fuckduck9000
10mo ago
Will climate change negatively affect crop yields? Has it already?
The wiki article on climate change seems to think so:
Climate change is affecting food security. It has caused reduction in global yields of maize, wheat, and soybeans between 1981 and 2010.
This links to IPCC 2019:
At the global scale, Iizumi et al. (2018) used a counterfactual analysis and found that climate change between 1981 and 2010 has decreased global mean yields of maize, wheat, and soybeans by 4.1, 1.8 and 4.5%, respectively, relative to preindustrial climate, even when CO2 fertilisation and agronomic adjustments are considered.
More on them later. But first, a little detour in the land of reality.
They obviously need all kinds of counterfactuals, because crop yields have greatly increased during that period. Plants generally love heat and CO2, and the earth is greening.
How then did lizumi et al get their results? Basically, they compared the simulations on a model on the yield of various crops under a no climate change (A) and with climate change (B) scenario, taking out the technological improvements. This would be fair enough (if you like models) , but the results show little to no difference (advantage B for rice and wheat, advantage A for maize and soybean).
So they added a third simulation out of nowhere, where they told the model to keep the CO2 to 1850 level (thus artificially lowering the yield the model predicts), but all the rest is like B (simulation C) . Then they averaged the bullshit C value with B and compared that to A, where A finally looked good.
Red mountain: The model‘s ‚unaided‘ answer B.
Blue mountain: random nonsense C.
Grey mountain: Unholy mixture they can now pass off to the IPCC as „considering CO2 fertilisation“ because hey, it‘s only half-garbage.
Because the amplitude of the observed CO2 fertilization varies with the field conditions and crop cultivars (Ainsworth et al., 2008; Hasegawa et al., 2013), the estimated impacts of the theoretical CO2 fertilization may be more optimistic than the actual outcome.
Or more pessimistic. Where‘s my all-else-equal 600 ppm simulation I can mix with B for a nice yield boost?
If you don‘t like the results of your model, don‘t mess with the „uncertain“ variables until it spits out the answer you’re looking for.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
I don’t agree with the way you splice up the debate types. You’ve got the old-school adversarial debate, in the interest of finding out the truth (so still cooperative on a deep level), which used to be at home in universities, and I guess we still have here, for example. Then you’ve got the adversarial politician’s debate, which looks and sometimes is similar, but with dirtier rhetorical tricks to appear right.
But the university presidents have little experience of those. They are used to more surface-level cooperative debates, where the goal is not the Truth but the reaching of a status-adjusted consensus. Free speech gets in the way of that consensus. Hostile questioning, from that perspective, is rude and a status challenge. The correct answer is not to answer but to air your disdain and let your higher status win the debate consensus for you.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
A lot of the late-80s early-90s Civil Rights Act feminism, for all I complain about its more recent excesses, was in response to employers forcing employees into (het) sex and other sexual behaviors in public.
Additionally, she testified that Taylor had touched her in public, exposed himself to her, and forcibly raped her multiple times. She argued such harassment created a '"hostile working environment'" and a form of unlawful discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
That’s like saying a demented walmart manager chopping my arms off with a chainsaw constitutes discrimination and a hostile shopping environment. The intention behind this bizarre categorization is to paint the benign and mundane with the same brush as the criminal and abhorrent, requiring ever increasing state monitoring and control.
Additionally, this case ruled that the sexual conduct between Taylor and Vinson could not be deemed voluntary due to the hierarchical relationship between supervisor and subordinates in the workplace.
They should never have accepted that argument from a sex-neg rad-fem who refuses to distinguish between rape and intercourse.
Catharine A. MacKinnon, author of Towards a Feminist Theory of the State, was co-counsel for the respondent and wrote the respondent's brief.
”Perhaps the wrong of rape has proven so difficult to articulate because the unquestionable starting point has been that rape is definable as distinct from intercourse, when for women it is difficult to distinguish them under conditions of male dominance.” in Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: An Agenda for Theory (1982)
This is the real ‘cultural marxism’ conspiracy to destroy normal human interaction. A "feminist theory of the state"? They should be more subtle next time.
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
I find it extremely grating because, especially if you're another women, you have to accept it as a timeout since continuing with a (fair) argument or complaint if the other woman is streaming crocodile tears is considered rude and unacceptable.
