The visual of the 'tease' to make one look at it is repulsive !
quote
If Climate Goals are to be achieved, adaptation and mitigating financing needs to increase many fold.
Prioritizing equity, social justice, and inclusion and just transition processes would enable ambitious emission reduction actions and climate emission reduction actions and climate resilient development.
What kind of bullzhit is that ? If you have a clue, tell me what equity means. Social justice, if you have a clue, what does that mean ? Inclusion, just transition, ?
Maybe I will scroll through it. Maybe I will have some thoughts or questions about it. Maybe it's in the back of my mind to "drill down" on one or more points that were raised in this article.
Maybe it just doesn't seem important for me (as judged by me) to do or say anything more about it right now.
Probably not. All you want to do is tout your nonsense. You do not want to respond to our rebuttals. You are incapable of discussion. You are not even answering questions we have.
You are not as informed as you think you are.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 04-05-2023).]
What in the living hell does "equity, social justice, and inclusion" have to do with the climate or the temperature in any way.
I told you, the "delicate flower" is screwy, they've all got a screw loose.
Case in point:
Let's be honest, they're using it as an excuse to disarm the people, plain and simple. It's alsoo the excuse for the rest of the nonsense as well, since the "scamdemic" and "covid19" aren't working anymore.
Nice try though, but the people are on you con artists.
[This message has been edited by Fitz301 (edited 04-05-2023).]
If humans' use of coal, oil, natural gas, CO2, methane and all the derivative products that we are told cause temperatures to rise, we would not have had fluctuating temperatures the last 170 years with a total temperature rise of one to two degrees. This is especially true since an over-400-year little ice age ended around 1850. It is normal for temperatures to rise after an ice age ends. People pretending to be journalists do not have to be scientists to understand that, but they clearly don’t care.
The globe also would not have had a thirty-five-year cooling period from 1940-1975, so significant that a dire ice age where billions would die from starvation was predicted if all the things we are told cause warming actually did. Again, it does not take any intelligence to understand that.
That's one of the things that caught my eye when I scrolled through the article: "cooling period from 1940-1975..."
If people can bloviate against "global warming" as much I like to bloviate for it, they shouldn't be so pressed for time that they cannot quickly look at or scroll partway through these articles to see how they relate to the lowering of average temperatures across the globe that is known to have happened during the roughly 35-year period from 1940 to 1975.
Keywords and phrases:
aerosols
soot
smog
global dimming
clean air standards
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-06-2023).]
Here's a guy who is a poseur that has ZERO formal education or credentials in nuclear power.
Just the kind of "expurt" that Leftists love.
Really makes Todd's point for him....how timely.
It took 7 years to get a bachelors degree? Even if working full time, with family... you should be able to get one in 3-4 years max. I got mine in two years, while working full time... so I know it's possible. This tells me he totally screwed around while in school.
EDIT: Let me correct this, I had an Associates Degree that I had before this. I forget that most people do their bachelors in 4 years. Still... unless he was working full time, he should be able to get teh bachelors in a normal 4 years... maybe 5 if he screwed up. but 7? ... and for an "English" degree? There's no science or engineering there.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 04-06-2023).]
I didn't post that opinion from this Michael Barnard as a way for me to agree with his "negatory" thinking about the prospects for Small Modular (Nuclear) Reactors
I don't know that he doesn't raise some valid points that go against these SMRs.
To say, as one forum member already has said, that this Michael Barnard is "just the kind of expert that Leftists love" could be an idiotic comment... but I'm not going to delay what I'm about to do next for yet another moment, trying to enlarge on that thought. It just isn't worth it.
Is the SMR-movement making any serious headway anywhere in these United States, or in other nations?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-06-2023).]
I didn't post that opinion from this Michael Barnard as a way for me to agree with his "negatory" thinking about the prospects for Small Modular (Nuclear) Reactors
I don't know that he doesn't raise some valid points that go against these SMRs.
