quote Originally posted by rinselberg:

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).]

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-06-2023).]

quote Originally posted by randye: 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).]

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-06-2023).]

quote Originally posted by Wichita: 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).]

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: 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).]