Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Silvanus]

Again, these expert authoritative statements do not match your own. You contradict your sources, and don't understand that you're doing it.

Fucking /where/?

They unambiguously link climate change to extinction and loss of biodiversity. They unambiguously contradict what you said. Several direct quotes to those exact effects were presented alongside the source links.

For instance. Here you are, explicitly claiming that "nobody serious" is going to agree that "the many species losing habitat right now are being driven by climate change". A direct denial that climate change drives habitat loss, and the typical arrogant claim that "nobody serious" thinks differently.

you're acting as though the many species losing habitat right now are being driven by climate change. Which isn't a thing, that's not a consensus, nobody serious is going to agree to that.

And then the very first link I provided contained this:

We used the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment scenarios to evaluate the exposure of all 8,750 land bird species to projected land-cover changes due to climate and land-use change. [...] Even under environmentally benign scenarios, at least 400 species are projected to suffer >50% range reductions by the year 2050 (over 900 by the year 2100).

Which explicitly, unambiguously links drastic range reduction among many hundreds of bird species to climate change. Directly contradicting what you claimed. And the best you can do in response is..."nuh-uh", just sheer denial that there's any contradiction between "yes" and "no".

It beggars belief at this point. The words are right there, in front of your face.

 

[Elijin]

What the muppet means, but is failing to understand or articulate, is that random numbers were punched into both fields, and created similar results.

What his articles failed to mention was how often it happened, nor the significance of the sample size. Any results can be replicated by random, the question is how often it happens, not that it can happen. Data which the articles did not share. Also the articles he posted in support actually ended with statements like "It is possible that maybe the effect is not showing what we think it is."

Which this rusted hammer is then presenting as "totally debunked", without an iota of self awareness.

 

[Gordon_4]

Ah, economic migrants just mean poor people

Which is odd because most of the time that term has come up in conversations I've had, the people I speak to are referring to wealthy migrants or at least ones with wealth generating skills (doctors, teachers etc).

 

[tstorm823]

They unambiguously link climate change to extinction and loss of biodiversity.

I love your use of "link". You know what's going on here. Your position is that one is the cause of the other. But when describing their positions, it's just "link". You understand what is going on here.

They unambiguously contradict what you said. Several direct quotes to those exact effects were presented alongside the source links.

At this point, I'm quite confident you have no idea what I said at any point.

Which explicitly, unambiguously links drastic range reduction among many hundreds of bird species to climate change...

... and land use change. Seriously, start reading your own quotes. It connects to climate AND land use changes. They aren't saying what you are.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Which is odd because most of the time that term has come up in conversations I've had, the people I speak to are referring to wealthy migrants or at least ones with wealth generating skills (doctors, teachers etc).

Odd but okay...

Basically it means any one whose reasons to migrate are primarily economic...

So, of course, it gets used as a scare tactic about foreign types coming to take The Jobs and to cast doubt over the validity of asylum seeking/refugee claims... because xenophobia and political opportunism.

 

[Gordon_4]

Odd but okay...

Basically it means any one whose reasons to migrate are primarily economic...

So, of course, it gets used as a scare tactic about foreign types coming to take The Jobs and to cast doubt over the validity of asylum seeking/refugee claims... because xenophobia and political opportunism.

Didn't say I agreed with the definition, just that's been my conversational experience.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Didn't say I agreed with the definition, just that's been my conversational experience.

You're conversing with some odd people then.

 

[Gordon_4]

You're conversing with some odd people then.

On that, believe me, we can agree

 

[Trunkage]

You're conversing with some odd people then.

Dude, we have people who actually voted from Palmer and Hanson. We have plenty of crazies

Which is odd because most of the time that term has come up in conversations I've had, the people I speak to are referring to wealthy migrants or at least ones with wealth generating skills (doctors, teachers etc).

To be fair, they are probably targeting all migrants and make it up on the spot why each one is bad.

 

[Trunkage]

Also, Anti-maskers on Fox News talking about not needing to mask in New York over the wildfires because India and China get smog all the time with no problems is a BOLD move, Cotton. Because masks are always bad, mmkay

A million people die in China just due to smog. There is a reason why whole cities get shut down over smog. Stop trying to kill people Fox

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

A million people die in China just due to smog. There is a reason why whole cities get shut down over smog. Stop trying to kill people Fox

Why would they want people to not die? That lets them feel smugly superior, and they crave that feeling.

 

[Absent]

To be fair, they are probably targeting all migrants and make it up on the spot why each one is bad.