To say, as one forum member already has said, that this Michael Barnard is "just the kind of expert that Leftists love" could be an idiotic comment... but I'm not going to delay what I'm about to do next for yet another moment, trying to enlarge on that thought. It just isn't worth it.
Is the SMR-movement making any serious headway anywhere in these United States, or in other nations?
I'm not sure I understand the point of an SMR outside of specific use cases (ships, military bases, etc.). A normal Gen-3/4 nuclear power plant just makes more sense. Wind power has some specific uses, solar is great on homes, and provides good economy as it pertains to small businesses, empowering the home owner, etc. But really... there's just no valid argument against nuclear power... there just isn't. Even hydro-dam power contributes to as much ecological disaster (fish, wildlife, etc.) as it does power. There's almost no side effects to nuclear power, especially since the latest generation of nuclear power literally will use the waste from the power plants of the past 50 years... which is fantastic. You just can't get better than that.
They don't explode like an atomic bomb, but people fail to realize this.
The spokesperson for the leftist pseudoscience cult followers.
CLICK FOR FULL SIZE
It's easy to troll Greta Thunsberg, but trying to troll scientists is more of a risk. That can backfire and reveal the ignorance of this little social media club that glibly babbles all the time about the "anti-science left", or (here) the "leftist pseudoscience cult (followers)."
Take this meme or image-enhanced message which forum member Wichita posted on this forum, quite some time ago:
To this day, I have no idea whether Wichita understands why this meme or message is a "FAIL" on a science level.
Now, anyone in the little social media club that constantly babbles about the "anti-science left" could respond by saying that the people (or some of the people) at COP27 (the global warming conference that's referenced in the text) are still "IDIOTS", even though the humble little science experiment with the ice cube and the measuring cup of water is "full of s**t" in the relevance category, because that depicts what happens when an ice berg, already floating in the sea, melts completely and becomes seawater.
It does not depict what happens when glaciers melt or slide off land at coastlines and go into the sea, which is what the climate researchers are talking about and were talking about at COP27 and all the other recent global warming conferences.
This is a big glacier. (Forum member IMSA GT posted this photo towards the end of last year.) This big glacier could be (for all I know) on the land of Antarctica, or Greenland, or somewhere else around the Arctic Circle. (I guess the vegetation rules out (?) Antarctica. I guess it could be Greenland, or Iceland, or Norway. Could it be Alaska? Somewhere in the Canadian north? Northern Russia or Siberia? Patagonia? The particular location isn't particularly relevant.)
As this "sucker" melts or slides off its base on land and into the sea, it has been causing sea levels to rise, and in a warming climate like the climate we now have. it will continue tp melt or slide into the sea and it will continue to cause sea levels to rise even more. But it's not an ice berg, which is what is depicted in the "ice cube" meme that was (and doubtless continues to be) trafficked on social media by the glib little band that ceaselessly chatters about the "anti-science left".
Maybe (this is like a second thought) it's a glacier that's melting or flowing into an inland lake? I guess that lake water could rise, but in the end, I think this conversion from glacial ice to water still translates to sea level rise, even if the process requires some intermediate steps. I'm not aware of any front page "buzz" in the science community about the consequences of rising lake waters.
This is an ice berg. When it was "calved" at a coastline, as ice that broke off from one of the big glaciers in Antarctica, or Greenland or somewhere else around the Arctic Circle, it did cause an elevation in sea levels around the world. That happened when it broke from the glacier and become an ice berg. As it floats around in the sea and continues to melt away until it vanishes altogether, it's not raising sea levels any further. That's what the ice cube meme depicts, but it's not what climate scientists are concerned about it. They're concerned about the elevation of sea levels that happens when ice bergs are created by calving from land-based glaciers.
If you lined up the almost 8 billion people on the planet and ranked them from first to last on the category of "best qualified to talk about science", the glib little band that constantly harps on social media about the "anti-science left", while revealing its own colossal ignorance of any and all climate-related science discussion with the "ice cube" meme and its likes, ranks dead last in my "book". And it should, in your "book" too.
