On 07/01/2025 03:52, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> Ain't gonna be MAGA
>   forever (GOP thinks it has four years to coast)
>   and soon enough the ultra-left will regain power.
I don't think so.
Ultra left can only thrive in an affluent society, but they have no idea
how to create or maintain affluence.

As poverty kicks in, people are more concerned over potatoes than pronouns.

>
>   Being NRA means you're an Enemy Of The People,
>   a terrorist, a 'threat to democracy', a maniac.
>   They'll push that and then send midnight raiders
>   to your house to 'save America' the way Vlad
>   disappears 'dissidents'.
>
Plenty of parts of the USA that would quietly 'disppapear' and goddam
'Liberals' that got out of their EVs...

....

>   A return to a more sensible/tolerant America ?
>   No longer sure that's possible. We've kinda
>   drifted into the 3rd-world mentality of
>   dictators, czars, warlords, presidents-
>   for life and ayatollah-substututes. Hard to
>   come back from that. Not everything lost can
>   be regained.
America was so rich when I first visited it in te 1970s that it didn't
have to do anything special. When food and minerals are just there
waiting to be picked up, you didnt have to be efficient.

And an English speaking market ten times the size of the UK, and bigger
than the commonwealth.

That is not the case anymore.

Its happening first in resource poor Europe, but its will happen in the
USA. people want government that can achieve results, not spout
moralistic bullshit and condemn you for having a bit too much to think.

The first response is 'vote in anyone who isn't the establishment' . The
Donald is that. Its happening elsewhere with so called 'far right'
parties on the rise everywhere.

After that once people stop voting for what they think they want and
look at who can deliver what they desperately need, things will change.

>
>   It'd take a real, prolonged, space-alien
>   invasion. Don't think the Jersey Drones
>   are gonna do it.

The Virus From Outer Space?

I don't think so. The prime requirement for a society to survive is that
it survives!
Moral bullshit and neo-religious Leftism is all very well, until it
threatens society's survival. Look at Net Zero and think Putin.

Look at LGBTQ and think 'so who is making babies?'

People who are cold in the winter will burn anything they can find,
because there isn't much use in an ecologically perfect planet when you
are already dead from hypothermia.

--
“it should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalin’s Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.”

Vaclav Klaus

On 07/01/2025 10:41, D wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 6 Jan 2025, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 06/01/2025 10:50, D wrote:
>>> unless they live off government handouts, in which case they are
>>> really just a branch of government.
>>
>> No. Government is just another branch of the companies.
>
> Depends on the country. I guarantee you that the government calls the
> shots in sweden. In the US, I'm not so sure, but then, the US is not a
> socialist as sweden.

Sure, but who owns the government?

--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

On 07/01/2025 10:43, D wrote:
> Cooling kills 10x the people than warming. That is how cooling is worse
> than warming. As for lack of water, desalination exists and works well.
> Desalination can be combined excellently, with solar power to drive down
> cost.
>
It is suitable for intermittent sources, yes. Nuclear is even better.

> It is being used with great success on the swedish island of Gotland, to
> mitigate water shortage.

I've been there. Strange place.
Always reminded me of Andreas Brevik...

As with many technological revolutions, it all happens as a result of
some technology becoming so absurdly cheap you use it wherever you can.

Cheap gasoline and diesel paved the way for massive transport expansion
and globalisation. Plus aircraft and the rise of suburban living.

The transistor paved the way for digital everything, up to and including
chips the size of a thumbnail that do more than an IBM mainframe could
do in the 1950s. That you can fit in a washing machine.

Massively cheap electricity and free heat from reactors will solve the
energy crisis and open up huge new possibilities in energy intensive
industrial processes.

Bring it on.

--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

On 07/01/2025 10:46, D wrote:
> This has been said since at least the 1800s, and has been equally wrong
> every single time. We have not even started to farm the seas and space.
> There are enormous areas available for farming on the planet, limitless
> energy, and NASA has proven that we're seeing global greening. Do not
> worry about increasing population.

Some of us have experienced high population density living. Life needs
to be a bit more than a concrete cell with Internet built in and
unlimited fast food delivered to your door. Where traditional sex is
prohibited on the grounds of it being micro-aggression

--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> On 2025-01-06 16:20, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>
>>> On 06/01/2025 19:06, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>> On 2025-01-06 10:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 06/01/2025 13:49, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>> The way they sell it, warming means a lesser availability of fresh
>>>>>> water. Obviously, this would result in people dying. With cooling
>>>>>> though, there would be a decreased availability of food in general,
>>>>>> so I don't see how one is worse than the other.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except the narrative says that all of greenland will melt. That's a
>>>>> fuck of a lot of fresh water
>>>>
>>>> If all of Greenland will melt, the people who are suddenly
>>>> inconvenienced by the world's warming could move there and turn the
>>>> continent-like country into something inhabitable for the first time in
>>>> thousands of years. I imagine that as a result of it never really being
>>>> used for agriculture, that land is incredibly fertile.
>>>>
>>> Not wrong there. In fact huge areas of Canadian, Alaskan and Siberian
>>> tundra would be really quite nice places to live. Scarcely worse than
>>> Scotland
>>
>> Except for buildings and equipment sinking into the melting tundra :-D
>
> There is soil underneath all of that, Chris.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-military-sees-growing-threat-in-thawing-permafrost/

Climate change is rapidly altering the Arctic landscape, in particular the
permafrost that serves as a foundation for buildings across the region.
Warming temperatures are thawing out the frozen ground, and in the process
it is threatening to unsettle structures that were built decades ago.

That's particularly worrisome for the U.S. military, which maintains
facilities across the Arctic region. And it's one reason Hicks embarked on
a two-day tour of the nation’s northernmost military bases.

“Building and maintaining infrastructure — like runways — on permafrost
presents unique challenges for Arctic nations — which are growing with the
effects of climate change,” Hicks wrote in a Twitter post on Monday.

--
A paranoid is a man who knows a little of what's going on.
-- William S. Burroughs

On 2025-01-07 08:43, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>
>> On 2025-01-06 16:20, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>
>>>> On 06/01/2025 19:06, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-01-06 10:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> On 06/01/2025 13:49, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>> The way they sell it, warming means a lesser availability of fresh
>>>>>>> water. Obviously, this would result in people dying. With cooling
>>>>>>> though, there would be a decreased availability of food in general,
>>>>>>> so I don't see how one is worse than the other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except the narrative says that all of greenland will melt. That's a
>>>>>> fuck of a lot of fresh water
>>>>>
>>>>> If all of Greenland will melt, the people who are suddenly
>>>>> inconvenienced by the world's warming could move there and turn the
>>>>> continent-like country into something inhabitable for the first time in
>>>>> thousands of years. I imagine that as a result of it never really being
>>>>> used for agriculture, that land is incredibly fertile.
>>>>>
>>>> Not wrong there. In fact huge areas of Canadian, Alaskan and Siberian
>>>> tundra would be really quite nice places to live. Scarcely worse than
>>>> Scotland
>>>
>>> Except for buildings and equipment sinking into the melting tundra :-D
>>
>> There is soil underneath all of that, Chris.
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-military-sees-growing-threat-in-thawing-permafrost/
>
> Climate change is rapidly altering the Arctic landscape, in particular the
> permafrost that serves as a foundation for buildings across the region.
> Warming temperatures are thawing out the frozen ground, and in the process
> it is threatening to unsettle structures that were built decades ago.

