SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the climate-needs-some-serious-debugging dept.
Pests to eat more crops in warmer world
Insects will be at the heart of worldwide crop losses as the climate warms up, predicts a US study. Scientists estimate the pests will be eating 10-25% more wheat, rice and maize across the globe for each one degree rise in climate temperature.
Warming drives insect energy use and prompts them to eat more. Their populations can also increase. This is bound to put pressure on the world's leading cereal crops, says study co-author Curtis Deutsch.
"Insect pests currently consume the equivalent of one out of every 12 loaves of bread (before they ever get made). By the end of this century, if climate change continues unabated, insects will be eating more than two loaves of every 12 that could have been made," the University of Washington, US, researcher told BBC News.
Increase in crop losses to insect pests in a warming climate (DOI: 10.1126/science.aat3466) (DX)
(Score: 4, Informative) by julian on Monday September 10 2018, @12:32AM (5 children)
To the extent that climate change is real, anthropogenic, and incapable of being handled through market-based solutions, then some degree of "social engineering" is called for. This is more commonly called public policy, and good public policy is always well-informed by the relevant scientific experts. One of our political parties rejects the counsel of scientists, engineers, and experts when their advice is inconvenient to their donors, or opposed to their system of pre-Enlightment philosophy.
Another thing this party does is slander the other as, "alarmists."
This is exactly what happens in academia; it would also be what happens in politics too but one of our major political parties elevates a fringe minority of scientists to equal status to their peers who are respected and trusted in their disciplines. A debate between an actual scientist and a crank isn't a debate, even if Republicans insist both sides are valid.
By Republicans.
Doubtful, as scientists are usually the first people to tell you that they've reached the limit of their understanding or expertise.
Doesn't seem like mad up bullshit to me. [skepticalscience.com] And the second point is irrelevant; true information is true even if it's spread by someone who doesn't fully understand it.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 10 2018, @04:17AM
>> The 97% concensus figure is made up bullshit, and most of the loudest proponents are not scientists at all.
> Doesn't seem like mad up bullshit to me. [skepticalscience.com] And the second point is irrelevant; true information is true even if it's spread by someone who doesn't fully understand it.
That's John Cook's site, the author of the paper that started the 97% lie! Messages from their private forum were leaked to the Internet, showing how they decided the conclusion before they started the research, and designed the methodology to show it! The whole thing was a farce and a lie. You're on the Internet--do your homework! Read about it on Anthony Watts' and Judith Curry's sites.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 10 2018, @04:28AM
> To the extent that climate change is real, anthropogenic, and incapable of being handled through market-based solutions, then some degree of "social engineering" is called for. This is more commonly called public policy, and good public policy is always well-informed by the relevant scientific experts. One of our political parties rejects the counsel of scientists, engineers, and experts when their advice is inconvenient to their donors, or opposed to their system of pre-Enlightment philosophy.
It was publicly said, decades ago, that "climate change is a vehicle for policy." The policy is driving the science. Gullible people like you buy into it. Science is your religion, and you're more fundamentalist than Christians who unquestioningly accept the literal 7-day creation story.
> This is exactly what happens in academia; it would also be what happens in politics too but one of our major political parties elevates a fringe minority of scientists to equal status to their peers who are respected and trusted in their disciplines. A debate between an actual scientist and a crank isn't a debate, even if Republicans insist both sides are valid.
And what about the respected scientists who dissent from the alarmists? You know, like Richard Lindzen, and former UNIPCC heads who quit the IPCC because of internal corruption, etc. Oh, well, they disagree with you, so they must be cranks. Nevermind their advanced degrees in the field, decades of work in it, and many peer-reviewed papers they've published in it.
> Another thing this party does is slander the other as, "alarmists."
The alarmists accuse everyone who is merely skeptical of being "denialists" and ACTUALLY say that "climate denialism" should be a CRIME. They're literally attempting to prosecute companies for not toeing the party line. And you'd better not claim ignorance of this, because if you do, it shows that you're either a liar, or willfully ignorant, yet you still spout this propaganda.
You are either a very gullible fool, or a liar in service of their agenda. History will look back on people like you as being as foolish as those who doggedly clung to the belief that the earth was flat.
(Score: 1, Troll) by khallow on Monday September 10 2018, @06:11AM (2 children)
"To the extent". I like also how you rationalize lying and fraud on the basis that market-based solutions are inadequate somehow.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 10 2018, @09:44AM (1 child)
I like how you suggest market-based solutions exist without showing any.
(Score: 1, Touché) by khallow on Monday September 10 2018, @12:26PM