All Things Environment

[Peter Brown]

And what science is this?

It's called pricing science. Here is the easiest (though likely the most triggering) way to understand:

https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/ ... n-reverse/

[Bart]

And what science is this?

It's called pricing science. Here is the easiest (though likely the most triggering) way to understand:

https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/ ... n-reverse/

Oh. I see. So it's not science or at least the natural sciences. I was confused when you brought Darwin into the whole thing.

[frmanfan]

I am almost sorry I brought it up.

Here, read this and reach your own conclusions. I'm not sure I agree entirely with the author, but then he is an expert.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/do-schooling ... wer-babies

[jhu72]

I am almost sorry I brought it up.

Here, read this and reach your own conclusions. I'm not sure I agree entirely with the author, but then he is an expert.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/do-schooling ... wer-babies

I have not read your study in total. I have no issue with believing birth rates in rural areas are higher than urban areas, I accept that as given. I suspect there are a number of reasons for this, the least of which has to do with some liberal belief in not bringing children into this world. Economics and women no longer willing to be brood mares are the major reasons I would think. These last two reasons are societal and will change the rural areas over time. I wouldn't count on what are by proxy considered conservative areas remaining that way or surpassing what are by proxy considered liberal areas. I would not be surprised at all if current demographic trends of liberal urban dwellers moving to rural areas changes the politics of many of those rural areas. I think this is what most demographers are predicting.

[MDlaxfan76]

PB has revealed no science at all.

And a whole lot of resentment against educational attainment.

He thinks that when people move to surburbs or red states they have more children as a result.

[cradleandshoot]

Ahhh TLD, some folks have trouble making those logic connections.

I will make the same wager with you MD. We will have to wait 10 years but I bet you 500 for my charity against yours. If you feel even more confident... take the author up on his 5000 dollar wager. You could also debate the author why his findings on this glacier are incorrect. Correct me if I am wrong but glaciers should not shrink and then regain mass if the planet is getting warmer. Is there some logic there for you to chew on?

cradle, I bet a max of a buck on a game of gin, maybe a beer on a squash game.
That's the limit to my betting.
I get plenty of endorphins just from the competition.

I don't even bet when in LV on business trips.
Pretty sure that doesn't make me chicken, just smart.

I'd have no difficulty mopping the floor on this topic with most non-scientists, including you.

Now, trying to do so versus a scientist would require far more research than I'm prepared to devote.
But I'd put a whole host of scientists up against any you seem to think are brilliant.
You really wanna make that bet? For charity? Let's start a kickstarter...

TLD simply said that if you want to do the debating against a scientist, go for it.

On the glaciers, as I understand the dynamics, glaciers do gain mass when weather patterns change. Likewise they lose mass.
As they are not all in the same place, some are growing as some are shrinking.
When we look at climate effects, we need to look at aggregate ice formation or loss over years.

If I'm not mistaken, there is great concern that aggregate loss is accelerating over the most recent decades as global temperatures have risen.

Exceptions to this are not representative of the aggregate.

Come on MD.... I am not talking about a wager for either of our personal gain. I am talking about a wager for CHARITY. You do know what charity is all about? My charity would be rescued treasures. They are a no kill shelter that does incredible work to find new forever homes for dogs and cats. The woman that runs it gave my wife and I our beloved yellow lab Jenna that we had to put down last week. They could use your money to save countless pets that need a new home. I know you are a Republican but I know somewhere inside you there is a compassionate heart beating. These folks need your money and you would be well advised to pay in advance.
http://www.rescued-treasures.com/

[Typical Lax Dad]

Ahhh TLD, some folks have trouble making those logic connections.

I will make the same wager with you MD. We will have to wait 10 years but I bet you 500 for my charity against yours. If you feel even more confident... take the author up on his 5000 dollar wager. You could also debate the author why his findings on this glacier are incorrect. Correct me if I am wrong but glaciers should not shrink and then regain mass if the planet is getting warmer. Is there some logic there for you to chew on?

cradle, I bet a max of a buck on a game of gin, maybe a beer on a squash game.
That's the limit to my betting.
I get plenty of endorphins just from the competition.

I don't even bet when in LV on business trips.
Pretty sure that doesn't make me chicken, just smart.

