see post #177
One of the biggest climate change threats -- Rain
- Thread starter wegs
- Start date
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
i would do if i was the aussie boss
is buy all the scrap ships, clean them then sink them to make massive artificial reefs many kilometers long
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_breaking
Yep. You have no knowledge of AGW, and are unable to make such claims or inventions.
You continually misidentify AGW research reports as "alarmist babble". You don't have to do that. You could inform yourself, check all claims against the reality you can find in dozens of major journals etc. Your ignorance is voluntary - carefully maintained. You don't even learn from the links you were spoonfed for months right here.
Not at all. One must simply read up on the relevant research and theory and analysis.
No, you don't. Not on this forum, anyway.
At best, here, you read a couple of sentences, maybe a paragraph, find a trigger word or phrase or claim the US rightwing propaganda feed has pre-identified for you, and then post the standard and stereotypical US corporate rightwing propaganda line that has been triggered in you by that feed - often word for word.
Of course not. It's quite likely that remnant corals will survive for a long time - the researchers have found such likely survivors in deeper water, for example (that's among the positive findings whose existence you deny).
But the major reefs that currently feed a half a billion people are unlikely to be among the survivors, and almost certainly not in their current beneficial and productive states or locations. The research indicates that most of them will die because of the effects of AGW. And so hundreds of millions of people are likely to lose their major current source of protein, as well as their current livelihood.
Research about anything is far from being finished. Science is not "finished" after a few discoveries.
But much has been discovered, nevertheless, and published in peer reviewed journals where it has passed careful examination by experts and informed people.
These discoveries you deny and ignore and term "alarmist".
So that the immediately relevant aspect of this nonsense you post is the pattern - you don't deny all science, you don't make ridiculously ignorant claims about gravity waves or exoplanets or anthropological insights of other kinds or engineering advances in deepwater drilling - but only some research, some discoveries, some analysis and findings. And they all have one thing in common:
You deny such findings in and only in matters about which the US corporate authoritarian right has chosen mount public propaganda campaigns of confusion and denial for reasons of private gain and corporate profit.
You do this in the same terms and language they use, these professional propagandists of the US corporate right, making the same errors and posting the same idiocies as they emphasize and promulgate and find useful in gulling the hicks. Like a parrot.
The most obvious apparent difference between you and the US pros is that we know the pros know what they are doing (for example: we know that Exxon has decades of AGW research and analysis on file, from its own private exploration and drilling data, which it has been using to modify its drilling platforms and plan its future efforts in full accordance and agreement with the "alarmist" findings of the public AGW researchers, while all that time spending millions to spread public denial of those findings and public slander of the AGW researchers who published them - denials and slanders you have parroted here, in the same terms and claims and approach, sucker that you are).
Last edited:
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Iceaura cannot resist to repeat the usual "you know nothing" bs. Let's see if there is something beyond this worth to be answered. Oh, this is, even if only a quite primitive attack, but nonetheless funny, worth to be quoted:
Not without a repetition of the usual lie that I have denied that scientists sometimes write about positive results. But, such is life, iceaura without defamation would be incomplete, probably ill or so.
What remains were the usual alarmist's fantasies sold as "AGW research has found", without links, obviously because no serious research has found what is claimed.
In other words, even if I find in a paper linked by iceaura a paragraph worth to be quoted, the quote will be named "standard and stereotypical US corporate rightwing propaganda line that has been triggered in you by that feed - often word for word." This makes it obvious that this phrase is nothing but a default reaction, which is used independently of the actual text.
So far about QQ's "You can't survive (adapt) if you are already dead". That bleaching is not the death of everything is what has to be expected. But most alarmists ignore such good news and present every bleaching event like the complete death of all corals.
Not without a repetition of the usual lie that I have denied that scientists sometimes write about positive results. But, such is life, iceaura without defamation would be incomplete, probably ill or so.
Of course. But there are domains where nobody seriously expects new findings during the next years and others where it is expected that during the next years there will be many surprises.
What remains were the usual alarmist's fantasies sold as "AGW research has found", without links, obviously because no serious research has found what is claimed.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
3/4 ---(marine isotope stages - mis 5, 7, 9, and 11)
mis 7
Why did mis 7 fail to have enough warmth to become a "normal" interglacial?
Why is the Holocene still colder than mis 5,9,and 11?
.......................................................................................................................
Maybe this should be in a different thread?
mis 7
Why did mis 7 fail to have enough warmth to become a "normal" interglacial?
Why is the Holocene still colder than mis 5,9,and 11?
.......................................................................................................................
Maybe this should be in a different thread?
None of your attempts to deflect threads from consideration of AGW, confuse the issue of AGW with that of past "interglacial" regimes, imply that the AGW researchers are somehow overlooking the matters you bring up, and so forth, belong on these AGW threads.
