE being considered by myself and scientists.

You have asked me several questions. Are they strawmen? This is the question you asked that I responded to with my question of whether we should lie to encourage funding.

I’m not dismissing concerns. I’m showing with EVIDENCE food production IS NOT a concern. I’m not going to lie and say it is to fund any research. If I go along with the populist narrative you brought into the conversation with your opinion piece from the geologist and don’t call out the disinformation I’m lying. Either outright or lying by omission. There is NO PLACE in science for lies of either kind. Yet you posted that opinion piece and apparently expect me to go along with it even though it is a product of direct denial of science.

So again, should we lie to fund research or not?

Depends on what you define as private. Public funding from the government accounts for about half of research funding at public institutions. According to this source.

https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20202/academic-r-d-in-the-united-states

Anyway, I’m not sure why it matters. You wondered how someone would profit from research on methods to defoliate rice. Both industry and public institutions have good pathways to doing so.

Sure public funding is important. Never said it wasn’t. But I’m opposed to using misinformation to get it.

I’m not aware of voters having much influence on where their tax dollars are spent research wise. Bureaucrats make most of those decisions.

The businesses selling green tea of course. Nice fastball over the plate.

So you asking me questions with obvious answers is what if me asking you questions with obvious answers is “talking down”?

Cool. Intellectual property rights is a whole subject of it’s own but I am thankful for people who invent.

Of course they get government grants. How is that relevant?

I’ve never claimed economics aren’t important. I’m a businessman as well. But in the context of climate change my expertise, training, and experience lies on the science (especially biological sciences) side of the equation.

I’m also not opposed to discussion of economics, but I am opposed to that discussion being proposed as a strawman argument intended to somehow invalidate the fact climate change is a net positive for agriculture.

The politics and economics of agriculture actually fascinate me. Without agriculture modern politics couldn’t exist. Before the dawn of agriculture politics was relegated to power struggles between the “chief” and the “witch doctor”. Without agriculture allowing for division of labor, politics we know today are not even possible.

Furthermore, control of society by dictatorship is not possible without agriculture. Nor is democracy. Or any structured society we see today. But at it’s root, agriculture breeds authoritarianism and naturally suppresses human autonomy and freedom.

Watching kids learn remotely during Covid was probably the only real window into what’s being taught we will ever have. It’s no surprise 2022 homeschooling rates were still about 50% higher than pre-pandemic. Not having kids though I didn’t see through that window myself.

It’s very disturbing we have no way to know what’s being taught. Nothing good can come of that. We should know what we are paying for.

I can’t imagine not being taught supply and demand in economics courses. What do they teach then? Excluding supply and demand pretty much makes any other instruction either incomprehensible or worthless or both.

Sounds like it’s as bad as I figured based on my limited experience with modern curriculum. I had pretty serious dedicated teachers but I was taught basics of science in primary and secondary educational settings. Like HOW the carbon and water cycles work. No instruction on how I was supposed to think to fit into populist society. Didn’t even see a lot of that at public university except in some history classes. I think that stuff was just ramping up at that time and hadn’t worked it’s way into the campus where I took most of my classes (the ag campus). Didn’t see it in private college setting either. Science there had one focus—preparation for med of nursing school. No time for social engineering or virtue signaling programming.

Yikes. Not good.

Agree on promoting conflict. But as your geologist writer shows, outright lies are being told. It’s despicable. All of it. Lies, promoting conflict, no respect for truth or accuracy in reporting.

If someone wants to attempt to get mainstream media to disseminate information like what I’ve presented here they can have at it. Good luck.

I see no reason to dismiss what you posted on politics or economics or education. As I said, all are worthy subjects. They just don’t have any relevance to the fact agricultural production is benefitting from climate change.

I’m thankful for your information on education and curriculum. I’m very open to information on subjects like that. What I’m not open to is accepting things like the geologist’s opinion piece that is full of demonstrably false information on science.

 

They have no reason to withhold your information unless it's simply of no interest to people. You have to make it interesting by how you present it.

She isn't wrong, however, in thinking other factors are involved.

Oh, stop. I wasn't relying on this person for anything other than suggesting more is involved. In fact, I don't need anyone to show there's more involved, so you're getting hit by your own spray.

So what if I didn't mention it? Nuclear power generation could make a huge difference in agricultural output.

There is a new generation of nuclear reactors that won't take decades to install.

Texas has 15x more people than Nebraska. What makes you think they won't come for your water?

Why do you think this solves the water problem?

Seriously, you don't live in the real world if you think this solves the water problem in the United States.

There you go dismissing factors that may impact on agriculture production.

You quite simply have not accounted for many factors that can, and some will, impact food production.

 

Of course there is the possibility that your emphasis convinces your kids that this is really important. They might start researching sources outside your and the school's control.

What if one or more of your kids decides that you are wrong? How old are the kids?

 

?
I don’t have any kids.

 

NOT!

It is evidence that CO2 increased in a way not consistent with Milankovitch Cycles. You did notice that the video was about Milankovitch Cycles, right?

 

Sorry, that was supposed to be for Wist43.

 

So you know their motives? Interesting. How do you know people aren’t interested in the fact rising CO2 levels make tomatoes easier to grow with limited water? Are you saying lies are more interesting than the truth?

What other factors? I’ve presented studies covering everything she brought up and everything you’ve brought up.

