Holocaust ... and other forms of Denial

[Schmelzer]

All of them, collectively.

There is no such animal as a collective peer-reviewed paper.

Again I have to deal with your ignorance? 1) See any entry level ecology or biology textbook.

Yes, once you make claims about me, you have to deal with my "ignorance" and to prove that I'm wrong. Quoting some public domain "entry level ecology or biology textbook" should not be a problem, not?

This is basic biology, not a matter of recent peer-reeviewed research - animals and plants useful and beneficial to humans tend to have large seeds, costly investments in various chemicals or structures that require particular environmental circumstances (such as established fungi), and other barriers to rapid deployment or expansion into higher latitudes/altitudes. Weeds and pests spread, are adapted to colonizing quickly (that's how they got to be weeds and pests); beneficial plants don't and aren't. Biology 101, introduction to ecology.

And how is this related to the question that the regions were they can, successfully, survive change with an increase in average temperature or average cloudiness/precipitation/CO2 levels? How does this prevent humans, knowing about these changes, from supporting the good animals and plants in various ways? How does this lead to the strange extreme result that only the bad organisms spread, and the good organisms not at all, which is what the media presentation suggests?

2) I have several times now described, and named, areas of immediate concern where heat+humidity waves non-linearly amplified under AGW have too large a chance (non-negligible) of very soon exceeding the lethal limit for humans and their domestic animals and severely damaging their domestic plants. These include large areas in southern and lowlying Pakistan, the Yangtze River valley, and a couple of others, where heatwaves already create serious hardships. This is repetition.

Yes, you repeat yourself, and completely without proving me wrong on anything. Because I have never suggested that there will be no bad consequences of climate change, I have not even claimed there will be more good than bad consequences. I have even written, explicitly, that every climate change requires investments to adapt to the new climate.

You try to suggest that your trivialities would somehow show that I'm wrong - which is complete nonsense. All you provide are arguments that harmful effects are more important - but the point was that there are no positive effects at all. And this in a situation where it is quite clear that the opposite - cooling toward an ice age - would be much more harmful.

The usual "you are stupid" repetitions disposed.

By whom? Not by the AGW researchers, not by the IPCC, not by the science. Not even by the media I read.

Ok, you read media in some other universe, where NYT writes 63% pro Trump, and the media write a fair amount about the positive effects of global warming.

So you have now in this thread, within a few posts, denied posting as you did on hot temperatures and agriculture , denied posting as you did on GMOs, and so forth. And for my memory, I get called a liar.

If you have hallucinations, I'm sorry for you. But as long as you don't quote my postings about GMO which support your claim, you will be call a liar.

 

[Michael]

A self-identified "Progressive" professor was forced off campus by nutty far Left Progressive Socialists:
Students at Evergreen State College harass Science Professor who refused to participate in no-whites ‘Day of Absence’.

Over the last 72 hours, students have taken over a small liberal arts college in Washington state, and only one adult has tried to stop them. Students at Evergreen State College in Olympia, who filmed their exploits and posted the videos on social media, have occupied and barricaded the library, shouting down anyone who disagrees with them or shows insufficient passion for racial justice.

Biology professor Bret Weinstein was berated by dozens of students outside of his classroom Tuesday morning for refusing to participate in an event in which white people were invited to leave campus for a day. Now, he says police have told him to hold his classes off campus due to safety concerns.

Things are “out of control at Evergreen,” he said.


“Police told me protesters stopped cars yesterday, demanding information about occupants,” Mr. Weinstein told The Washington Times. “They believe I was being sought. It appears that the campus has been under the effective control of protesters since 9:30 a.m. Tuesday. Police are on lockdown, hamstrung by the college administration. Students, staff and faculty are not safe.”​

--o--
Hey iceaura, looks like you have some friends in Washington State.
LOL

Just to recap: All evidence suggests different groups of humans evolved and were selected under different environmental selection pressures, resulting in different mental dispositions. This includes, but is not limited to, IQ. Even simple brain volume measurements show that along with their higher IQ, E. Asians have the largest brain volume of all populations of humans(about 150 cc larger than 'white' people). That's a lot of extra brain material.

Because IQ is a measure of brain function, what is observed in technologically advanced societies, is that high IQ is rewarded with rent-seeking status and thus socioeconomic improvement. Which is why E. Asians dominate academia, are way over represented in IT, come from some of the most (actually, the most) technologically advanced societies and are rewarded with a lot more opportunity and money when they migrate to other nations where they outcompete the local low-IQ population (see: Silicon Valley).

Here's the problem with racists, which iceaura would be defined under as he is peddling Critical Race Theory (this has been debunked time and time again, as evidenced by white Jewish minorities and yellow E. Asian minorities), is these racists eventually lead to a total breakdown of society along "racial" lines. Of course, Marxisn/Progressive Socialism goes hand in glove (like lock and key) with Authoritarianism. These Progressive Statist Authoritarians eat-sh*t-and-breath violence, that's how they 'solve' social problems: through violence. Which we're seeing evidence of more and more each and every day. The counter punch will be a backlash as white nationalists begin recruiting white people who would have otherwise been normally going about their business doing something productive.

You're not going to hold a "No Whites Day" while blaming 'white people' for the low socioeconomic status of black people without eventually pissing off a lot of otherwise normal white people.

