Far-Right Climate Denial Is Scary. Far-Right Climate Acceptance Might Be Scarier. - Page 9 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Any other minor ideologies.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15015279
Hindsite wrote:The first link I give is the 2016 study from the journal Nature cited when he writes, "Per a 2016 study published in the journal Nature, the earth gained a net total of 5,000 square miles of coastal land area from 1985 to 2015." If you want to read that entire study, you will have to pay for it as stated in the link.

And the second link I give is just an additional article from National Geographic that also cites the same 2016 study from the journal Nature giving the same "net gain of more than 13,000 square kilometers (5,000 square miles) of land," since you claimed my original source was from a questionable website.

I don't have any links to the earlier studies he cited in his article. So you are going to have to find those on your own, if you are that interested.


So you have not provided evidence that Kiribati is subsiding, and thus @Truth To Power‘s argument is not supported.
#15015405
Pants-of-dog wrote:So you have not provided evidence that Kiribati is subsiding, and thus @Truth To Power‘s argument is not supported.

My point was to provide evidence that Kiribati is not sinking, and not necessarily to support an argument of @Truth To Power.
#15015464
SSDR wrote:"The truth" is not a description of an economy.

It's a description of my statements.
You're avoiding politics on a political forum.

You are being absurd.
You're still not giving characteristics of a mode of production that you support.

Sure I am: production based on secure individual rights to life, liberty, property in the fruits of one's labor, and consensual exchange.
A monopoly company does have power over a capitalist state, thus still being a capitalist economy.

The company is still not the state, which proves your claim false.
You proved my point, yet you claim to go against it.

I proved your point was wrong.
Nothing that set society free from ignorance, false consciousness, and religious oppression is evil.

But socialism IS ignorance and false consciousness, if not always religious oppression.
Those tools label such social liberation as "evil" to prevent an attack against the exploiters.

Which should be attacked: those who take advantage of ("exploit") victims of oppression, or the oppressors? If a sociopathic criminal goes around beating people up, and a doctor charges them the market rate for treating their injuries, thus earning a handsome living for himself, socialists think it is the doctor who is the problem and should be attacked, not the sociopath.
That is because I do not follow anyone.

LOL! You follow that prize fool, Karl Marx.
I do not let social norms internally rule me. I do not let social manipulation rule me. I do not let money rule my mind because money does not buy love.

False on all counts.
This is not a political statement, yet you're posting on a political forum.

It has political implications. Sorry if you can't understand that.
I think people who have false consciousness like you are evil.

I have given a definition of evil and shown how it applies. You are just name calling.
You're asking questions that are out of context.

Nope.
"Good" is a false emotional word that cannot be truly used for political agendas.

You are making a fool of yourself. Is that good?
Your dictionary must be bad.

Because it proves you wrong?
And you don't know how to use a Correct dictionary because if you did, you would gain real consciousness you Nazi.

What an eloquent self-refutation.
You've seen lies more than once.

I have indeed.
And a lie told often enough becomes the false truth. And a fool like you would believe in false truth.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
You're promoting social hostility, which won't do you anything political.

Look who's talking!
You rarely make political statements, yet you're posting on a political forum.

It's pointless to make political claims as you do: i.e., without factual or logical support. Facts and logic have political implications. Too bad you can't understand that.
Your head on bashings show how much you lack real consciousness, and it shows how much your heart is being oppressed by tools that are used to exploit fools like you. A sympathetic person would feel sorry for you, but you bash enough that you are at some point in the future, self destructive in a social manner.

<yawn>
#15015465
Pants-of-dog wrote:So you have not provided evidence that Kiribati is subsiding, and thus @Truth To Power‘s argument is not supported.

:lol: :roll: :knife:

You are priceless.

Before I would have to provide evidence that Kiribati is subsiding, YOU would have to demonstrate that sea level there is rising. Not only have you not done that, but Hindsite provided the proof that it isn't.
Pants-of-dog wrote:The Kiribati islands are becoming uninhabitable due to sea level rise,

Nope.
which poisons fresh water, and makes soil non-arable.

Intrusion of sea water is mostly caused by extraction of fresh water from the ground.
This sea level rise is due to global warming.

