Are you one of the many who have recognized the path to success is to show how the world will end, women and minorities hardest hit, but you don’t know how to start?
What a strange article in Vox. I read about 2/3 of it before I gave up.
I laughed out loud when I read their statement that "Nearly 40 percent of the country's seaside soil already has salt in it...". Actually, 100% of soil everywhere has salt in it. I understand you can't grow anything without it. (salt, not soil).
And, yes. Land that is routinely flooded by the sea will probably tend to contain higher concentrations of salt.
The oddest part to me, is their "Electrical conductivity value" chart with the four parts of the world dotted with red. Unless I missed it, this chart is neither explained or even mentioned anywhere else in the article. I made an assumption about what they are trying to say, but it would have been nicer if they had explained it themselves. But, then again, I guess leaving me free to make assumptions is the point.
I did notice, however, that while the focus of the article is on the "supercharged" and "unprecedented" salinization of the soil due to seawater intrusion, on the chart showing Australia, they placed some of their red spots smack in the middle of some of the driest land on the planet and which also happens to be many hundreds of miles from the nearest coastline.
I guess not only do they not listen to themselves, they can't read a map either.
I remember back in the early/mid 1960's my mother's constant guilting me into eating green beans "because there are starving children in Bangladesh". Once, I offered to help her box them up and take them to the post office. I didn't make that mistake a second time!
Actually a lot of Australia is quite salty. Leads to problems when they irrigate as the soil then gets salinated and has to be left fallow for a number of years to allow native salt tolerant plants to desalinate the irrigated soil. There used to be a huge inland sea in the middle of Australia some millions of years ago. Probably explains why not many people live there.
Shockingly, Hawaiians, living on an island in the middle of the largest body of salt water on the Earth, somehow procreated. It’s a scientific mystery! Perhaps native Hawaiians were just made of sterner stuff…or learned not to drink salt water, either one.
This is the key -attack the premises of the "climate-etas".
"The ocean temperature has risen dangerously high!"
- really... oceans cover 73% of this planet's surface with an average depth of 14,000 feet, how was that measured? What was the tolerance on that measurement? (chuckle)
"In Ice Ages..CO2 was low!"
-yes, but (chuckle) you have it backwards... . CO2 levels follow temperature changes, C02 levels do not cause temperature changes. The massive oceans we have on this planet absorb and release C02 based on temperature, no different than soda on the shelf or in a refrigerator.
"There's more extreme weather due to climate change!"
- extreme weather is driven by the temperature differential between the poles and the equator, if the earth is getting milder/warmer there will be be less of a differential (chuckle), that would mean less not more extreme weather.
"C02 is a greenhouse gas!"
Yes, but it's a very minor one, we're talking in PPM. CO2 is heavy and clings close to the surface that is the main reason for tree lines on mountains; plants can't breath at a certain height. Water vapor is king as a green house gas. That's why tropical forests have moderate temperature differences day and night, not so arid deserts that become frigid cold at night after daytime high temperatures (chuckle) simply because there is no water vapor to hold heat.
"You're not a climate scientist!"
(Inevitably the climate-esta will commit the twin logical fallacies of appeal to authority and ad hominem.)
-No I'm not a climate scientist, I work as a ____________ and I'm not stupid.
( I work as a professional engineer and have fun with this one, it always comes out, always, always.)
- because the climate-esta's have no real argument.)
I am reminded of what my teenage daughter said to me years ago... as we listened to NPR on the way to school (for the purpose of critiquing their broadcast)... she said, “Don’t these people know how stupid they sound?” No they don’t, so we continue to get articles like this from VOX.
All good. By being at the bottom of the victim ladder, white heterosexual males will be more immune to climate change than anyone else. Yay! We win again!
Hark! We all are then truly miraculous beings, whose survival down through the millennia is not to be explained by modern day ScieNcE ™ and doth confoundeth the victims of the weaker sex!
From none other than the newspaper of record, The New York Crimes: "Blood can also be thought of as a private ocean, a recapitulation of what life was like for all the years we spent drifting as microscopic, single-celled organisms, 'taking up nutrients from sea water and then eliminating waste products back into sea water,' Dr. Schafer said. Not only is blood mostly water, but the watery portion of blood, the plasma, has a concentration of salt and other ions that is remarkably similar to sea water."