"... that were built decades ago." How many buildings have been erected
decades ago in the waste known as Greenland? Even in Quebec where the
north is settled to a degree, the amount of buildings in existence is
minimal because the population is itself tiny.

> That's particularly worrisome for the U.S. military, which maintains
> facilities across the Arctic region. And it's one reason Hicks embarked on
> a two-day tour of the nation’s northernmost military bases.
>
> “Building and maintaining infrastructure — like runways — on permafrost
> presents unique challenges for Arctic nations — which are growing with the
> effects of climate change,” Hicks wrote in a Twitter post on Monday.

Once there is no longer permafrost, those challenges will be eradicated too.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
Telegram: @AndrzejMatuch
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Fedora 41
KDE supporting member

Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> On 2025-01-07 08:43, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>
>>> On 2025-01-06 16:20, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>>
>>>>> On 06/01/2025 19:06, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-01-06 10:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>> On 06/01/2025 13:49, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>> The way they sell it, warming means a lesser availability of fresh
>>>>>>>> water. Obviously, this would result in people dying. With cooling
>>>>>>>> though, there would be a decreased availability of food in general,
>>>>>>>> so I don't see how one is worse than the other.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except the narrative says that all of greenland will melt. That's a
>>>>>>> fuck of a lot of fresh water
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If all of Greenland will melt, the people who are suddenly
>>>>>> inconvenienced by the world's warming could move there and turn the
>>>>>> continent-like country into something inhabitable for the first time in
>>>>>> thousands of years. I imagine that as a result of it never really being
>>>>>> used for agriculture, that land is incredibly fertile.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Not wrong there. In fact huge areas of Canadian, Alaskan and Siberian
>>>>> tundra would be really quite nice places to live. Scarcely worse than
>>>>> Scotland
>>>>
>>>> Except for buildings and equipment sinking into the melting tundra :-D
>>>
>>> There is soil underneath all of that, Chris.
>>
>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-military-sees-growing-threat-in-thawing-permafrost/
>>
>> Climate change is rapidly altering the Arctic landscape, in particular the
>> permafrost that serves as a foundation for buildings across the region.
>> Warming temperatures are thawing out the frozen ground, and in the process
>> it is threatening to unsettle structures that were built decades ago.
>
> "... that were built decades ago." How many buildings have been erected
> decades ago in the waste known as Greenland? Even in Quebec where the
> north is settled to a degree, the amount of buildings in existence is
> minimal because the population is itself tiny.
>
>> That's particularly worrisome for the U.S. military, which maintains
>> facilities across the Arctic region. And it's one reason Hicks embarked on
>> a two-day tour of the nation’s northernmost military bases.
>>
>> “Building and maintaining infrastructure — like runways — on permafrost
>> presents unique challenges for Arctic nations — which are growing with the
>> effects of climate change,” Hicks wrote in a Twitter post on Monday.
>
> Once there is no longer permafrost, those challenges will be eradicated too.

And replacement structures will be built/rebuilt.

And that doesn't include methane release.

--
When you jump for joy, beware that no-one moves the ground from beneath
your feet.
-- Stanislaw Jerzy Lec, "Unkempt Thoughts"

On 2025-01-07 11:26, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>
>> On 2025-01-07 08:43, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>
>>>> On 2025-01-06 16:20, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06/01/2025 19:06, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-01-06 10:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 06/01/2025 13:49, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The way they sell it, warming means a lesser availability of fresh
>>>>>>>>> water. Obviously, this would result in people dying. With cooling
>>>>>>>>> though, there would be a decreased availability of food in general,
>>>>>>>>> so I don't see how one is worse than the other.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Except the narrative says that all of greenland will melt. That's a
>>>>>>>> fuck of a lot of fresh water
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If all of Greenland will melt, the people who are suddenly
>>>>>>> inconvenienced by the world's warming could move there and turn the
>>>>>>> continent-like country into something inhabitable for the first time in
>>>>>>> thousands of years. I imagine that as a result of it never really being
>>>>>>> used for agriculture, that land is incredibly fertile.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not wrong there. In fact huge areas of Canadian, Alaskan and Siberian
>>>>>> tundra would be really quite nice places to live. Scarcely worse than
>>>>>> Scotland
>>>>>
>>>>> Except for buildings and equipment sinking into the melting tundra :-D
>>>>
>>>> There is soil underneath all of that, Chris.
>>>
>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-military-sees-growing-threat-in-thawing-permafrost/
>>>
>>> Climate change is rapidly altering the Arctic landscape, in particular the
>>> permafrost that serves as a foundation for buildings across the region.
>>> Warming temperatures are thawing out the frozen ground, and in the process
>>> it is threatening to unsettle structures that were built decades ago.
>>
>> "... that were built decades ago." How many buildings have been erected
>> decades ago in the waste known as Greenland? Even in Quebec where the
>> north is settled to a degree, the amount of buildings in existence is
>> minimal because the population is itself tiny.
>>
>>> That's particularly worrisome for the U.S. military, which maintains
>>> facilities across the Arctic region. And it's one reason Hicks embarked on
>>> a two-day tour of the nation’s northernmost military bases.
>>>
>>> “Building and maintaining infrastructure — like runways — on permafrost
>>> presents unique challenges for Arctic nations — which are growing with the
>>> effects of climate change,” Hicks wrote in a Twitter post on Monday.
>>
>> Once there is no longer permafrost, those challenges will be eradicated too.
>
> And replacement structures will be built/rebuilt.
>
> And that doesn't include methane release.

I don't mind if the people building new structure fart a time or two. Do
you, Chris?

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
Telegram: @AndrzejMatuch
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Fedora 41
KDE supporting member

Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> On 2025-01-07 11:26, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>
>>> On 2025-01-07 08:43, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2025-01-06 16:20, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 06/01/2025 19:06, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-01-06 10:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 06/01/2025 13:49, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The way they sell it, warming means a lesser availability of fresh
>>>>>>>>>> water. Obviously, this would result in people dying. With cooling
>>>>>>>>>> though, there would be a decreased availability of food in general,
>>>>>>>>>> so I don't see how one is worse than the other.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Except the narrative says that all of greenland will melt. That's a
>>>>>>>>> fuck of a lot of fresh water
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If all of Greenland will melt, the people who are suddenly
>>>>>>>> inconvenienced by the world's warming could move there and turn the
>>>>>>>> continent-like country into something inhabitable for the first time in
>>>>>>>> thousands of years. I imagine that as a result of it never really being
>>>>>>>> used for agriculture, that land is incredibly fertile.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not wrong there. In fact huge areas of Canadian, Alaskan and Siberian
>>>>>>> tundra would be really quite nice places to live. Scarcely worse than
>>>>>>> Scotland
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except for buildings and equipment sinking into the melting tundra :-D
>>>>>
>>>>> There is soil underneath all of that, Chris.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-military-sees-growing-threat-in-thawing-permafrost/
>>>>
>>>> Climate change is rapidly altering the Arctic landscape, in particular the
>>>> permafrost that serves as a foundation for buildings across the region.
>>>> Warming temperatures are thawing out the frozen ground, and in the process
>>>> it is threatening to unsettle structures that were built decades ago.
>>>
>>> "... that were built decades ago." How many buildings have been erected
>>> decades ago in the waste known as Greenland? Even in Quebec where the
>>> north is settled to a degree, the amount of buildings in existence is
>>> minimal because the population is itself tiny.
>>>
>>>> That's particularly worrisome for the U.S. military, which maintains
>>>> facilities across the Arctic region. And it's one reason Hicks embarked on
>>>> a two-day tour of the nation’s northernmost military bases.
>>>>
>>>> “Building and maintaining infrastructure — like runways — on permafrost
>>>> presents unique challenges for Arctic nations — which are growing with the
>>>> effects of climate change,” Hicks wrote in a Twitter post on Monday.
>>>
>>> Once there is no longer permafrost, those challenges will be eradicated too.
>>
>> And replacement structures will be built/rebuilt.
>>
>> And that doesn't include methane release.
>
> I don't mind if the people building new structure fart a time or two. Do
> you, Chris?

Cut the patronizing crap.

--
If I don't drive around the park,
I'm pretty sure to make my mark.
If I'm in bed each night by ten,
I may get back my looks again.
If I abstain from fun and such,
I'll probably amount to much;
But I shall stay the way I am,
Because I do not give a damn.
-- Dorothy Parker

On 2025-01-07 13:14, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>
>> On 2025-01-07 11:26, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>
>>>> On 2025-01-07 08:43, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2025-01-06 16:20, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 06/01/2025 19:06, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-01-06 10:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 06/01/2025 13:49, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> The way they sell it, warming means a lesser availability of fresh
>>>>>>>>>>> water. Obviously, this would result in people dying. With cooling
>>>>>>>>>>> though, there would be a decreased availability of food in general,
>>>>>>>>>>> so I don't see how one is worse than the other.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Except the narrative says that all of greenland will melt. That's a
>>>>>>>>>> fuck of a lot of fresh water
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If all of Greenland will melt, the people who are suddenly
>>>>>>>>> inconvenienced by the world's warming could move there and turn the
>>>>>>>>> continent-like country into something inhabitable for the first time in
>>>>>>>>> thousands of years. I imagine that as a result of it never really being
>>>>>>>>> used for agriculture, that land is incredibly fertile.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not wrong there. In fact huge areas of Canadian, Alaskan and Siberian
>>>>>>>> tundra would be really quite nice places to live. Scarcely worse than
>>>>>>>> Scotland
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except for buildings and equipment sinking into the melting tundra :-D
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is soil underneath all of that, Chris.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-military-sees-growing-threat-in-thawing-permafrost/
>>>>>
>>>>> Climate change is rapidly altering the Arctic landscape, in particular the
>>>>> permafrost that serves as a foundation for buildings across the region.
>>>>> Warming temperatures are thawing out the frozen ground, and in the process
>>>>> it is threatening to unsettle structures that were built decades ago.
>>>>
>>>> "... that were built decades ago." How many buildings have been erected
>>>> decades ago in the waste known as Greenland? Even in Quebec where the
>>>> north is settled to a degree, the amount of buildings in existence is
>>>> minimal because the population is itself tiny.
>>>>
>>>>> That's particularly worrisome for the U.S. military, which maintains
>>>>> facilities across the Arctic region. And it's one reason Hicks embarked on
>>>>> a two-day tour of the nation’s northernmost military bases.
>>>>>
>>>>> “Building and maintaining infrastructure — like runways — on permafrost
>>>>> presents unique challenges for Arctic nations — which are growing with the
>>>>> effects of climate change,” Hicks wrote in a Twitter post on Monday.
>>>>
>>>> Once there is no longer permafrost, those challenges will be eradicated too.
>>>
>>> And replacement structures will be built/rebuilt.
>>>
>>> And that doesn't include methane release.
>>
>> I don't mind if the people building new structure fart a time or two. Do
>> you, Chris?
>
> Cut the patronizing crap.

I can't help but patronize here. You're looking at a gigantic country,
bigger than Europe, which is more or less uninhabited at the moment
because of its unfavourable conditions. The climate _might_ be warming
with the result being an uninhabited continent of a country becoming
viable for life, and you're concerned that the few buildings it has
might be destroyed and/or replaced, as if that hasn't happened in the
West before, and that some methane might be released. Who gives a shit?
Suddenly, you have a place where you can send the useless people looking
to be refugees in the West, if they really want freedom and another shot
at life. Suddenly, you have access to a wide variety of resources which
have not yet been exploited. And here _you_ are, Chris, concerned that
living there might increase the temperature in one hundred years by
another 0.1 degree and increase the sea level by a millimetre.

Funny enough, there are lots of buildings erected over a century ago
that are surrounded by the same height of water today than they were
back then. Nothing has changed regardless of what some scientists they
purchased tell you. We already know that the "global cooling," "global
warming" and finally "climate change" garbage is a scam meant to enrich
the people at the top even more. We are also aware that a lot of the
floodings that have happened recently, like in Spain, were manufactured
not natural. If you get rid of the structures holding the water out of
certain areas, it's obvious that you will end up with flooding.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
Telegram: @AndrzejMatuch
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Fedora 41
KDE supporting member

Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

>

Adios. You've been down this road before.

--
The Angels want to wear my red shoes.
-- E. Costello

On 2025-01-07 13:44, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>
>>
>
> Adios. You've been down this road before.

You've just demonstrated the general idiocy of the woke: agree with
whatever retarded thing I have to say or I will block you.

Just once in your life, be a man.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
Telegram: @AndrzejMatuch
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Fedora 41
KDE supporting member