Why 'especially if you're another woman'? At least you can cry back as a woman. Women’s childish behaviour is socially sanctioned, they are empowered to switch at will between being considered a child or an adult. And if you point this out or talk like you did, as a man, then it’s sexism. For carrying the burden of being the only sane adult in the room, men are called 'emotional cripples' .
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
Stop switching between perspectives. The economic costs you highlight are borne by europe, while the ‘russia is no threat / it’s just some lines on a map’ narrative is only valid from beyond the atlantic. Ask the ukrainians, then the poles, if russia is no threat. That China might get strengthened because of OPEC etc, and therefore the US could lose the world top-dog competition, doesn’t even register as a concern. Europe’s needs are decidedly lower on maslow’s hierarchy. There's an existential security threat at the door.
The closer to Ukraine, the more immediate the threat, the greater the cost that can be borne. “We” think 700 billion is cheap. You worry about your own gas bill. The LNG substitution has worked out well for the US, so relax.
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
You have a more naive view of social relationships than I do (or rafa : see ‘crocodile tears’) . It’s all about incentives. Boys are not rewarded for crying, so they learn not to cry. We’d be bawling our eyes out right now if there was status in it. It’s funny, even on the internet, in communities unlike this one, people will signal that they are upset to "win an argument".
It's unmistakeable, Vlad has less hair, and it's almost completely grey, that's sloppy doublesmanship.... Another hypothesis would be that Vlad is merely an older incarnation of the entity previously known as Putin, which itself once appeared as Vova, a cute child full of life. Are you the same person you were yesterday?
Also, a double doesn't make sense. If Putin is alive, he can credibly threaten, as well as lead, his inner circle. A double can't, while still making negotiations with the west much more difficult.
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
No, Ted K.'s true problem with the technological society was that it made people leftist. Since this is immediately obvious when one actually reads the manifesto in even a cursory way
What? No. He thought the tech made people unhappy and destroyed the planet, and leftism to him is just an example of psychological suffering. "What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much movement or an ideology as a psychological type".
fuckduck9000
3mo ago
Still, it’s a waste of goodwill. People used to want to serve for patriotic reasons. That was pure profit for the state. It was like a charity, they were fed and housed, but some of the work they did was effectively donated. As with billionaires, the state should find ways to encourage donations, not turn them away to make the diversity quota. You know, tell people what they can do for the country, not what the country can do for them, all that jazz.
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
There is no way this guy’s a progressive. What is he, writing a PhD on the identification of different flavours of stochastic terrorism? We get few progressives as it is, and it just so happens this one is more interested in far right content than we are.
Greer is interesting in that he presents himself as a race conscious conservative, putting him well outside the mainstream, but he never "calls out "Jewish power", which has alienated him among other far right online commentators.
Just add quotes around ‘jewish power’, and no one will notice the odd insider narration. Actually I'm pretty sure I read the above sentence, possibly about another guy, from another disposable account. To JQ or not to JQ, that is their question.
Inb4 OP deletes.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
The allies of convenience created by this controversy are farcical. DR guys defending the affirmative action hyper-woke presidents of Harvard and their commitment to free speech, now I’ve seen everything.
Calling for genocide is obviously “harassment”, in the same way that citing statistics is “harassment”. On a regular day, harvard students ‘feel unsafe’ when confronted with mild antagonism and unfamiliar ideas, and the administrators use this ‘harm’ to justify censoring offending speech. Now I’m not invested in this line of thought and I’m not that kind of guy, but it should be obvious to anyone that such a vulnerable person would feel even less safe by hearing calls for their genocide, than by hearing a random unorthodox talking point like abortion should be illegal. For harvard, it's a little late to try to catch the first amendment train.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
What kind of statement would you like "I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the nazi party"? I'm not defending the plagiarism, but this is ideological witch-hunting. Does every reference to che guevara have to result in a groveling apology for the crimes of communism?
I don’t know why he bothered with the edgy jokes and dogswhistles. He should have simply called for the genocide of jews, then the presidents of harvard and co would find his behaviour compatible with a strongly inclusive code of conduct.
