Re: Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a Smear

On Fri, 20 Sep 2024, William Hyde wrote:

Hmm, this is very strange. No insults, no ad hominems, somewhere in your text, surely an insult or two are hiding? Can't find it!

>
I leave those to you, and you provide plenty.

Now we're talking! ;)

Needless to say, there are loads of scientists who are of the opinion that what we see is natural and not man made.

>
When examined closely the vast majority of those turn out to be unqualified individuals.

Actually, it is the opposite. Many climate rationalists come from
engineering, physics and the natural sciences, while many climate hysterics come
from gender science, postmodernism, economics, agriculture and other
hobby-sciences.

But it doesn't matter, only arguments do.  Neither you nor Lynn have offered a scintilla of evidence in defense of your position (the solar constant variations you mention in another post are the ones I cited above, and do not explain global warming at all).

Plenty of evidence and logical explanations as far as I can see.

science is not democracy, where you vote, so it doesn't matter if 10 people believe X if 1 person can prove Y.

>
But you can't prove Y.  You haven't even tried. But I've presented evidence for X.

There's plenty of proof. The problem is that it is mostly hidden from
plain sight due political reasons. We all remember climate gate for
instance, which is probably just the tip of the iceberg.
But the good thing is that eventually the truth will come out. The
question is if it will happen before or after, we've been reduced to
medieval times due to eco-fascism.

Of course there is inertia in

the system, so the 10 won't change over night, but eventually, with a paradigm shift or two they will.

>
On the contrary, if the world of 2100 is two C warmer than today, denialists will still be denying.

The temperature on earth has always varied. This is nothing to be afraid
of. In fact, an increase in warmth will have many beneficial effects, so
do not be afraid of the future.

So since neither will convince the other,

>
You don't even try.  And your declaration of closed-mindedness is disturbing.

Likewise. See above.

Regardless of if it is man made or natural, what to do?

>
Nowhere below do you mention the increasingly acid ocean.  That place where our oxygen largely comes from.  Life can adapt to slow changes in PH.  But this is not slow.
>
What is your plan for that?  And how much will it cost?

This is not my job. Plenty of resources online if you are interested,
but a small tasting sample:
Natural Buffering Capacity: The ocean has a natural buffering system
that helps maintain its pH levels despite the influx of CO2. This
buffering primarily involves carbonate ions (CO3^2-) and bicarbonate
ions (HCO3^-), which react with excess hydrogen ions (H+) produced
when CO2 dissolves in seawater. This reaction forms carbonic acid
(H2CO3), which can dissociate into bicarbonate and hydrogen ions,
thus partially mitigating changes in pH.
Current pH Levels: Although there has been a measurable decrease in
ocean pH—about 0.1 units since the Industrial Revolution—this change
represents approximately a 30% increase in acidity due to the
logarithmic nature of the pH scale. Therefore, while the ocean is
becoming more acidic, it remains within an alkaline range.
Absorption Rates: The oceans absorb about 30% of atmospheric CO2
emissions; however, this process does not lead to immediate drastic
changes in acidity because of the vast volume of water and its
ability to dilute these changes over time.
Variability Across Regions: Different regions experience varying
degrees of acidification based on local conditions such as
temperature, salinity, and biological activity. Coastal areas may
experience more significant acidification due to factors like
nutrient runoff and upwelling events that bring deeper, more acidic
waters to the surface.
Biological Adaptation: Some marine organisms have shown resilience
or adaptability to changing conditions, allowing them to survive
even as environmental parameters shift.
Ergo, not a problem.

Since climate, coast lines, temperatures and what ever has shifted numerous times before (without the help of man) humanity has adapted or moved to a better place.
 The same strategy will work now as well. For instance, where I now live, there was once 3 km of ice (without the help of man, and it disappeared without the help of man too), and at that time no one lived here. Now people live here.

>
>
This is one of the fundamental errors of denialists.  To compare change that took place over eighteen thousand years with change due to take place  over a couple of centuries.

Actually no. On local levels, climate and weather has changed
dramatically, and the point is that we always had to adapt, and that
we'll adapt to any potential natural change this time to.

So if one areas gets hot, people will move to another.