And she’s flat out lying. Or ignorant. Or both. And you still have more respect for her opinions than actual peer reviewed research. Wow.

So you are in the habit of relying on liars and/or fools to make your points. Clever strategy. If you had done research like you claim you could have presented something better than a known purveyor of misinformation and disinformation.

What would your response be if I posted verifiably FALSE information to support my posts?

I can’t stop you from using strawman fallacy. Knock yourself out. You can build three nuclear power plants each week and it won’t change the FACT climate change is having a positive impact on agricultural production.

There has never been a generation of nuclear reactor that takes decades to install. The delay is not technologically driven.

Are you serious? Texas is going to invade and carry off our women, children and water? Dude, they are “downstream” of us in relation to the aquifer. They are pumping all they want of the water we put in the aquifer now! Our surface water drainage all goes into the Missouri River system and then into the Mississippi. Is Texas going to send their 15x people up here and dig a canal from the Platte River to Dallas? Why would Texas steal anyone’s resources? You must not know many Texans.

It’s an example of a land mass that has wide areas with little precipitation being one of the most prolific irrigated crop producers in the world while AVERTING potential problems with aquifer sustainability.

Many other states and countries are interested in following this model to solve THEIR water problems.

Aquifers all over the planet CAN be managed to be sustainable even during climate changes.

Why can’t better management solve a problem? I can guarantee you management like we use here will solve more water problems than listening to lies from a geologist who doesn’t know elevated CO2 concentrations increase water use efficiency of plants, especially in drought stress conditions.

Anyway, even with all these mythical secret problems you say exist, crop yields are increasing and scientist are reporting on the climatic metrics that are contributing to those yield increases. Someone having a water “problem” doesn’t negate the FACT the changing climate is having a net positive impact on agricultural production.

What factors? People choosing to live where there is no water? People are choosing to live where there is no water. Doesn’t change the FACT that climate is having a net positive effect on agricultural production. You don’t have to like the fact climate change is helping us grow more food. But it’s a fact nonetheless.

So you say. Your unsubstantiated opinion. But every factor you’ve mentioned is well accounted for by me and the literature I’ve presented.

 

Um, I already pointed out that the time period in question, according to your own source, is only 10,000 years.

Guess what that means.

I've already told you that 100,000 years ago the planet was from +4 to +8 and well over 1000 PPM CO2.

Guess what one of the 3 Milankovitch cycle periods is.

You clearly don't even have a basic grasp of what you're trying to talk about.

 

Provide a link to support that claim. Sources I have seen indicate that it has been 2 million years since CO2 was even as high as 400 ppm.

The 800,000 years of the 2004 ice core data shows a peak of 300 ppm.

 

You sure don't take them seriously based on what you post here.

We would have much less of a water problem if anything like NAWAPA was created.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Water_and_Power_Alliance

It's an issue because it's impacted by the other factors.

No, I didn't wonder about the rice.

So, why did you bring up using misinformation? I never traded on lies.

The other factors you dismiss with wave of the hand may make climate chance a net negative.

Huh?

You want better teachers? Raise the pay.

Do you have stats and analysis to back this stuff up?

Consider...

"As of Dec 31, 2022, the average annual pay for an Entry Level Teacher in Nebraska is $33,207 a year. Just in case you need a simple salary calculator, that works out to be approximately $15.97 an hour. This is the equivalent of $638/week or $2,767/month."​

https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/Entry-Level-Teacher-Salary--in-Nebraska

What kind of STEM teacher will you attract for $16/hour?

They presented information on landfill construction we wanted people to know. Maybe you aren't successful because you don't understand how media function.

 

Studies designed specifically to determine the effects of things you’ve brought up aren’t serious? Believing lies is the way you think things are “taken seriously”? Yikes.

So why have you failed so miserably getting media to convince people to make it happen?

Factors that are having a NET POSITIVE effect on crop production as shown by evidence produced b

Yes you did. Here you go.

SMH.

You are using liars as sources on PF to make your points. The geologist is either completely incompetent or a liar. Is she incompetent?

I’ve dismissed nothing. I’ve used peer reviewed studies to show ALL your concerns have been considered by scientists and included in study designs. Those studies still show NET POSITIVE effects of climate change in food production.

You are dismissing the work of research scientists and using the opinions of liars and incompetent science deniers to make your points.

I’ll go with the actual research over your unsubstantiated opinions and opinions of people who deny science.

Probably not something you’ve ever considered. I guess you aren’t as interested in politics and food as you thought you were. LOL.

Why have you failed so dramatically at convincing media to cajole people into raising teacher pay? I don’t need or want to raise teacher pay. I purchased a quality education without asking ANYONE for money.

LOL. Of course!

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/ed...ny-families-continue-to-opt-for-homeschooling

https://wjla.com/amp/features/i-tea...ing-loss-covid-19-pandemic-american-education

Depends on who’s counting, the education department, census bureau, etc. But all reports are around 50%.

So we need to pay people not to lie? If we pay $16/hr. teachers will tell kids CO2 harms crops. If we bump that pay to say $45/hr. they will tell kids the truth and show them studies showing CO2 fertilization helps tomato plants deal with heat and drought stress?

Do you have evidence it’s teacher salary that drives teacher to lie to children?

Not successful? I have no interest in working with media. You do, and you have failed miserably at getting teacher salary raised and at getting water from Canada. LOL.