The intrusion of sea water in Kiribati is not caused by sea level rise, as Hindsite showed you, and the warming of the global climate in the 20th century was mainly due to sustained anomalously high solar activity, not CO2.
#15015483
Truth To Power wrote:Before I would have to provide evidence that Kiribati is subsiding, YOU would have to demonstrate that sea level there is rising.


https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Not only have you not done that, but Hindsite provided the proof that it isn't.


No. Hindsite provided evidence that humans are trying to create more land area.

Nope.

Intrusion of sea water is mostly caused by extraction of fresh water from the ground.


Please provide evidence that this is the problem on the Kiribati islands.

The intrusion of sea water in Kiribati is not caused by sea level rise, as Hindsite showed you,


Hindsitr posted evidence concerning area of land, and it had nothing to do with sea water contaminating fresh water supplies.

I assume you did not read his source.

and the warming of the global climate in the 20th century was mainly due to sustained anomalously high solar activity, not CO2.


No. And you will not provide evidence for this either.
#15015538
Truth To Power wrote:It's a description of my statements.

You are emotionally describing how you feel your economics are, but you're not giving any characteristics of your ideal economy. It is like asking what car do you drive, and you respond, "my car is the truth and it is correct."
You are being absurd.

You are still avoiding politics.
Sure I am: production based on secure individual rights to life, liberty, property in the fruits of one's labor, and consensual exchange.

And how would your ideal economy help people reach that? What characteristics would be there?
The company is still not the state, which proves your claim false.

But the state is protecting the capitalist rights of the ruling monopoly, and the state is conserving the capitalist mode of production.
I proved your point was wrong.

You proving anything isn't political. And you didn't prove that I am "wrong" because this is a political forum, not a truth or lie forum.
But socialism IS ignorance and false consciousness, if not always religious oppression.

Socialism liberates the hearts and the minds of everyone who has real consciousness. You stating that a type of economy is "ignorant" is not political, it's an emotional rant.
Which should be attacked: those who take advantage of ("exploit") victims of oppression, or the oppressors? If a sociopathic criminal goes around beating people up, and a doctor charges them the market rate for treating their injuries, thus earning a handsome living for himself, socialists think it is the doctor who is the problem and should be attacked, not the sociopath.

In your example, both the doctor and the criminal, because the doctor helped the criminal be a criminal by putting him in the position of being a criminal by mandating higher testosterone, unrecognized domestic abuse, and the love of money, all of which would be absent in socialism because they do not need to exist in socialism.

Your example is not what socialists see. It is what anarchists see. And anarchists are not socialists.
LOL! You follow that prize fool, Karl Marx.

When did I ever claim to be a "Marxist" or a "Marxist Leninist?" I am not a "Marxist." I am a SCIENTIFIC SOCIALIST who supports some views of what Marx had. I could use Marx as a tool to go against social and economic oppression to the ignorant people who blindly support it like you.
False on all counts.

"True" or "false" are not political engagements. They are emotional rants.
It has political implications. Sorry if you can't understand that.

I can understand you. You can't understand me.
I have given a definition of evil and shown how it applies. You are just name calling.

Your views are evil. Because you are false.
Nope.

Your questions are out of context. It's like asking a cat "why do radios fly?"
You are making a fool of yourself. Is that good?

What I view as good is not the same as what you view as good. This is because we have different politics, and WE ARE ON A POLITICAL FORUM.
Because it proves you wrong?

A dictionary that proves one wrong is a "good" one, thus making your statement incorrect because you haven't proved me wrong, so your dictionary is not "good."
What an eloquent self-refutation.

Your spouting non political rants.
I have indeed. And I believe them.

I am sure you do.
As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

Not political.
Look who's talking!

You're talking.
It's pointless to make political claims as you do: i.e., without factual or logical support. Facts and logic have political implications. Too bad you can't understand that.

But what you feel is a fact, or what's logical or not shows your politics.
<yawn>

All you have done is give emotional rants that are out of context.
#15015547
Pants-of-dog wrote:Quote the supporting text.

There's too much to quote it all.
The rest of this is just crap and not worthy of a reply.

:roll: :lol: IOW, you have been comprehensively and conclusively refuted, you know it, and you have no answers. Simple.
You have yet to quote the text that supports your claim about sulphuric acid being ignored.