>
Great, let's move 30 million Brazilians to the US. I'm sure the republican party will have no problem with that!

First of all, people can move within their own country, second of all,
they don't need to move tomorrow.
You must remember that these changes take place over 100s and 1000s of
years. Also note that the republicans do not decide who will move were
all over the planet.
Believe me, there is plenty of space, and there is plenty of time to
people to move to the climate they enjoy the most.
One funamental error of eco-fascism is the thought that a small group of
wise politicians should run everyones lives, and as we know by
experience, when this happens, it ends up in genocide, authoritarianism
and complete catastrophy.

And how about a hundred million Indians while you're at it?  They may soon have to switch to more heat-resistant but lower yielding crops in India, so I'm sure some would prefer Kansas.

See above. You are very US-centric, and short-time centric in your
examples.

There is also AC

and numerous other technologies to deal with that.

>
Air conditioning does not work for farmland.  Or were you planning on giving up food?

AC is used for humans and animals. I don't know why bring up farmland.
There has been vegetation on the planet when CO2 was 7x to 21x higher
than today, and I do not see that that shoudl change.

The areas of the world now too cold for agriculture mostly do not have good soil, or in some cases soil at all. Northern Ontario is a vast area, but even if it becomes warm enough to grow crops, it won't produce as much as a county in Iowa.  After a century of effort it might just get there.

We have technology to deal with that.

The coast line will move? Not a problem, move inland.

>
Sure, the cost of abandoning New York, London, Shanghai, Amsterdam, Washington, Miami, Hamburg ... it's a rounding error.  Putting up housing, schools, transport, hospitals, factories, and the like for a billion people will boost the economy!  Buy Toll Brothers!

See above.

Have we, as humans ever shown the ability to move large populations without a huge death toll?

See above.

eco-fascism,   Power corrupts, and absolute
power corrupts absolutely.

>
climate-hysteric
eco-fascist

I'm only defending. I did not start the witch hunt on "deniers".

He also explains why all is not doom and gloom. The planet has been warmer, it is currently greening,

>
Ah, that explains the vast forest fires.   Black is the new green.

Could be. Also note that forest fires are natural and healthy for the
eco-system. Nasa har proven the planet is greening, which is very
painful for climate hysterics.

Last year's wildfires burnt 185,000 square kilometers in Canada.  They didn't all go out in the winter.  This year isn't so bad, only double thew worst previous year. Four years ago in Australia the toll was 240,000 square km.

Actually, we've had fewer forest fires these days, than we've had
historically.

so warmer climate will bring a lot of

good with it.

>
You provide zero evidence of this.

I have.

So I say, enjoy the ride, enjoy reclaiming deserts,

>
The general effect of warming is that areas which get a lot of rain get more, areas which get little get less.
>
So some dry areas are becoming deserts.  Wet areas get flooding.

We see signs of greening and deserts receding.

and do not work to introduce eco-fascism,

>
Just can't seem to stop the insults, can you?

Eco-fascism is not an insult, it is a fact. It is the political ideology
where common people shall be taxed to death, and the world reduced to
medieval living conditions, based on the a false dooms-day narrative
that does not bear up to scientific scrutiny.
It also explains why a lot of scientists are scrambling to support the
narrative in the hope of becoming part of the nobility of the future
authoritarian society politicians are steering us towards.

which will only bring wars and

death when the public gets desperate.

>
War is on the way already, if not here. We'll see more as people get desperate.

That is due to the lack of freedom and capitalism. The reason for wars
is that the world is currently turning towards eco-fascism and
socialism, which will cause collapsing financial systems. When people
then starve, unrest will happen. Politicians need to divert the peoples
anger, and start wars to find a common enemy to unite against.
This is basic psychology and this cycles has repeat again and again
historically.

So, the costs of doing nothing involve moving, housing, and etc, a billion people or so, somehow keeping the ocean sufficiently alkaline, converting

Yes. But note that since we still have a resemblance of freedom and
capitalism, it is not a problem for a politician or authoritarian ruler,
this is for individuals to decide. Some will some won't, and that's the
beauty of the system.
One thing is sure, if eco-fascism gets hold and replaces democracy,
which is starting to happen slowly, we will all suffer when we're back
in medieval times.