Climate Change

[thelerner]

17 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

All of this has absolutely nothing to do with global climate change. A disingenuous red herring.

18 hours ago, thelerner said:

Likewise in the 60's and 70s' many American towns were covered in smog.  Today there are many cities with blackened skies, horrible smog that we, mankind, our factories are responsible for.  Life spans in those cities are less, people die early, life is degraded. We can do better. 

 

In the US we solved some of the worst of it.  The choking smog, acid rain, dead rivers and lakes.

Maybe this gets to the crux of the problem.  That we're looking at different aspects.  I consider climate change to be large cities, whole areas covered with smog that reduce lifespans, dead lakes and rivers and acid rain.  The air we breath, the water we drink.  Whether we're increasing desertification, global temperatures and water levels.  What humanity is doing to our climate and environment.  

 

Are they too small or too man made to be climate change?  What about things like 1930's the Dust bowl that covered 35 million acres of land?  Poor farming plus drought caused immense ecological disaster.

 

Humanity has been changing our planet.  The water in our ocean and the air we breathe is not the same as it was 25 years ago, or 50, or 100 or 200.  We're changing it, and the changes are accelerating.  I'm not gloom and doom, the earth is massive and to a large extent self cleaning, plus adapt.   Animals on the other hand can't thus we've created a new mass extinction, but humanity is doing pretty well, for now.

 

If we don't study how these changes are creating long term problems future generations will be screwed.  Its better to find sweet spots using tech and conservation then be forced to last minute by calamity. 

[dawei]

5 hours ago, ralis said:

 

Specious argument! Of course the climate of the biosphere changes and if it were static, then life would not exist. If you have read any of the posts here that are based on sound science, it is absolutely clear that human activity is the variable that is responsible for the rapid dynamic changes in the biosphere i.e, CO2 from fossil fuels and methane hydrate ( CH4).

 

 

 

thank you... I had to look up Specious argument... so I was right... for a moment

 

an argument that appears good at first view but is really fallacious

[joeblast]

17 hours ago, thelerner said:

Maybe this gets to the crux of the problem.  That we're looking at different aspects.  I consider climate change to be large cities, whole areas covered with smog that reduce lifespans, dead lakes and rivers and acid rain.  There's always such a large effort to conflate pollution with climate change with co2.  Do you realize you are conflating a couple arguments here?  And that the tactic is in the list of logical fallacies whereby you establish accord on one thing and then shift (ASSUME) the topic seamlessly in context and thus attempt to carry the acceptance on to the new topic.  No sane person denies the climate changes, and this is just more of the Progressive new-speak bullshit trying to redefine terms and confuse the language.  Its reprehensible that this is done, just like when Progressives started calling themselves Liberals, when a classical Liberal is pretty much the antithesis of what a Progressive is.  Same shit different topic.  How can one deny Climate Change?  Just dont forget the asterisk in there that "Climate Change" is actually Climate Change^TM and the kool aid drinkers muck the context.  The air we breath, the water we drink.  Whether we're increasing desertification, global temperatures and water levels.  Except the only area humans ever created a desert was the Aral Sea (thanks commies.)  What humanity is doing to our climate and environment.  Is by and large paled by nature and we cant even reliably measure human impact vs nature's.

 

Are they too small or too man made to be climate change?  What about things like 1930's the Dust bowl that covered 35 million acres of land?  Dust bowl was natural variability, its dishonest using that as an example of AGW.  Poor farming plus drought caused immense ecological disaster.  lmao yeah it was all the farmers fault!

 

Humanity has been changing our planet.  The water in our ocean and the air we breathe is not the same as it was 25 years ago, or 50, or 100 or 200.  We're changing it, and the changes are accelerating.  We cant tell how much of that change is us and how much is nature, and the misweighted co2 coefficient helps elongate this divide.  I'm not gloom and doom, the earth is massive and to a large extent self cleaning, plus adapt.  But the co2 catstrophe conjecture IS doom and gloom.  Animals on the other hand can't thus we've created a new mass extinction, but humanity is doing pretty well, for now.