Precisely. Migrants who find a job are bad because they steal a job. Migrants who don't find a job are bad because they are parasites. Migrants either stay in ghettos which is bad or they integrate in our society and "replace" us (plus, they "steal the white woman", because racism and sexism go hand in hand). There's also that stupid category of "economic migrants" that mean nothing in practice (when your country collapses, when you lose everything, of course you're an economic migrant, but you're also fleeing natural or political devastation and violence). So migrants who come to seek better opportunities are again opportunistic predators (especially from the point of view of conservatives who otherwise praise initiatives, risk-taking and financial ventures), those who come from zones of violences are "violent" and "bring their troubles with them", those who flee religious fundamentalists are supposedly religious fundamentalists. Those who come without paperwork are suspicious because they don't bring enough documented proofs with them, those who come with paperwork are suspicious because their preparation is supiciously neat, the traumatized ones who get confused in their re-tellings are suspiciously vague and self-contradictory, those who have a clear coherent story are suspicious because it seems invented and rehearsed. And then of course, there is whether you come from a country which troubles are fashionable (the one all medias talk about at the time) or a country that is deemed okay (the news didn't talk about it that day), and there's whether you behaved the way we assume, from our armchair, that we'd behave in those circumstances.

All the angles are covered by ignorance, evil, bad faith, and xenophobia. All proceed from the implicit premise : foreigners are bad, the world is mine, I can go wherever, but others should stay imprisonned by their countries' borders.

 

[Silvanus]

I love your use of "link". You know what's going on here. Your position is that one is the cause of the other. But when describing their positions, it's just "link". You understand what is going on here.

Read. The. Sources. There are repeated causal statements.

"climate change will severely affect biodiversity".

"The ~1ºC rise in mean global temperature is causing serious and often unexpected impacts on species, affecting their abundance, genetic composition, behaviour and survival." - Causal. "Causing".

"the five direct drivers of change in nature with the largest relative global impacts so far. These culprits are: (1) changes in land and sea use; (2) direct exploitation of organisms; (3) climate change". - Among others, a "DIRECT DRIVER". Causal.

At this point, I'm quite confident you have no idea what I said at any point.

You said biodiversity would benefit from climate change. You quibbled about the idea that climate change drives extinctions and habitat loss. These are positions you took, and anyone is able to go back and read them.

You would like to weasel out of them now, so you're pretending your positions were always different.

... and land use change. Seriously, start reading your own quotes. It connects to climate AND land use changes. They aren't saying what you are.

Yes, it connects them to climate change and land use change. "Due to climate and land use change".

Sorry, on what fucking planet is that in line with what you said? You said climate change doesn't result in habitat loss. You didn't merely say it's one of several causes-- you said it's not a driver at all.

You then have an unambiguous statement saying it does drive it, alongside land-use change. And you're... pretending that the presence of other drivers alongside it somehow vindicates your claim that it's not a driver at all?

 

[tstorm823]

Read. The. Sources. There are repeated causal statements.

"climate change will severely affect biodiversity".

"The ~1ºC rise in mean global temperature is causing serious and often unexpected impacts on species, affecting their abundance, genetic composition, behaviour and survival." - Causal. "Causing".

"the five direct drivers of change in nature with the largest relative global impacts so far. These culprits are: (1) changes in land and sea use; (2) direct exploitation of organisms; (3) climate change". - Among others, a "DIRECT DRIVER". Causal.

Yes. Exactly. "Change" "affect" "impact". Exactly what I'm saying. That was the start of the conversation, that the comment I was responding to was treating change as an inherent negative. I have been clear the whole time that some species are adversely affected, but not all. That some will go extinct while others will flourish and adapt into new things entirely. I guarantee if you ask these authorities if some things benefit from climate change, they can tell you the same thing.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You've just said "that's literally the point" in reply to a post pointing out how the procedure of the original study was not replicated.

OMFG, don't you understand how everything in the study was redone BUT WITH random numbers? You act like something is being hidden or whatever. Don't you understand how damning that is to the validity of the original study? Guess what a digital dice roller didn't actually roll a physical dice, we all know this. You're focusing on bullshit semantics that don't matter vs discussing the actual point of the study. Not to mention mathematicians already have said they did the math wrong on the original study, which you keep not talking about as well.

What the muppet means, but is failing to understand or articulate, is that random numbers were punched into both fields, and created similar results.

What his articles failed to mention was how often it happened, nor the significance of the sample size. Any results can be replicated by random, the question is how often it happens, not that it can happen. Data which the articles did not share. Also the articles he posted in support actually ended with statements like "It is possible that maybe the effect is not showing what we think it is."

Which this rusted hammer is then presenting as "totally debunked", without an iota of self awareness.

Mathematicians founds they did the math wrong so the same result happens with like any numbers (like say random numbers) because the results were just noise.

