@DLaneBreckenri1@lyndonallydice@danielcincu@robert_zubrin@McFaul@ClaireBerlinski 2/27》After the 1980 census, in 1981, the Democrat-controlled State legislature gerrymandered California, to "protect" incumbent Democrat politicians, and get rid of as many Republicans as possible. They used every trick you can imagine, and some that you probably couldn't.
@DLaneBreckenri1@lyndonallydice@danielcincu@robert_zubrin@McFaul@ClaireBerlinski 3/27》Obviously, they drew convoluted districts, like Elbridge Gerry's infamous salamander, and they drew Democrat districts with fewer voters than Republican districts (which is made possible because apportionment is by number of bodies, not number of voters). But that's not all
They drew districts that "crossed," so they were contiguous only at an infinitesimally small point.
One district was contiguous only at low tide!
@DLaneBreckenri1@lyndonallydice@danielcincu@robert_zubrin@McFaul@ClaireBerlinski 5/27》They needed a few more Democrats to make the Marin Co. district of U.S. Rep. John Burton (not related to me, BTW) safely Democratic, because in 1980 he'd been reelected by an uncomfortably narrow margin, with just 51.1% of the vote. So guess what they did?
@DLaneBreckenri1@lyndonallydice@danielcincu@robert_zubrin@McFaul@ClaireBerlinski 6/27》They extended his district across the Golden Gate Bridge, around the San Francisco shoreline (bypassing everyone who lived in San Francisco), down to Daly City, and picked up some Democrat precincts there, where they had Democrats to spare!
@DLaneBreckenri1@lyndonallydice@danielcincu@robert_zubrin@McFaul@ClaireBerlinski 9/27》I was represented by Republican State Sen. Marz Garcia. He'd been elected in 1978 in an even-numbered district (Senate district 10), so in 1981 he had one more year on his term. His State Senate district was adjacent to that of another Republican, also with an even number.
Then they gave the new district an odd number, so that there'd be no election there for there more years.
@DLaneBreckenri1@lyndonallydice@danielcincu@robert_zubrin@McFaul@ClaireBerlinski 11/27》So, at the end of 1982, when the two Republican Senators' terms ended, the residents of the new district were left with no State Senator at all. They had no representation in the State Senate for two years, because odd-numbered districts didn't have an election until 1984.
@DLaneBreckenri1@lyndonallydice@danielcincu@robert_zubrin@McFaul@ClaireBerlinski 13/27》Over in Sacramento, they did the opposite. It was represented by a Republican with three years left on his term. They drew a new district similar to the old one, but gave it an even number, so that there would be an election there in 1982.
In 1984 the Republican's term ran out, and since there was no election there until 1986, he left office, and the Sacramento district was left with only its new Democrat State Senator.
@DLaneBreckenri1@lyndonallydice@danielcincu@robert_zubrin@McFaul@ClaireBerlinski 17/27》Our NC State Constitution provided for multi-member Senate districts, and forbade splitting counties. The multi-member districts were needed so that the prohibition against splitting counties didn't result in gross disparities in voter representation/weight.
@DLaneBreckenri1@lyndonallydice@danielcincu@robert_zubrin@McFaul@ClaireBerlinski 18/27》Federal courts voided the prohibition against splitting counties, by requiring almost-exactly equal representation/weight per census-counted person, but NC still had multi-member districts (until they were abolished in Stephenson v. Bartlett, in 2002).
@DLaneBreckenri1@lyndonallydice@danielcincu@robert_zubrin@McFaul@ClaireBerlinski 20/27》They used multi-member Senate districts to "dilute" mostly-black urban precincts with suburban & rural precincts from other counties that were whiter & more Republican. The goal was to draw districts too Democratic to elect Republicans & too white to elect black Democrats.
@DLaneBreckenri1@lyndonallydice@danielcincu@robert_zubrin@McFaul@ClaireBerlinski 24/27》For example, they manipulate the census to count college students in college towns, instead of in the hometowns where they’re registered. That gives liberal college towns disproportionate legislative representation, and conservative rural districts less representation.
1/4. Rising CO2 levels improve plants' water use efficiency and drought resilience, through reduced stomatal conductance. Simply put, plants need to process less air to get the carbon they need for growth, and thus they lose less water to transpiration. x.com/ncdave4life/st…
That's one of the reasons that catastrophic famines no longer happen. For all of of human history, until recently, famine was one of the great scourges of mankind: the "Third Horseman of the Apocalypse." But widespread famines are fading from living memory, and rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is one of the reasons for that.
That's a very, very Big Deal. For comparison:
● COVID-19 killed about 0.1% of the world's population
● The catastrophic 1918 flu pandemic killed about 2%
● WWII killed 2.7% of the world's population
● But the nearly-worldwide drought and famine of 1876-78 killed about 3.7% of the world's population.