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
Yeah, reactiveness is underestimated – when they’re mapping out dramatic scenarios, they tend to ignore possible responses in their extrapolations. So climate change may well increase mosquito penetration, tornadoes or whatever, but if they ever reach a critical threshold, we can wipe out all mosquitoes, build tornado-resistant houses etc. If an AI decides to kill us with a virus, we will have an AI pumping out defense proteins too. Explosive mini-killbots => body armor. Energy ROI sinking => all in nuclear. Plus all the good responses we haven’t thought about yet, unknown unknowns work both ways. No doom scenario survives contact with the enemy.
I’ve always found the Cassandra story strange, as it seems the opposite is far more common : enthusiastically believed doom predictions left and right, and nary a storm in sight. I think people are incentivized to be doomers as a haggling tactic. Things are bad => I’m unhappy => give me stuff. Optimism is for suckers, even if it is more accurate. You can’t get a good deal if you advertise your satisfaction.
But while it started as a negotiating tactic, lately people have started believing the lie to an unhealthy degree, paralyzing them. Here in germany half the news stories are about the ‘climate apocalypse’ that seemingly awaits us. Everyone's hysterical, I can't tell which of my friends are naturally depressed and which take this stuff at face value anymore. And here on the motte, a large amount of comments find it necessary to add an asterisk saying ‘if we’re not all dead from AI by then”.
Some of it may just be neuroticism or some other evolutionary residue like you say, better safe than sorry when you used to live among venimous animals. The slave morality/ Oppression olympics/Whining Contest regime we’re currently living under doesn’t help.
fuckduck9000
6mo ago
Technically Hlynka's salad also lumps in all of the center, social democrats, neoliberals, classical liberals, in with the wokes and reactionaries. Basically it's just him, the ghost of hobbes, and the soul of america, versus everyone else.
Our east asian and european immigrants are also doing great. Don't need any advice for them, they took to the forceful assimilation well. I know a son of vietnamese immigrants, he was almost too patriotic. Funny, smart kid, but when he asked for the french flag to be flown on bastille day at the school, people rolled their eyes. He's a tank officer in the french army now (he's short). The french do not have a problem with this kind of frenchman, they love him. Whatever 'ethnic french racism' there is has never made him burn a school.
Maybe increase welfare, since the root cause for senseless destruction must be poverty and lack of chances? It's already higher than yours.
Furthermore, this in fact doesn't really contradict my original point. Groups that are treated as the US treated voluntary immigrants do fine and assimilate great. Groups that aren't don't.
Are you sure you didn't reverse your reasoning process here? You first look at which groups do badly, and then assume their treatment must be terrible.
Consider the possibility that they were treated the same - they had access to free school and university, generous welfare, a passably functioning job market - , and yet still behaved in a dramatically opposite manner as the vietnamese and europeans.
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
Aren’t you tired of accusing rationalists of not caring about the things they care the most about? I can’t think of a group less prone to appeals to authority, more aware of the replication crisis .
And again with an anecdote where your counterpart just comes off as obviously wrong. The guy doesn’t understand, then he lies about it. No one is encouraging this behaviour, so what lesson is there to be gained here.
As long as you’re free-associating: the russians are quokkas apparently, while 0HP and co, the edgy panaroid hysterical pessimists, they’re wise. Why then is there such affinity between them?
They’re very similar, and wrong in the same way. They systematically overestimate the likelihood of defection. Cooperation and honesty appear impossible, and lies are all they ever hear. What should the russians have done? Assume everyone up and down the chain of command was lying even harder than previously assumed? You can’t make chicken salad out of chicken shit.
Past a certain point of skepticism/assumed lies, you ‘ve sawed off the last epistemological branch you’re sitting on, sink into the conspiracy swamp, and you become a blackpill overdose/russian type, confused and afraid of your own (possibly fish-like) shadow.
fuckduck9000
3mo ago
The way I heard the story, a warlord in the somalian civil war attacked UN troops distributing aid – and so the US obligingly went in because they didn’t have anything else to do that day. But you reckon this was a machiavellian exploitation of the third world that now justifies a somalian revenge ?
To be fair, many US nativists are actually in favor of a less interventionist US foreign policy.