Somewhere in this (imaginary) lineup of the world's population, there's a tenant farmer somewhere in India, scrambling to get to an outhouse to take a "dump" before it's too late. Or maybe he's just about to unload onto some open ground. Is he more qualified to speak about climate-related science and its ideas and issues? Is he more qualified than the glib little band of social media addicts who keep on babbling about the "anti-science left" in the way that I've just (once more) documented?
Why yes he is. That tenant farmer with a "load" in his gut is actually more qualified to talk about the state of contemporary climate-related science research than the glib little band of social media addicts that I've been describing. After all, this tenant farmer hasn't (to my knowledge) said anything stupid about it, or trafficked in any stupid memes about it, like the 'ice cube" meme. I give the nod to this known (but unnamed) tenant farmer, over anyone who respects the "ice cube" meme. He's smarter than they are—or at least, he hasn't proved himself equally dumb.
Say "hello" to Challabattula "call me Chall" N... well, I don't have his last name. Just that it starts with an "N". His last name keeps getting covered up by a paywall popup that would grant access to the article if I wanted to subscribe. Which I don't. But he's one of India's tenant famers, and even though he needs to take a dump, he stopped just long enough for this photo.
He's more qualified to talk about any climate-related discussions in a science context than any of the glib little band on social media that constantly churns out "anti-science left" memes or images like the one that Wichita just posted, with Greta Thunberg's face on the rear end of an automobile—or at least, he hasn't proven himself to be any less qualified than the glib little band on social media... yada yada yada.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-06-2023).]
Say "hello" to Challabattula "call me Chall" N... well, I don't have his last name.
Challabattula Nageshwararao, a rice farmer from Veluvalapalli, just a hop, skip and a jump from the Bay of Bengal.
quote
Shunned by banks, millions of tenant farmers such as Challabattula Nageshwararao turn to village moneylenders. At the start of each planting season, Nageshwararao goes to the moneylender to get a loan of about 200,000 rupees for fertilizer, seeds, pesticides and labor to grow rice on 10 acres in Veluvalapalli village, near the coast of the Bay of Bengal. At 24 percent interest, it's five to six times more expensive than a bank loan.
"I don't even bother going to the bank because they will ask for all sorts of documents that I don't have," Nageshwararao, 50, who has been farming in the same village for the past 20 years, said as he walked alongside his rice paddies. "But when I need any money from the moneylender, I just go to him and he gives it to me. It's that easy."
In addition to paying interest, Nageshwararao must sell his harvested rice to the moneylender, who sets the price. This dual role as financier and buyer is common and gives moneylenders total control, said the nonprofit center's Ramanjaneyulu, who holds a doctorate in agriculture.
"These moneylender traders, they can charge whatever they want, and the farmer has no choice but to pay," he said. "This is the serious crisis in agriculture."
The article has nothing to do with climate. It is anti-big bank and anti landlord, and pro socialist.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 04-06-2023).]
Originally posted by williegoat: The article has nothing to do with climate. It is anti-big bank and anti landlord, and pro socialist.
Well.. I only wanted an image of one of India's tenant farmers. Any one of them. As part of my gedankenexperiment (thought experiment) that lines up all the nearly 8 billion people on earth, from first to last, in terms how qualified they are to speak to climate-related issues of science. Like the substance of the IPCC reports. Or the climate-related research that's published through the auspices of NASA, or NOAA, or the U.K.'s "Met" (Meteorology) offices... or Australia's yada yada yada. "What have you."
I have woven this image of one of India's tenant farmers into my narrative, which is a reaction to Wichita and (many of) his forum messages.
The substance of that article is of no matter to me. It has nothing to do with what I wanted to say in reaction to this latest image that Wichita posted. Knowing the substance of this article does not make me want to retract or go back and change even a word of my new Big Narrative.
I just lifted the man's photograph from that article. I couldn't even have read the article if I wanted to. I was blocked by the paywall popup. I could only have read the article if I had subscribed, or registered, which I did not want to do. All I could see was the man's photograph and part of the caption below the photograph, at the very top of the article..
