• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Climate Change(d)?

An old tactic.

Insult and agitate then coplain that you are a victim when others respond.

Stock and trade for Trump as a prime example.
 
lol, you lot are like flat earth conspiracy theorists.

May I hijack the thread to ask a serious question? What constitutes an "insult"?

Is the above quote by Mr. Swizz an "insult"? Elsewhere I wrote that Mr. Swizz "seems stupid [but actually isn't]." Was mine an insult while Swizz's isn't just because "stupid" is an insulting word, while none of the words in the above quote is, individually, an "insulting word"?
I regret saying anything, Swammi. I have a problem with the word stupid, as I explained before, since I was called stupid for years by a family member.

Other reasons too, which I explained, but no one is even remotely in agreement with me about that.

Yes, TSwizzle has insulted people too. I think lots of us have. I have.

I would need a new thread to express all my thoughts about how this particular knot of regulars go about discussing things, including Swiz. But it would only result in me being hauled up as being some kind of horrible person.

Apologies to you, Swammi. Forget what I said.

Ultimately, IIDB is really not the place for me anymore.
 
Last edited:
lol, you lot are like flat earth conspiracy theorists.

May I hijack the thread to ask a serious question? What constitutes an "insult"?

Is the above quote by Mr. Swizz an "insult"? Elsewhere I wrote that Mr. Swizz "seems stupid [but actually isn't]." Was mine an insult while Swizz's isn't just because "stupid" is an insulting word, while none of the words in the above quote is, individually, an "insulting word"?
I regret saying anything, Swammi. I have a problem with the word stupid, as I explained before, since I was called stupid for years by a family member.
I've been abused too, but I reacted differently to it and it's resulted in me not caring as much about certain things (and my father was an outright racist, not to mention into conspiracy theories, for example). But it's complicated.
 
Last edited:
lol, you lot are like flat earth conspiracy theorists.

May I hijack the thread to ask a serious question? What constitutes an "insult"?

Is the above quote by Mr. Swizz an "insult"? Elsewhere I wrote that Mr. Swizz "seems stupid [but actually isn't]." Was mine an insult while Swizz's isn't just because "stupid" is an insulting word, while none of the words in the above quote is, individually, an "insulting word"?
I regret saying anything, Swammi. I have a problem with the word stupid, as I explained before, since I was called stupid for years by a family member.
I've been abused too, but I reacted differently to it and it's resulted in me not caring as much about certain things (and my father was an outright racist, not to mention into conspiracy theories, for example). But it's complicated.
I hear ya. My father is/was a racist, as were lots of people I grew up around. Can't tell you how many times I was called a "n**** lover". Or called stupid for not owning a gun, etc...

I'm a middle child and grew up trying to be a diplomat between my older brother and younger sister. The habit stuck. But trying to be a diplomat here will only get you accused of being a far right wingnut.
 
lol, you lot are like flat earth conspiracy theorists.

May I hijack the thread to ask a serious question? What constitutes an "insult"?

Is the above quote by Mr. Swizz an "insult"? Elsewhere I wrote that Mr. Swizz "seems stupid [but actually isn't]." Was mine an insult while Swizz's isn't just because "stupid" is an insulting word, while none of the words in the above quote is, individually, an "insulting word"?
I regret saying anything, Swammi. I have a problem with the word stupid, as I explained before, since I was called stupid for years by a family member.
I've been abused too, but I reacted differently to it and it's resulted in me not caring as much about certain things (and my father was an outright racist, not to mention into conspiracy theories, for example). But it's complicated.
I hear ya. My father is/was a racist, as were lots of people I grew up around. Can't tell you how many times I was called a "n**** lover". Or called stupid for not owning a gun, etc...

I'm a middle child and grew up trying to be a diplomat between my older brother and younger sister. The habit stuck. But trying to be a diplomat here will only get you accused of being a far right wingnut.
I don't think you're a far right wingnut obviously, it's just part of my experience is having to pretend to respect my family (very tiring), so I don't react well to the idea I have to pretend to respect a person. Been doing that for years to the detriment of my own mental health.
 
lol, you lot are like flat earth conspiracy theorists.

May I hijack the thread to ask a serious question? What constitutes an "insult"?

Is the above quote by Mr. Swizz an "insult"? Elsewhere I wrote that Mr. Swizz "seems stupid [but actually isn't]." Was mine an insult while Swizz's isn't just because "stupid" is an insulting word, while none of the words in the above quote is, individually, an "insulting word"?
I regret saying anything, Swammi. I have a problem with the word stupid, as I explained before, since I was called stupid for years by a family member.
I've been abused too, but I reacted differently to it and it's resulted in me not caring as much about certain things (and my father was an outright racist, not to mention into conspiracy theories, for example). But it's complicated.
I hear ya. My father is/was a racist, as were lots of people I grew up around. Can't tell you how many times I was called a "n**** lover". Or called stupid for not owning a gun, etc...