 

If we don't study how these changes are creating long term problems future generations will be screwed.  We screw future generations by promulgating fake statistics and fallacious conclusions about reality, too.  Its better to find sweet spots using tech and conservation then be forced to last minute by calamity.  Then why try to artificially force the change in context and assert we are indeed at the last minute before calamity?  Why, is because the science is not sound and they want the policies in the law books before our measurement capabilities catch up with and kill the conjecture - its been rather juvenile cheetah and gazelle so far.

Its been 3 of midnight on the eco catastrophe clock every since money started bloating the process.

 

If you're going to try and support the further perversion of science by climate charlatan cheerleaders who play scientists, at least try to not say patently false things like that dust bowl shite there. 

 

This is the same type of shit I just called Earl out for.  You can believe in this unscientific non falsifiable conjecture if you want, but dont try and use real world examples that have a completely natural cause to them and try to say they are human caused.

 

The most consistent part of this whole process has been the track record of failed alarmist predictions.

 

 

15 hours ago, dawei said:

 

thank you... I had to look up Specious argument... so I was right... for a moment

 

an argument that appears good at first view but is really fallacious

 

This defines co2 AGW - it relies on all the assumptions about co2 that charlatans have programmed into the models ever since their owners decided to subsidize any study that mentioned global warming.  "The catastrophe" relies on assumptions, extrapolated.

Edited April 25, 2019 by joeblast

[windwalker]

Its been a little quite for awhile....good debate between opposing view points.

Its a little dated  they talk about C02 ppm at 350,,,its now at 410 or 411 ppm

 

 

Edited April 29, 2019 by windwalker

[voidisyinyang]

2 hours ago, windwalker said:

Its been a little quite for awhile....good debate between opposing view points.

Its a little dated  they talk about C02 ppm at 350,,,its now at 410 or 411 ppm

 

 

 

For proper CO2 levels you need to include methane also.

Quote

Paleoclimate perspectives of 21st-23rd centuries, IPCC projections and tipping points

by Andrew Glikson
Earth and paleo-climate scientist
Australian National University

Abstract

IPCC models of future climate trends contain a number of departures from patterns deduced from the paleoclimate evidence. With CO₂ levels reaching 411.8 ppm in January 2019 and CH₄ levels reaching 1.867 ppm in October 2018, for a greenhouse radiative forcing factor of CH₄=25 CO₂ equivalents, the total CO₂-equivalent of 457.5 ppm¹ approaches the stability limit of the Greenland ice sheet, estimated at a greenhouse gas forcing of approximately 500 ppm CO₂

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2019/03/climate-tipping-points.html

[joeblast]

LOL....if you want to conflate parts of the argument and put everything into one big bucket, assumptions about co2 included....why, that's a GREAT way to NOT examine the co2 fallacies more closely!

 

ah, transparency

[voidisyinyang]

On 4/24/2019 at 4:05 PM, thelerner said:

Maybe this gets to the crux of the problem.  That we're looking at different aspects.  I consider climate change to be large cities, whole areas covered with smog that reduce lifespans, dead lakes and rivers and acid rain.  The air we breath, the water we drink.  Whether we're increasing desertification, global temperatures and water levels.  What humanity is doing to our climate and environment.  

 

Are they too small or too man made to be climate change?  What about things like 1930's the Dust bowl that covered 35 million acres of land?  Poor farming plus drought caused immense ecological disaster.

 

Humanity has been changing our planet.  The water in our ocean and the air we breathe is not the same as it was 25 years ago, or 50, or 100 or 200.  We're changing it, and the changes are accelerating.  I'm not gloom and doom, the earth is massive and to a large extent self cleaning, plus adapt.   Animals on the other hand can't thus we've created a new mass extinction, but humanity is doing pretty well, for now.

 

If we don't study how these changes are creating long term problems future generations will be screwed.  Its better to find sweet spots using tech and conservation then be forced to last minute by calamity. 