How's that?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-06-2023).]
Maybe you could ask Challa what he thinks of Greta.
CLICK FOR FULL SIZE
Well... that doesn't change my mind about the "ice berg" or the "Ice cube melting in a measuring cup of water" meme, which plays at Science as a way to call out the people (or some of the people) at the COP27 or most recent of the global climate change-concerned gatherings as "IDIOTS"—but this meme plays at Science in the conspicuously inept way of a third baseman who allows a softly struck ground ball to roll between his legs and into the outfield, upon which the opposing team, having just scored the decisive run because of that third baseman's surprising ineptness, wins the game in a "walk off".
The "ice cube melting" meme is a dumb meme. I hope that anyone who extends this forum thread with a new or another message of their own—a "post", as it were—will allow their Better Angels to prevail, and to agree with me that it is a dumb meme in the sense that the "Science" part of it is a FAIL, even if they agree with the overarching idea that is expressed by the meme, that all (or some) of the people at the COP27 or other global warming-focused gathering are, in fact, "idiots".
It would be as if someone came along and said that they didn't like the Biden administration's ideas about student loan forgiveness, because "blue is the most common color expression of living organisms." It's certainly debatable, about the Biden administration's ideas about student loans, but what's that got to do with this completely irrelevant observation about the color "blue", which I think of as a clearly wrong observation—but even if were an accurate observation, it would not be one iota more relevant in this context of student loans. That is the dumbness of this "ice cube" meme.
For someone to have posted this meme previously on this forum (some time ago) without further comment makes me think that the person who posted this meme "fell" for it. The person thought it was a "righteous" meme, on scientific grounds. That the simple, kitchen-table experiment of an ice cube melting in a measuring glass of water is somehow a refutation or debunking of how climate researchers connect the earth's cryosphere (ice) with the earth's sea levels. It is not. I have gone to extraordinary lengths to explain, in as easily understood a way as I can think of, to explain—nay to document—why it is not.
Are members of the social network community that traffics in memes of this kind in a good place to call out the "left" as "anti-science"..?
If that isn't a proverbial pot calling a proverbial kettle "black", then what is?
I have some insight into Wichita's thinking, having avidly followed all of his most recent posts.
When Wichita says the "left" is 'anti-science", he is motivated more by the transgender issues that have arisen in our society, than by any of this climate or global-warming "stuff". He is not knowledgeable enough about what goes in the minds of climate scientists and researchers to have an honest disagreement with them. Ideally, he should "recuse" himself from the topic(s) of the planet's climate and the reality (or hoax) of "global warming".
His constant harping on Greta Thunberg as an object of ridicule is sincere, no doubt, in his own mind. But under the surface or at the subconscious level, I believe that Wichita's "big beef" with the "left" over science is rooted in the tensions and conflicts over whether gender dysphoria is a real thing, or whether people should be allowed to undergo transgendering, and on how the circumscribing conditions or limitations on that should properly be set.
He can troll Greta Thunberg (in particular) or climate activists and their sympathizers all he wants, but he isn't engaging with climate science and scientific research when he does that. I hope he understands that. I hope everyone who comes to these "shoals" understands that.
Edited to add:
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-06-2023).]
If you notice that these leftist brainwashed pseudoscience believing cultist always use fear, often lies, to push their agenda, why would anyone take these leftist cranks seriously on the topic of climate shift?
If the anti-science response to Covid and their bigotry towards females is any tell that they are mad and thought controlled puppets, we can go back to their historical adoption of communism and fascism will give you plenty of evidence.
If the anti-science response to Covid and their bigotry towards females is any tell that they are mad and thought controlled puppets, we can go back to their historical adoption of communism and fascism will give you plenty of evidence.
So, of course, it's in their best interest to push"climate change", isn't it?
So this report starts with this:
quote
A foreign national has funneled boatloads of “dark money” dollars to environmental groups that invested big in data mining operations that targeted millions of President Biden’s voters in crucial swing states ahead of the 2022 midterm elections.