On 2025-01-07 19:30, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
> On 2025-01-07 13:14, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>
>>> On 2025-01-07 11:26, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2025-01-07 08:43, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2025-01-06 16:20, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse
>>>>>>>> code:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 06/01/2025 19:06, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-01-06 10:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/01/2025 13:49, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The way they sell it, warming means a lesser availability of
>>>>>>>>>>>> fresh
>>>>>>>>>>>> water. Obviously, this would result in people dying. With
>>>>>>>>>>>> cooling
>>>>>>>>>>>> though, there would be a decreased availability of food in
>>>>>>>>>>>> general,
>>>>>>>>>>>> so I don't see how one is worse than the other.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Except the narrative says that all of greenland will melt.
>>>>>>>>>>> That's a
>>>>>>>>>>> fuck of a lot of fresh water
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If all of Greenland will melt, the people who are suddenly
>>>>>>>>>> inconvenienced by the world's warming could move there and
>>>>>>>>>> turn the
>>>>>>>>>> continent-like country into something inhabitable for the
>>>>>>>>>> first time in
>>>>>>>>>> thousands of years. I imagine that as a result of it never
>>>>>>>>>> really being
>>>>>>>>>> used for agriculture, that land is incredibly fertile.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not wrong there. In fact huge areas of Canadian, Alaskan and
>>>>>>>>> Siberian
>>>>>>>>> tundra would be really quite nice places to live. Scarcely
>>>>>>>>> worse than
>>>>>>>>> Scotland
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Except for buildings and equipment sinking into the melting
>>>>>>>> tundra :-D
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is soil underneath all of that, Chris.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-military-
>>>>>> sees-growing-threat-in-thawing-permafrost/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        Climate change is rapidly altering the Arctic landscape, in
>>>>>> particular the
>>>>>>        permafrost that serves as a foundation for buildings across
>>>>>> the region.
>>>>>>        Warming temperatures are thawing out the frozen ground, and
>>>>>> in the process
>>>>>>        it is threatening to unsettle structures that were built
>>>>>> decades ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> "... that were built decades ago." How many buildings have been
>>>>> erected
>>>>> decades ago in the waste known as Greenland? Even in Quebec where the
>>>>> north is settled to a degree, the amount of buildings in existence is
>>>>> minimal because the population is itself tiny.
>>>>>
>>>>>>        That's particularly worrisome for the U.S. military, which
>>>>>> maintains
>>>>>>        facilities across the Arctic region. And it's one reason
>>>>>> Hicks embarked on
>>>>>>        a two-day tour of the nation’s northernmost military bases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        “Building and maintaining infrastructure — like runways —
>>>>>> on permafrost
>>>>>>        presents unique challenges for Arctic nations — which are
>>>>>> growing with the
>>>>>>        effects of climate change,” Hicks wrote in a Twitter post
>>>>>> on Monday.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once there is no longer permafrost, those challenges will be
>>>>> eradicated too.
>>>>
>>>> And replacement structures will be built/rebuilt.
>>>>
>>>> And that doesn't include methane release.
>>>
>>> I don't mind if the people building new structure fart a time or two. Do
>>> you, Chris?
>>
>> Cut the patronizing crap.
>
> I can't help but patronize here. You're looking at a gigantic country,
> bigger than Europe, which is more or less uninhabited at the moment
> because of its unfavourable conditions. The climate _might_ be warming
> with the result being an uninhabited continent of a country becoming
> viable for life, and you're concerned that the few buildings it has
> might be destroyed and/or replaced, as if that hasn't happened in the
> West before, and that some methane might be released. Who gives a shit?
> Suddenly, you have a place where you can send the useless people looking
> to be refugees in the West, if they really want freedom and another shot
> at life. Suddenly, you have access to a wide variety of resources which
> have not yet been exploited. And here _you_ are, Chris, concerned that
> living there might increase the temperature in one hundred years by
> another 0.1 degree and increase the sea level by a millimetre.
>
> Funny enough, there are lots of buildings erected over a century ago
> that are surrounded by the same height of water today than they were
> back then. Nothing has changed regardless of what some scientists they
> purchased tell you. We already know that the "global cooling," "global
> warming" and finally "climate change" garbage is a scam meant to enrich
> the people at the top even more. We are also aware that a lot of the
> floodings that have happened recently, like in Spain, were manufactured
> not natural. If you get rid of the structures holding the water out of
> certain areas, it's obvious that you will end up with flooding.

What the fuck are you talking about? What structures? That's bullshit,
rightwing propaganda.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 1/7/25 1:30 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
> On 2025-01-07 13:14, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>
>>> On 2025-01-07 11:26, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2025-01-07 08:43, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2025-01-06 16:20, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse
>>>>>>>> code:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 06/01/2025 19:06, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-01-06 10:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/01/2025 13:49, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The way they sell it, warming means a lesser availability of
>>>>>>>>>>>> fresh
>>>>>>>>>>>> water. Obviously, this would result in people dying. With
>>>>>>>>>>>> cooling
>>>>>>>>>>>> though, there would be a decreased availability of food in
>>>>>>>>>>>> general,
>>>>>>>>>>>> so I don't see how one is worse than the other.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Except the narrative says that all of greenland will melt.
>>>>>>>>>>> That's a
>>>>>>>>>>> fuck of a lot of fresh water
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If all of Greenland will melt, the people who are suddenly
>>>>>>>>>> inconvenienced by the world's warming could move there and
>>>>>>>>>> turn the
>>>>>>>>>> continent-like country into something inhabitable for the
>>>>>>>>>> first time in
>>>>>>>>>> thousands of years. I imagine that as a result of it never
>>>>>>>>>> really being
>>>>>>>>>> used for agriculture, that land is incredibly fertile.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not wrong there. In fact huge areas of Canadian, Alaskan and
>>>>>>>>> Siberian
>>>>>>>>> tundra would be really quite nice places to live. Scarcely
>>>>>>>>> worse than
>>>>>>>>> Scotland
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Except for buildings and equipment sinking into the melting
>>>>>>>> tundra :-D
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is soil underneath all of that, Chris.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-military-
>>>>>> sees-growing-threat-in-thawing-permafrost/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        Climate change is rapidly altering the Arctic landscape, in
>>>>>> particular the
>>>>>>        permafrost that serves as a foundation for buildings across
>>>>>> the region.
>>>>>>        Warming temperatures are thawing out the frozen ground, and
>>>>>> in the process
>>>>>>        it is threatening to unsettle structures that were built
>>>>>> decades ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> "... that were built decades ago." How many buildings have been
>>>>> erected
>>>>> decades ago in the waste known as Greenland? Even in Quebec where the
>>>>> north is settled to a degree, the amount of buildings in existence is
>>>>> minimal because the population is itself tiny.
>>>>>
>>>>>>        That's particularly worrisome for the U.S. military, which
>>>>>> maintains
>>>>>>        facilities across the Arctic region. And it's one reason
>>>>>> Hicks embarked on
>>>>>>        a two-day tour of the nation’s northernmost military bases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        “Building and maintaining infrastructure — like runways —
>>>>>> on permafrost
>>>>>>        presents unique challenges for Arctic nations — which are
>>>>>> growing with the
>>>>>>        effects of climate change,” Hicks wrote in a Twitter post
>>>>>> on Monday.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once there is no longer permafrost, those challenges will be
>>>>> eradicated too.
>>>>
>>>> And replacement structures will be built/rebuilt.
>>>>
>>>> And that doesn't include methane release.
>>>
>>> I don't mind if the people building new structure fart a time or two. Do
>>> you, Chris?
>>
>> Cut the patronizing crap.
>
> I can't help but patronize here. You're looking at a gigantic country,
> bigger than Europe, which is more or less uninhabited at the moment
> because of its unfavourable conditions.

Its uninhabited for a reason. Do you really think that if it was +10F
warmer that all of the reasons are going to suddenly disappear?

> The climate _might_ be warming
> with the result being an uninhabited continent of a country becoming
> viable for life, and you're concerned that the few buildings it has
> might be destroyed and/or replaced, as if that hasn't happened in the
> West before, and that some methane might be released. Who gives a shit?

Methane is known to be a pretty nasty greenhouse gas: you're looking at
a positive feedback loop. The observation on infrastructure is that it
is all going to be impacted & incur expenses even to maintain status quo
without any "everyone moves North" growth like you're suggesting.

