The world of things you have failed to make sense of is large and varied - the presumption that they share any common features except conflict with your presuppositions has no evidentiary support.
In other words, you don't even try to explain to me what Tiassa has failed to communicate to me, and used this for yet another cheap attack. If one uses "to make sense" meaning to give some text some meaningful interpretation, not that this interpretation is also the correct one (which is something I cannot be sure about), I seldom fail to make sense of texts. Tiassa is essentially the only one here where this has been problematic. For all others, this sometimes happens for particular phrases, but does not suggest a communication problem.
What you have done, repeatedly, is project your unsupported evaluations of bias in mass media unto the science and scientists the media reports. Thus, your assessment of alarmist bias in the media was your evidence for alarmist bias in the pressures on climate scientists, the IPCC, and so forth.
As usual, only in your fantasy. I have always said that scientific articles are much less influenced by political pressures than mass media. Mass media openly lie, if there is at least some minor pressure. Scientists usually don't lie, they only hide to some degree unwanted truths. So, the media bias is not evidence for some bias in science, but an indication, suspicion, that it may exist. With the consequence that to find out what science really tells, you have to dig deep.
From that you concluded that the alarming findings of research were products of bias in the conduct of the research itself.
And this is already completely wrong. I did not make any particular conclusions about any particular issue.
That is simply wrong. There is no such region, there will be no such region, and you have no idea how to set up or employ a "linear approximation" in this field anyway. (Start by attempting to label your axes - you will screw up immediately).
It follows from very general principles. And there is no difficulty to label the axes - the abscissa is the average temperature and the ordinate is what after adaption to this temperature the agriculture gives. Of course, with all the conceptual problems typical for numbers used, say, for other economic data about the production of agriculture.
And the topic was harm to agriculture - the fact that current research has established that AGW will harm agriculture, that there will be a negative rather than positive average consequence of the extra warmth, rain, and CO2. On average.
And that this average harm will include - contrary to your claim made in ignorance - currently productive and important agricultural regions made useless for agriculture and possibly for human habitation.
The research findings so far have indicated that the warming will be negative. Correct your model accordingly.
These are your claims. It would follow that a decrease in temperature would be positive. (Or you simply count the adaption costs as consequences of warming). I doubt.
If you compare it with current water supply, the predicted volatility is negative on average.
Of course, more volatility is in the average negative. The question is how relevant is this negative effect in comparison with the positive effects of more water in desert regions and higher temperature in cold regions.
The sea level rise is accelerating. It also varies by locality.
Indeed. I was quite surprised to learn that it is, in some places, even decreasing. Which suggests that there are other things behind it, plate tectonics or so, which influence the results.
If one takes into account the difference between the rates over the world, from -6 to 9, I doubt that data about an acceleration are very reliable.
Every river delta farming region within a meter of the local sea level is due to flood, salinate, and be rendered useless for agriculture within 50 years unless the acceleration stops. There is a large probability that this will also be true for most farming regions within 2 meters of the current local sea level.
I remember my childhood, on the Baltic beach. To have a nice big beach, they regularly pumped water out of the nearby ground of the sea on the beach. The water flows back, the sand remains on the beach. The beach became much wider, you could see it live, I was impressed at that time. Even poor Eastern Germany could afford this technology, for such luxury as a nice wide beach, in the 60's of the last century. The Chinese now build essentially artificial islands starting from a few rocks looking out of the water. By the way, do all these alarmists take into account all the materials which come down with the river, and tend to sediment in the deltas? Don't forget, this is the process which created the deltas. If one puts all those sediments which appeared nearby using the same simple technology described above, so that the fields near the river become higher, this will even increase the sedimentation at the places where you have taken them.
In general, those who paint alarmist scenarios, need some real horror. The easy way to create a horror scenario is to extrapolate something and leave everything else unchanged. And this for climate change, thus, something in the 50-100 year range. But who sits down 50 years doing nothing if something becomes a problem? Even people without big resources react and adapt. But even these normal, cheap, ways of adaptation to new conditions are simply ignored by the alarmists. We have seen above the simple known ways to adapt to more volatility in precipitations like dams and wells. Here, some simple ways to adapt to increasing sea levels are also ignored completely.
Of course, my proposals are quite naive, last but not least I'm a mathematician, the reality is more complex. But, sorry, whatever the problems with rising sea level, if it is about adding 1cm of Earth per year to all the fields one uses, this would be something affordable even for the poor. And this would be a necessity only for those near the river. Away from the river, the Netherlands show that one can nicely live below zero. So, do it in the brutal way, take the Earth somewhere from the mountains, drive it to the delta with trucks, put it on every field near the rivers, so that they all gain 2cm in height per year. What will be the costs? Unaffordable? I bet not.
Managing the water supply of intensive agricultural regions is of course the standard example of basic government function. That would include, in this case, mitigating and slowing AGW, as well as handling the problems of refugees, floods and droughts, production resources with Hardin Commons problems, and land usage changes. That Trump's administration, or any US Republican administration, is incapable of doing that, is a basic and central characteristic they share with other fascist political organizations.
I know, as a true left-libertarian, you want the government everywhere. Regarding the incapability of fascists to build some useful infrastructure I would not be that sure remembering the German Autobahn.
I find this rather entertaining... you do realize, of course, that "some not that productive" agriculture is, largely, pointless in terms of the breadbasket areas of a country suffering desertification... right? If suddenly the world were only able to produce, say, 1/5th the food it currently does... well, what do you imagine the result would be?
If... It is the alarmists' scenario where this happens. As I have already argued, much of the negative effects of more volatility can be compensated by simple age-old measures like dams and wells. Note also that the very point was about changing the crops is a quite simple, cheap, and universal way to improve agriculture if the climate changes, which is ignored by the alarmists, because taking it into account would heavily decrease the horrors. It is, btw, a really cheap one. Most farmers buy seeds anyway, so the main problem is lack of education by the local farmers about those crops which, given the new climate, become now more efficient. Really? Not if the change happens over 50 years and the knowledge itself is for free on the internet. Yes, there are extremal cases where no changing crop no longer helps. But how much will be of this type? From QQ's horror scenario these would be places too hot and too wet for humans to live and plant there something without air condition. Fine, a place for tropical forests, natural reservations.
No doubt, there could be some regions where it makes no longer sense to do agriculture because it is too hot or to wet and too hot together. Or even some local regions will become even more arid or colder given a changed pattern of the precipitation in the new climate. But this will not be the whole world. There will be large regions in Siberia and Kanada where agriculture makes no sense today, which could be used then. Or some deserts where the increase in precipitation makes at least some agriculture possible. Other regions where it can be intensified, from one to two crops per year, or from simple pasture or wood to something better.