Blaming white people for something they have no control over may make (some of) them feel guilty (for awhile - and that while is coming to a close), but it isn't going to the change the brain volume of yellows, whites, reds, blacks or blues. It isn't going to change the genes people carry. And it most certainly isn't going to make Microsoft want to hire a bunch of low IQ software engineers. That's never going to happen. Oh, and E. Asians don't live in a guilt society, they are never going to en-masse feel guilty, they're also not interested in mass immigration (thank the gods).

What does the "Science" say? It says that if you control for IQ, there's no black or white or yellow problem. There's a problem with Socialism which is rewarding high-IQ people with rent-seeking opportunities through regulatory capture.


So? One more time iceaura, do you support the requirement of State licencing to practice medicine or do you support a free-market in healthcare?



As an aside: It seems to me, that over the next two centuries, European guilt culture will be fully and completely replaced by E. Asian dominance and shame culture will become the norm for most of the world. Probably at that point, the average IQ in Europe will be the high 80s. I also would expect Europeans will be fighting religious wars again. Thank you Progressive Statism, you've destroyed what was probably the best culture on Earth. Again.

 

[Michael]

I see old Confederate monuments are being removed, the South is not my culture, not my State, and I don't care. If Southerner's don't care to mark their historical war heroes with a monument, that's their business.

But, mark my words, in the near future, the monuments in DC will similarly be removed. I have no doubt that statues of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington will be eradicated, along with their history. Soon thereafter, I suspect we could begin voting on State succession.

 

[iceaura]

There is no such animal as a collective peer-reviewed paper.

There is such a thing as denial of them all, collectively - as you demonstrate here at very great length.

Quoting some public domain "entry level ecology or biology textbook" should not be a problem, not?

Of course it's a problem. They are hundreds of pages long, with the relevant information distributed throughout.

And how is this related to the question that the regions were they can, successfully, survive change with an increase in average temperature or average cloudiness/precipitation/CO2 levels?

Such changes are taken for granted. They are mostly negative, however, for the "good" organisms.

How does this prevent humans, knowing about these changes, from supporting the good animals and plants in various ways?

It doesn't. The incoming loss of the boreal forest over much of its range in Minnesota, for example, is being addressed by a sophisticated program of identifying potential oases and establishing refugee populations of the good plants and animals where they can hold on. But it's both expensive and small, compared with the loss.

How does this lead to the strange extreme result that only the bad organisms spread, and the good organisms not at all, which is what the media presentation suggests?

You mean mostly the bad spread and they spread rapidly, while the good spread much less often and more slowly, and that's what you read.

One short and partial answer is that weeds and pests and diseases are bad, and more capable of spreading rapidly during climate change, for exactly the same reasons. Their ability to spread like that is a big part of what's wrong with them.

That's just the beginning. Take classes, read the books, study the subject, or accept the judgment of those who have.

Or accept the fact that if you insist on making ignorant and wrong assumptions the basis of your arguments, your conclusions are very likely to be garbage as well.

Ok, you read media in some other universe, where NYT writes 63% pro Trump, and the media write a fair amount about the positive effects of global warming.

Pro-Trump during the campaign. Positive meaning biased against the negative reports and findings.

Yep. That I do.

With the side comment that the "positive" stuff about global warming is mostly either carefully spun to look more positive (like the trees spreading), or carefully spun to look less negative, than the science indicates. There isn't much actually positive to say about AGW reality, in the world I live in, so aside from the diligent spin efforts like that it's not common in itself - not nearly as common as negative news.

But once one denies the reality of AGW, of course the lack of news about whatever unreal setup has been mentally substituted becomes a problem and a sign of something being wrong. Explanations will be necessary, and humans are imaginative creatures.

Absurd denial leads to much more trouble than it is in itself.

 

[iceaura]

All you provide are arguments that harmful effects are more important - but the point was that there are no positive effects at all.

No, that wasn't your point. Your point was that the comparative lack of positive news about AGW in the media was an indication of media bias, which you used to deduce a similar bias in the political pressure on the actual science. You described that as "obvious".

You were wrong. The lack of news about the benefits of AGW is a reasonably accurate reflection of the lack of benefits, and the bias from political pressure on the science is in the opposite direction (at least in the US) - and having the opposite effects, apparently - than you deduced.

You are denying AGW. That's your central problem.

 

[iceaura]

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/03/23/covert-ops-addressing-racism-long-term/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4313711/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2862912/
Why did I post that?
Because this:

What does the "Science" say? It says that if you control for IQ, there's no black or white or yellow problem.

Which informs us that our racial problems stem from our refusal to face the fact that black people have low IQs.
And this:

Here's the problem with racists, which iceaura would be defined under as he is peddling Critical Race Theory (this has been debunked time and time again, as evidenced by white Jewish minorities and yellow E. Asian minorities), is these racists eventually lead to a total breakdown of society along "racial" lines.

Which warns us that if we continue as we are, at some time in the future we run the risk of creating a society that has broken down along racial lines - imagine that.
And this:

Just to recap: All evidence suggests different groups of humans evolved and were selected under different environmental selection pressures, resulting in different mental dispositions. This includes, but is not limited to, IQ. Even simple brain volume measurements show that along with their higher IQ, E. Asians have the largest brain volume of all populations of humans(about 150 cc larger than 'white' people). That's a lot of extra brain material.