I'm a middle child and grew up trying to be a diplomat between my older brother and younger sister. The habit stuck. But trying to be a diplomat here will only get you accused of being a far right wingnut.
I don't think you're a far right wingnut obviously, it's just part of my experience is having to pretend to respect my family (very tiring), so I don't react well to the idea I have to pretend to respect a person. Been doing that for years to the detriment of my own mental health.
If I may:

There seem to be people who thrive on arguing online. I guess we used to call them trolls. Back in the Newsgroups days, I saw trolls completely destroy various discussion groups, because of the total lack of moderators. I used to have epic battles with trolls, some 25 years ago, until I realized I was wasting my time, not to mention driving my wife and little kids nuts. I also realized that I was giving the trolls exactly what they wanted.
 
I have never said we should be polite to bullies, but I don't like calling people stupid for having an opinion, however unpopular. I can say, "hey that's a stupid thing to say", but lots of very smart people say very stupid things sometimes. There are very smart people here who have said monumentally stupid things.

I am truly sorry if I've said anything to offend you.
What he's saying isn't simply an opinion. It's contrary to widely established fact--namely, that infectious disease exists. That's stupid.

You must have missed it when I said I don't see anything wrong with saying something is stupid or that something someone says is stupid. What I object to (rightly) is accusing someone of BEING stupid, as in lacking intelligence, for holding a certain belief or view - even if the view or belief is not very sensible.

Lots of very intelligent people believe stupid things (religion comes to mind); and some intelligent people hold horrible, rotten, despicable views. Evil and intelligence are not mutually exclusive.

But you do you, and I will do me. I don't plan on changing my mind on this particular thing just because you lot here disapprove.

ETA : Wait a minute. You talking about RFK or TSwizzle? Because I was talking about the latter. Or has TSwizzle claimed that infectious disease doesn't exist?
Yeah, I'm talking about RFK Jr. It takes stupidity to hold an opinion so contrary to measurable reality.
 
The global sience is that all natural causes are accounted for and the current iissues are from human pollution. It is upon us now.

This is just nonsense on stilts.
Calling it nonsense doesn't make it so. You've never tried to challenge the facts. Your position looks an awful lot like a religion.
 
Another thing is science can be extremely competitive. If there were credible alternatives to the current consensus they would surface.
Unfortunately, not always true. Science that says "nothing here" generally loses out to science that says "something here". But in this case we have a whole lot of money that would benefit from the "nothing here"--yet they come up with bullshit.
 
By the by, I do not agree with TSwizzle with respect to Climate Change. Nor do I agree with most of what he says.

You disagree that the earth’s climate changes naturally and is variable? :consternation2:
Of course it changes naturally. We can measure the forces at work. The noise is considerably larger than the signal--year over year is functionally random. Decade over decade is extremely not random.
 
I regret saying anything, Swammi. I have a problem with the word stupid, as I explained before, since I was called stupid for years by a family member.

Other reasons too, which I explained, but no one is even remotely in agreement with me about that.

Yes, TSwizzle has insulted people too. I think lots of us have. I have.

I would need a new thread to express all my thoughts about how this particular knot of regulars go about discussing things, including Swiz. But it would only result in me being hauled up as being some kind of horrible person.

Apologies to you, Swammi. Forget what I said.

Ultimately, IIDB is really not the place for me anymore.

Please don't go away! Your comment did NOT upset me; no apology needed. My question about insulting words was NOT related to your comment. I have often seen objection to a single word while a long insulting phrase goes unremarked, and sincerely wondered whether others had noticed this also.
 
I regret saying anything, Swammi. I have a problem with the word stupid, as I explained before, since I was called stupid for years by a family member.

Other reasons too, which I explained, but no one is even remotely in agreement with me about that.

Yes, TSwizzle has insulted people too. I think lots of us have. I have.

I would need a new thread to express all my thoughts about how this particular knot of regulars go about discussing things, including Swiz. But it would only result in me being hauled up as being some kind of horrible person.

Apologies to you, Swammi. Forget what I said.

Ultimately, IIDB is really not the place for me anymore.

Please don't go away! Your comment did NOT upset me; no apology needed. My question about insulting words was NOT related to your comment. I have often seen objection to a single word while a long insulting phrase goes unremarked, and sincerely wondered whether others had noticed this also.
No, I'm not leaving quite yet.
 
lol, you lot are like flat earth conspiracy theorists.

May I hijack the thread to ask a serious question? What constitutes an "insult"?