No AGW researchers do. Nobody that you have named an "alarmist" here does. No article or even media feed linked from this forum makes that claim. None of the common AGW documentaries in US mass media makes that claim.
If anybody does - and you present no evidence of such people existing in the real world- they are irrelevant to any discussion of AGW here. And that is yet another example of you spamming this forum with crude Republican propaganda media feed intended to sucker the gullible and ignorant - using the same terms ("alarmist", etc), making the same idiotic "arguments", and making exactly the same errors of fact - over and over, even after correction.
Do you still claim that is coincidence?
Irrelevant.
Those domains have not appeared in this or any other AGW thread, nor have they appeared in any of the other threads in which you appealed to your own ignorance as evidence of something.
You repeatedly post ignorance and idiocy, I repeatedly label it. It's a chore, but gullible ignoramuses posting Republican propaganda can do great harm otherwise - as we in the US have seen.
Look at this fantasy slandering - not for its content, but for its role:
( It should not be necessary for anyone who has been following Schmelzer, but in case: I have never referred to anything in a linked AGW research article as "standard and stereotypical US corporate rightwing propaganda - - - ". I have often referred to Schmelzer's posting as such - and quoted it in substantiation, for informed readers if any.)
You once again appear confused by your own typing (this time mistaking it for the contents of AGW research articles), and have lost track of my posting altogether. You have made similar errors in the past, but they are getting more frequent - hence my comment earlier about the advisability if keeping track of your own posts, since your memory can no longer handle the job.
More evidence of your complete ignorance of AGW, similar to the past items of evidence I have posted when making that claim.
As I have been claiming, and you once again explicitly verify: you have no idea what AGW research has found. You are completely ignorant of AGW.
In that, you are typical of AGW deniers and victims of US Republican Party line media feeds generally. None of you guys reality check - you live in a world without physical facts.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
IMHO:
Focusing exclusively on Holocene anthropogenic global warming/anthropogenic climate change/anthropogenic atmospheric forcing/etc.. while ignoring the evidence of past interglacial climates is born of ignorance/folly/stupidity/ complete insanity....and/or radical hucksterism.
...........
But then again, if people have invested energy into creating and maintaining their delusional states------maybe that is their right?
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Iceaura posted a lot of defamation, most of it the usual bs, but some I found worth commenting:
Of course, this is part of the usual bs, but I think I have not commented it yet: As a foreigner, I will not invent new terms but use the established ones. Once the established term for alarmists is "alarmist", I use it. I do not care who has introduced it.
QQ repeatedly posted his "You can't survive (adapt) if you are already dead", and in particular in the context of coral bleaching.
Let's see what motivated my comment:
As explained, I read the literature provided, and if I find something interesting, I post a quote. Which is the undeniable fact behind the line "you read a couple of sentences, maybe a paragraph". If I wouldn't quote "a couple of sentences, maybe a paragraph", iceaura would simply deny that I took a look at it at all, and if this would not have happened in this thread not that long ago, iceaura would have denied it anyway. Then, iceaura refers to this with "at best", that means, it covers all instances where I have quoted something from papers linked here and discussed it. And the characterization of what I post is "and then post the standard and stereotypical US corporate rightwing propaganda line that has been triggered in you by that feed - often word for word". This half of the sentence covers the whole post - in the part before, there is only "read" and "find". So, all the posts where I quote something from scientific papers and comment it (of course, with a text which has a close connection to what I have quoted), are defamed by iceaura in this way.iceaura said:
I think it's more that millions of people stand to lose billions of dollars if their investments in coal and oil are put at risk by science. Easy answer - deny the science. Or better yet, obfuscate it by Gish galloping with past climate records, Mars, the sun, reports from right wing think tanks and plenty of "it was cold today, so there's no climate change" news stories.
I think that's why climate change denial will ultimately fail. Sure, you can claim it's all a Chinese hoax concocted by Al Gore - but when people in Alaska see their towns being washed away and their building sinking into the "permafrost" they are going to believe their own eyes over a denier.I live in the Southeast and more rain is coming this weekend due to Hurricane Dorian. To the naysayers here, this is a reality to many of us.
It has already succeeded in its agenda, largely. If it does not fail until disaster strikes the deniers, it will have succeeded entirely.
It was never intended to persuade in the long term. The denialist media operations are not part of a discussion.
When the disaster hits, it will shift to deflecting blame - to liberals, Democrats, Obama, Clinton, "identity politics", foreigners, etc.
Anyone who wants to raise taxes and impose regulations on rich people.
Last edited:
Exactly. I pointed that out to you a long time ago.
Your entire world is made up from the US corporate rightwing media feed - right down to the vocabulary. Nobody else, for example, calls AGW researchers "alarmists" - and here you are referring to it as an "established" term for them, just as I have been pointing out you do.