I'd have no difficulty mopping the floor on this topic with most non-scientists, including you.

Now, trying to do so versus a scientist would require far more research than I'm prepared to devote.
But I'd put a whole host of scientists up against any you seem to think are brilliant.
You really wanna make that bet? For charity? Let's start a kickstarter...

TLD simply said that if you want to do the debating against a scientist, go for it.

On the glaciers, as I understand the dynamics, glaciers do gain mass when weather patterns change. Likewise they lose mass.
As they are not all in the same place, some are growing as some are shrinking.
When we look at climate effects, we need to look at aggregate ice formation or loss over years.

If I'm not mistaken, there is great concern that aggregate loss is accelerating over the most recent decades as global temperatures have risen.

Exceptions to this are not representative of the aggregate.

Come on MD.... I am not talking about a wager for either of our personal gain. I am talking about a wager for CHARITY. You do know what charity is all about? My charity would be rescued treasures. They are a no kill shelter that does incredible work to find new forever homes for dogs and cats. The woman that runs it gave my wife and I our beloved yellow lab Jenna that we had to put down last week. They could use your money to save countless pets that need a new home. I know you are a Republican but I know somewhere inside you there is a compassionate heart beating. These folks need your money and you would be well advised to pay in advance.
http://www.rescued-treasures.com/

You can look up Syukuro Manabe in the school directory unless you are chicken chit.... Let us know what he says...... I admit it... I am too chicken chit to debate Roy Spencer. But you can have at it with Dr. Manabe...... let me know... worse case scenario you make a chartable contribution.

[youthathletics]

You can look up Syukuro Manabe in the school directory unless you are chicken chit.... Let us know what he says...... I admit it... I am too chicken chit to debate Roy Spencer. But you can have at it with Dr. Manabe...... let me know... worse case scenario you make a chartable contribution.

I'd love to see him and Joe Bastardi have a sit down on PBS or something....it would be an enthralling conversation.

[MDlaxfan76]

Ahhh TLD, some folks have trouble making those logic connections.

I will make the same wager with you MD. We will have to wait 10 years but I bet you 500 for my charity against yours. If you feel even more confident... take the author up on his 5000 dollar wager. You could also debate the author why his findings on this glacier are incorrect. Correct me if I am wrong but glaciers should not shrink and then regain mass if the planet is getting warmer. Is there some logic there for you to chew on?

cradle, I bet a max of a buck on a game of gin, maybe a beer on a squash game.
That's the limit to my betting.
I get plenty of endorphins just from the competition.

I don't even bet when in LV on business trips.
Pretty sure that doesn't make me chicken, just smart.

I'd have no difficulty mopping the floor on this topic with most non-scientists, including you.

Now, trying to do so versus a scientist would require far more research than I'm prepared to devote.
But I'd put a whole host of scientists up against any you seem to think are brilliant.
You really wanna make that bet? For charity? Let's start a kickstarter...

TLD simply said that if you want to do the debating against a scientist, go for it.

On the glaciers, as I understand the dynamics, glaciers do gain mass when weather patterns change. Likewise they lose mass.
As they are not all in the same place, some are growing as some are shrinking.
When we look at climate effects, we need to look at aggregate ice formation or loss over years.

If I'm not mistaken, there is great concern that aggregate loss is accelerating over the most recent decades as global temperatures have risen.

Exceptions to this are not representative of the aggregate.

Come on MD.... I am not talking about a wager for either of our personal gain. I am talking about a wager for CHARITY. You do know what charity is all about? My charity would be rescued treasures. They are a no kill shelter that does incredible work to find new forever homes for dogs and cats. The woman that runs it gave my wife and I our beloved yellow lab Jenna that we had to put down last week. They could use your money to save countless pets that need a new home. I know you are a Republican but I know somewhere inside you there is a compassionate heart beating. These folks need your money and you would be well advised to pay in advance.
http://www.rescued-treasures.com/

What's the exact wager?
I'm a dog lover, sorry about your lab...our favorite dog, many black labs over the years.
Always hard to lose a loved one.