Is the above quote by Mr. Swizz an "insult"? Elsewhere I wrote that Mr. Swizz "seems stupid [but actually isn't]." Was mine an insult while Swizz's isn't just because "stupid" is an insulting word, while none of the words in the above quote is, individually, an "insulting word"?
I regret saying anything, Swammi. I have a problem with the word stupid, as I explained before, since I was called stupid for years by a family member.

Other reasons too, which I explained, but no one is even remotely in agreement with me about that.

Yes, TSwizzle has insulted people too. I think lots of us have. I have.
I'd note, there is a difference between insulting someone with some words and insulting the board by rarely ever trying to have a discourse.
 
Then why don't you do that. Nobody is forcing you to stay here giving eye rolls and making idiotic posts. Seriously, why are you here if you don't even want to try to understand the human impact of climate change? It's your close mindedness to scientific evidence that is problem. That is why you remind us of religious extremists. Like you, they can't handle the truth.

lol, “the science is settled” is as close minded as you can get.
The science is settled. The deniers sound like the tobacco executives.
 
Natural sources of greenhouse gases like vulcanism have been ruled out by measurements of the contributions.
The irony of the poster contesting “settled science” by calling it groupthink and using the fucking internet to give voice to his abysmal ignorance, that irony is so overwhelming that it actually mimics native stupidity in a lot of ways.
The thing is by deceptive means the natural CO2 emission exceeds human CO2 emission. In reality this is simply the cycle of plants growing, then being eaten or decaying releasing the CO2 they absorbed. This loop is basically carbon neutral but they pretend it's natural emissions.
 
... I should not have to keep repeating that climate changes naturally and is variable

Yes! :thumbup: You are asking the right questions and, if you study diligently, will be on a path to understanding.
but here I am again having to repeat it.

No. :HEADBUTT: The rest of us are well past this. Repeat it to yourself if you need to.

Climate variations can be periodic, quasi-periodic, or episodic. The variations can take place over a wide range of time periods. Here's a brief refresher:
  • 24-hour period. A locale is warmer when facing the sun, and cooler at night. You already know that much. The variation is roughly 9°C in Santa Monica.
  • 12-month period. A latitude is warmer when the noon-time Sun passes overhead. The variations are additive, so a winter day may often be warmer than a summer night! This variation is about 10°C in Santa Monica.
  • El Niño–Southern Oscillation (quasi-periodic; 2 - 7 years) caused by shifts in ocean current patterns. Temperature variations are highly variable but 3°C is typical. Lately La Niñas are often warmer than the El Niños of yesteryear. See if you can guess why before reading ahead.
  • Sunspot cycle (quasi-periodic, typ. 11 years) Temperature variation about 0.1°C.
  • There are many other quasi-periodic and transitory events that can affect temperature. As just one example, expect a temporary lowering of temperature by about 1°C once a century due to volcanic eruption.
  • 26,000-year period. The slow wobble of Earth's rotational axis.
  • 41,000-year period. The variation in the Earth's axial tilt.
  • 100,000-year (quasi-)period. The change in the eccentricity of Earth's orbit.
  • The preceding three Milankovitch cycles interact (precession has little effect without eccentricity; whether axial tilt cools or warms on average depends on the other parameters). Below is a graph comparing temperature with the July insolation at 65° N as predicted by the Milankovitch cycles. Correlation is very good; temperature variations are often about 5°C. But note that Milankovitch predicts a cooling which is NOT occurring. Instead temperatures are likely to soon surpass the maximum during the Eemian interglacial 120,000 years ago -- apparently the warmest Earth has been for a million years.
  • Positive feedback loops. As we see next, events can affect glaciation and the Earth's albedo. As ice advances, albedo cools the Earth further. As ice retreats, loss of albedo warms the Earth. This is why loss of glaciers and sea ice is troubling.
  • Miscellaneous geological events. We'll mention just the closure of the Panama isthmus which MIGHT have happened about 3 million years ago. This isthmus blocked the flow of water between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, strengthening the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and the Gulf Stream. The strengthened currents delivered more warm, moist water to the northern latitudes, which was eventually deposited as snow at high latitudes, forming glaciers, and leading to the start of the Northern Hemisphere glaciation period.
  • Biological events. About 49 million years ago, vast blooms of the Azolla fern on the Arctic Ocean consumed enormous amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide and caused global temperatures to drop; this led to the formation of the Antarctic ice sheet.
  • While the Azola event reduced atmospheric CO2 and caused cooling, Human Technology has increased atmospheric CO2 which leads to warming. I'm confident that you understand at lest this much.
  • The "Little Ice Age" a few centuries ago arose due to a number of factors, of which one might be reforestation (trapping CO2) in the wake of epidemics in North America.