"Alarmist" is not used by AGW researchers, informed people in the general public, or anyone else you label alarmist - but that doesn't matter to you, because you know nothing about AGW research and related matters. You have no connection with the physical reality of AGW, the research into it, the analysis of the findings of that research, etc.
So? That is not a claim that all coral bleaching is inevitably fatal, and it is not a claim that all coral bleaches, and it is not even close to a claim that all coral will die.
When you claimed that the people you label alarmists say all coral will die from bleaching, you were wrong. They don't.
Not in that way. Accurately.
But a ray of hope shines:
Even though you can't follow the arguments, and have forgotten or confused your earlier posts, you can recognize that accurate descriptions of your posts read like defamations.
Baby steps.
Last edited:
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
I don't use it for researchers too.
And it should not. What matters is if the meaning of a word is established. It is if everybody understands its meaning. It is not necessary that everybody is actively using it. Once it is not neutral, it is clear that those named alarmists do not like or support this by using it to describe themselves.
If it is not, it is emotional babble which is meaningless in that context. This is, of course, also not untypical for alarmists.
That means iceaura has not found a point to object against my analysis of the quote. But iceaura nonetheless defends this defamation as "accurate". So, what we have learned: Even if I quote some scientific paper and comment it, it will be defamed by iceaura as "...then post the standard and stereotypical US corporate rightwing propaganda line that has been triggered in you by that feed - often word for word".
Not that this is something new. Repeat defamations often enough, then something will remain, at least in the mind of the sheeple who read this uncritically. The good old recommendation from Dr. Goebbels.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
clarification
Anyone who does not think that the climate can change/is changing is delusional.
Anyone who thinks that someone can control climate change is most likely ignorant of the story of King Canute and the tide.
let us consider mis 7 wherein the highstand is said to have been 10 meters above current.
considering that mis 7 was colder than mis 1 which was colder than mis 5, 9, and 11--------we should expect a minimum of a 6 meter rise in msl and a likely maximum of 8-16 meters(some claim 21 meters for mis 11)
Time to start planning for infrastructure changes?
see
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4b95/b3434b88f0b046a149bf1f212b4c2adfe1f8.pdf
Anyone who does not think that the climate can change/is changing is delusional.
Anyone who thinks that someone can control climate change is most likely ignorant of the story of King Canute and the tide.
let us consider mis 7 wherein the highstand is said to have been 10 meters above current.
considering that mis 7 was colder than mis 1 which was colder than mis 5, 9, and 11--------we should expect a minimum of a 6 meter rise in msl and a likely maximum of 8-16 meters(some claim 21 meters for mis 11)
Time to start planning for infrastructure changes?
see
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4b95/b3434b88f0b046a149bf1f212b4c2adfe1f8.pdf
Oh, we can exert control over it, and we have. It was just not a conscious decision, nor was it a good one.
Or perhaps to reduce the speed at which we are changing it. Which one will be cheaper? How much will it cost to rebuild just Manhattan, for example, somewhere else? Compare that to just replacing the cars in New York with EV's and going to 90% renewable energy for the grid there. Can you do the math?
More deflection via irrelevancy.
One of the primary dangers repeatedly emphasized by the AGW "catastrophists" (i.e. the most knowledgable people on the planet, warning us about what they have discovered in their decades of research and analysis) is that AGW will almost certainly push the climate past various "tipping points" beyond which its longtime familiar basic patterns will change irrevocably regardless of what we do - that we cannot control the effects of our unprecedented CO2 boosting on the climate once we have done the boosting. That is by now common knowledge among the knowledgable, and is what the less knowledgable term "alarmism" and "catastrophism" and so forth.
We could of course control the CO2 boost in the first place, which would even at this late date help a great deal.
Long past. And only partly effective, if the CO2 boost is allowed to continue at its current rate: AGW is hitting about ten times as fast as any natural climate change other than large meteor strike effects, so fast that natural ecological adaptations cannot keep up - which significantly limits the benefits available from human infrastructure changes. (The large tropical barrier reefs are predicted to die back much faster than human infrastructure can cover for them, for example).
So: time to slow down the CO2 boosting - as soon as we can, as much as we can, even to reversal if possible - in part to reduce the scale of incoming disasters and allow time for infrastructure changes to help.
They do. That's how they know you are parroting US corporate propaganda bs, when you use terms such as "alarmist" for standard AGW research and the reports of its findings. Nobody else does that.
Yes, you do.
You just don't know it. That's because you don't recognize them and have no idea what they are saying, so you don't know when you are talking about them and what they say.
No scientific papers are involved in your posting, and your attempts to hide behind allusions to scientific research and reports will remain futile for at least as long as you don't know what they are.
Your own comments will be "defamed", as you call it, of course: That's routine - your comments are exactly as described, and that description does read as a defamation. That's unavoidable. If you don't like your posting to be described as the standard and stereotypical US corporate rightwing propaganda line, quit posting the standard and stereotypical US corporate rightwing propaganda line.