Effects of climate change on agriculture in tropic

Should the world be a static and unchanging place? When has it ever been that? You better learn to adapt and change or you will not survive. Unless you are in a class that is protected no matter what poor choices you make.
 
Coel - Your argument boils down to "it's too complicated, so **** it". Sorry, that holds no water with me or many others. Hopefully as we move forward in time, more people will become educated and want to be good stewards for the planet we have.

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
JohnnyM,

I have a question. What is our proper motivation in thinking about new climate policies? Should we strive to be good stewards? Or should we aim our policy toward producing a survivable environment?

Because it seems to me that, ultimately, these two goals are mutually exclusive. I’m thinking specifically of the coming ice age, which the geologic record suggests could begin at any minute. Clearly the ice ages are natural events, and it is just as clear that it “doesn’t bode well for our future” from the standpoint of survivability. In such a case, would you advocate policies that sought to alter the natural course of events by inducing warming? And if so, wouldn’t you then be at war with nature, and wouldn’t you then be the very opposite of a “good steward”?

Or would you, in that case, argue that we should minimize man’s impact on the natural change with which we were confronted? And in doing so, wouldn’t you be arguing in favor of allowing that which “doesn’t bode well” for our future?

For me, this dilemma begs the question of what we really mean when we invoke the image of the “good steward”. Clearly this cannot mean that we are about preserving the environment in its true natural state, complete with its cataclysms and horrors. We are forced to concede that to be a good steward means to commit ourselves to the science of manipulating nature to stay as we have known it to be when it was beneficial to us. Or, as an alternative, it means we should commit ourselves to the science of manipulating nature to become what we need it to be in order for it to be beneficial to us and our children and so forth.

That’s where the good steward metaphor ultimately leads. To me it sounds extremely expensive and naïve. Not only that, but it seems likely as not to provoke nature’s wrath in the form of some unintended consequence that was far beyond our predictive powers.
 
there are too many people on the planet. really, that's it. don't worry, an event will occur that gets rid of a good portion of folks in due time.
 
But that's a different thing. Even if I accept your account of what a theory is, and even if I accept your highly debatable standard of scientific consensus, we are still left with the problem that any theory about climate change lacks the overarching framework of a more general climate theory, within which it would become far more substantial.
 
I've read the things posted by alarmists in the various threads over the last few years. I imagine at least some of that has got to be considered "primary literature". However, if I missed the one where the general theory of climate behavior was explained, then please direct me to that source.
 
You're correct about the term "alarmist"; it does carry more connotation than I would prefer. But in all fairness, there's really no proper term to indicate that particular group of people. In the old days, you could refer to them as "warmists", but they've moved on from global warming to climate change. But "changists" doesn't really work as a word: it would need to be rendered "change-ists" to prevent pronunciation confusion, and that's more trouble than it's worth.

"Those advancing the theory that climate change is a major threat to the habitability of the planet" would, I suppose, be the most accurate identifier, but who wants to write all that every time the issue comes up. Not me.

The "alarmist school" is about the best we're going to do. Those who belong to it are, in fact, attempting to sound the alarm. Would you prefer I call them "millennialists" or maybe "the apocalyptics"? Actually that could be the name of a band...The Apocalyptics...hmmm.

Anyway, I don't want you to think that I used the term without looking for better alternatives. I tried. Alarmist is the best term I've come up with so far, but you're welcome to suggest others.
 
Because even if all scientists who studied the climate believed in it, there would still be many who believe in it who are not scientists, and also there are many scientists who study other things besides climate.

And even if I overlooked those problems, the full phrase "scientists concerned about the effects man is having on his environment" is way too long to be practical. And so "alarmists" it is.
 
IRC - Where am I being hypocritical and what exactly is ironically hilarious about what I asked? Did you think I was being rhetorical? I was not.

You routinely post opinions that are contrary to the widely accepted scientific theories. What else could those opinions be based on but your gut feelings? They are obviously not based on the accepted science. This is not to say that science is infallible, but you give no credible reasons for your opinions. You're free to have opinions without credible evidence, but that would lead us to believe you came up with those opinions based not on facts, but on your gut feelings. Otherwise, you would provide facts to substantiate your opinion.

A specific example is your belief that warming could actually turn out to be a net benefit from an agricultural standpoint since new areas will becoming suitable for farming. This is contrary to the widely held scientific theory, yet it's what you think. You don't support your belief with links to any studies, research, or scientific articles. So how else are we to suppose you came to that conclusion but on your gut feeling? Please explain that to me.

Feel free to accuse me of being hypocritical, but please be prepared to back your **** up.
 
Because Mr M, I have in fact read and learned and done my own research into the science and have found it be be irretrievably biased in favor of a predetermined conclusion.

Over and over and over. I don't have to repeat what we all know to be true.

You, on the other hand, have clearly just resigned yourself to believing the Party line and like a good little Lefty parrot just keep spouting the same old nonsense.

You're entitled to do that, absolutely. We all have lives that don't involve HornFans and the IPCC and so you pick your position and just ride it.

"But the scientists ALL agree... Blah Blah Blah."

No, JohnnyM, they don't.

But you don't know that, do you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top