Reminds me of the story about the Danish anthropologists - at one time there were measurements showing Danes had the biggest heads in Europe, and the Danes developed the theory that since intelligence was strongly correlated with brain size, Danes were the smartest people in Europe. But what about the world? So they set out to measure heads from all over - and so they went to Greenland, which the Danes owned, and measured the heads. But the heads of the native hunter-gatherer population of Greenland were bigger than the heads of their European overlords, the Danes. So they stopped measuring heads.

It also reminds me of that old joke, usually ethnic, about how to get a nose-picking blank out of a tree - wave at him.

Like the guy in the joke, your handwaving in defense of Jim Crow denial has caused you to fall out of the bigot tree, and apparently you are determined to hit every single branch on the way down.

And all that crap explains your denial of Jim Crow how, exactly?

If Chinese people have bigger brains, stereotype threat and lead poisoning and redlining and all the rest will have had no significant effect on black people in the US - is that really going to be your argument forever?

 

[Schmelzer]

No, that wasn't your point. Your point was that the comparative lack of positive news about AGW in the media was an indication of media bias, which you used to deduce a similar bias in the political pressure on the actual science. You described that as "obvious".
You were wrong. The lack of news about the benefits of AGW is a reasonably accurate reflection of the lack of benefits, and the bias from political pressure on the science is in the opposite direction (at least in the US) - and having the opposite effects, apparently - than you deduced.
You are denying AGW. That's your central problem.

Yes, the total lack of positive outcomes from a global warming is obviously nonsensical, and, therefore, this total lack is evidence of political pressure on the media. Which usually corresponds to a similar pressure on science too.

This does not mean that this pressure on science is successful. If it is successful, and what are the resulting distortions, is something one would have to establish in a detailed research of scientific literature. So, the results of this pressure are far from obvious.

While you have some time ago argued that even some of the media present some positive outcomes too, you now start to argue that there is some real lack of benefits? This already sounds like you try every logical possibility in contradiction with what I claim, and claim that this is really the case, without any base in reality. In other words, iceaura facts ....

Whatever, the real situation is quite simple and obvious: A global warming will have a large scale of influences, as positive, as negative. Given that there are actually large regions which are almost or completely inhabitable because of too low temperature or not enough precipitation, but essentially none which are inhabitable because of too high temperature and too high precipitation, one can expect that a global warming, combined with one average more precipitation, will be better than a reverse global cooling with less precipitation. But there are a lot of different reasons to expect that there will be, nonetheless, more bad than good consequences of global warming. So, to study the expected outcome is a difficult problem, and requires a lot of scientific work, which I have not done, and, therefore, do not evaluate.

Nonetheless, if science would really tell us that there are no positive outcomes at all, this would be a clear enough evidence that science itself is heavily distorted.

Given your behavior here, I would not expect that such an extreme position is what real science claims. But in this extreme case I would, indeed, become a denier of that "science".

Of course it's a problem. They are hundreds of pages long, with the relevant information distributed throughout.

So, what I "deny" is not what is explicitly written in any peer-reviewed paper or any non-freak textbook, but some fantasy iceaura extracts from all this by politically correct reading or so.

Such changes are taken for granted. They are mostly negative, however, for the "good" organisms.

Which is, again, your fantasy.

It doesn't. The incoming loss of the boreal forest over much of its range in Minnesota, for example, is being addressed by a sophisticated program of identifying potential oases and establishing refugee populations of the good plants and animals where they can hold on. But it's both expensive and small, compared with the loss. You mean mostly the bad spread and they spread rapidly, while the good spread much less often and more slowly, and that's what you read. One short and partial answer is that weeds and pests and diseases are bad, and more capable of spreading rapidly during climate change, for exactly the same reasons. Their ability to spread like that is a big part of what's wrong with them.

Emphasis mine. Oh, I see, this is the point. These are private values of some green fanatics, who don't like all those successful species we see everywhere every day, these are bad, they prefer rare species, those unable to spread. Biodiversity is their quasi-religious value, and the definition of "good" is simply "near extinction". The difference between good and bad I presuppose here is, instead, much more pragmatic. Good are those species useful for humans, used in agriculture. And they have a big advantage that humans can and do support them. If humans observe that now somewhere in Siberia there appear good conditions for raising Kiwi or so, they will "spread" to Siberia immediately. Why I use here such a definition of good and bad, instead of supporting biodiversity? Because we are talking about things claimed to be catastrophic. And if we have a catastrophic scenario, biodiversity is not what matters.

Just to prevent yet another predictable distortion: I recognize very well that biodiversity has been already heavily damaged by the proliferation of that particular ape species homo sapiens sapiens, and it is reasonable to support biodiversity. And climate changes have, indeed, some natural tendency to reduce biodiversity, because they endanger highly specialized species which are specialists for a given small environment and a given climate in this environment. But, sorry, this care about biodiversity is useful, but not what is really important for survival, and has nothing to do with the fact that those species which would be really important for human survival will spread, because explicitly supported by humans.

BTW, given that you have not provided neither any evidence for my "GMO denial", nor any apology, you are a liar.

 

[Syne]

In other words, iceaura facts ....

Ah, good term...I may have to borrow it.