> Suddenly, you have a place where you can send the useless people looking
> to be refugees in the West, if they really want freedom and another shot
> at life.

Moot point when domestic policy won't let anyone in, even if these new
lands were to magically be opened up.

> Suddenly, you have access to a wide variety of resources which
> have not yet been exploited.

"Suddenly"? Oil fields at Prudhoe Bay started in the 1960's, before you
were born. And at 70°N, it's well above the Arctic Circle (66°34′N).

> And here _you_ are, Chris, concerned that
> living there might increase the temperature in one hundred years by
> another 0.1 degree and increase the sea level by a millimetre.

Except that there's already had +4" sea level rise since 1993...

....and the rate of temperature change is known to be increasing: the
trend in 2000 was for +1.5°C by 2041, but the post-1995 trendline shows
that that same +1.5°C datum is expected much earlier, in 2030. Note too
that as of 2024, we're already most of the way there, at +1.36°C datum:

<https://x.com/WeatherProf/status/1876273745482121550/photo/1>

> Funny enough, there are lots of buildings erected over a century ago
> that are surrounded by the same height of water today than they were
> back then.

Which are waterfront on an *ocean*? Likewise, eliminate from
consideration all of those places which have built and/or raised
seawalls/barriers/etc, such as New York City, London, Venice...

> Nothing has changed regardless of what some scientists they
> purchased tell you.

One of my personal "To Do" projects is a 30+ year longitudinal photo
essay of a concrete jetty built on bedrock: it used to stand clear &
dry at high tide, but its now awash. Convince me on what's changed that
wasn't sea level rise.

> We already know that the "global cooling," "global
> warming" and finally "climate change" garbage is a scam meant to enrich
> the people at the top even more. We are also aware that a lot of the
> floodings that have happened recently, like in Spain, were manufactured
> not natural. If you get rid of the structures holding the water out of
> certain areas, it's obvious that you will end up with flooding.

Which explains the flooding channelized through a city, but not that the
rainfall amounts have become pretty biblical. For Valenia City, Spain,
the upstream town was Turis, which got 184.6mm in just one hour: that's
over 7 inches. Likewise, its 24 hour total was 771mm (30"+).

-hh wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> On 1/7/25 1:30 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>> On 2025-01-07 13:14, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>
>>>> On 2025-01-07 11:26, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2025-01-07 08:43, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2025-01-06 16:20, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse
>>>>>>>>> code:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 06/01/2025 19:06, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-01-06 10:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/01/2025 13:49, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The way they sell it, warming means a lesser availability of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fresh
>>>>>>>>>>>>> water. Obviously, this would result in people dying. With
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cooling
>>>>>>>>>>>>> though, there would be a decreased availability of food in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> general,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so I don't see how one is worse than the other.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Except the narrative says that all of greenland will melt.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a
>>>>>>>>>>>> fuck of a lot of fresh water
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If all of Greenland will melt, the people who are suddenly
>>>>>>>>>>> inconvenienced by the world's warming could move there and
>>>>>>>>>>> turn the
>>>>>>>>>>> continent-like country into something inhabitable for the
>>>>>>>>>>> first time in
>>>>>>>>>>> thousands of years. I imagine that as a result of it never
>>>>>>>>>>> really being
>>>>>>>>>>> used for agriculture, that land is incredibly fertile.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not wrong there. In fact huge areas of Canadian, Alaskan and
>>>>>>>>>> Siberian
>>>>>>>>>> tundra would be really quite nice places to live. Scarcely
>>>>>>>>>> worse than
>>>>>>>>>> Scotland
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Except for buildings and equipment sinking into the melting
>>>>>>>>> tundra :-D
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is soil underneath all of that, Chris.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-military-
>>>>>>> sees-growing-threat-in-thawing-permafrost/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        Climate change is rapidly altering the Arctic landscape, in
>>>>>>> particular the
>>>>>>>        permafrost that serves as a foundation for buildings across
>>>>>>> the region.
>>>>>>>        Warming temperatures are thawing out the frozen ground, and
>>>>>>> in the process
>>>>>>>        it is threatening to unsettle structures that were built
>>>>>>> decades ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "... that were built decades ago." How many buildings have been
>>>>>> erected
>>>>>> decades ago in the waste known as Greenland? Even in Quebec where the
>>>>>> north is settled to a degree, the amount of buildings in existence is
>>>>>> minimal because the population is itself tiny.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        That's particularly worrisome for the U.S. military, which
>>>>>>> maintains
>>>>>>>        facilities across the Arctic region. And it's one reason
>>>>>>> Hicks embarked on
>>>>>>>        a two-day tour of the nation’s northernmost military bases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        “Building and maintaining infrastructure — like runways —
>>>>>>> on permafrost
>>>>>>>        presents unique challenges for Arctic nations — which are
>>>>>>> growing with the
>>>>>>>        effects of climate change,” Hicks wrote in a Twitter post
>>>>>>> on Monday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once there is no longer permafrost, those challenges will be
>>>>>> eradicated too.
>>>>>
>>>>> And replacement structures will be built/rebuilt.
>>>>>
>>>>> And that doesn't include methane release.
>>>>
>>>> I don't mind if the people building new structure fart a time or two. Do
>>>> you, Chris?
>>>
>>> Cut the patronizing crap.
>>
>> I can't help but patronize here. You're looking at a gigantic country,
>> bigger than Europe, which is more or less uninhabited at the moment
>> because of its unfavourable conditions.
>
> Its uninhabited for a reason. Do you really think that if it was +10F
> warmer that all of the reasons are going to suddenly disappear?
>
>> The climate _might_ be warming
>> with the result being an uninhabited continent of a country becoming
>> viable for life, and you're concerned that the few buildings it has
>> might be destroyed and/or replaced, as if that hasn't happened in the
>> West before, and that some methane might be released. Who gives a shit?
>
> Methane is known to be a pretty nasty greenhouse gas: you're looking at
> a positive feedback loop. The observation on infrastructure is that it
> is all going to be impacted & incur expenses even to maintain status quo
> without any "everyone moves North" growth like you're suggesting.
>
>
>> Suddenly, you have a place where you can send the useless people looking
>> to be refugees in the West, if they really want freedom and another shot
>> at life.
>
> Moot point when domestic policy won't let anyone in, even if these new
> lands were to magically be opened up.
>
>> Suddenly, you have access to a wide variety of resources which
>> have not yet been exploited.
>
> "Suddenly"? Oil fields at Prudhoe Bay started in the 1960's, before you
> were born. And at 70°N, it's well above the Arctic Circle (66°34′N).
>
>> And here _you_ are, Chris, concerned that
>> living there might increase the temperature in one hundred years by
>> another 0.1 degree and increase the sea level by a millimetre.
>
> Except that there's already had +4" sea level rise since 1993...
>
> ...and the rate of temperature change is known to be increasing: the
> trend in 2000 was for +1.5°C by 2041, but the post-1995 trendline shows
> that that same +1.5°C datum is expected much earlier, in 2030. Note too
> that as of 2024, we're already most of the way there, at +1.36°C datum:
>
> <https://x.com/WeatherProf/status/1876273745482121550/photo/1>
>
>> Funny enough, there are lots of buildings erected over a century ago
>> that are surrounded by the same height of water today than they were
>> back then.
>
> Which are waterfront on an *ocean*? Likewise, eliminate from
> consideration all of those places which have built and/or raised
> seawalls/barriers/etc, such as New York City, London, Venice...
>
>> Nothing has changed regardless of what some scientists they
>> purchased tell you.
>
> One of my personal "To Do" projects is a 30+ year longitudinal photo
> essay of a concrete jetty built on bedrock: it used to stand clear &
> dry at high tide, but its now awash. Convince me on what's changed that
> wasn't sea level rise.
>
>> We already know that the "global cooling," "global
>> warming" and finally "climate change" garbage is a scam meant to enrich
>> the people at the top even more. We are also aware that a lot of the
>> floodings that have happened recently, like in Spain, were manufactured
>> not natural. If you get rid of the structures holding the water out of
>> certain areas, it's obvious that you will end up with flooding.
>
> Which explains the flooding channelized through a city, but not that the
> rainfall amounts have become pretty biblical. For Valenia City, Spain,
> the upstream town was Turis, which got 184.6mm in just one hour: that's
> over 7 inches. Likewise, its 24 hour total was 771mm (30"+).