Huh? I already proved that request is absurd, anti-logical, and dishonest. EVERY SENTENCE that does NOT mention sulfuric acid is additional proof that it was ignored. The only way to show that it WASN'T ignored is to quote the text where it was accounted for, which you have not done and will not be doing. The onus is on YOU to prove that it was NOT ignored. Clear?
Please do so or I will dismiss the criticism as unsupported.

:lol: Nothing new there: you dismiss all evidence that proves your claims are false.
Also:
Form the study you cited:
    Abstract
    [1] Satellite observations reveal a greening of the globe over recent decades. The role in this greening of the “CO2 fertilization” effect—the enhancement of photosynthesis due to rising CO2 levels—is yet to be established. The direct CO2 effect on vegetation should be most clearly expressed in warm, arid environments where water is the dominant limit to vegetation growth. Using gas exchange theory, we predict that the 14% increase in atmospheric CO2 (1982–2010) led to a 5 to 10% increase in green foliage cover in warm, arid environments. Satellite observations, analyzed to remove the effect of variations in precipitation, show that cover across these environments has increased by 11%. Our results confirm that the anticipated CO2 fertilization effect is occurring alongside ongoing anthropogenic perturbations to the carbon cycle and that the fertilization effect is now a significant land surface process.

Thank you for quoting the proof that I am right and you are wrong.
So, the scientist that you support as a valid source claims that the additional carbon in the atmosphere is anthropogenic.

As you know but are pretending not to, I never said otherwise. It's obviously anthropogenic. It just hasn't and isn't going to warm the earth more -- and will probably warm it less -- than the ~1C per doubling predicted by the known physics of radiative heat transfer. So you are again disingenuously pretending to have offered evidence against my views, when you are aware that you are merely attacking a strawman of your own construction.
#15015559
Truth To Power wrote:There's too much to quote it all.


Then at least quote the methodology where they model sea water and show that sulfuric acid is not mentioned.

:roll: :lol: IOW, you have been comprehensively and conclusively refuted, you know it, and you have no answers. Simple.

Huh? I already proved that request is absurd, anti-logical, and dishonest. EVERY SENTENCE that does NOT mention sulfuric acid is additional proof that it was ignored. The only way to show that it WASN'T ignored is to quote the text where it was accounted for, which you have not done and will not be doing. The onus is on YOU to prove that it was NOT ignored. Clear?

:lol: Nothing new there: you dismiss all evidence that proves your claims are false.

Thank you for quoting the proof that I am right and you are wrong.

As you know but are pretending not to,


I have no idea how you think this behaviour is mature or becoming.

The important thing is that the sources that you claim are true also support the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

If you think they are correct when it comes to the parts you agree with, you are being intellectually dishonest by simply ignoring the parts you disagree with.

This is called cherry picking.

I never said otherwise. It's obviously anthropogenic. It just hasn't and isn't going to warm the earth more -- and will probably warm it less -- than the ~1C per doubling predicted by the known physics of radiative heat transfer. So you are again disingenuously pretending to have offered evidence against my views, when you are aware that you are merely attacking a strawman of your own construction.


What exactly is your argument? Please be clear.
#15015762
Pants-of-dog wrote:My argument is that the Kiribati people are already dealing with negative impacts from sea level rise, which is due to anthropogenic climate change.

@Hindsite and @Truth To Power can now clarify ehat there arguments are.

Humans are not the cause of climate change.
Praise the Lord.
#15015767
Hindsite wrote:Humans are not the cause of climate change.
Go on believing in that and fairy tales and see how far that gets you. Saying that is a great way to demonstrate your poor education and ignorance. That might get you far in Georgia, but in most other places, a display of ignorance, of that magnitude, isn't very impressive.

To use a source you used recently....

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... use-gases/

Going against modern science is pretty silly, particularly when your only argument is, "Fake news!".
#15015777
Godstud wrote:Go on believing in that and fairy tales and see how far that gets you. Saying that is a great way to demonstrate your poor education and ignorance. That might get you far in Georgia, but in most other places, a display of ignorance, of that magnitude, isn't very impressive.

To use a source you used recently....

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... use-gases/

Going against modern science is pretty silly, particularly when your only argument is, "Fake news!".