 

[iceaura]

Yes, the total lack of positive outcomes from a global warming is obviously nonsensical, and, therefore, this total lack is evidence of political pressure on the media. Which usually corresponds to a similar pressure on science too.

It's not a total lack, but a small percentage quite in accordance with physical reality.
Ands it's not nonsensical - that's a denial of the physical reality of AGW. It's probably going to be overwhelmingly negative, with very little positive, according to the odds of the current physical reality.
And your deduction of a "similar pressure" is then based in a delusion brought about by false assumptions. So no surprise you got it wrong.

While you have some time ago argued that even some of the media present some positive outcomes too, you now start to argue that there is some real lack of benefits?

I make two fairly clear and simultaneously true claims, and you are puzzled for some reason.

Nonetheless, if science would really tell us that there are no positive outcomes at all, this would be a clear enough evidence that science itself is heavily distorted.

You appear to be setting up a strawman of "no positive outcomes". Why? That's nothing anybody here has claimed, and something I have specifically denied especially for the science (with examples), and you are replying to me.

Whatever, the real situation is quite simple and obvious: A global warming will have a large scale of influences, as positive, as negative. Given that there are actually large regions which are almost or completely inhabitable because of too low temperature or not enough precipitation, but essentially none which are inhabitable because of too high temperature and too high precipitation, one can expect that a global warming, combined with one average more precipitation, will be better than a reverse global cooling with less precipitation.

That is a denial of AGW. {you wanted "uninhabitable"}
Ignorance leads you to post such nonsense. But why don't you realize that you are ignorant?

These are private values of some green fanatics, who don't like all those successful species we see everywhere every day, these are bad, they prefer rare species, those unable to spread.

Once again, you get the whole scene backwards - comically so, in this case.
Green fanatics did not invent the label "bad" for weeds, pests, and diseases - quite the contrary: "Green fanatics" are the ones telling you malaria mosquitos have a natural and joyful role in the diversity of life and we should never, never wipe them out. That kind of stuff has nothing to do with this thread.

The sudden spread and outbreak of rare pests, diseases, and weeds, is predicted to be a common downside of AGW, btw. This prediction is based on them being held in check currently by factors that will not spread as quickly along with them.

The difference between good and bad I presuppose here is, instead, much more pragmatic. Good are those species useful for humans, used in agriculture..

Yes, of course. That's a big part of my definition here. That's the definition everyone is using, including me and the AGW researchers (they include other aspects of "good", such as lumber and ornamentation and land stabilization and water filtration and pollinator support etc). So reread my posts with better information, and try to make more sense in your replies in the future.

And they have a big advantage that humans can and do support them. If humans observe that now somewhere in Siberia there appear good conditions for raising Kiwi or so, they will "spread" to Siberia immediately

Assuming you mean the fruit. That would be nice. In the reality of AGW, however, that is going to be rare and small compared with the loss of good Kiwi conditions where they are already.
Not speaking specifically of Kiwis, of course - of "good" plants and animals generally, with Kiwi fruit standing in for a general problem. I doubt it's true of Kiwi fruit, actually - they are probably safe where they are.
But when we lose the river delta rice farming, for example, there's nowhere for it to go just because things got warmer on average.

And if we have a catastrophic scenario, biodiversity is not what matters.

More falsehoods from ignorance. Will you ever learn to not post when you don't know what you are talking about?

 

[Michael]

And all that crap explains your denial of Jim Crow how, exactly?

Again, here is the 'Science you continuously try to deny: Thirty Years of Research on Race Difference In Cognitive Ability (2005):

An original analysis of 11,878 youths (including 3,022 Blacks) from the 12-year National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. It found that most 17-year-olds with high scores on the Armed Forces Qualification Test, regardless of ethnic background, went on to occupational success by their late 20s and early 30s, whereas those with low scores were more inclined to welfare dependency. The study also found that the average IQ for African Americans was lower than those for Latino, White, Asian, and Jewish Americans (85, 89, 103, 106, and 113, respectively; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994, pp. 273–278).​

Again, once IQ scores are controlled for, your Critical Race Theory crap goes right out the window along with your Jim Crow red herring. When high IQ African's come over to the USA, they are successful, more successful than black Americans, and the reason why is because they generally (on average) have higher IQ's - higher than the average white, whom they outcompete as well. Not to mention, there may be populations of Africans with higher than 110 average IQs. As the research data is made available through peer-review, then that will be discovered.

The IQ of Africans or black Americans is not really the point. The point is your Science Denial. Worse still, not only do you deny the evidence, but you also make up out of whole-cloth some asinine theory about how 'white people' are magically using racism to lower the IQ of black people living in the USA. This is what happens when people deny science, they go on to make up crazy half-arsed beliefs in line with their cognitive biases, most often based on some sort of set of religious tenets, in your case: Progressivism.

This is why we see today, this very day, a professor of science has been chased out of a publically funded university for having the gall not to walk off campus in support of some far-left social-Marxist propaganda called 'no white day'.

How pathetic. This is why I reiterate again, there is no Nation called America. Those people died long ago. America is dead, and my guess is, the USA will not be long lived from here going forward. Trying to use Statism to hold people together has been shown historically, not to work so well, and not without a lot of bloodletting.