Yeah, and they say: 'I don't care if foreigners kill each other, even if we could prevent it easily'. Are you ready to stand by that statement and policy, or were you just using US interventionism as an excuse for foreigners to not be bound by any standard of decency?
fuckduck9000
3mo ago
I don’t recognize this guy anymore. He thinks people should refrain from searching for the truth because the search is not fair/random enough for him. Who cares? That which can be destroyed by the Truth should be, immediately. Whether you personally dislike Gay or politically oppose Ackman or just want clicks, I am thankful for any skeleton you happen to find in their closets. Scott is willing to let lies fester until such a time when they can all be revealed impartially, or something.
fuckduck9000
3mo ago
How do men ‘get’ women drunk? Do they threaten them, do they syringe them in the back? No, women voluntarily pour the inhibition-reducing liquid into themselves. Are they capable of making their own decisions or not?
You say the problem isn’t ‘men being interested in sex’, yet you assume ‘declining sex’ is the right decision. Your whole angle is: men are tricking women into this sinister deed. Let’s say I ‘got’ a woman drunk and used her drunkenness to… teach her spanish. Is that considered generally objectionable behavior? Obviously not. So like the sex-neg radfems which came up with ‘rape culture’ and ‘objectification’, in reality, you don’t object to the tricking, you object to the sex.
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
Nonsense. Your writing is first rate, and deletion allows Hlynka to make stuff up. Then I have to remember and look for my replies to your comments, and play reverse battleship on your positions to correct him.
fuckduck9000
4mo ago
Just world fallacy. I suppose men like dating younger women because they realize they’ll treat them better and are better lovers?
The somewhat feminized characteristics of asians (shorter, socially reserved, small round features) creates an imbalance in the desirability of their men and women (works opposite in blacks), reflected in the singaporean student imbalance.
White men are just more attractive. So when your asian gf tells you how happy she is to be with you and how great you treat her, remember that to her you’re like a girl with big tits.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
Well, no, because a jury actually hears all the evidence and arguments, a process which most of the voting public will never bother with.
Let's have his trials in republican strongholds, then. I'm serious, this would make a conviction ten times as legitimate and vastly reduce my objections.
'They' Control the Supreme Court and the House and most state Senates where actual things that affect people's daily lives get passed. 'They' have had huge wins in the past decade across all kinds of political domains, including the abortion victory 'they' claimed to care so much about or decades.
If they are so powerful, why would you risk antagonizing them by repeatedly going after their leader? All the more reason to maintain the fragile peace of democracy.
Of these, only black people have actually done anything about it in recent memory, because the actual material conditions of their lives are bad enough that it's worth the risk.
There is no clear relationship between oppression and propension to riot. Slaves rarely revolted. Perhaps the tulsa race riot proves that whites were oppressed. Or Kristallnacht tells us something about the material conditions aryans were forced to live in.
People riot because they can get something out of it, because they can get away with it, and often, for the hell of it.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
It comes with a lot more social cachet, but revealed preferences tell another story. The substitute doesn’t need to be superior in every way to displace the original, it starts on the margins. And the margin is some costly, impractical, subpar sexual encounter versus a costless, unbounded, coolidge-effect boosted masturbation fantasy. But there will always be a niche for real sex purists, like the people who weave their own clothes.
Prosecuting Caesar always struck me as a bad idea. Perhaps an ideal, extremely robust democracy could get away with it. At present, I don't think the US is it.
Let’s assume he is guilty, and let’s also assume that 30-40% of the country doesn’t believe he is (apparently 85% of republicans don’t think he should be prosecuted). Shouldn’t a hypothetical, nationally representative jury, nullify the charges?
I too am annoyed by loose threats of terrorism, such as ‘if you don’t give young men sex/poor people money/if you police black people/etc, they will rise up’, but Carlson’s prediction of violence is justified here. If the ballot box and the jury box fail (edit: I forgot, perhaps the most egregious of all, also denied the soapbox when democrats cheered when he was kicked off twitter), what box do they have left? They are, ultimately, a large faction of armed men (like the democrats). Their power to inflict violence should be respected (and democracy, at heart, very much respects it). Their opponents do not have to accede to their every demand, but they should definitely refrain from putting their leader in prison. It constitutes a direct challenge to the war-making potential on which their political power rests, and as such invites the battle democracy is supposed to avoid.
More options
Context Copy link