Recent Comments

1. 27 days ago on Tom the Dancing Bug

   But being accepted for their legacy status is okay?

2. 3 months ago on Tom the Dancing Bug

   1) Most of those are not actually facts, and 2) they still don’t respond to my question. Also, 3) where did I call you names?, and 4) please diagram your sentence fragment, “What has the Biden administration already done to stop the GOP Texas governor from doing?” Does it actually make sense in English? Does it in any way respond to my question of where you were getting your facts? It seems to me that the classic we’re seeing is the deflection and distraction tactics of the right.

3. 3 months ago on Tom the Dancing Bug

   Your response to my question is non-responsive, and, so shall mine to yours be, especially since your question is non-sensical and barely parses as English.

4. 3 months ago on Tom the Dancing Bug

   Uhhh… Where are you getting details of a plan that has neither been finalized nor released to the public? Did you have to wipe afterwards?

5. 4 months ago on Pearls Before Swine

   The only people who make the (completely bogus and ahistorical) argument that the USA is not, nor has ever been, a democracy, are people who don’t want it to be one in the future. And all too often they fly the flag of a country they hate.

6. 9 months ago on Tom the Dancing Bug

   “Because you cannot provide the means by which your plan will change the global climate, you mock what you do not understand? You have only your faith. You have no science. Simply observing reality as it is would show you that your small but very loud cult of climate control is based in fallacies. Go ahead and look.”

   So, now that you’ve completely ignored my explanations and facts, I’ll leave you with your own comment. Every word of it applies to you in this thread. You have presented no coherent rebuttal of the facts and theories of mainstream science, which I have (again) related. You have failed to enumerate even a single fallacy in my logic, and refused to respond to the manifold fallacies I pointed out in yours. You have presented no coherent theories of you own, nor any actual evidence beyond, “I say so.” I don’t know why displaying your arrogance and stupidity is so important to you, but I guess you just gotta be you.

7. 9 months ago on Tom the Dancing Bug

   “Says the guy who also denies the link between cigs ‘n’ cancer.” Indeed, though in that case he’s simply defined cancer as something that can’t be caused by external factors, which is much, much easier to refute/ignore than his bizarre, fantastical belief system around climate, which is so slippery that you could probably chase it for decades and still have no idea what he’s actually claiming.

8. 9 months ago on Tom the Dancing Bug

   Yet More:

   “Fresh water is created by applying thermal energy to salt water. Fresh water far inland requires enough thermal energy applied to force enough vapor far enough inland, maintained by its own reservoir of thermal energy, to prevent it cooling, condensing and precipitating prematurely, in violent storms above or near warm source waters.”

   The other way of creating fresh water is by burning fossil fuels, as discussed above. But in any case, the amount of thermal energy is increasing both as a result of waste heat of burning, but also by the greenhouse effect, whereby atmospheric CO2 (and others) insulates the planet, trapping heat from radiating off into space. Of course, your nonsequitur about inland aridity is just that – irrelevant to any of the claims actually made about climate change – and so this paragraph is just for completeness.

   For the record: The claim is that burning fossil fuels (and before that, clearing forests for agriculture) is increasing global average temperatures, causing a wide variety of deleterious effects. There is plenty of well-documented evidence to support the increasingly obvious fact that global average temperatures are and have been rising steeply over the last century. The physics and chemistry related to the Greenhouse Effect are well understood. You can deny that there is a problem, or that humans are causing the problem, or that humans can solve the problem, but all of these positions will put you at odds with basically the entire scientific community, and, at this point, significant portions of everyone else.

9. 9 months ago on Tom the Dancing Bug

   Continued:

   “Helps what? Is it your contention that humans are, by the use of electricity, controlling the climate? Is this based in the belief that CO2 is moderating the climate, causing glacial recession, desertification, sea rise, atmospheric warming and violent storm activity?”

   No one I know is claiming that the use of electricity is controlling the climate. Even your straw men are from outer space. No one I know believes that CO2 is moderating the climate; science shows exactly the opposite, and, yes, this is causing all those bad side effects, along with a host of others related to higher average temperatures, like forest fires, and wider ranges for things like Lyme and malaria.

   “That can only be the case if you can also provide some evidence that there is too much fresh water available in the world, which may be difficult. As things stand, there is a steadily diminishing amount of fresh water, with ancient stores in aquifers and glaciers being depleted as time goes on.”

   As no one is making the claims you present, there is apparently no need to provide said evidence about ‘too much’ fresh water, but…the amount of water ‘available’ in the world is, in fact, increasing significantly. This is because humans keep digging up sequestered fossil fuels and burning them, and there are three main products of burning coal, oil, and natural gas in the presence of O2: heat, CO2, and H2O. Billions of barrels of oil, tons and tons of coal, and billions of cubic feet of natural gas add tremendous amounts of each of these things to the atmosphere, returning us to the hotter, wetter, and more energetic climate of millions of years ago.

10. 9 months ago on Tom the Dancing Bug

    Many have tried to penetrate the strange cosmology you’ve constructed around climate change, to no avail, as anyone who’s spent this much effort on an alternate reality, ignoring the vast quantity of evidence and well-constructed scientific models can trivially ignore the punters in the comments.

    But I’m bored, so let’s go over it again…

    Here’s your current crop of claims:

    “Still waiting for the science for how cutting carbon emissions will warm the seas to force more water farther inland.”

    This seems to be some sort of strawman, but is so divorced from reality that it’s hard to understand what is actually being claimed or denied. Is anyone claiming that cutting carbon emissions is for the purpose of warming the seas? The actual claim is that we must cut carbon emissions in order to stop the entire planet – including the seas – from warming, so the opposite.

    “Sea rise, desertification, glacial recession and atmospheric warming will continue until then, as they have since the seas were cooled by the ice age, and as they are maintained cold by polar ice to this very day.”

    This claim is outlandish and counterfactual. The Earth is not a closed system. Warming and cooling are always related to the Sun’s radiation or lack thereof. Cold is the absence of heat. Increasing temperature is why the problem was initially called Global Warming. If the problem is, as you seem to claim, a lack of heat, then you’re in luck, as anthropogenic changes to the Earth’s atmosphere are on track to significantly increase global average temperature. If the problem is, as basically every other person on the planet claims, that there is too much heat, then how do your theories apply?

    “Check a map. Cold ocean currents cause deserts to form, for a lack of water vapor production.”

    So if I present you with an outline map of the Earth’s continents, you can just look at the oceans and predict where all the deserts are? Why aren’t most deserts at the poles?