 

[Schmelzer]

You appear to be setting up a strawman of "no positive outcomes". Why?

This is what I observe in the German as well as other mass media: There are no reports at all about anything positive. Of course, this may be an accidental effect, given that my seeing them is accidental and not regular. But this is what I observe in the "reality" of the media.

That's nothing anybody here has claimed, and something I have specifically denied especially for the science (with examples), and you are replying to me.

In this case, there would be no reason for you to attack me. But you do it, for whatever reason you name me an "AGW denier".

But why don't you realize that you are ignorant?

I have never claimed to have a lot of knowledge about AGW, and, correspondingly, have not made many claims. Those claims I have made - namely that there are also positive outcomes of AGW - you attack heavily, but even you don't completely deny them.

The sudden spread and outbreak of rare pests, diseases, and weeds, is predicted to be a common downside of AGW, btw.

Yes, and I have nothing to object here. With global warming, there will be, in the average, more life, and therefore also more pests, diseases, and weeds, given they are also forms of life.

Yes, of course. That's a big part of my definition here. That's the definition everyone is using, including me and the AGW researchers (they include other aspects of "good", such as lumber and ornamentation and land stabilization and water filtration and pollinator support etc). So reread my posts with better information, and try to make more sense in your replies in the future.

Ok, fine, in this case I'm unable to make sense of your claim "Their ability to spread like that is a big part of what's wrong with them." Their ability to spread is what makes them living, with good chances to survive and spread, winners of the competition named evolution.

In the reality of AGW, however, that is going to be rare and small compared with the loss of good Kiwi conditions where they are already.

And I see no reason for this.

But when we lose the river delta rice farming, for example, there's nowhere for it to go just because things got warmer on average.

Some loss of territory for agriculture because of an increase of the sea level is, of course, not nice. And there may be a big problem for the local population to go. But why do you think that there would be no new places for rice farming if there is, on average, more precipitation as well as higher temperature? No river deltas in the world which are now too cold for rice? No big rivers in regions now too cold for rice?

If you think something is false, give arguments why it is false.

 

[iceaura]

This is what I observe in the German as well as other mass media

Well, stop observing the damn media then, if you keep getting fooled by it.

I have never claimed to have a lot of knowledge about AGW, and, correspondingly, have not made many claims.

You deny AGW, the reality of it. You claim legitimacy for illegitimate doubt of the basic physical reality and its implications, which is exactly the denial position promoted by the AGW deniers as financed by the Kochs and Mercers and Scaifes and so forth in the US. You have also posted several of their financed talking points used to deflect and obscure that physical reality in the US media - such as the effects of CO2 boosting being logarithmic, and more water in the air meaning more beneficial rain.

Ok, fine, in this case I'm unable to make sense of your claim "Their ability to spread like that is a big part of what's wrong with them." Their ability to spread is what makes them living, with good chances to survive and spread, winners of the competition named evolution.

Yes, they are winners. They are also bad organisms - pests and weeds and diseases - in part because they are such winners. Rare plants are almost never pests, rare and isolated diseases are not a threat as long as they remain rare and isolated. And the plants that benefit humans are not usually winners like that - even with human help they are vulnerable, because their natural growth and winning abilities have been sacrificed to production of human benefit. They are specialized, niche organisms whose niche has been expanded at great human cost. It's not the "green fanatics" who most celebrate narrow-niche rarities and odd combinations of feature - it's farmers. And now those niches are seriously threatened.

And I see no reason for this.

So? The people who have done the research and published the findings do see the reasons for this. Listen to them.

Some loss of territory for agriculture because of an increase of the sea level is, of course, not nice. And there may be a big problem for the local population to go. But why do you think that there would be no new places for rice farming if there is, on average, more precipitation as well as higher temperature?

Wet rice farming on river deltas - the most productive kind.
For one thing, because it takes hundreds, even thousands, of years to form a suitable delta. We're talking about a good share of the entire country of Bangladesh, for example. The AGW sea level rise is arriving too fast and too high, the extra storm surges and peak tides amplify it nonlinearly. (https://judithcurry.com/2013/10/07/bangladesh-sea-level-rise/ This is a denier site link - your political filter should let it through). Meanwhile, the value of precipitation lies in its distribution - in time and space - as much as in its total. More rain and more drought can happen in the same place, more rain can simply destroy farmland without any benefit at all, more rain can mean increased variability of rainfall, and so forth. And this is in fact what has been predicted as most likely, as well as what seems to be happening.
For example, my region is getting more rain - but some of it is coming in the winter, when it does more harm than good for crops, and much in surges that make tending big fields with machinery impossible at critical times or damage critical development stages. And it is distributed more tightly - some areas are in years of drought, next to areas with flooded fields and winter freeze and diseases of excessive cold weather moisture. And this is almost exactly the prediction of the AGW modelers ten or fifteen years ago - although its onset is early.
More rain has proved no benefit so far to my area - and we're actually getting it, unlike the SW US which is not.

No river deltas in the world which are now too cold for rice? No big rivers in regions now too cold for rice?

Not significant.
The sea is rising in the cold regions as well. And warm summer temperatures do not make year 'round warm rivers. And the deltas of cold rivers are mostly sand and rock rather than the rich silty mud of millennia draining tropical forests.
The new warmth will kill the salmon and smelt and eel runs of the north centuries before it will enable rice paddy farming on river deltas.