On 2025-01-07 14:52, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-01-07 19:30, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>> On 2025-01-07 13:14, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>
>>>> On 2025-01-07 11:26, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2025-01-07 08:43, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2025-01-06 16:20, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse
>>>>>>>>> code:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 06/01/2025 19:06, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-01-06 10:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/01/2025 13:49, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The way they sell it, warming means a lesser availability
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of fresh
>>>>>>>>>>>>> water. Obviously, this would result in people dying. With
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cooling
>>>>>>>>>>>>> though, there would be a decreased availability of food in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> general,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so I don't see how one is worse than the other.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Except the narrative says that all of greenland will melt.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a
>>>>>>>>>>>> fuck of a lot of fresh water
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If all of Greenland will melt, the people who are suddenly
>>>>>>>>>>> inconvenienced by the world's warming could move there and
>>>>>>>>>>> turn the
>>>>>>>>>>> continent-like country into something inhabitable for the
>>>>>>>>>>> first time in
>>>>>>>>>>> thousands of years. I imagine that as a result of it never
>>>>>>>>>>> really being
>>>>>>>>>>> used for agriculture, that land is incredibly fertile.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not wrong there. In fact huge areas of Canadian, Alaskan and
>>>>>>>>>> Siberian
>>>>>>>>>> tundra would be really quite nice places to live. Scarcely
>>>>>>>>>> worse than
>>>>>>>>>> Scotland
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Except for buildings and equipment sinking into the melting
>>>>>>>>> tundra :-D
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is soil underneath all of that, Chris.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-military-
>>>>>>> sees-growing-threat-in-thawing-permafrost/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        Climate change is rapidly altering the Arctic landscape,
>>>>>>> in particular the
>>>>>>>        permafrost that serves as a foundation for buildings
>>>>>>> across the region.
>>>>>>>        Warming temperatures are thawing out the frozen ground,
>>>>>>> and in the process
>>>>>>>        it is threatening to unsettle structures that were built
>>>>>>> decades ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "... that were built decades ago." How many buildings have been
>>>>>> erected
>>>>>> decades ago in the waste known as Greenland? Even in Quebec where the
>>>>>> north is settled to a degree, the amount of buildings in existence is
>>>>>> minimal because the population is itself tiny.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        That's particularly worrisome for the U.S. military, which
>>>>>>> maintains
>>>>>>>        facilities across the Arctic region. And it's one reason
>>>>>>> Hicks embarked on
>>>>>>>        a two-day tour of the nation’s northernmost military bases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        “Building and maintaining infrastructure — like runways —
>>>>>>> on permafrost
>>>>>>>        presents unique challenges for Arctic nations — which are
>>>>>>> growing with the
>>>>>>>        effects of climate change,” Hicks wrote in a Twitter post
>>>>>>> on Monday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once there is no longer permafrost, those challenges will be
>>>>>> eradicated too.
>>>>>
>>>>> And replacement structures will be built/rebuilt.
>>>>>
>>>>> And that doesn't include methane release.
>>>>
>>>> I don't mind if the people building new structure fart a time or
>>>> two. Do
>>>> you, Chris?
>>>
>>> Cut the patronizing crap.
>>
>> I can't help but patronize here. You're looking at a gigantic country,
>> bigger than Europe, which is more or less uninhabited at the moment
>> because of its unfavourable conditions. The climate _might_ be warming
>> with the result being an uninhabited continent of a country becoming
>> viable for life, and you're concerned that the few buildings it has
>> might be destroyed and/or replaced, as if that hasn't happened in the
>> West before, and that some methane might be released. Who gives a
>> shit? Suddenly, you have a place where you can send the useless people
>> looking to be refugees in the West, if they really want freedom and
>> another shot at life. Suddenly, you have access to a wide variety of
>> resources which have not yet been exploited. And here _you_ are,
>> Chris, concerned that living there might increase the temperature in
>> one hundred years by another 0.1 degree and increase the sea level by
>> a millimetre.
>>
>> Funny enough, there are lots of buildings erected over a century ago
>> that are surrounded by the same height of water today than they were
>> back then. Nothing has changed regardless of what some scientists they
>> purchased tell you. We already know that the "global cooling," "global
>> warming" and finally "climate change" garbage is a scam meant to
>> enrich the people at the top even more. We are also aware that a lot
>> of the floodings that have happened recently, like in Spain, were
>> manufactured not natural. If you get rid of the structures holding the
>> water out of certain areas, it's obvious that you will end up with
>> flooding.
>
> What the fuck are you talking about? What structures? That's bullshit,
> rightwing propaganda.

No, Carlos, telling the world that we will all be under water unless we
give lots of money to some cabal of elites is what's propaganda and
complete bullshit.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
Telegram: @AndrzejMatuch
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Fedora 41
KDE supporting member