You know, I actually know a climate scientist, who now works at NASA Langley. We were pretty close way, way back when she first started her PhD at College Park, and this was BEFORE climate change. Her kid sister worked for John Brennan. Her other sister dated Patrick Byrne in high school.
What? Sorry, but ‘global warming’ was the moniker from the early 1990s, and its was deliberately transmuted by activists into ‘climate change’ maybe ten years ago. IF you have been following this file since 1990 you would know that. ‘Climate change’ wasn’t even a phrase before ten years ago. It was all AGW all the time.
As you have shown climate change isn't totally new as an expression, its even in the name UNFCCC (IPVCC) name, but in practice 'global warming' was the commonly used and preferred term, as shown in the Kyoto Protocol Wikipedia entry. AGW was the main expression (Anthropogenic Global Warming), it was the dominant expression, however activists deliberately reframed it to simply be 'climate change' well after Kyoto and you never hear AGW anymore.
Yes, that sounds correct. I am old enough to remember these things, and both terms have been around for decades. I'm not sure caviling over terminology will do much to push back on this. The people we're dealing with are prescriptivists.
Yep, in Germany our word for "global warming" was "Klimaerwärmung" (which literally translates to "climate warming"), but it was suddenly replaced by the word "Klimawandel" which is the translation of the term "climate change". It happened after 2010 and I clearly remember people making fun of the fact that it didn't get warmer so they renamed it to mean anything.
Exactly right. And yes it appeared to happen maybe 15 years ago, which is the time frame you quote. Although I had noticed the change, it hadn’t occurred to me why the activists changed it, but your explanation makes sense. Thank you.
It was changed from “global warming” to “climate change” after the Climategate scandal of 2009 or 2010. Proponents feared that the concept of global warming had lost credibility as a result of the scandal and moved to rebrand it as the climate becoming more unstable, rather than just hotter.
What a strange article in Vox. I read about 2/3 of it before I gave up.
I laughed out loud when I read their statement that "Nearly 40 percent of the country's seaside soil already has salt in it...". Actually, 100% of soil everywhere has salt in it. I understand you can't grow anything without it. (salt, not soil).
And, yes. Land that is routinely flooded by the sea will probably tend to contain higher concentrations of salt.
The oddest part to me, is their "Electrical conductivity value" chart with the four parts of the world dotted with red. Unless I missed it, this chart is neither explained or even mentioned anywhere else in the article. I made an assumption about what they are trying to say, but it would have been nicer if they had explained it themselves. But, then again, I guess leaving me free to make assumptions is the point.
I did notice, however, that while the focus of the article is on the "supercharged" and "unprecedented" salinization of the soil due to seawater intrusion, on the chart showing Australia, they placed some of their red spots smack in the middle of some of the driest land on the planet and which also happens to be many hundreds of miles from the nearest coastline.
I guess not only do they not listen to themselves, they can't read a map either.
I remember back in the early/mid 1960's my mother's constant guilting me into eating green beans "because there are starving children in Bangladesh". Once, I offered to help her box them up and take them to the post office. I didn't make that mistake a second time!
Actually a lot of Australia is quite salty. Leads to problems when they irrigate as the soil then gets salinated and has to be left fallow for a number of years to allow native salt tolerant plants to desalinate the irrigated soil. There used to be a huge inland sea in the middle of Australia some millions of years ago. Probably explains why not many people live there.
Shockingly, Hawaiians, living on an island in the middle of the largest body of salt water on the Earth, somehow procreated. It’s a scientific mystery! Perhaps native Hawaiians were just made of sterner stuff…or learned not to drink salt water, either one.
This is the key -attack the premises of the "climate-etas".
"The ocean temperature has risen dangerously high!"
- really... oceans cover 73% of this planet's surface with an average depth of 14,000 feet, how was that measured? What was the tolerance on that measurement? (chuckle)
"In Ice Ages..CO2 was low!"
-yes, but (chuckle) you have it backwards... . CO2 levels follow temperature changes, C02 levels do not cause temperature changes. The massive oceans we have on this planet absorb and release C02 based on temperature, no different than soda on the shelf or in a refrigerator.
"There's more extreme weather due to climate change!"
- extreme weather is driven by the temperature differential between the poles and the equator, if the earth is getting milder/warmer there will be be less of a differential (chuckle), that would mean less not more extreme weather.
"C02 is a greenhouse gas!"
