@EmmaWTimes if you really believe the myth that "abortion rates tend to be the same regardless of its legality," how do you explain fact that in wake of Roe v. Wade the U.S. birth rate plummeted?
markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/li…
Over the decade following Roe v. Wade, as abortion gradually gained acceptance, the U.S. abortion rate more than doubled. From 1972 to 1981 the number of abortions nearly tripled (586,800 → 1,577,300), and the abortion rate (per no. women of childbearing age) increased 122%.
Unsurprisingly, a sharp increase in abortions & a sharp drop in birth rate immediately followed the Jan., 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. But then a strange thing happened: abortion rate continued to increase, as acceptance of abortion increased. But the birth rate increased as well.
In fact, for five consecutive years the U.S. birth rate and abortion rate BOTH increased, simultaneously.

Abortion gradually became accepted, by many Americans, as a sort of backup birth control method, replacing caution and self-control.
So, in the long term, the birth rate was only slightly reduced by legalized abortion. The pregnancy rate rose nearly as much as the abortion rate. Within a decade, the birth rate had nearly recovered to the slightly declining trend-line that it was already on.
Most abortions simply replaced other forms of birth control, used for "family planning" purposes, to delay childbearing.

Claim that "abortion rates tend to be the same regardless of its legality" is a blatant lie. So WHY do you think the abortion industry spreads such lies?
@ThreadReaderApp unroll it, please

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with ✝️ 🇺🇸 🇺🇦 Dave Burton

✝️ 🇺🇸 🇺🇦 Dave Burton Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ncdave4life

Mar 28
1/6. From measurements of downwelling LW IR, 342 W/m² is a reasonable, approximate estimate of downwelling LW IR radiation averaged over the entire surface of the Earth.

It's essentially identical to MacCracken's 1985 estimate (which he called "only an approximation"):

(Note: the numbers are percentages.)

The quoted text excerpt is:
“The fluxes of energy within the atmosphere-surface system can be illustrated using an energy balance diagram. Although many measurements have been made at the surface and from satellites, there are still uncertainties of 10-20% in the values of some of the fluxes because of the difficulty of making representative global measurements. In some cases model calculations have been used to generate estimates. The values shown in the diagram in Figure 1.2 are derived from consideration of energy balances prepared by Gates (1979), Liou (1980), and MacCracken (1984), and are only an approximation.”

Source:
M. C. MacCracken and F. M. Luther (Ed.), "Projecting the Climatic Effects of Increasing Carbon Dioxide," United States Department of Energy, DOE/ER 0237, Dec. 1985.


Note that the main source of uncertainty is not that we cannot measure downwelling LW IR. Rather, it is "the difficulty of making representative global measurements." Actual downwelling LW IR fluxes vary wildly with time and location, so finding an accurate global average is problematic, to put it mildly.sealevel.info/MacCracken1985…
researchgate.net/profile/Michae…Image
2/6. Lindzen 1990 cited MacCracken:


Source:
sealevel.info/Lindzen1990_Fi…
sealevel.info/Lindzen1990_So…Image
3/6. Here's the NCA4 version (with my notes about the "radiative imbalance" added). They show downwelling LW IR = 338 to 348 W/m², with a best estimate of 342:
sealevel.info/NCA4_global_en…Image
Read 7 tweets
Mar 19
@joelgombiner @RARohde 1/5》I agree. Without those ice sheets, there's no source for vast influxes of freshwater into the northern North Atlantic, to slow the AMOC.

There are a few key lessons to be learned from Dansgaard-Oeschger events (and D-O #0, a/k/a the Younger Dryas).
sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
@joelgombiner @RARohde 2/5》Because D-O terminations had warming trends an order of magnitude faster than current warming, and because nearly all extant species survived those large, sharp warming events, we needn't worry that the current slight warming could cause extinctions.
archive.is/aUi9R#selectio…
3/5》Because D-O events only occur during glaciations, and never during interglacials, we can say with confidence that warmer climates are more stable than colder climates.


That might be largely because without the great northern ice sheets, there's nothing which could pour vast quantities of freshwater into the northern North Atlantic, slowing the AMOC.

It's surely also because Planck Feedback is ∝ T⁴, so the warmer the climate gets, the stronger that negative (stabilizing) feedback is.

sealevel.info/feedbacks.html…
Read 6 tweets
Mar 15
1/4. Here's a good example of Climate Movement insanity.

"We are not doing anything about this crisis! The water is coming for us!" he says.

Here's the reality:
sealevel.info/learnmore.htmlImage
3/4. The best science shows manmade climate change is modest & benign, and CO2 emissions are beneficial, not harmful. The major harms from CO2 are all hypothetical, and mostly implausible. The major benefits are proven, measured, and very large.
Read 5 tweets
Mar 13
1/11》 Don't believe the Climate Industry propaganda. Here are some academic papers and articles about what fossil fuels, carbon emissions, and #climatechange are ACTUALLY doing to the Earth:

sealevel.info/greening_earth…
sealevel.info/greening_earth…Image
2/11》 Here's a NASA video about it. It's based on measurements, unlike most of the Climate Industry's "climate impact" claims, which are based on dubious modeling and baseless speculation.
3/11》 The CO2 Coalition's website also has many excellent resources to help you learn about this issue:


The CO2 Coalition is an organization of volunteer scientists, dedicated to combating disinformation about CO2 & climate change, and pushing back against the corruption of science for political & pecuniary reasons.

Many of the CO2 Coalition's members are extremely distinguished. Their newest Board Member is Dr. John Clauser, 2022 Nobel Laureate (Physics).
co2coalition.org
Read 12 tweets
Mar 9
1/11❯ You've been lied to. The impacts of rising CO2 levels are in both the past and the future, and they are overwhelmingly positive.
sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
2/11❯ The fact that elevated CO2 is dramatically beneficial for crops has been settled science for more than a century. This was not the "mid 20th century."
sealevel.info/ScientificAmer…
@collapse2050 3/11❯ Thanks, in significant part, to rising CO2 levels, crop yield improvements have outpaced population growth.
Read 12 tweets
Mar 8
1/5. Here's what CO2 emissions and #ClimateChange are actually doing to the world's food supply.
sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
2/5. The relationship between food (in)security and CO2 emissions / climate change is that CO2 emissions greatly improve crop yields, improve crops' drought resilience, and improve food security everywhere in the world.
Image
3/5. Thanks, in significant part, to rising CO2 levels, crop yield improvements have outpaced population growth.
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(