There's nothing in this brief report that connects this with funding for the research that's done at public and private universities and other scientific institutions, or under the aegis of NASA or the NOAA, or the counterparts in other countries, or under the aegis of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
This is about targeting voters.
When researchers submit their research for preprint review or peer-reviewed publication in science journals or at scientifically "regular" meetings or conferences, they are supposed to disclose any outside funding that they have received, if they have receiving such funding, that would not be obvious from their listed academic or governmental affiliations. That funding-related information should be available to the public, because anyone (like me, for example) could go looking at the science journals online.
So let's not redefine what this article is saying, into something significantly different than what it is saying.
That would not be good.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-07-2023).]
Say "hello" to Challabattula "call me Chall" N... well, I don't have his last name. Just that it starts with an "N". His last name keeps getting covered up by a paywall popup that would grant access to the article if I wanted to subscribe. Which I don't. But he's one of India's tenant famers, and even though he needs to take a dump, he stopped just long enough for this photo.
Hahaha!!! How do you know he has to take a dump?
I've been to India, it's a pretty cool place. Unfortunately, their government doesn't really have the structure to control or manage a lot of what goes on. The government has changed little, really, since the British set it up. But what has done more for India than anything else, is Capitalism. This has brought more wealth, and brought more people out of poverty than any of their programs. For that, many of them are very supportive of U.S.-based ideologies. There's very much a caste system, but prior to Capitalism, they had enormous poverty. Poverty does still exist in high numbers, but there are so many mechanisms now to become successful, and the culture itself allows and encourages people to want to get out of it... not like the United States (lately) where we've coddled a victim mentality and encouraged people to just not care anymore because nothing is their fault.
Never the less, India still has a huge problem with pollution. "Climate Change," is the least of their problems. Proper sanitation, waste disposal, natural resource preservation, natural habitat preservation, etc., are far more at issue or concern than climate change. And this is really to the point that I've been trying to make all along. This is a quote which I hope you'll think about, and remember... because I think it's fitting...
"Democrats spend 50% of their efforts solving 1% of the problem, and 49% creating problems."
In the United States, most left-leaning states do not even have a proper recycling program, or a means for environmentally disposing of waste. Some examples of India's problems here:
Originally posted by rinselberg: ... one of the things that caught my eye when I scrolled through the article: "cooling period from 1940-1975..."
quote
The globe also would not have had a thirty-five-year cooling period from 1940-1975, so significant that a dire ice age where billions would die from starvation was predicted if all the things we are told cause warming actually did. Again, it does not take any intelligence to understand that.
What are you trying to say ? Did you look at the last sentence.
quote
Again, it does not take any intelligence to understand that.
What are you trying to say ? That your not intelligent enough to believe what was said ? That your Green Gawds have been wrong before ?
Did we not have a cooling period from 1940 till 1975 even though we were emitting more CO2 every year ?
That is a hyperlink. How do you think the general masses will respond ?
I feel sad for you in that you seem to be traumatized with fear of the temperature rising 2o degrees in 100 years. Traumatized with fear that crops will cease to grow. Traumatized with fear that mankind will cease to exist. Traumatized with fear that all animals will die. Traumatized with fear that the planet will become unihabital. Traumatized with fear that coastal cities will be underwater.
I have a solution for you. Quit using fossil fuels. If all of your Cult did the same, you would be able to sleep at night knowing you made big difference in your belief in Global Warming, and that your Cult solved the demise of the planet.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: They're (Global Warming scientists) concerned about the elevation of sea levels that happens when ice bergs are created by calving from land-based glaciers.
I guess you haven't seen the movie [b]Inconvenient Truth . We then were bombarded with doom and gloom if the icebergs melt then coastal cities would be underwater. We were then fed the fear of the icebrgs were melting. I guess you have not considered that to go to the North Pole by submarine, it goes under a iceberg already floating in water.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 04-07-2023).]
Originally posted by cliffw: Did we not have a cooling period from 1940 [until] 1975, even though we were emitting more CO2 every year?