Yes, but it's a very minor one, we're talking in PPM. CO2 is heavy and clings close to the surface that is the main reason for tree lines on mountains; plants can't breath at a certain height. Water vapor is king as a green house gas. That's why tropical forests have moderate temperature differences day and night, not so arid deserts that become frigid cold at night after daytime high temperatures (chuckle) simply because there is no water vapor to hold heat.
"You're not a climate scientist!"
(Inevitably the climate-esta will commit the twin logical fallacies of appeal to authority and ad hominem.)
-No I'm not a climate scientist, I work as a ____________ and I'm not stupid.
( I work as a professional engineer and have fun with this one, it always comes out, always, always.)
- because the climate-esta's have no real argument.)
Brilliant satire. Well done.
I am reminded of what my teenage daughter said to me years ago... as we listened to NPR on the way to school (for the purpose of critiquing their broadcast)... she said, “Don’t these people know how stupid they sound?” No they don’t, so we continue to get articles like this from VOX.
All good. By being at the bottom of the victim ladder, white heterosexual males will be more immune to climate change than anyone else. Yay! We win again!
Nice one dude!
Cheers!
It’s tough to break into showbiz at the top, and this is on the way down. Surely there must be a better scam?
Musk is dumping Tesla.
He made it work, but the infrastructure isn’t there, and the PTB made sure it wasn’t.
EVs are a loser, Net Zero is dead.
What are the budding scams?
That’s what the shameless sociopath needs to know.
Green is just so… Boomer.
Hark! We all are then truly miraculous beings, whose survival down through the millennia is not to be explained by modern day ScieNcE ™ and doth confoundeth the victims of the weaker sex!
From none other than the newspaper of record, The New York Crimes: "Blood can also be thought of as a private ocean, a recapitulation of what life was like for all the years we spent drifting as microscopic, single-celled organisms, 'taking up nutrients from sea water and then eliminating waste products back into sea water,' Dr. Schafer said. Not only is blood mostly water, but the watery portion of blood, the plasma, has a concentration of salt and other ions that is remarkably similar to sea water."
"uterus havers" ... Briggs, you're killing me, man. Have mercy!
You know, I actually know a climate scientist, who now works at NASA Langley. We were pretty close way, way back when she first started her PhD at College Park, and this was BEFORE climate change. Her kid sister worked for John Brennan. Her other sister dated Patrick Byrne in high school.
‘Global warming’ has not become ‘climate change’. One is a consequence of the other.
If you ever paid the slightest attention to the real world instead of immersing yourself in conspiracy theories, you’d know that.
What? Sorry, but ‘global warming’ was the moniker from the early 1990s, and its was deliberately transmuted by activists into ‘climate change’ maybe ten years ago. IF you have been following this file since 1990 you would know that. ‘Climate change’ wasn’t even a phrase before ten years ago. It was all AGW all the time.
Oh boy:
https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22climate+change%22&tbs=,cdr:1,cd_min:Jan+1_2+1970,cd_max:Jan+31_2+1992&num=10
As you have shown climate change isn't totally new as an expression, its even in the name UNFCCC (IPVCC) name, but in practice 'global warming' was the commonly used and preferred term, as shown in the Kyoto Protocol Wikipedia entry. AGW was the main expression (Anthropogenic Global Warming), it was the dominant expression, however activists deliberately reframed it to simply be 'climate change' well after Kyoto and you never hear AGW anymore.
Yes, that sounds correct. I am old enough to remember these things, and both terms have been around for decades. I'm not sure caviling over terminology will do much to push back on this. The people we're dealing with are prescriptivists.
Yep, in Germany our word for "global warming" was "Klimaerwärmung" (which literally translates to "climate warming"), but it was suddenly replaced by the word "Klimawandel" which is the translation of the term "climate change". It happened after 2010 and I clearly remember people making fun of the fact that it didn't get warmer so they renamed it to mean anything.
Exactly right. And yes it appeared to happen maybe 15 years ago, which is the time frame you quote. Although I had noticed the change, it hadn’t occurred to me why the activists changed it, but your explanation makes sense. Thank you.
It was changed from “global warming” to “climate change” after the Climategate scandal of 2009 or 2010. Proponents feared that the concept of global warming had lost credibility as a result of the scandal and moved to rebrand it as the climate becoming more unstable, rather than just hotter.
Wonderful