@Panta_Rhei06 @simonmaechling --
2/4. Improved water use efficiency and drought resilience are especially beneficial in arid regions, like the Sahel, which is one of the reasons that region of Africa is "greening" even faster than most other places.
3/4. I asked ChatGPT about that benefit of CO2 emissions and rising CO2 levels:
"With reference to the agronomy literature, quantify how elevated CO2 helps plants use water more efficiently, and increases crops' drought resilience, by reducing stomatal conductance and water loss through transpiration."
ChatGPT replied with a very good answer:
In agronomy, the effects of elevated CO2 on plant water use efficiency and drought resilience are extensively studied. One of the key mechanisms through which elevated CO2 levels improve water use efficiency is by reducing stomatal conductance and, consequently, water loss through transpiration.
Stomata are small pores on the surface of plant leaves that regulate gas exchange, including the uptake of CO2 for photosynthesis and the release of water vapor through transpiration. When CO2 levels are elevated, plants can maintain the same or higher rate of photosynthesis while reducing stomatal conductance. This reduction in stomatal conductance leads to a decrease in water loss through transpiration without significantly affecting CO2 uptake, resulting in improved water use efficiency.
Several studies have quantified the effect of elevated CO2 on stomatal conductance and transpiration. For example, a meta-analysis published in 2013 (Kimball et al., 2013) found that under elevated CO2 levels, stomatal conductance decreased by an average of 22%, while transpiration decreased by only 17%. This indicates that plants under elevated CO2 levels were able to reduce water loss more efficiently than they reduced CO2 uptake, leading to an overall improvement in water use efficiency.
Improvements in water use efficiency due to elevated CO2 levels can increase plants' drought resilience by allowing them to maintain adequate hydration during periods of water scarcity. This can be particularly beneficial in arid and semi-arid regions where water availability is limited.
Overall, the literature suggests that elevated CO2 levels can improve water use efficiency in plants by reducing stomatal conductance and water loss through transpiration, which can enhance their resilience to drought conditions.
1/6》 Marcus, please tell me that you're not fooled by a fake "study" of a three-day-old event, from a climate industry propaganda outlet. Do you know how long real studies take?
1/8. Gov. Newsom's press release falsely blames "a hotter, drier world." In fact, the world is warming only very slightly & slowly, and it hasn't gotten at all drier. Here're the facts: sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
As you can see from the graph, the fraction of the globe in drought has decreased slightly, not increased.
Oh, and BTW, NCA4 (circa 2018) estimated that global average temperatures have risen only 1.14 ±0.13°C since the 1800s, and the warming is disproportionately at chilly high latitudes.
2/8. Also, higher CO2 levels greatly reduce drought impacts, by making plants more drought-resistant and water-efficient, through reduced stomatal conductance. That's very beneficial in arid regions, like the Sahel & much of California. Here's an article. web.archive.org/web/2017061915…
That's is one of the reasons that region of Africa is "greening" even faster than most other places.
@NewScientist reported the "remarkable environmental turnaround," including a “quite spectacular regeneration of vegetation,” and "a 70 per cent increase in yields of local cereals such as sorghum and millet in one province in recent years."
1/8》Doc wrote, "You’re not going to change my mind."
Please do not be impervious to evidence, like trillionofcells. That would make me sad.
2/8》Doc wrote, "Wasn’t Gleick cleared of any wrongdoing?"
No, he was not cleared. That was disinformation from The Grauniad: x.com/ncdave4life/st…
In fact, Gleick eventually admitted the identity theft, and disseminating the forgery & the stolen documents (though only after he was caught & publicly identified).
3/8》Gleick never admitted being the forger, but there can be no doubt of that, either.
It was the incongruous appearance of his name in the document, with the strangely flattering description of him as a "high-profile climate scientist," in a document which said NOTHING positive about ANY other climate activists, which first drew Steve Mosher's attention to Gleick. But it was the idiosyncrasies of Gleick's own writing style, found in the forged document, which Mosher mostly discussed, when explaining why he believed Gleick wrote it.
Note that that was all BEFORE Gleick confessed to being the person who had impersonated the Heartland Board Member to steal the other documents. THAT iced it: there's no question that Gleick was the forger.
1/8. The IPCC authors expect a worsening trend. No such trend is actually detectable, so far.
In fact, here's a paper about the downward trend in hurricane destructiveness, tho I suspect the decrease might be a fluctuation rather than a durable trend. nature.com/articles/ncomm…
2/8. The IPCC authors are sly. They know hurricanes & other tropical cyclones aren't worse, but they dodge & weave to avoid admitting it. Here's a tricky quote from AR6:
"It is likely that the global proportion of Category 3–5 tropical cyclone instances has increased over the past four decades."