Christina Nunez overstates the effect on climate change that is caused by burning fossil fuels by humans. That is a very minor factor on global climate change.

Almost all of the energy that affects the climate on the Earth originates from the Sun. The energy output of the sun is not constant, it varies over time and it has an impact on our climate. When the Earth is closer to the sun our climate is warmer. When the angle of the Earth’s axis of rotation increases the summers become warmer and the winters become colder.

Volcanoes affect the climate through the gases and dust particles thrown into the atmosphere during eruptions. The effect of the volcanic gases and dust may warm or cool the Earth's surface, depending on how sunlight interacts with the volcanic material.

Oceans store a large amount of heat, so that small changes in ocean currents can have a large effect on coastal and global climate.
#15016825
Pants-of-dog wrote:My argument is that the Kiribati people are already dealing with negative impacts from sea level rise, which is due to anthropogenic climate change.

That's not an argument. It's just an assertion. To have an argument, first you have to offer evidence that these negative impacts are really caused by sea level rise, and not how the people there manage their ground water, construction practices, marine infrastructure, etc. Then you have to offer evidence that sea level is actually rising, and these alleged negative impacts are not due to the land sinking. Then you have to offer evidence that the sea level rise is due to climate change and not some other factor like ground water extraction, etc. Then you have to offer evidence that human beings are doing something that changes the climate. Then you have to offer evidence that none of the natural factors that caused all previous climate change could be causing climate change now.

On form, I'm guessing you won't be offering such evidence.
#15016844
Pants-of-dog wrote:Then at least quote the methodology where they model sea water and show that sulfuric acid is not mentioned.

No, YOU need to show where sulfuric acid is not only mentioned, but quantified, and its effects compared to those of carbonic acid.
I have no idea how you think this behaviour is mature or becoming.

It's just honest.
The important thing is that the sources that you claim are true also support the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

No. A source can be valid for some information, but not for others. If I quote a paper in Nature, that doesn't mean I endorse everything in Nature.
If you think they are correct when it comes to the parts you agree with, you are being intellectually dishonest by simply ignoring the parts you disagree with.

This is called cherry picking.

GARBAGE. Cherry picking is selective use of data of the same type, not differentiating between different sources and types of data.
#15017068
Truth To Power wrote:That's not an argument. It's just an assertion. To have an argument, first you have to offer evidence that these negative impacts are really caused by sea level rise, and not how the people there manage their ground water, construction practices, marine infrastructure, etc. Then you have to offer evidence that sea level is actually rising, and these alleged negative impacts are not due to the land sinking. Then you have to offer evidence that the sea level rise is due to climate change and not some other factor like ground water extraction, etc. Then you have to offer evidence that human beings are doing something that changes the climate. Then you have to offer evidence that none of the natural factors that caused all previous climate change could be causing climate change now.

On form, I'm guessing you won't be offering such evidence.


Considering the fact that you asserted that the Kiribati islands are subsiding without evidence, I find your newfound love of evidence to be somewhat ironic.

But since you insist, and I have the truth on my side:


    Conclusions
    Erosion is not the only issue in the low- lying Pacific islands due to the rising sea. Inundation, both permanent and tempo- rary, will penetrate increasingly further inland. According to Nunn (2001), on those low-lying coasts made entirely from perme- able rocks – be they consolidated or uncon- solidated, bedrock or sediment – saltwater intrusion into groundwater will become an increasing problem as sea levels rise.
    In this paper, nearly 16 years of sea-level data from the Australian Project was ana- lysed and the sea-level trend for Tarawa was a rise of 3.9mm per year (up to September 2008), a total 6.1cm sea-level rise for the area. If this rate continues, loss of land will be significant in the next 50 years.
    While there is always likely to be debate over the scientific accuracy of sea-level trends and the length of data used, Pacific islanders cannot wait indefinitely to see more accurate sea-level-rise results. It is still possible to address some of the uncertain- ties related to sea-level monitoring; a better understanding of island change is needed to make a better plan and policy for the individual needs of each island. According to Lefale of the New Zealand Met Service, while travelling around the Pacific he found that people were not pessimistic. They are resilient and prepared to adapt to changes. They have been doing it for generations and they will continue to do so (Lefale, 2007).

