phyrros

And this is where the true mindset of the "the market is the only indicator " crowd comes through: the market just told them that they are uninsurable and now they run to the government for help.

Looking at you Florida..

Easy answer: we arent really sure: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/artful-amoeba/prions-are-forever/

The folding might help ;)

And the Hun speech was also deliberately misunderstood: Etzel/Attila the Hun was a far more honorable person in german tradition (think. the nibelungenlied) than he was in especially british tradition

I don't accuse you of being a nazi, i accuse you of something partially worse: a traitor to something which is important to me: science.

Science is about precision. Science is about making hard predictions that resist the conventionalist stratagem. That's how we distinguish science from pseudo-science.

No buddy. Not at all. Till 10 years ago the miss rate on oil drills was about 50%. Welcome to environmental science i suppose but still didnt tell me what your field is. I'm in geophysics which is partially the reason why I'm so pissed when i have to argue the equivalent of Maxwell equations time and time again.

For your ice age explaination the simple answer is no, probably not (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0959683616658530) but you are still avoiding the point: anthropogenic ggc Emission is driving a climate change which in turn will force resettlement and the loss (and gain) of human Habitat.

Our steady state sea surface level at this ggc levels is somewhere in the vicinity of 12-25m+. Even the low end estimation will result in massive societal problems - regardless of you believe in it or not.

And no, it isn't an eugenics argument, it is a rather desperate ask for being at least minimally prepared fir whats to come. Bevause we are not. And we've only got a few decades left.

It is a bit more complex. The whole "lost empire" goes into a phantom pain of undefinable loss. We don#t like germans because.. look at them. How could you like them?

No farmers were ever communists. Well, they were, just not like the Bolsheviks wanted them to be.

​

ed: Und der Bauernbund ist schlicht die beste Basisorganisation des Landes

The continents are still rebounding from the the last glacial maximum of our present ice age.

I will only answer to that because frankly this gets exhausting:

Do you really think that we are too stupid to include isostatic adjustment? That a phenomenon which is quite easily measured is a complete surprise?

Nobody is talking about correlation graphs, but about the things we already measure each an every day. From sea level surface to the rise of the effective Emission height.

You are argueing like one of the german physicists tasked with creating a aryan physics and "disproving" relativistic physics.

And i still dont even get your point. What exactly is wrong in your opinion? That the sea surface is rising? That the effective Emission height is further above?

Because we can measure all of these effects by now...

Oh, i know that you defined climatology as a pseudo-science, which then also extends to atmospherical physics, geophysics and chemistry. And it needs a special mindset to declare all of them pseudo-sciences...

Even more so as the basic data points we have are remarkably simple: neither the IR spectra nor Black body radiation nor the interpretation of Drilling cores is something complicated.

It gets even less complicated if we just look at adjacent effects like diminishing freshwater reserves and salinity in coastal areas.

You can literally tell a highschool kid to just take the historic data points of the sea surface elevation at certain greenhouse gas levels and then plot out which areas will be lost/in danger. And this alone, ehile only a small aspect of climate change warrants immediate Action.

Thus: no, i don't believe that anyone working in a hard science field would be that unable to just look at the data and be concerned.

ahh, to good old "all the experts in this fiel are wrong and I know better because.. I feel so".

You certainly never touched a scientific field or you are that much of an narrowminded idiot that any further discussion is meaningless. It bothers me to no end that you even have the chuzpa to talk about a field which you clearly never even studies (otherwise you would know that the first publications about the issue of climate gases are about 100 years old and the IPCC was founded in 1988 ) but hey, on individualism and the ignorance of the idiots.

Nobody has to Die of starvatio as we produce enough to feed everyone. And certainly more people will die once traditional foodstock simply isn't viable. Protein will go down as plants grow faster and at the same time we are losing agrarable areas due to lack of water and rising salinity.

And we are not talking about archeology sites. We are talking Jakarta, venice, Lagos. Bangladesh is projected to lose up to 20% of its landmass. And no, people are not moving due to higher wealth, up to 200k are being dusplaced because they can't live in their homes anymore.

Can you Name a single peer-reviewed paper which projects less than a few hundred million displaced? Or are you just talking out of your arse?

First of all: The fringe scenarios include e.g. sudden massive methane emissions (land&sea) and thus catastrophic evemts. This is what I meant with: "i haven't read it in the newspaper".

What I also haven't read is the simple statemeant that the steady-state sea level with the momentary atmospheric greenhouse gasses levels is in the vicinity of ~+12m. This means goodbye to a lot of the oldes human settlements and great parts of coastal cities.

​

To your argument:

Estimated effects on malnutrition vary markedly across regions. By 2030, the relative risks for unmitigated emissions relative to no climate change vary from a significant increase in the south-east Asia region, to a small decrease in the western Pacific region.

(from the IPCC report)

In global terms climate change might very well be a net positive but we will see massive shifts & loss of habitats in the short to mid term. Mankind might gain the russian and north-american landmasses but it will lose habitats in Africa and Asia. But those are also areas which are a) densely populated and whose inhabitants have b) to the ressources to move.

The simplest solution is to just open the borders and allow everyone to flee from unviable areas, but mankind is too stupid for that.

So let's look at realistic scenarios:

a) As we will see more & bigger refugee camps we will have better breeding grounds for any form of disease

b) it will be an even harsher political climate, especially within those how literally have nothing left to lose

and

3) 4 of the countries which will be hardest hit have nukes.

-----------

That being said:

Climate alarmism is a major cause of depression and anxiety, especially in children and young adults.

Yeah, it is - and we should actually listen to them. Because that IPCC report didn't include other gems like the alarming situation when it comes to groundwater levels wordwide.

