The Agricultural Effect on Global Warming

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Media_Truth, Aug 24, 2024.

  1. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,486
    Likes Received:
    11,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Malthusians are opposed to longer growing seasons and higher yields. Too many people on the earth.
     
    Hotdogr and 557 like this.
  2. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    20,214
    Likes Received:
    11,894
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That’s sure what it seems like. If you point out warming and CO2 allow more food production or it saves lives they get very angry. More food and less deaths should make people happy. :)
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2024
    Jack Hays, Hotdogr and AFM like this.
  3. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    34,219
    Likes Received:
    22,389
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Only one quibble: more food and fewer deaths.:oldman:
     
    AFM and 557 like this.
  4. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    20,214
    Likes Received:
    11,894
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My high school English teacher would be ashamed of me. Don’t tell her, I’m still good friends with her son and still see her from time to time. :)

    It’s actually a very important distinction in this context!
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2024
    Jack Hays likes this.
  5. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    34,219
    Likes Received:
    22,389
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My mother was an English teacher.
     
  6. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    20,214
    Likes Received:
    11,894
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh geez. That must have been tough. Apparently she was skilled. :)
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  7. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    2,833
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Utopian Warming theory is based on assumptions, conjecture, and the disregard of the many likely catastrophic outcomes. Worst of all, when it is discovered that Utopian Warming is a failure, it will be too late, and all the negative impacts will be irreversible.
     
  8. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    20,214
    Likes Received:
    11,894
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are the only PF member who subscribes to any utopian warming theory.

    Everything I post on climate is based on voluminous amounts of peer reviewed studies in respected journals of science. Your utopian theories are just figments of your imagination.

    You are always welcome to show the errors of the experts who research and publish the works I cite on PF. They could be wrong. Lancet and Nature etc. may be wrong for publishing the works. But you must show evidence these experts have erred in their works and that peer reviewers have erred in allowing publication of the works. Unfortunately you can not provide such evidence so are left with one path only—posting of strawman and other fallacies like the above utopian argument.

    Nobody has proposed anything utopian. It’s entirely your fallacious strawman.

    It is a fact warming and increased CO2 has allowed for production of more food. It is a fact warming is saving lives. Facts supported by voluminous evidence produced through application of the scientific method. Your unsubstantiated opinions and fallacies are noted, but irrelevant.
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2024
    Hotdogr and Jack Hays like this.
  9. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    2,833
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Absolutely not! You are the one making the claim that permanently altering the world ecosystems is “better for the planet”. Therefore you are responsible to address, with ALL the possible ramifications. You have next to nothing, other than to say, “What about this benefit?”. You have never once commented on the chaos in the world if millions of inhabitants are displaced. You have never addressed the issue of “No Turning Back”. As one of the US combatants in Ukraine said, “Russia was the one crossing the border, they need to accept the consequences of all their actions”. Likewise, you need to address ALL the consequences of a Warming World, if you expect anybody to buy your Utopian theory.
     
  10. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    20,214
    Likes Received:
    11,894
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Have you addressed all the consequences of a cooling or a static temperature climate? Do you even know what they are? One is the FACT 10-17 times as many people die from suboptimal cold temps as from suboptimal hot temps. Why are you OK with such high rates of death from a cold earth climate?

    You want a cool or colder climate. Why? We have evidence warming and CO2 increase crop yields. We have observed yields increasing and we have done in field experiments exposing crops to increased CO2 and temp that show yield increases. But all you have is a THEORY that at some undetermined point yields MAY decrease. And YOU want to create an environment where we KNOW yields won’t benefit. Based on your utopian cool earth theory that has no evidence to support it.

    We KNOW cost of climate related disasters have decreased. We KNOW death rates from climate related disasters have decreased dramatically and are at all time lows. You want to return earth to conditions that existed when deaths and costs were FAR higher. Your utopian cold earth theory conflicts with all known evidence.

    I have repeatedly commented on displacement. It’s absurd to believe displacement will increase as availability to food increases. It’s absurd to believe people will want to migrate more as death rates related to temperature declines and life expectancy increases globally, and increases faster in less developed nations. People don’t want to leave places life is getting better. Your utopian cold earth theory has no basis in reality. Why do you want a world we KNOW will be less productive (all life depends on plants) for plant life?

    You are concerned about observable facts being “wrong” while subscribing to a utopian cold theory that has no supporting evidence.

    I’m here to discuss EVIDENCE, not your goofy theories that are unsupported by evidence or simple figments of your imagination created as a strawman.

    If you think the experts publishing works I’ve cited are wrong, by all means correct them. But you claiming someone has some utopian warming theory is a strawman. I have no interest in fallacy. Post refutations of the published works I’ve presented or your posts will continue to be irrelevant here.
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  11. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    2,833
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just as I figured. You couldn't address the issues. I needn't address anything. I'm not the one "crossing borders".
     
  12. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    20,214
    Likes Received:
    11,894
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I’ve already addressed the “issues” by providing actual evidence that warming has been very beneficial. And actual EVIDENCE it will continue to benefit us. You have unsubstantiated opinions about the past and the future.

    Who is “crossing borders”? This is all very simple. I’ve provided evidence produced through application of the scientific method showing the benefits of warming and CO2. You have expressed unsubstantiated opinions about the past, present, and future.


    If you want to discuss science and evidence we sure can. But I can’t help you with your imagined unsupported theories. You are on your own if all you have is opinions and fallacy.
     
    Jack Hays and Hotdogr like this.
  13. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    2,833
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your Utopian Warming theories are unsupported by ALL major scientific groups. For you to claim that science is on your side is nonsensical hyperbole. I would love to see you post something non- cherry-picked from the National Academy of Science, the Royal Academy, NASA, the NOAA, or the IPCC. To avoid the normal cherry- picking, please provide both sides of any claims.
     
  14. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    20,214
    Likes Received:
    11,894
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I’ve repeatedly referenced the IPCC and NASA and NOAA.

    There is no utopian warming theory.

    There is overwhelming evidence produced through application of the scientific method showing the benefits to agriculture/plant productivity etc. from climate change and CO2.

    https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/148026/greening-landscape-changes-air-flow

    upload_2024-9-8_13-44-56.png

    You are welcome to your unsubstantiated opinions. You are welcome to deny science and reject evidence produced by experts in climatology and published in peer reviewed journals. But I’ll stick with actual evidence. I’m not interested in opinions.
     
  15. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    2,833
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I asked you not to cherry- pick, but that’s all you have. I’m not even going to bother posting the thousands of rebuttals by these agencies, because you’ll just continue to post the same Utopian warming nonsense.
     
  16. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    20,214
    Likes Received:
    11,894
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I’m not cherry picking. The IPCC source references numerous studies and then reports “robust evidence, high agreement” etc.

    You think the IPCC reports contain a rebuttal to the above QUOTE FROM THEIR REPORT?

    This is ridiculous. If I were cherry picking you could EASILY provide evidence. You can’t. Game over. What you believe is counter to evidence produced through application of the scientific method.

    Show us that NASA is wrong and that the planet isn’t greening from CO2 fertilization! Go ahead. Show us NASA refutes their OWN data. You really think NASA has some data somewhere that contradicts what I just posted? Climate nutters indeed. That’s bizarre.
     
    Jack Hays likes this.

Share This Page