climate & food insecurity

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Are you just making things up?

Humankind has persisted through (round numbers: 200,000/12,000) Cataclysms ....so far.

1) Nope!
2) Humankind will not persist unless we do what the scientists recommend.
3) They have the best measurement technology.
4) There's no one better at 'arithmetic'.
5) Their ability to pastcast (sp?) and forecast has a pretty good record.
6) People that can shoot a BB through a birds eye, at a million miles has my attention and respect.
7) Some economists who would dismiss scientific consensus on climate can't even achieve consensus on what caused the Wall Street Crash of 1929.
8) Bless their pointed little heads.

[redpoint5]

Just curious to those with a catastrophist prediction, at what approximate year should we begin to see declining human well-being (as a whole, not anecdotes)? In the 60's, Population Bomb predicted global starvation in the 70's and 80's. Defenders of the problem as presented claim it was only wrong by timeframe. That begs the question again of when that will become a problem? Predictions are not useful if there's no time frame attached. Grossly missing the time frame also casts massive doubt on the predictor's understanding.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Just curious to those with a catastrophist prediction, at what approximate year should we begin to see declining human well-being (as a whole, not anecdotes)? In the 60's, Population Bomb predicted global starvation in the 70's and 80's. Defenders of the problem as presented claim it was only wrong by timeframe. That begs the question again of when that will become a problem? Predictions are not useful if there's no time frame attached. Grossly missing the time frame also casts massive doubt on the predictor's understanding.

1) Your making contextual comments without providing context.
2) 'When' is probably the most important issue, as those up close and personal to the 'problems' are witnessing non-linear accelerations with positive feedback loops.
3) If you'd followed any of the actual science you wouldn't be making such uninformed comments.
4) You should no what the atmospheric concentrations are.
5) You should know what Earth was like the last time those concentrations existed.
6) If you knew, you wouldn't sleep nights.
7) And you'd be out in the streets demanding that someone do something.
8) It would only be rational.
9) There is no doubt as to what the field scientists are witnessing, and the implications.
10) Any doubt you might possess would be borne out of your own ignorance.

[redpoint5]

I already know CO2 concentrations are about 400 ppm, up from about 280 before the industrial revolution. It's way up from a recent geologic low of about 180, which is barely enough to support plant life.

I know these increased concentrations are directly responsible for the "greening" of the earth as plant growth increases.

How any of that will play out in the future is unclear, which is why I don't lose any sleep.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I already know CO2 concentrations are about 400 ppm, up from about 280 before the industrial revolution. It's way up from a recent geologic low of about 180, which is barely enough to support plant life.

I know these increased concentrations are directly responsible for the "greening" of the earth as plant growth increases.

How any of that will play out in the future is unclear, which is why I don't lose any sleep.

You may 'think'.
Or you may 'believe.'
I don't believe that you 'know' any such thing.
The logic-tight compartments of your mind appear ever ready to dismiss any new intelligence.

[freebeard]

"No, you."

[redpoint5]

Xactly what I was thinking.

I'm more happy to be wrong than most, and more eager to annoy any arbitrary tribe. Keeps me and them on their toes.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by aerohead

1) Your making contextual comments without providing context.
2) 'When' is probably the most important issue, as those up close and personal to the 'problems' are witnessing non-linear accelerations with positive feedback loops.
3) If you'd followed any of the actual science you wouldn't be making such uninformed comments.
4) You should no what the atmospheric concentrations are.
5) You should know what Earth was like the last time those concentrations existed.
6) If you knew, you wouldn't sleep nights.
7) And you'd be out in the streets demanding that someone do something.
8) It would only be rational.
9) There is no doubt as to what the field scientists are witnessing, and the implications.
10) Any doubt you might possess would be borne out of your own ignorance.

With all that you have said and listed above: do you support the use of nuclear power?

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by aerohead

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/ke...itarian-crisis

They have worked in Kenya since the 60s. They say this drought is not the root of the problem. The problem is population.

This is true all across the globe.

So, how do you control population?

Demand that all women be educated! That is all you need to do! Education is the best contraceptive.

[freebeard]

What if the Next Ice Age Started on Time?

I concur with the question, but question his time frame. He assumes a 10,000-year cycle, whereas I think it's more like 12,300 years.