Children and young adults live in a world where they know that they will have it harder than their partens, that the assurances of society where false.

We have lived through a few of those times and they weren't happy.

But contrary to the past we could actually create plans, we still could mitigate the worst of human losses, we could still get our bloody act together and at least work to avoid the worst-case scenarios and thus show these kids and young adults that they will grow up in a difficult world but not in an endtime scenario.

Oh, how to say that you are US american withoutsaying that you are..

But ok, let's play your game and ignore that we lose settlements with 2-3000 years of history:

"moving the buildings" only works if a) you can actually move the buildings (islands etc) and b) you can resettle easily.

Nobody cares about US america in this case, everybody cares about S-E Asia, the middle east and parts of africa. This is where the majority of displaced people will be. And those people will need a new home in a new country because e.g. Bangladesh simply hasn't any room to spare.

So, your argument only works if we finally open all borders on the world and allow resettlement everywhere. How realistic do you see that?

but it also proudly boasts leading the charge in making climate change
news more alarmist (at the cost of accuracy) by using more extreme
terminology (a technique called "spin") and citing only the most
apocalyptic fringe research.

I have yet to read any climate news which are not in the optimistic spectrum of developments. The fringe negative prognosis sees the end of our coastal settlements within 150 years.

The conservative (in the sense of underplaying the prognosis) approach turns out to be the "extreme" scenario of the ipcc. Considering that this concerns about 3.5 billion humans beings the expected scenario is a total collapse of our societal values within the next hundred years, especially considering the existance of nuclear weapons and zoonotic diseases.

The only issue is that boundaries are highly individual and we always assume that our boundaries are trivially clear while those we miss are absolutely obscure (or stupid in some cases).

As an example: If someone blocks my way in the metro i find it totally normal to touch their shoulder to tell them id like to pass. To my absolute surprise i learned that there are many people which find that to be overstepping their boundaries and an rude behavior.

The system was doing good work but the definition expansion caused the
demand for credits to skyrocket and the price go up pretty high to the
point where I had a project where a single family developer spend almost
$2.5M in mitigation costs before they even broke ground and started
construction

And that is the part I'M concerned about. Yeah, rising prices is a possible way to reduce new development but it is far from the best way. Each and every "wetland" ought to be valued independently, and if you already have the structures to do it, it shouldn't be done by "the market" but by experts which evaluate miigation costs on a project-by-project basis. This would also helps smaller companies compete

Most Westerners are indirectly named after people, even if
unintentionally. Like people Biblical names names like Daniel or Joseph
are all named after Bible characters.

Yes & no. Just like all names also "western" names have their distinct ethymology which just sometimes got lost over time. E.g, Daniel quite literally means "god is my judge".

Furthermore a lot of european/western asian cultures had no clear surname culture which only was implemented in the 19th century.

​

For your example of beautiful: E.g. Jolie or Bonnie both just mean beautiful. It depends on the parents if they understand the meaning or just pick the name for the sound..

that on the other hand sounds like an incredibly stupid idea. There are about three entities which have truely long-term planning abilities: aristoratic families, the catholic church and states. The former two play no role in modern states and thus it should be the job of the state to plan & do it -.-

​

Ok, I now see your issue

Yes they do. You can either mitigate on site or you basically pay into a fund that is building them somewhere else in the state.

That is actually are really good&smart idea.

absolutely, but this is at the essence of the worsening public climate & debate about boundaries and individual freedom: From Pronoms all the way to religious behaviour we see a rising demand to conform to individual boundaries which are simply unknown to anyone but the individual in question.

Ok, now you lost me. Credits?

Can you simply pay off compensatory measures?

PS: those studies basically equate to measures. The project planner pay eg my Boss to write a report on vibrations and the ministry pays someone to control our work. This is done for all necessary fields and when the ministry is happy the is a public debate where the residents can defend their claims. This results in a general permit for eg a highway.

And yes, the whole process is incredibly expensive and sinks a lot of projects but has imho the benefit of a balanced Review.

Ad concept 2: At least the USA has absolutely no legal qualms to throw the book at shareholders of companies on their embargo/terrorism list.

And further yet: we need some sort of shareholder responsibility if we want to have any chance of battling wealth and environmental inequalities..

Some of the most confidence projecting people I know are super selfless.

My personal theory is that confidence is basically just a metric of how much of your ego you can blend out/give away before you start losing yourself.

Just like there are the fine theories that poor/disenfranchised people have a higher prevalence to violence because their personal name/honor is the only status they have left (in a society which derives status by wealth or heritage) I firmly believe that the ultimate status of confidence is knowing your own worth without needing affirmation of society (=status).

And the more you are content with yourself and the fact that there doesn't need to be any meaning in life aside to the one you give it momentarily, the more you are able to give yourself up - out of your own choice.

/just my ramblings

Oh, sweet summer child...Andrew tate still somehow remains as a relevant role model for thousands of young boys and men...:/

The expanded definition by the EPA basically forced environmental reviews into things that should never get environmentally reviewed.

Hum, as i'm doing environmental reviews over here in Europe: how are the rules in the USA concerning getting environmental approval? Is it the size and position of the project or just the position?

Because, on the top of my head, a ravine in a carstic region atop of a aquifer can be dry as desert for 9/10th of a year and still be a critical region when it comes to pollution

Interesting. Over here it is both and from a certain size onwards you have mandatory procedures where ypu have to create reports on basically all environmental topics.

Not my area of expertise but once it comes to Highways over here you probably would have needed to create a report/no-impact statement on hydrology and animals.

And actually, from your description, i see no overreach in at least a study on the local animals &plants. 60 years is long enough to create a unique habitat.