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Aw ... ion_detail

And I see you have also tried to switch the burden of proof for your other claim.

So, no evidence for your claim that the studies all forgot sulfuric acid.
#15017200
Fuego volcano injected large amounts of sulfur dioxide into stratosphere, may induce some short-term global cooling
Anthony Watts / June 9, 2018

From NASA:

Fuego in Guatemala is one of Central America’s most active volcanoes. For years, the towering Volcán de Fuego has puffed continuously, punctuated by occasional episodes of explosive activity, big ash plumes, lava flows, and avalanche-like debris slides known as pyroclastic flows.

Just before noon on June 3, 2018, the volcano produced an explosive eruption that sent ash billowing thousands of meters into the air. A deadly mixture of ash, rock fragments, and hot gases rushed down ravines and stream channels on the sides of the volcano.

In addition to ash, the plume contains gaseous components invisible to the human eye, including sulfur dioxide (SO2). The gas can affect human health—irritating the nose and throat when breathed in—and reacts with water vapor to produce acid rain. Sulfur dioxide also can react in the atmosphere to form aerosol particles, which can contribute to outbreaks of haze and sometimes cool the climate.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/09/ ... l-cooling/
#15017329
SSDR wrote:You are emotionally describing how you feel your economics are,

No, I am stating the facts.
but you're not giving any characteristics of your ideal economy.

False. I have identified the most salient characteristics.
It is like asking what car do you drive, and you respond, "my car is the truth and it is correct."

No.
You are still avoiding politics.

I'm not partisan, if that's what you mean.
And how would your ideal economy help people reach that?

By not violating their rights without just compensation.
What characteristics would be there?

Secure rights and no privileges.
But the state is protecting the capitalist rights of the ruling monopoly, and the state is conserving the capitalist mode of production.

That's a description of the current economy. That's not what I advocate.
You proving anything isn't political.

It can be.
And you didn't prove that I am "wrong" because this is a political forum, not a truth or lie forum.

You have a strange idea of why people hold their political beliefs.
Socialism liberates the hearts and the minds of everyone who has real consciousness.

Meaningless.
You stating that a type of economy is "ignorant" is not political, it's an emotional rant.

I didn't say any type of economy is ignorant.
In your example, both the doctor and the criminal, because the doctor helped the criminal be a criminal by putting him in the position of being a criminal by mandating higher testosterone, unrecognized domestic abuse, and the love of money,

You have ignored my example and simply made $#!+ up. That is normal, routine, and expected. And it should tell you something.
all of which would be absent in socialism because they do not need to exist in socialism.

Silliness.
Your example is not what socialists see.

Because socialists cannot see fact or logic.
It is what anarchists see. And anarchists are not socialists.

I don't see any evidence that anarchists see it.
When did I ever claim to be a "Marxist" or a "Marxist Leninist?" I am not a "Marxist."

Your gibberish screams it.
I am a SCIENTIFIC SOCIALIST who supports some views of what Marx had.

Socialism cannot be scientific because it assumes conditions contrary to fact.
I could use Marx as a tool to go against social and economic oppression to the ignorant people who blindly support it like you.

I'm the one trying to liberate people from economic oppression.
"True" or "false" are not political engagements. They are emotional rants.

Self-refuting gibberish.
I can understand you. You can't understand me.

You have shown repeatedly that to the extent you understand me, you refuse to engage with my analysis.
Your views are evil. Because you are false.

:lol:
Your questions are out of context. It's like asking a cat "why do radios fly?"

No, you have merely realized that you can't answer them without destroying your belief system.
A dictionary that proves one wrong is a "good" one, thus making your statement incorrect because you haven't proved me wrong, so your dictionary is not "good."

Self-refuting gibberish.
But what you feel is a fact, or what's logical or not shows your politics.

Facts are facts.
All you have done is give emotional rants that are out of context.

Everyone reading this knows that is false, including you.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
The Paradox of Poverty

While I like your definition of Socialism, the re[…]

Trump and the Rule of Law

evidence for impeachment and braking of rules of […]

Firehosing

"Firehosing relies on pushing out as many li[…]

Ukrainegate

On Russia: that may or may not turn into somethin[…]