During these years, human CO2 emissions were on the "up", but so, also, human emissions of other substances that "dirtied up" the air and blocked sunlight from penetrating the atmosphere all the way down to the ground and oceans. It's called "global dimming", and it had a cooling effect that effectively overcame the warming effect of carbon dioxide.
In the years after 1975, new clean air standards for the U.S. and other Western countries began to "clear the skies" by reducing the amounts of smog-forming aerosol and particle emissions. Other countries followed the U.S. and Western Europe in reducing their aerosol and particle emissions, and as the skies around the world cleared and global dimming gave way to global brightening, the upwards trend in temperatures, fed by human carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, became the dominant trend.
If you scroll back to where I was discussing this, I provided two Internet page links for articles that explain this in more detail.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-07-2023).]
We get that the ONLY way we are ever going to take our lives and rights back, and live in some resemblance of left alone in peace, is a genocidal slaughter in size not seen since Noah floated his boat.
If you notice that these leftist brainwashed pseudoscience believing cultist always use fear, often lies, to push their agenda, why would anyone take these leftist cranks seriously on the topic of climate shift?
If the anti-science response to Covid and their bigotry towards females is any tell that they are mad and thought controlled puppets, we can go back to their historical adoption of communism and fascism will give you plenty of evidence.
"Smoke 'em if you got 'em... and some have got 'em Big Time."
Trojan Horse Think of all the CO² we could prevent ! ' Say, that would work on human populations too. Your political and military enemies, infected with a virus that you and your minions could grow in a lab, in, say, a city in a communist country. ' ' That would be swell, we could reduce the population to like, twenty percent of the 2K census. ' Luckily, it would only be the far left end of the bell curve that gets the nix, you know, you know, the untermenschen, the radicals, and their ilk. Sound familiar ? It should, the same errors repeated, because of insane ideologies, repeated, doing again, expecting different results. Think of it as a pest control applied to marxists and their collaborators, a horrific phase of an American Civil War, Parte Du, duh. 1.45 B X 0.2 = 0.29 B, a manageable size for a war. Works on giant communist armies too, in a jiffy. Things will get very ugly, very soon, because ' Aspirations of World Domination ', again. Have to burn that truth into their leader's minds, again. But then, they don't teach those truths in schools anymore. ' Politically Incorrect ' fjb for the fraud fjb for the nuke war
Originally posted by rinselberg: It's called "global dimming", and it had a cooling effect that effectively overcame the warming effect of carbon dioxide.
What's the name of your Cult's dance ? "The Wiggle" ?
I have known about the "global dimming" step in that dance. What a mash up of steps in "the Wiggle". Global Warming became climate change, the iceberg melt became the glacier melt, flooded coastal cities became flailing crops, more severe storms, blah blah blah.
If you scroll back to various posts where I was asked you some questions, you will see that you avoided answering them.
If you would do some critical thinking on what you were told then spouted it to us, you would see the fallacies in the Global Warming fleece and the UN's International Climate Control Panel's corruption in the scam. Are you so blinded by your ideological beliefs that you can not even protect yourself ? Is your memory so short that you can not even remember the proven lies we have been told ? If someone lies to you do you always believe them again ?
Would you like some hints about the different lies we have been told. Or do you choose to ignore them for the ideological lies you are telling us ?
What's the name of your Cult's dance ? "The Wiggle" ?
I have known about the "global dimming" step in that dance. What a mash up of steps in "the Wiggle". Global Warming became climate change, the iceberg melt became the glacier melt, flooded coastal cities became flailing crops, more severe storms, blah blah blah.
If you scroll back to various posts where I was asked you some questions, you will see that you avoided answering them.
If you would do some critical thinking on what you were told then spouted it to us, you would see the fallacies in the Global Warming fleece and the UN's International Climate Control Panel's corruption in the scam. Are you so blinded by your ideological beliefs that you can not even protect yourself ? Is your memory so short that you can not even remember the proven lies we have been told ? If someone lies to you do you always believe them again ?