This should be enough to get you started, @TSwizzle .

Vostok.png
 
Finally, thankfully, the global warming craze is dying out. To paraphrase Monty Python, the climate parrot may still be nailed to its perch at the recent COP summit in Belém, Brazil – or at Harvard and on CNN – but elsewhere it’s dead. It’s gone to meet its maker, kicked the bucket, shuffled off this mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. By failing to pledge a cut in fossil fuels, COP achieved less than nothing, the venue caught fire, the air-conditioning malfunctioned – and delegates were told on arrival not to flush toilet paper. Bill Gates’s recent apologia, in which he conceded that global warming “will not lead to humanity’s demise,” after he closed the policy and advocacy office of his climate philanthropy group is just the latest nail in the coffin. In October, the Net Zero Banking Alliance shut down after JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs led a stampede of other banks out the door. Shell and BP have returned to being oil companies, to the delight of their shareholders. Ford is about to cease production of electric pickups that nobody wants. Hundreds of other companies are dropping their climate targets. Australia has backed out of hosting next year’s climate conference. According to analysis by the Washington Post, it is not just Republicans who have given up on climate change: the Democratic party has stopped talking about it, hardly mentioning it during Kamala Harris’s campaign for president last year. The topic has dropped to the bottom half of a table of 23 concerns among Swedish youths. Even the European Parliament has voted to exempt many companies from reporting rules that require them to state how they are helping fight climate change. Switching to renewable energy made no difference, literally. Here’s the data: the world added 9,000 terawatt-hours per year of energy consumption from wind and solar in the past decade, but 13,000 from fossil fuels. Not that wind and solar save much carbon dioxide anyway, their machinery being made with coal and their intermittency being backed up by fossil fuels. Despite trillions of dollars in subsidies, these two “unreliables” still provide just 6 percent of the world’s energy. Their low-density, high-cost, intermittent power output is of no use to data centers or electric grids, let alone transport and heating

The Spectator, The end of the climate cult

The jig is up.
 
From Teh Gruaniad in 2004, almost a quarter of a century ago.

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters.. A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.
Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 ‘catastrophic’ shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. ‘We don’t know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,’ he said. Symons, who left the EPA in protest at political interference, said that the suppression of the report was a further instance of the White House trying to bury evidence of climate change.

Teh Gruaniad

:hysterical:
 
Climate change is costing a lot of money today and causing catastrophes globally.

A 2019 report estimated that the city of Seattle's costs for sea level rise defenses would be approximately
$716.3 million, while Tacoma's costs would be around $382.3 million. These figures are from a study that calculated the expense of building seawalls and bulkheads to protect against rising waters. It is important to note these are projections and specific costs will depend on the final engineering designs, the pace of sea-level rise, and the adaptation measures ultimately chosen.

Seattle: An estimated $716.3 million to build necessary sea walls and bulkheads.
Tacoma: An estimated $382.3 million for similar infrastructure costs.
Washington State: The same report estimated the total cost for Washington state to be around $24 billion.
Context: These costs are projections for constructing physical defenses and do not include other potential expenses, such as flooding damage, economic disruption to ports, or long-term maintenance.

Climate change will cost Washington $24 billion in 'high tide ...
Jun 19, 2019 — The total for Washington added up to 1,651 miles of seawalls or bulkheads. Total cost was calculated as an engineering...
KNKX

Act Now or Pay Later: The Costs of Climate Inaction for Ports and ...
Costs of Storm-Related Port Damages and Disruptions The report examines and approximates these future costs for ports and shipping...
Environmental Defense Fund
Environmental experts worried about sea levels rising | FOX 13 Seattle
Jan 21, 2025 — By the end of the century, some data suggest up to two to three feet of sea level rise in Seattle. Rising waters can a...
FOX 13 Seattle

While a specific total cost for the Port of Los Angeles is not provided, studies on the Port of Long Beach suggest it will need to spend
around $246 million in the next two decades for sea-level rise protection. The Port of Los Angeles is conducting its own adaptation study to identify vulnerabilities and develop strategies, which will involve significant future costs, with other studies estimating a wide range of costs for California coastal adaptation, notes the Legislative Analyst’s Office. The overall cost for the region will depend on the adaptation measures chosen, with options ranging from hard infrastructure like seawalls to more flexible approaches.

Rising sea levels could cost the Port of San Francisco between $5 billion and $13.5 billion for its specific waterfront flood protection projects, as detailed in the SF Port waterfront flood study. These costs are for infrastructure upgrades like flood defenses and seawalls, but the final price tag will depend on the scale and implementation of the projects and will likely be part of a larger regional effort to protect the entire Bay Area, estimated to cost around $110 billion in total.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom