Originally posted by Wichita: You mean they don't want to turn their citizens into leftist simps?
There are "leftist simps" (I guess) and there are the "simps" who were taken in by this misleading meme or cartoon, which tried to use "Science" to ridicule the Paris Climate Accords, but stupidly pictures an experiment that models the melting of icebergs. Climate scientists think of the melting of glaciers in terms of rising sea levels.
What kind of simp doesn't understand the difference between an iceberg and a glacier? Is it the kind of simp who naively (or ignorantly) posted this image on Pennock's without comment, as if this image would "speak for itself"? The kind of simp who can't stop posting drivel about "leftist simps"..? What kind of simp is that?
Some months ago, climate activist emerita Greta Thunberg went public to soften what had been her longstanding and uncompromising opposition to nuclear energy.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-24-2023).]
This is CONFLATION. In other words, a person who has had or continues to have doubts about the efficacy of nuclear energy as a path to Net Zero carbon emissions, MUST be LGBT(etc.) and MUST be "nuts" about vaccines and MUST be ready to start chowing down on live earthworms or insect larva.
This is another example of the same kind of CONFLATION that was mindlessly spewed onto this forum as a Copy and Paste.
What kind of people are constantly indulging in this kind of conflation on social media networks and also online forums like Pennock's?
It's not conflation. It's simply playing the odds.
It's not playing the odds. It's being oblivious to reality. It's a daydream, and a delusion that's become ever more distant from reality with every passing day since November 7, 2020, when Fox News reported that the result of the U.S. Presidential election would bring in Joe Biden and "cancel" Donald Trump.
The people that revel in these "conflation" cartoons (like these two that I've singled out) are hiding under their blanket, unwilling to wake up and face the world on the world's own terms—the only terms that are meaningful.
"Reality isn't everything. It's the only thing."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-25-2023).]
The water content of all of the ice that is already floating in all of the oceans as icebergs and sea ice—that's ice that forms in the polar regions when sea water at the ocean's' surface freezes during the polar winters—is already accounted for in the current sea levels. The current sea levels as of today. As of whatever day it is now. That's because of Archimedes principle of buoyancy. There is no contribution to any further rise in sea levels, regardless of whether the current "inventory" of icebergs and sea ice melts or remains frozen. That's the "genius" of this cartoon or meme:
The STUPIDITY of this cartoon or meme is that it's not icebergs and sea ice that climate researchers and well informed climate activists are thinking about when they consider the connections between carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, greenhouse-elevated land, ocean and air temperatures, the elevated temperatures-driven melting of glaciers and ice packs on land, and what that melting will contribute to higher sea levels as the current century unfolds.
They're thinking about water content that is not accounted for in current sea levels because it's ice that is still supported by the land underneath it, in Antarctica, Greenland, Alaska, Norway, the Alps and the Himalayas... anywhere and everywhere where there's a significant amount of ice on land, that is not currently displacing seawater in the oceans like icebergs and sea ice.
There's water that's been sequestered from the hydrologic cycle by remaining frozen for more than the past million years in Antarctica's glaciers... more than the past 100,000 years in Greenland... for the past 30,000 years in Alaska.
The whole climate mitigation "thing" is not about locking in the current climate and sea levels for an unlimited future. Scientists do not have all the knowledge and engineers do not have all of the tools to accomplish that. But another two or three hundred years of continued climate stability—achieved by curtailing greenhouse gas emissions and/or otherwise neutralizing or countering the greenhouse effect—would be no small boon to humanity, as a whole.
Think of the differences in science and technology between today and 100 years ago. With another 200 or 300 years of continued climate stability to work with, all of the various "boffins", from climate researchers and other scientists, to engineers, architects, city planners, rural and agriculture experts, economists and other public policy gurus, should be able to put their heads together (so to speak) and figure out ways to better safeguard humanity against what Mother Earth could still have in store for us.
What's not to like about that?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-25-2023).]
Pour some salt or sugar on it. Now keep pouring and poring and pouring...
What happens ?
As the pile on granules (the glaciar) on the bowl (the land) grows, the newly added material pushes off the material already there. The volume the bowl is holding doesnt change (even though the table is now one hell mess).
Water evaporates from the ocean. It falls as snow on the glacier adding more ice volume. That pushes some existing volume off. The offed stuff falls into the ocean, melts, fals as snow and the cycle repeats ad nauseum.
It's not climate science to understand the principal.
Originally posted by Wichita: What a leftist groomer looks like. They look like your average Biden voter and supporter.
That's idiotic. And there's not even a pretense of being related in any way to the topic—Sweden and nuclear energy—that was raised when this thread was created.
Wichita never disappoints me, because I've learned to expect nothing of value or interest from him.
It's kind of surprising that so many other forum members are letting his total asininity slide by without any comment. I guess this "everybody I don't like or agree with is a 'groomer'..." crap has really caught on.
I wonder how much more of his trash is going to pile up here before he finally drowns in his own rabies-infected drool.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-26-2023).]
This is another example of the same kind of CONFLATION that was mindlessly spewed onto this forum as a Copy and Paste.
Can I make a comment about this?
At no point ever have brown dress shoes been OK with blue slacks or a blue suite. This came about from Hipsters in the early to mid 2000s, e.g., when the Millennials were starting to enter the workforce. They started buying a lot of **** from Goodwill and Salvation Army, with the intent to wear clothes that were different and unique. This was done explicitly because the Millennials didn't feel like they were special enough, and everyone wanted to feel unique and different.
For my Gen-X friends... this was like the "non-conformists" who referred to themselves as Goth in high school. Remember these kids? The ones who said they were non-conformists, but religiously conformed to eachother by all agreeing to wear white face paint, black eye-shadow, black jeans and / or black fishnets and black fingernail paint?
This was the Millennial version of it. They started buying ridiculous looking socks, wearing pants that were "flooding" because they wanted to show off the socks. It became trendy in Europe as a result of "capri" pants, and then suddenly you had these Millennials in business who wore brown dress shoes, with blue suits that had very short pant cuffs.
This is not ok... it's completely ridiculous. You do not look sharp, most people are laughing at you. No one is saying... "Wow, look how sharp that guy is with this pants that are too short so we can always see his socks, and the fact that he cannot color-coordinate properly with his brown shoes and blue pants."
Please ****ing stop... this looks stupid as **** in corporate America.
Originally posted by cliffw: What is the difference ? Frozen water is frozen. How were glaciers created ? How were icebergs created ? What was each made of ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: The water content of all of the ice that is already floating in all of the oceans as icebergs and sea ice—that's ice that forms in the polar regions when sea water at the ocean's' surface freezes during the polar winters—is already accounted for in the current sea levels. The current sea levels as of today. As of whatever day it is now. That's because of Archimedes principle of buoyancy. There is no contribution to any further rise in sea levels, regardless of whether the current "inventory" of icebergs and sea ice melts or remains frozen. That's the "genius" of this cartoon or meme:
Ah. Now you like memes.
Can you ever answer a question ?
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: What is the difference ? Frozen water is frozen. How were glaciers created ? How were icebergs created ? What was each made of ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: The STUPIDITY of this cartoon or meme is that it's not icebergs and sea ice that climate researchers and well informed climate activists are thinking about when they consider the connections between carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, greenhouse-elevated land, ocean and air temperatures, the elevated temperatures-driven melting of glaciers and ice packs on land, and what that melting will contribute to higher sea levels as the current century unfolds.
Ah, honesty. Kudos. Are you a well informed activist ? NOT ! Or a well informed researcher ? NOT ? The Planet survived while the sea levels fell, making the the sea level drop.
The Archimedes principle of buoyancy. I don't think you understand it. Does that principle say sea level is constant and equal all over the Planet ? Does it say the SE Gulf of Mexico water level can be more than sea level ? By the way, the water volume on the Planet is constant. You said the SE Gulf of Mexico sea level is rising. Some one had to lose water for that to happen. Who was it ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: They're thinking about water content that is not accounted for in current sea levels because it's ice that is still supported by the land underneath it, in Antarctica, Greenland, Alaska, Norway, the Alps and the Himalayas... anywhere and everywhere where there's a significant amount of ice on land, that is not currently displacing seawater in the oceans like icebergs and sea ice.
Where were all the Wackos when the sea levels dropped ?
What are you trying to say, ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: There's water that's been sequestered from the hydrologic cycle by remaining frozen for more than the past million years in Antarctica's glaciers... more than the past 100,000 years in Greenland... for the past 30,000 years in Alaska.
It's not being sequestered any longer.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: The whole climate mitigation "thing" is not about locking in the current climate and sea levels for an unlimited future. Scientists do not have all the knowledge and engineers do not have all of the tools to accomplish that. But another two or three hundred years of continued climate stability—achieved by curtailing greenhouse gas emissions and/or otherwise neutralizing or countering the greenhouse effect—would be no small boon to humanity, as a whole.
This is a magazine-length report with lots of photographs.
quote
Vineyard Wind 1 is an offshore wind farm under construction approximately 24 kilometers off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard. The project is reportedly the first commercial-scale offshore wind farm in the US to achieve financial close. Furthermore, at US$ 2.3bn the project also represents one of the largest investments in a single renewable energy project in the country. August 2, 2022.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-27-2023).]
Electric Autonomy Canada is an independent news platform reporting on Canada’s transition to electric vehicles, autonomous transportation and new mobility services.
The pseudoscience cult of the left a cervical cancer fund...
This remark, of course, from the same unthinking blowhard mentality that tried to fob off this particular specimen of "dumb" as relevant and insightful.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-29-2023).]
I have not seen this issue of Nat Geo, or read or scrolled through any excerpts from it. I have not looked for any online reporting about this issue of Nat Geo.
Putting this image of the Nat Geo cover on display, as Wichita just did, does nothing to make me think that Wichita has anything important to say about the topics of gender dysphoria and transgender.
Originally posted by rinselberg: Putting this image of the Nat Geo cover on display, as Wichita just did, does nothing to make me think that Wichita has anything important to say about the topics of gender dysphoria and transgender.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: I have not seen this issue of Nat Geo, or read or scrolled through any excerpts from it. I have not looked for any online reporting about this issue of Nat Geo.
What do you think you know about it about the topics of gender dysphoria and transgender ?
Originally posted by cliffw: What do you think you know about it about the topics of gender dysphoria and transgender ?
I know a bullshit artist when I see one. Especially, a bullshit artist that's as shallow and hollow (and blatant) as... well, you can finish the sentence.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-29-2023).]
This remark, of course, from the same unthinking blowhard mentality that tried to fob off this particular specimen of "dumb" as relevant and insightful.
Actually, is relevant.
Reminds the enviro-quacks that when a liquid freezes the size expands. The volume does not.
Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: Actually, is relevant... reminds the enviro-quacks that when a liquid freezes the size expands. The volume does not.
That's an oxymoron. A sentence (two sentences) that are in contradiction to one another.
You don't know why that "ice cube" meme is irrelevant and does not make the point that Wichita thought it made when he posted it (quite some time ago.)
To make the explanation as short as I can, the "ice cube" meme represents the melting of an iceberg, but what the climate researchers are thinking about, in terms of rising sea levels, is the melting of glaciers. There are huge amounts of water that have been locked up as ice in glaciers for tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and even more than a million years. Locked up as glacial ice on the land mass of Antarctica and Greenland and all around the Arctic circle. That's water that hasn't been part of the oceans since the rise of human civilization and even long before.
Global warming is melting these glaciers and transferring the meltwater into the oceans... ergo, higher sea levels.
There's also the thermal expansion of seawater as its temperature goes up, but that's above and beyond the "dumb" of that ice cube meme.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-29-2023).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: I know a bullshit artist when I see one. Especially, a bullshit artist that's as shallow and hollow (and blatant) as... well, you can finish the sentence.
Originally posted by rinselberg: I know a bullshit artist when I see one. Especially, a bullshit artist that's as shallow and hollow (and blatant) as... well, you can finish the sentence.
... Al Gore, John Kerry, Greta "how dare you", left wing media, and rinselberg.
Originally posted by Wichita: "We're Queer. We're Here and we're coming for your children."
Wichita was "hoodwinked"
Wichita reported this previously, attributing the "coming for your children" chant to participants in a Pride parade. He must have thought it was "grooming" or a manifestation of a pro-grooming mindset.
When I stumbled upon this report, it confirmed what I thought was probably the backstory. The LGBTs and drag enthusiasts and their supporters were "trolling." The event was promoted as "New York City Drag March".
"‘We’re Coming For Your Children’ chant at NYC Drag March elicits outrage, but activists say it’s taken out of context"
quote
Organizers say the NYC Drag March is meant to be lighthearted and to poke fun at anti-LGBTQ sentiment.
To conservative pundits, activists and lawmakers, the video confirmed the allegations they’ve levied in recent years that the LGBTQ community is “grooming” children.
But to Brian Griffin, the original organizer of the NYC Drag March, if that’s the worst they heard, it’s only because he wasn’t there this year.
Griffin [who performs in drag as "Harmonie Moore"] said he chanted obscene things in the past, like “Kill, kill, kill, we’re coming to kill the mayor,” and joked about pubic hair and sex toys during marches. People at the Drag March regularly sing “God is a lesbian.”
“It’s all just words,” Griffin said. “It’s all presented to fulfill their worst stereotypes of us.”
The “coming for your children” chant has been used for years at Pride events, according to longtime march attendees and gay rights activists, who said it’s one of many provocative expressions used to regain control of slurs against LGBTQ people. And in this case, they said, right-wing activists are jumping on a single video to weaponize an out-of-context remark to further stigmatize the queer community.
This is more than just a brief news report, but smaller than what I think of as a "magazine length" article. It's a colorful introduction to characters like the aforementioned Griffin, aka "Harmonie Moore," and Hucklefaery Ken, who performs in drag as "Sister-Lotti Da." There's only one photograph: a "crowd angle view" of the Drag March, from a vantage point that is about 20 feet ahead of the drag marchers' front row as they paraded through the street.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-02-2023).]
?