On 2025-01-07 16:31, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> -hh wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>
>> On 1/7/25 1:30 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>> On 2025-01-07 13:14, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2025-01-07 11:26, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2025-01-07 08:43, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-01-06 16:20, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse
>>>>>>>>>> code:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/01/2025 19:06, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-01-06 10:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/01/2025 13:49, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The way they sell it, warming means a lesser availability of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fresh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water. Obviously, this would result in people dying. With
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cooling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though, there would be a decreased availability of food in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so I don't see how one is worse than the other.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except the narrative says that all of greenland will melt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fuck of a lot of fresh water
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If all of Greenland will melt, the people who are suddenly
>>>>>>>>>>>> inconvenienced by the world's warming could move there and
>>>>>>>>>>>> turn the
>>>>>>>>>>>> continent-like country into something inhabitable for the
>>>>>>>>>>>> first time in
>>>>>>>>>>>> thousands of years. I imagine that as a result of it never
>>>>>>>>>>>> really being
>>>>>>>>>>>> used for agriculture, that land is incredibly fertile.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not wrong there. In fact huge areas of Canadian, Alaskan and
>>>>>>>>>>> Siberian
>>>>>>>>>>> tundra would be really quite nice places to live. Scarcely
>>>>>>>>>>> worse than
>>>>>>>>>>> Scotland
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Except for buildings and equipment sinking into the melting
>>>>>>>>>> tundra :-D
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is soil underneath all of that, Chris.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>        https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-military-
>>>>>>>> sees-growing-threat-in-thawing-permafrost/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>        Climate change is rapidly altering the Arctic landscape, in
>>>>>>>> particular the
>>>>>>>>        permafrost that serves as a foundation for buildings across
>>>>>>>> the region.
>>>>>>>>        Warming temperatures are thawing out the frozen ground, and
>>>>>>>> in the process
>>>>>>>>        it is threatening to unsettle structures that were built
>>>>>>>> decades ago.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "... that were built decades ago." How many buildings have been
>>>>>>> erected
>>>>>>> decades ago in the waste known as Greenland? Even in Quebec where the
>>>>>>> north is settled to a degree, the amount of buildings in existence is
>>>>>>> minimal because the population is itself tiny.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>        That's particularly worrisome for the U.S. military, which
>>>>>>>> maintains
>>>>>>>>        facilities across the Arctic region. And it's one reason
>>>>>>>> Hicks embarked on
>>>>>>>>        a two-day tour of the nation’s northernmost military bases.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>        “Building and maintaining infrastructure — like runways —
>>>>>>>> on permafrost
>>>>>>>>        presents unique challenges for Arctic nations — which are
>>>>>>>> growing with the
>>>>>>>>        effects of climate change,” Hicks wrote in a Twitter post
>>>>>>>> on Monday.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once there is no longer permafrost, those challenges will be
>>>>>>> eradicated too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And replacement structures will be built/rebuilt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And that doesn't include methane release.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't mind if the people building new structure fart a time or two. Do
>>>>> you, Chris?
>>>>
>>>> Cut the patronizing crap.
>>>
>>> I can't help but patronize here. You're looking at a gigantic country,
>>> bigger than Europe, which is more or less uninhabited at the moment
>>> because of its unfavourable conditions.
>>
>> Its uninhabited for a reason. Do you really think that if it was +10F
>> warmer that all of the reasons are going to suddenly disappear?
>>
>>> The climate _might_ be warming
>>> with the result being an uninhabited continent of a country becoming
>>> viable for life, and you're concerned that the few buildings it has
>>> might be destroyed and/or replaced, as if that hasn't happened in the
>>> West before, and that some methane might be released. Who gives a shit?
>>
>> Methane is known to be a pretty nasty greenhouse gas: you're looking at
>> a positive feedback loop. The observation on infrastructure is that it
>> is all going to be impacted & incur expenses even to maintain status quo
>> without any "everyone moves North" growth like you're suggesting.
>>
>>
>>> Suddenly, you have a place where you can send the useless people looking
>>> to be refugees in the West, if they really want freedom and another shot
>>> at life.
>>
>> Moot point when domestic policy won't let anyone in, even if these new
>> lands were to magically be opened up.
>>
>>> Suddenly, you have access to a wide variety of resources which
>>> have not yet been exploited.
>>
>> "Suddenly"? Oil fields at Prudhoe Bay started in the 1960's, before you
>> were born. And at 70°N, it's well above the Arctic Circle (66°34′N).
>>
>>> And here _you_ are, Chris, concerned that
>>> living there might increase the temperature in one hundred years by
>>> another 0.1 degree and increase the sea level by a millimetre.
>>
>> Except that there's already had +4" sea level rise since 1993...
>>
>> ...and the rate of temperature change is known to be increasing: the
>> trend in 2000 was for +1.5°C by 2041, but the post-1995 trendline shows
>> that that same +1.5°C datum is expected much earlier, in 2030. Note too
>> that as of 2024, we're already most of the way there, at +1.36°C datum:
>>
>> <https://x.com/WeatherProf/status/1876273745482121550/photo/1>
>>
>>> Funny enough, there are lots of buildings erected over a century ago
>>> that are surrounded by the same height of water today than they were
>>> back then.
>>
>> Which are waterfront on an *ocean*? Likewise, eliminate from
>> consideration all of those places which have built and/or raised
>> seawalls/barriers/etc, such as New York City, London, Venice...
>>
>>> Nothing has changed regardless of what some scientists they
>>> purchased tell you.
>>
>> One of my personal "To Do" projects is a 30+ year longitudinal photo
>> essay of a concrete jetty built on bedrock: it used to stand clear &
>> dry at high tide, but its now awash. Convince me on what's changed that
>> wasn't sea level rise.
>>
>>> We already know that the "global cooling," "global
>>> warming" and finally "climate change" garbage is a scam meant to enrich
>>> the people at the top even more. We are also aware that a lot of the
>>> floodings that have happened recently, like in Spain, were manufactured
>>> not natural. If you get rid of the structures holding the water out of
>>> certain areas, it's obvious that you will end up with flooding.
>>
>> Which explains the flooding channelized through a city, but not that the
>> rainfall amounts have become pretty biblical. For Valenia City, Spain,
>> the upstream town was Turis, which got 184.6mm in just one hour: that's
>> over 7 inches. Likewise, its 24 hour total was 771mm (30"+).
>
> This Andrzej guy is what I call a "frog in water set to boil" troll.
> He's done this before. Start out reasonable, and slowly ramp up the
> bullshit, to prolong the engagement.
>
> Another climate-change rationalizer?
>
> He's also done some racist posts; I should have plonked his smarmy ass
> days ago.

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

>Adios. You've been down this road before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOAUsvVhgsU

Here's an excellant documentary on climate change. An hour and 20
minutes of quality information.

I'd bet money that Chris A won't watch it.

On 2025-01-07 17:35, chrisv wrote:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Adios. You've been down this road before.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOAUsvVhgsU
>
> Here's an excellant documentary on climate change. An hour and 20
> minutes of quality information.
>
> I'd bet money that Chris A won't watch it.

He won't because he doesn't believe in consuming information as much as
accept whatever narrative the homosexuals on CNN and MSNBC feed him
daily. There's a reason both networks get record low ratings now: even
devout Democrats have noticed that most of what they say is a lie.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
Telegram: @AndrzejMatuch
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Fedora 41
KDE supporting member

On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 13:44:34 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us>
wrote in <vljsmi$2b457$1@dont-email.me>:

> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>
>
>>
> Adios. You've been down this road before.

This is what happens when you discuss climate issues with
an ESL instructor.

And it has fsck-all to do with Linux.

ObLinux:

Bought a 4TB external USB/NVME device for my workstation.
Installed Samba and configured it to use the "fruit"
module to offer up a Time Machine share for the
Mac Studio. (Also using it with Timeshift on the
workstation itself, but that part was easier.)

(Backups are good; automated versioned backups are better.)

--
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
OS: Linux 6.12.8 Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 258G
"Down with categorical imperative!"

On 1/7/25 10:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 07/01/2025 03:52, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>    Ain't gonna be MAGA
>>    forever (GOP thinks it has four years to coast)
>>    and soon enough the ultra-left will regain power.
> I don't think so.
> Ultra left can only thrive in an affluent society, but they have no idea
> how to create or maintain affluence.
>
> As poverty kicks in, people are more concerned over potatoes than pronouns.
>

I don't understand that comment.