Would you like some hints about the different lies we have been told. Or do you choose to ignore them for the ideological lies you are telling us ?
That was unintended Global Dimming, during the years from (roughly) 1940 to 1975. The aerosol and particle emissions were just accepted as a necessary evil, until the U.S. and other Western nations realized that cleaner air was a necessity, not just a luxury, and so the era of EPA-regulated Air Quality Standards began in the U.S. and like measures were taken in the other Western nations and eventually by almost all other nations, to a certain degree—some, obviously, more than others.
When people talk about ideas like purposely seeding the atmosphere with aerosols to counteract Global Warming, they are talking about Global Dimming by design.
What else would be in that category? That "moon dust" idea that I described just a week or two back. I"m sure that "cliffw" remembers it. The idea of creating a "sun shield" for the earth by installing one or more catapult-like devices on the lunar surface to catapult lunar dust towards the Lagrange point, where the dust would orbit around the earth and block some of the sun's energy from reaching the earth.
GDD... Global Dimming by Design. I guess it's not a no-brainer. Does that make it a brainer?
The eco-terrorists should be more concerned with "mental dimming", from the perpetual brain fog they suffer from.
Ever notice that everything the eco-nuts post ("facts", "figures" and the made up "graphs") they claim is "science" and should be believed as the gospel truth or else, and anything that contradicts their claim, even if it's from accredited scientists and PHD holders is immediately dismissed as "lies", even if there's proof of what they claim?
Sounds like a one-sided argument to me, like everything else they "believe". That's why they must, at all costs, censor any and all opposing arguments.
And, once you realize that, then you also realize that the arguments that are "allowed" are the ones that are BS.
Originally posted by rinselberg: Try one of these.
Ah, ... the bob and weave is also a dance step of the "Wiggle".
quote
Originally posted by Fitz301: Ever notice that everything the eco-nuts post ("facts", "figures" and the made up "graphs") they claim is "science" and should be believed as the gospel truth or else, and anything that contradicts their claim, even if it's from accredited scientists and PHD holders is immediately dismissed as "lies", even if there's proof of what they claim?
quote
Originally posted by Fitz301: ... even if there's proof of what they claim?
There never is.
Have you ever noticed that everything the Damnocrats try to claim true they dismiss if they are challenged with logic ? I guess we need to also use bullzhit figures and graphs.
Have you noticed that rinselberg dances the wiggle.
Have you ever noticed that they try to wear sane people down into believing what they claim. By repetition, over and over and over. Have you ever noticed their sheet is so weak that they need to have an echo chamber to support their bull sheet, to help sell us their bull sheet ? Have you ever noticed they do not respond to logical concerns ? Because they can not defend their bull sheet ?
If not, you have not been paying attention to rinselberg. He quit dancing with me because I dance the Logic. Never the Wiggle.
If you scroll through this photo gallery, there are photos of the Los Angeles area from the 1950s and 1960s and some maybe even before that. This is what Los Angeles was like during the period from (roughly)1940 to 1975, when global temperatures were trending cooler, rather than warmer. You see the famous L.A. smog. That's the effect of aerosol and particle emissions.
I just described how aerosol and particle emissions were high during this 1940-1975 period, before the U.S. and other countries began to limit these emissions as a way to (literally) clear the air.
The geography and topography of the Los Angeles Basin created the dramatic smog episodes caused by heat inversions of the atmosphere, but all around the world, cities and the surrounding areas had air above that was hazier and less transparent because of the aerosol and particle emissions that were endemic to that time in world history.
You can look at these photographs and sense that the temperature around you (if you were there) would be somewhat lower, because of the sunlight being weaker at ground level because a certain percentage of it was being blocked from ever reaching the ground by these aerosols and particles.
That part of the sunlight was being reflected away from the ground and oceans and turned into a diffuse or indirect lighting that did not light up the ground and oceans with the same warming effect as direct or high angle sunlight... like the sun's warmth from mid-morning to mid-afternoon on a day with clear or mostly clear skies.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-08-2023).]
?
What's that in English?