Right now two mixed breeds have the run of the property...rescued mom and one of her pups. Ostensibly my sister's dogs next door, but we have a large combined electric fence area so many acres of running room; we have them for the weekend as she and her husband are out of town.
The farm they were on was raided, 21 dog carcasses. She was tied to a tree, had her first heat...her litter had all sorts of shapes and color dogs.
We're working on the mom being less scared; both are very sweet. Her son is more relaxed as he never really suffered the abuse.

[Peter Brown]

PB has revealed no science at all.

And a whole lot of resentment against educational attainment.

He thinks that when people move to surburbs or red states they have more children as a result.

Science or facts (whatever floats your boat), birth rates (as well as migration rates) say emphatically that red states are fast outstripping blue states. The only way for Dems to neutralize this field is by advocating for loose immigration and voting laws, such as they are doing every day and why it is such an emotionally-imbalanced issue (yet again) for them.

I should add that (since this thread is about 'climate change') climate change is similarly such an emotionally-disturbing issue for democrats. If they can convince the electorate to upend capitalism via sweeping tax and regulatory changes because we are all dying and the beaches will get swept away ten years back (as forecast... ), that is another example where Democrats play a shell game with otherwise sane Americans: to willingly allow bureaucrats to steal money from you, you must be made to feel like life is about to end (even in the face of all relevant facts to the contrary such as longer life expectancy, lower mortality rates, much lower poverty rates, etc...).

[Typical Lax Dad]

You can look up Syukuro Manabe in the school directory unless you are chicken chit.... Let us know what he says...... I admit it... I am too chicken chit to debate Roy Spencer. But you can have at it with Dr. Manabe...... let me know... worse case scenario you make a chartable contribution.

I'd love to see him and Joe Bastardi have a sit down on PBS or something....it would be an enthralling conversation.

Is Joe Bastardi an accountant?

[youthathletics]

You can look up Syukuro Manabe in the school directory unless you are chicken chit.... Let us know what he says...... I admit it... I am too chicken chit to debate Roy Spencer. But you can have at it with Dr. Manabe...... let me know... worse case scenario you make a chartable contribution.

I'd love to see him and Joe Bastardi have a sit down on PBS or something....it would be an enthralling conversation.

Is Joe Bastardi an accountant?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Bastardi

[Typical Lax Dad]

You can look up Syukuro Manabe in the school directory unless you are chicken chit.... Let us know what he says...... I admit it... I am too chicken chit to debate Roy Spencer. But you can have at it with Dr. Manabe...... let me know... worse case scenario you make a chartable contribution.

I'd love to see him and Joe Bastardi have a sit down on PBS or something....it would be an enthralling conversation.

Is Joe Bastardi an accountant?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Bastardi

It was “sarcasm” Waiting for Cradle to put his money where HIS mouth is unless he is too chicken chit. Bastardi is another fool.

[Typical Lax Dad]

[Typical Lax Dad]

Excellent.

[Bart]

PB has revealed no science at all.

And a whole lot of resentment against educational attainment.

He thinks that when people move to surburbs or red states they have more children as a result.

Science or facts (whatever floats your boat), birth rates (as well as migration rates) say emphatically that red states are fast outstripping blue states. The only way for Dems to neutralize this field is by advocating for loose immigration and voting laws, such as they are doing every day and why it is such an emotionally-imbalanced issue (yet again) for them.

sorry, I really am not following you but what you are talking about has nothing to do with science.

[Typical Lax Dad]

PB has revealed no science at all.

And a whole lot of resentment against educational attainment.

He thinks that when people move to surburbs or red states they have more children as a result.

Science or facts (whatever floats your boat), birth rates (as well as migration rates) say emphatically that red states are fast outstripping blue states. The only way for Dems to neutralize this field is by advocating for loose immigration and voting laws, such as they are doing every day and why it is such an emotionally-imbalanced issue (yet again) for them.

sorry, I really am not following you but what you are talking about has nothing to do with science.

So when someone moves from CT/NJ to Carolina it’s because they vote for the other political party? That makes sense.

[youthathletics]

You can look up Syukuro Manabe in the school directory unless you are chicken chit.... Let us know what he says...... I admit it... I am too chicken chit to debate Roy Spencer. But you can have at it with Dr. Manabe...... let me know... worse case scenario you make a chartable contribution.

I'd love to see him and Joe Bastardi have a sit down on PBS or something....it would be an enthralling conversation.

