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: 5, Interesting) by julian on Sunday September 09 2018, @08:42PM (10 children)
That's not exactly true. I'm a "liberal type" and it's no secret that your average clueless liberal knows about as much climate science as your average clueless conservative. The crucial difference is liberals don't usually have an attachment to a supernatural explanatory framework which is also a core part of their personal and political identity. Only conservatives cite the Bible [littlegreenfootballs.com] as if it has any authority on matters of science such as climate change. I'm not personally or politically attached to any specific explanation of climate change except that I want to hold the correct one. I accept that my best shot at being correct is to seriously consider the explanations offered by the relevant experts. I also accept that this explanation can and will change as new information is discovered.
Liberals are thus more open to having their ideas corrected. It's often a long, painful, and imperfect mechanism of correction but it does work. The contemporary religious (Evangelical Christian) conservative has had this faculty of their mind disabled by their culture. The good news is that cultural flaws can be corrected after a single generation, and even some lucky people within a generation are capable of overcoming their programming and adopting better epistemology.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by deimtee on Sunday September 09 2018, @09:34PM (8 children)
I mostly agree with you.
I don't cite religious claptrap, and I also would prefer to hold the correct opinions rather than the convenient ones.
However, too much current 'climate science' and its baggage doesn't pass the smell test.
- The alarmists want to use the scary 'climate change' to change peoples' behaviour. That isn't science, it's social engineering.
- Science doesn't violently suppress opponents, it shows where they are wrong, and laughs at them.
- Anyone proposing a solution is shouted down. They don't want to fix it, it is too useful as a political tool
- Too much of what they claim ignores other sciences.
- The 97% concensus figure is made up bullshit, and most of the loudest proponents are not scientists at all.
200 million years is actually quite a long time.
(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
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 10 2018, @04:53AM
According to "science", julian assange is some kind of identical clone of john g trump (POTUS uncle).
(Score: 2, Redundant) by FatPhil on Monday September 10 2018, @09:27AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 10 2018, @05:16AM
But they do hold attachment to a supernatural explanatory framework which believes the universe is not fated and there is something they or anyone else can do something about it. But then they were fated to believe that.