And so forth. Why do you imagine these issues of yours have not been considered by the AGW alarmists? Why do you deny AGW on the basis of questions that competent science would have answered before sounding this kind of alarm?

 

[Schmelzer]

Well, stop observing the damn media then, if you keep getting fooled by it.

As if it would matter if you think I'm fooled by it.

You deny AGW, the reality of it. You claim legitimacy for illegitimate doubt of the basic physical reality and its implications, which is exactly the denial position promoted by the AGW deniers as financed by the Kochs and Mercers and Scaifes and so forth in the US.

There is no such animal as illegitimate doubt of any claims about reality. Except in a totalitarian, Orwellian world, where to doubt the Party line is illegitimate.

You have also posted several of their financed talking points used to deflect and obscure that physical reality in the US media - such as the effects of CO2 boosting being logarithmic, and more water in the air meaning more beneficial rain.

Of course, more water in the air means less rain. And, much more important, using information from evil sources, which do not support the Party line, is evil.

And the plants that benefit humans are not usually winners like that - even with human help they are vulnerable, because their natural growth and winning abilities have been sacrificed to production of human benefit. They are specialized, niche organisms whose niche has been expanded at great human cost.

They are winners because of symbiosis with humans. Great human costs? So what, given that humans receive also great gains from them?

It's not the "green fanatics" who most celebrate narrow-niche rarities and odd combinations of feature - it's farmers. And now those niches are seriously threatened.

Some may be threatened. Others become greater. Farmers can travel, and start farming at different places. Or farmers at different places observe that, with the new climate, it is now their region which becomes a rare niche for a certain good organism.

So? The people who have done the research and published the findings do see the reasons for this. Listen to them.

There will be a lot of particular cases where this might be the case. There will be a lot of other cases. I see no reason to expect something negative in general. Except for the effect that change requires new investments.

Meanwhile, the value of precipitation lies in its distribution - in time and space - as much as in its total.

You know, there are a lot of places where what matters is simply the total. Because the total is much too low today for any agriculture. Then, there are a lot of very old well-known techniques how to handle a large variability of rainfall, and ways to protect farmland from losses.

For example, my region is getting more rain - but some of it is coming in the winter, when it does more harm than good for crops, and much in surges that make tending big fields with machinery impossible at critical times or damage critical development stages. And it is distributed more tightly - some areas are in years of drought, next to areas with flooded fields and winter freeze and diseases of excessive cold weather moisture. And this is almost exactly the prediction of the AGW modelers ten or fifteen years ago - although its onset is early.

You know, one of the greatest human civilizations appeared in a region where some areas where completely drought, while all the other areas were regularly completely flooded.

Why do you imagine these issues of yours have not been considered by the AGW alarmists?

They may have considered a lot of things. But if you are an alarmist, you want to find only the bad. That one can always find something bad is trivial. Even more, if one predicts the future.

Some level of such alarmism is even useful - it is much better that 5 alarms will be raised, with 4 of them being fakes, and only one where the reaction to the alarm really helps to prevent harm, than no alarm at all, and big harm caused by this one thing one would have better cared about. The good things are, instead, nothing which needs much care. If new possibilities really appear, they can be used anyway, even if they appear completely unexpected.

The problem appears if this alarmism if further enhanced by the media, with political aims.

 

[iceaura]

As if it would matter if you think I'm fooled by it.

You keep posting foolish things that exactly match what the marketing pros trying to sell AGW denial have been spreading around. What are we supposed to think?

There is no such animal as illegitimate doubt of any claims about reality.

Says the absurd denialist - the creationist, the flat-earther, the believer in faked moon landings, the Holocaust doubter.

Of course, more water in the air means less rain.

It can, yes. More likely, according the AGW folks, it means different distribution of rain - in time, in space. But you posted that as if it had been a claim of mine, carefully omitting the central and key qualifier "beneficial" - something you do a lot in these matters, strawmanning to hide gross error of reasoning on your part.

I see no reason to expect something negative in general.

We know, already, that you are ignorant in this matter and cannot be expected to see things. Why do you keep posting that?
The people who have done the research, and know what they are talking about, see many reasons to expect almost entirely negative consequences from AGW. Why do you refuse to listen to them?

You know, there are a lot of places where what matters is simply the total.

And those places will be hurt by the temperatures only, or drought. Lucky them. They are rare - distribution matters almost everywhere, and with almost every crop.

Some may be threatened. Others become greater. Farmers can travel, and start farming at different places. Or farmers at different places observe that, with the new climate, it is now their region which becomes a rare niche for a certain good organism

This is a question of reality - of what actually will happen, not what is abstractly possible. Your possibilities there are very unlikely - not at all the way to bet, in physical reality they are likely to be unusual. The rice farmers of the great deltas the ocean is rising into - the Mekong, the Ganges, various Chinese - probably will have nowhere to move to. Their production will be lost - irreplaceably. The farmers of the new drought zones will more often than not be in the Syrian farmers's position (many AGW folks point to the Syrian conflict as a likely climate change war) - to emigrate will be to launch war. Their production will be lost as well, and the wars they start will reduce production even more. And so forth.