Is Joe Bastardi an accountant?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Bastardi

It was “sarcasm” Waiting for Cradle to put his money where HIS mouth is unless he is too chicken chit. Bastardi is another fool.

You should really stop judging people so much....do you know Joe?

[Typical Lax Dad]

You can look up Syukuro Manabe in the school directory unless you are chicken chit.... Let us know what he says...... I admit it... I am too chicken chit to debate Roy Spencer. But you can have at it with Dr. Manabe...... let me know... worse case scenario you make a chartable contribution.

I'd love to see him and Joe Bastardi have a sit down on PBS or something....it would be an enthralling conversation.

Is Joe Bastardi an accountant?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Bastardi

It was “sarcasm” Waiting for Cradle to put his money where HIS mouth is unless he is too chicken chit. Bastardi is another fool.

You should really stop judging people so much....do you know Joe?

He is either a fool or making good money. How many things in your life do you rely on based on what 3% of experts say? Cancel all your insurance.

[MDlaxfan76]

PB has revealed no science at all.

And a whole lot of resentment against educational attainment.

He thinks that when people move to surburbs or red states they have more children as a result.

Science or facts (whatever floats your boat), birth rates (as well as migration rates) say emphatically that red states are fast outstripping blue states. The only way for Dems to neutralize this field is by advocating for loose immigration and voting laws, such as they are doing every day and why it is such an emotionally-imbalanced issue (yet again) for them.

I should add that (since this thread is about 'climate change') climate change is similarly such an emotionally-disturbing issue for democrats. If they can convince the electorate to upend capitalism via sweeping tax and regulatory changes because we are all dying and the beaches will get swept away ten years back (as forecast... ), that is another example where Democrats play a shell game with otherwise sane Americans: to willingly allow bureaucrats to steal money from you, you must be made to feel like life is about to end (even in the face of all relevant facts to the contrary such as longer life expectancy, lower mortality rates, much lower poverty rates, etc...).

PB,
I have no doubt that there are knuckle heads, and greedy folks, and all sorts of reprobates to be found in the "climate alarmist" camp.

But I'd suggest that you aren't talking to any such here on these threads.

Indeed, I think the tone you take reveals all sorts of ideological spite, rather than rational, logical thought or discourse. The whole diatribe about capitalism is very revealing.

But let's just deal with your assertions about "red states" growing in population. That's true in quite a few, though not all cases.

The question, though, is the causal aspects and, thus, the ramifications in terms of political alignment, at least as the parties are currently constructed.

You seem to think that folks are having more babies because they live in red states and that the migration has been due to their political alignments.

Both assumptions are not based on what the data says.

The people in America having more children, earlier, tend to be people from Central and South America, (and Africa) both related to their Catholicism and related to their lower economic status. As status improves over successive generations, educational attainment improves, birth rates go down (regardless of race, religious heritage). Women, in particular, have more options and control, and delay child rearing and reduce the numbers of children.

The GOP of today has decided to alienate themselves from this demographic. If we (I'm still a registered R) had followed the 2013 roadmap and broadened the party, perhaps we could see a path to incorporating a large % of these folks into the GOP. But the party took a hard turn away from that opportunity. So, Texas is quite likely to turn blue in another cycle or two. Arizona, New Mexico...headed that way.

We're also seeing baby boomer retirement growth southward, with people leaving their regions of prior employment to seek easier climates and in Florida's case, lower taxes. If you look at the demographics of that migration, though, this is mostly outside of child rearing ages. These voters bring with them their prior political leanings, whatever they may be.

Which isn't to say that there isn't also growth in the metro areas of these 'red' states with employment opportunities being attractive. But that's attracting people with strong mobility and economic aspirations, made possible by educational attainment...again, these groups are skewing more blue than red...in the Trump GOP era. This is urban/suburban growth, not rural, and these younger demographics are far more likely to be blue than the current Trumpist GOP red.

So, the demographic and political predictions that best fit the reality of these various dynamics is that many of the most populous of these 'red' states will be soon be turning blue, at least if the political alignment strategy being pursued by the GOP continues to harden in its current white, older, less educated, less traveled base.

That doesn't have to be the long term case, but the GOP is doomed if it maintains the current course.