For "ultra left" substitute religion. Historical evidence suggests it
can survive and flourish in very poor societies. A combination of
authoritarian government and the ideology of a "moral" quality that
supersedes wordly possessions.

Listening to the UK radio last night, a Labour politician was being
questioned on whether Ed Milliband’s "Green new deal" was achievable,
realistic. Her response was that it was Labour's most popular policy.
Her metric for success was that it delivered Labour/herself political
power, and she was probably right, it does.

I guess Germany is a little further down the "Green" path than the UK.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the upcoming elections. I
doubt we will see a significant correction.

On 2025-01-07, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> There are a few recycling projects that do make money and they don't
> require government intervention. My information is from the '90s but
> there were two lead acid battery operations in the LA area and it was
> worth hauling junk batteries from Denver or further. The Kaiser aluminum
> smelter in Spokane also pulled in crushed aluminum cans from all over the
> west. The local pulp mill had cardboard hauled in but they shut down.
> There must still be a market since the company that handles the garbage
> has a separate dumpster for cardboard.
>
> The oddest one was in Rancho Cucamonga. I hauled past the sell date beer
> from Denver. They distilled it for industrial alcohol.
>
> Plastic recycling is problematic as is glass. I've got a suspicion after
> the people have their feel good moment separating the trash it still winds
> up in the same landfill.

Paper that can be pulped /should/ be economical. I try to keep the bad
items out of my recycle bin:
* junkmail with "gifts" of address labels - I am sure the sticky and the
wax paper backing clog up the pulp process.
* junkmail with coins glued to the reply coupon. Those nickels and
quarters surely will damage the shredding machine.
* corrugated boxes with an excessive amount of plastic tape wrapped
around them.
* retail packaging with a mix of cardboard and plastic parts.

Glass should be capable of being melted down, with most contaminants
turning into slag that can be skimmed off. But mostly it would be far
better to REUSE the class jars and bottles. That would require
standardization to create a viable return path. We use to do this back
in my native Denmark, when all the breweries (who also bottled most
sodas) had one 25 cemntiliter clear soda bottle and one green 37 cl beer
bottle. This was strained a bit by coca-cola who insisted on their
global unique bottles, and one brewery that had their own brown bottle
which theey insisted was needed to protect their ale from sunlight. But
it still worked, so long as we could ban the aluminum cans. Once the EU
decided that this was "market distortion" the recycling became MUCH less
efficient. But still, Danes take their empty bottles back to the store
where they buy the full ones, and put them in reverse vending machines.

Plastic is hard, because there are endless variations of materials.
Plastic film is the worst, because it eventually gets ground into
microbe-sized micro-plastic bits, which are not good for living things.

Again the Danes have a decent solution: Everything not recyclable goes
into incinerators, producing heat for city heating or electricity
generation or greenhouse heating. The ashes tht are goind to the
landfill are a MUCH reduced volume. People worry about them containing
heavy metals, but honestly: If you bury the waste in a landfill, the
heavy metals are all there in that mess, too. Incineration decomposes
the plastics. Yes there may be some nasty fumes, but what can't be
scrubbed out of the smoke, can be released atop a tall smokestack so
that it disperses widely.

On 07/01/2025 13:23, Pancho wrote:
> On 1/7/25 10:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 07/01/2025 03:52, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>    Ain't gonna be MAGA
>>>    forever (GOP thinks it has four years to coast)
>>>    and soon enough the ultra-left will regain power.
>> I don't think so.
>> Ultra left can only thrive in an affluent society, but they have no
>> idea how to create or maintain affluence.
>>
>> As poverty kicks in, people are more concerned over potatoes than
>> pronouns.
>>
>
> I don't understand that comment.
>
Id rather have a sack of potatoes than be called by my correct self
identifying pronoun...

> For "ultra left" substitute religion. Historical evidence suggests it
> can survive and flourish in very poor societies. A combination of
> authoritarian government and the ideology of a "moral" quality that
> supersedes wordly possessions.
>
It has to be the right religion though
A religion that simply takes all yiur wealth and prromises yuoi only
hell if you get upset is not a keeper.

> Listening to the UK radio last night, a  Labour politician was being
> questioned on whether Ed Milliband’s "Green new deal" was achievable,
> realistic. Her response was that it was Labour's most popular policy.
> Her metric for success was that it delivered Labour/herself political
> power, and she was probably right, it does.
>
She was of course simply lying. Or else acknowledging that nothing her
government has done is popular, and because it hasn't done anything
green yet, they are not being lambasted by that.

It was [probably the Boy Buiggering Communist's radio anyway,

> I guess Germany is a little further down the "Green" path than the UK.
> It will be interesting to see what happens in the upcoming elections. I
> doubt we will see a significant correction.
>
Wait and see.

>

--
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly
persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid
before him."

- Leo Tolstoy

On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 10:32:18 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> I visited a lead recycling plant in France. It was part of a lead
> smelting operation. It was dripping sulphuric acid. They took car
> batteries and mashed them up and somehow fed them back into the ore
> processing chain.

https://grist.org/accountability/california-communities-are-fighting-the-
last-battery-recycling-plant-in-the-west-and-its-toxic-legacy/

The article mentions the other recycling operation that was in City of
Commerce that I knew as RSR in the '90s. Compared to it, Ecobat was high
tech. You did not get out of the truck at either place as workers in space
suits unloaded the truck. After you unloaded the trailer was cleaned out
with pressure washers.

As a bit or irony newly manufactured car batteries were a hazardous
materials load. 45,000 pounds of leaking dead batteries haphazardly piled
on pallets were not considered hazardous. The distinction is very
important if you're going from Denver to LA. hazmat loads cannot go
through Eisenhower Tunnel so you get to take the scenic route over
Loveland Pass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loveland_Pass

On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 11:41:41 +0100, D wrote:
>
> On Mon, 6 Jan 2025, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 06/01/2025 10:50, D wrote:
>>> unless they live off government handouts, in which case they are
>>> really just a branch of government.
>>
>> No. Government is just another branch of the companies.
>
> Depends on the country. I guarantee you that the government calls the
> shots in sweden. In the US, I'm not so sure, but then, the US is not a
> socialist as sweden.

In theory the government calls the shots. In practice Harris spent over a
billion dollars on her failed campaign. Where do you think that money came
from? Had she been elected do you think she would have treated the people
who paid for her job favorably?

Currently almost every day brings news of another company kicking in a
million or so to Trump's inauguration party. Is that selfless giving?

Then there is the revolving door and regulatory capture. Somehow the
people in the supposed regulatory agencies come from the industries they
are supposedly regulating. When their time as regulators comes to an end
they receive plum jobs back in the industry.

The framework for the heralded Obamacare was written by Montana's former
Senator, Max Baucus, and his aide. Single payer was never a possibility
since it was really Big Pharma writing the bill. The aide got a high
paying job in the health care industry for her efforts. Max got an
ambassadorship to China. I don't know if that was a reward or punishment
since Max could barely speak coherent English but at least we got rid of
the bastard.