Besides, farming well and productively does not migrate easily - it takes a while to establish prosperous and reliable farming in a new place, and the climate is going to be changing all this time under AGW. Stability, which the farmer needs above all, is hundreds of years in the future now.

Also, AGW will drive human migration across latitude and altitude - the most difficult kind, and the least likely to work well. Find the major farming regions and look uphill or polar - see the problems?

You know, one of the greatest human civilizations appeared in a region where some areas where completely drought, while all the other areas were regularly completely flooded.

So?

They may have considered a lot of things. But if you are an alarmist, you want to find only the bad.

You are not paying attention. They became alarmists by reporting their actual findings. The findings came first. The alarm came from their reporting those findings.

The problem appears if this alarmism if further enhanced by the media, with political aims.

There is also a problem if actual findings are dismissed as media bias, and the reality of them discounted as political distortion, because of the influence of plutocrats with economic aims.

That second problem is the one documented here, in this thread about absurd denial. The role of economic interest in marketing and promoting absurd denial has received much less attention than it deserves, so far, and the fossil fuel industry outranks even nuclear power and US military contracting in this arena.

 

[Schmelzer]

You keep posting foolish things that exactly match what the marketing pros trying to sell AGW denial have been spreading around. What are we supposed to think?

I do not care about what you think, I care about how you distort what I say.

Says the absurd denialist - the creationist, the flat-earther, the believer in faked moon landings, the Holocaust doubter.

No, the absurd denialists make explicit claims which are wrong. They do not doubt - they have an opinion (except for your new invention of the "Holocaust doubter").

It can, yes. More likely, according the AGW folks, it means different distribution of rain - in time, in space. But you posted that as if it had been a claim of mine, carefully omitting the central and key qualifier "beneficial" - something you do a lot in these matters, strawmanning to hide gross error of reasoning on your part.

Note that what I propose is a general hypothesis, something about the average. More water in the air leads, in general, in the average, also to more rain. You pick up some particular situations where this does not happen, and present this as if this would falsify the general expectation. (The same technique you apply also in the race-IQ debate, where you like to pick some exceptions, which become visible only if you look at more detailed information, like particular populations instead of a whole race, where one can get the opposite result, as if this would invalidate the average result.) Same for beneficial. More rain is, in the average, beneficial. It may be, in a lot of particular situations, not, no doubt. But in the average it is beneficial. Simply compare the regions with a lot of rain with those with less rain, and compare what is growing there.

The people who have done the research, and know what they are talking about, see many reasons to expect almost entirely negative consequences from AGW. Why do you refuse to listen to them?

Because the "almost entirely negative consequences" are your fantasies, supported by some alarmists, and not serious research. Serious researchers make particular claims about particular predictions, effects and so on. To collect all those which are negative, ignoring all those which are positive, is what alarmists do. As I have explained, it is not even harmful if scientists, studying particular questions, err in direction of alarmism in their particular research domain. Those collection all the negative and ignoring all the positive, to use this to distort public opinion toward believing into a horrible catastrophic scenario, are the dangerous alarmists.

So?

So your catastrophic scenario has not prevented Ancient Egypt, but more or less created it.

You are not paying attention. They became alarmists by reporting their actual findings. The findings came first. The alarm came from the findings. There is also a problem if actual findings are dismissed as media bias, and the reality of them discounted as political distortion, because of the influence of plutocrats with economic aims.

This is how alarmists like you like to present the situation. And, by the way, those who claim that the situation is even worse than presented by even the worst media distortions are a necessary part of hysteria.

 

[iceaura]

Note that what I propose is a general hypothesis, something about the average.

It's wrong. You don't know anything about the average, or what it means, so you mistake its implications.

More water in the air leads, in general, in the average, also to more rain

And you pay no attention to the difference between "average" and "distribution", because you don't know enough to recognize the central significance of distribution.

Because the "almost entirely negative consequences" are your fantasies, supported by some alarmists, and not serious research

You are completely wrong about that. Seriously. Your world of lots of good to go with the bad is imaginary - unlikely to the point of impossible.

No, the absurd denialists make explicit claims which are wrong.

Such as your claim that the political and economic pressure on US scientists is to support AGW alarmism. Or your claim that doubting the AGW claims of the likely range of effects of the CO2 boost, which are the human share of the warming trend and its effects, is a reasonable position. Or your claim that honest media would of necessity have lots of news about benefits from AGW, and good organisms would be as likely to spread as bad under AGW, and more rain would be an obvious benefit no matter how distributed, and the fact that no current place is too hot for agriculture but some are too cold means AGW will not overheat places, and so forth and so on endlessly - a stream of garbage from a position of near-total ignorance.

Serious researchers make particular claims about particular predictions, effects and so on. To collect all those which are negative, ignoring all those which are positive, is what alarmists do.

Nobody has done that in the science side of AGW. The preponderance of negative claims reflects the reality of AGW as discovered by researchers so far, not a bias in the researchers themselves. They report "positive" findings regularly and often - it's just that the proportion of them is pretty small.

On the other hand: denialists, funded by the fossil fuel industry, have done exactly as you describe in their cause - filtered and collected every scrap of positive or spinnable news they could find, and boosted it as much as possible to offset the reports from the field. But unlike the AGW folks they almost never do research of their own, so they're fairly easy to spot and allow for. Plus they make lots of odd little "mistakes".