Also, Anti-maskers on Fox News talking about not needing to mask in New York over the wildfires because India and China get smog all the time with no problems is a BOLD move, Cotton. Because masks are always bad, mmkay

A million people die in China just due to smog. There is a reason why whole cities get shut down over smog. Stop trying to kill people Fox

Basic mask isn't going to work, you're still breathing air filled with whatever is in the air. A mask with a filter, that could work. Also, don't the Chinese wear masks? If so, how are a million dying from smog if masks work?

 

[Silvanus]

Yes. Exactly. "Change" "affect" "impact". Exactly what I'm saying. That was the start of the conversation, that the comment I was responding to was treating change as an inherent negative.

Firstly: no, that was not all you were saying. You were also denying that climate change causes habitat loss and mass extinctions outside of "polar bears and coral reefs" (which itself shows the ignorance of how much life depends on the coral reef).

Secondly: the sources are issuing dire warnings, talking about "damage", "severity", and how it can be mitigated. All the world's most authoritative environmental agencies have issued direct appeals to avoid it. You think they regard this is a neutral, hunky-dory change?

I have been clear the whole time that some species are adversely affected, but not all. That some will go extinct while others will flourish and adapt into new things entirely. I guarantee if you ask these authorities if some things benefit from climate change, they can tell you the same thing.

And the sources there have been equally clear that biodiversity /falls/ as a result of climate change. This damage is not compensated by a corresponding "flourish" under any existing model-- and you've presented literally nothing to back up, just sheer speculation about future forestation.

You are talking about evolutionary adaptation-- a process that takes millions of years-- as if it can compensate for a drastic change in climate over a few centuries. It cannot. Species cannot adapt if the pace of change dramatically exceeds the adaptive response of evolution. They go extinct.

 

[Silvanus]

OMFG, don't you understand how everything in the study was redone BUT WITH random numbers?

"OMFG, don't you understand how everything in the triathlon was redone BUT WITH trees instead of people?"

Guess what a digital dice roller didn't actually roll a physical dice, we all know this.

OK, so here's a question.

Let's say researchers asked 100 people in an office block how comfortable they were with the temperature, on a scale of 1-6, with 6 being too hot, 1 being too cold, and 3 being just right. They get a range of answers, which trends towards most people thinking it's too hot.

Then another researcher says, "I'm gonna redo this study". He rolls 100 dice, and gets an average return that's above 3.

He then concludes that the people in the office block don't think it's too hot after all! The original study was bunk, because it was just redone with random numbers and they got the same result! So obviously people don't think it's too hot!

Do you see how that's complete bollocks?

 

[Ag3ma]

There's a lot more in your response than just this snip about to be covered by the next sentence. It sounds very much like your priority is only political resentment, and climate change is more a rationalization for that in your mind than it is an actual priority.

The hope for a better world is not any of the amazing technologies being developed that will make a literally more manageable globe for humans to inhabit, it's voting against the right.

Amazing technologies to make a better world are a major reason I would vote centre to left. Because the centre to left are interested in supporting investment into green technology where the right wing prefers to hand bungs to fossil fuel interests so they can do more drilling.

 

[Ag3ma]

That doesn't tell me what I'm asking.

It doesn't tell you exactly, but you also need to be irrationally obstructive not to see the very strong implication.

Livestock =/= all animals, which is what I'm asking. We've increased livestock but many other animal numbers have decreased like 26 million elephants to 100,000 for example (that I doubt are considered livestock). Again, what's the total methane emissions (or just general GHG emissions) from animals today and in yesteryear? Also, how much can the environment take in/repurpose today vs yesteryear as well. Then, how much surplus (if any) do we have from just normal living creatures to what the environment can handle? I'd be willing to guess that when you look at that, cows will be such a minor problem (if any) that it will be pretty ridiculous arguing over it at all. I'm also willing to bet methane in permafrost is also a much bigger issue than cows.

A cow weighs about a tonne. An elephant weighs about 5 tonnes (less if Asian). So if we make a not unreasonable assumption that their methane production is roughly the same per unit biomass, 25 million elephants is equivalent to about 125 million cows.

Let me remind you that there are over 1 billion cows in today's world. Also not including sheep, goats and other methane-producing ruminants that are farmed.

I'm also just going to put it out there that about 80% of natural production of methane comes from wetlands. (Which makes sense, given the prior information about methane from rice production.)

 

[Thaluikhain]

Amazing technologies to make a better world are a major reason I would vote centre to left. Because the centre to left are interested in supporting investment into green technology where the right wing prefers to hand bungs to fossil fuel interests so they can do more drilling.

Not to mention when new technologies are developed, the left tends to find different and usually less evil things to do with them.