So your catastrophic scenario has not prevented Ancient Egypt, but more or less created it.

?What are you talking about?

This is how alarmists like you like to present the situation.

With good evidence, in this case. Starting with your repetition of standard denial talking points whose distribution was financed by the Koch brothers, and your description of AGW folks as biasing their research and findings to support undue alarm.

 

[Syne]

 

[iceaura]

There's no safe harbor. Especially not on youtube - the crackpot's library.

Every absurd denial on this forum has at one time or another claimed to be arguing from "science". The Jim Crow deniers, especially, are fixated on that delusion. And actual scientists, or especially mathematicians (and physicists), are not immune once they get into some complex field they don't respect. It's as if they're used to being right, or at least on the side of better logic, and have come to think it's an automatic feature of their reasoning they don't have to check and maintain.

The pattern of the expert mathematician or physicist falling for absurdity in the biological arena, or some historical science like climate change, is frequent enough we should have a name for it.

Biology is difficult and complex. Biology gets no respect.

And this stupid racial IQ argument is getting a hell of a reputation for creating - or maybe revealing - an irrational confidence in the form or vocabulary of science separate from actually knowing what's going on. This goes way back, to the early days of eugenics and the very first IQ tests, and it's not going to go away until biology gets respect.

The short response to Harris is that he doesn't know what's going on, biologically, with IQ. His entire argument is bootless until he has a mechanism, and he is nowhere near having one - he doesn't know what an IQ test measures, he doesn't know what's inherited when IQ is inherited, and he has no respect for the size of that ignorance - the sheer scale of what he doesn't know is invisible to him.

You'd think the example of height would at least give these people a bit of a pause - you don't have to go back very far at all to find serious arguments that Japanese people are genetically shorter than Englishmen, for example, and Spanish people are genetically taller than the Indios in their colonies. Exactly the same arguments as we are seeing for IQ - twin comparisons, regression, the whole shot. And they could have been correct, or partly correct in some way - they were guessing in ignorance, and they could have been lucky. Very lucky.

They weren't. Odds are good the racial IQ believers won't be either. But if they are, they were still wrong to speculate like this, to disrespect the complexity of the world so profoundly.

Meanwhile, back in this particular thread, this IQ wastage is even less forgivable - because it doesn't matter here whether IQ is racially distributed or not: white racism and its effects on black people in the US doesn't magically go away if US "black" people are stupider than US "white" people on average. You can rant about IQ until you're blue in the face and Jim Crow will be there when you finally shut up.

The consequences of terrorism remain, the redlining and segregation still happened, the bad schools and toxic environments and oppressive policing and employment bias and continual abuse still surround the denier and highlight the absurdity of their denial.

 

[Michael]

Syne,

You may find Steve Hsu's blog of interest: Steve Hsu (MSU)

Here's a recent interview uploaded to YT:

Essentially, The long-term analysis of the US military and US government show socioeconomic status to be nearly 100% dependent on IQ alone (which is mostly biological). White and black kids in the lowest 20% socioeconomic quintile, with IQ of 100 +/- 1 pt move into the middle class in an identical overlapping pattern. Anyone can look up the government data and the military releases it's data upon request.

Again, once IQ is controlled for, there is no effect of 'race'. The market effectively sorts based on IQ. Not only IQ, but mainly IQ.

Interestingly, and perhaps most people don't know this, but at around 100 cells IVF embryos can be frozen and stored. They can also be (and are) genetically tested by removing a cell and extracting DNA. This is done regularly to test for diseases in some patients. In 5 - 10 years, it will be possible to also determine height, disposition and yes, even IQ. At that point, any society rich enough to pay for high IQ screening(currently 10,000 per screen) will benefit enormously through the elimination of low IQ associated social costs, like violent rape, murder, violent robbery, etc.... Further, across the same time span, it will be quite easy to gene edit to produce high IQ individuals, so that what was a once in 250-year chance (extremely high IQ) will become an assembly line of perfectly healthy, good disposition, high-IQ humans.

This, in less than 10 years - is easily possible.

Countries like China - will probably use the State to enforce some genetic testing, and then, genetic editing. It's almost guaranteed to happen. Other countries with the means will follow suite. This will leave low IQ countries far far far behind, and thus they'll be given gene editing through charity. At that point? Who knows what will be possible?

All of this in the coming decades. At this point, iceaura will no longer have to worry about his Critical Race Theory, because it will be a defunct theory that was never true, to begin with

Essentially, Marxists lost the economic argument and created horrid cesspool countries through communism, murdering unbelievable numbers of humans, so now they'd doing the same thing to society via social Marxism. And in quick succession, they've already begun attacking themselves, which we see evidenced by white Jewish science professor barely escaping his university campus as he was hunted by SJW looking to beat the sh*t out of him for the crime of not walking off campus on "No Whites Day".

 

[iceaura]

Again, once IQ is controlled for, there is no effect of 'race'.

You posted a direct refutation of that sillyass claim yourself - remember your table of SAT scores vs family income?

The claim is that once you have recognized that black people have low IQs, all that segregation, terrorism, lead poisoning, police oppression, and employment bias either has nothing to do with race, or has no effect on black people.

It wasn't because they were black, see, it was because they were stupid. Either that, or it never happened.

And that's the kind of thinking involved in these absurd denials.