 

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/04/26/suicide-watch-on-planet-earth/

 

Quote

Last summer, for instance, amid global heat records (Ouargla, Algeria, 124 degrees Fahrenheit; Hong Kong, over 91 degrees Fahrenheit for 16 straight days; Nawabsha, Pakistan, 122 degrees Fahrenheit; Oslo, Norway, over 86 degrees Fahrenheit for 16 consecutive days; Los Angeles, 108 degrees Fahrenheit), wildfires raged inside the Arctic Circle. This March, in case you hadn’t noticed — and why would you, since it’s gotten so little attention? — the temperature in Alaska was, on average, 20 degrees (yes, that is not a misprint) above normal"

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/oilsands-carbon-emissions-study-1.5106809

Quote

A number of major oilsands operations in northern Alberta seem to be emitting significantly more carbon pollution than companies have been reporting, newly published research from federal scientists suggests, which could have profound consequences for government climate-change strategies.

 

So much for the techno-fixes!! Voluntary corporate-state solutions? haha.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/24042019/climate-change-fish-local-extinction-marine-species-hit-harder-land-animals-study-nature

Quote

 

Sea creatures, especially those that live in shallower water near the coasts, are much more vulnerable to global warming than land animals, new research shows. The scientists found that local populations of marine animals are disappearing at double the rate of land-based species.

That’s because marine animals like fish, crabs and lobster are already more likely to be living near the threshold of life-threatening temperatures, and because in the ocean, there are fewer places to hide from extreme heat, said Malin Pinsky, lead author of a new study published Wednesday in the journal Nature.

“These results are stunning, in part because the impacts of climate change on ocean life were virtually ignored just a decade ago,” said Pinsky, an ocean researcher at Rutgers University. The study took a close look at cold-blooded marine species whose body temperatures are dependent on their surroundings.

 

Funny how even the scientists continue to be surprised by Mother Nature reacting to Westernized modern industrial civilization.

 

Quote

 

The Missoula area has been named the 11th most-polluted city in the United States for annual particle pollution, and the fifth-most polluted for short-term air quality, according to a report from the American Lung Association.

The organization’s annual State of the Air “report card” tracks exposure to particle pollution, both on a yearly basis and when it spikes during wildfires.

Missoula County had its most short-term particle pollution days ever recorded between 2015 and 2017, with a weighted average of 16.5 days. That’s more than twice the number of days recorded between 2014 and 2016.

Many of these spikes were directly linked to events like wildfires, which are increasing in frequency and intensity in many areas due to climate change, according to Carrie Nyssen, senior director for advocacy for the American Lung Association in Montana.

“Missoula residents should know that we’re breathing unhealthy air, driven by wildfires as a result of climate change, placing our health and lives at risk,” said Nyssen in a statement. “Across the state, many areas have seen their air quality worsen dramatically. We have to do more to protect people’s lives and public health.”

The 2017 Montana Climate Assessment found that human-caused climate change will cause precipitation in the state to decrease during the summer months by the middle of this century while increasing average temperatures and hampering the ability of forests to rebound from fire.

 

well the link is on adblock - see http://www.fasterthanexpected.com/blog/

 

yeah air pollution is actually cooling the planet - due to the Global Dimming Effect....(something greatly underestimated even by most scientists)....

 

 

 

 

[joeblast]

deet-d-d-deet-d-d-eet-eet-dd-d-d-d-deeet....

 

...BREAKING NEWS - INTERTIDAL ZONE SLIGHTLY MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO CHANGES....(thanks, captain Obvious!)

 

MORE BREAKING NEWS....MASSIVE WILDFIRES NOT GOOD FOR LUNGS....(added to captain obvious' greatest hits)

 

Quote

Last summer, for instance, amid global heat records (Ouargla, Algeria, 124 degrees Fahrenheit; Hong Kong, over 91 degrees Fahrenheit for 16 straight days; Nawabsha, Pakistan, 122 degrees Fahrenheit; Oslo, Norway, over 86 degrees Fahrenheit for 16 consecutive days; Los Angeles, 108 degrees Fahrenheit), wildfires raged inside the Arctic Circle. This March, in case you hadn’t noticed — and why would you, since it’s gotten so little attention? — the temperature in Alaska was, on average, 20 degrees (yes, that is not a misprint) above normal"

Misprint, misdirection, who's really paying attention!  Nevermind the solar cycle and the polar vortex   Always gotta cherry pick to appear correct

 

 

all this and more - film at 11!

 

 

[voidisyinyang]

On 4/24/2019 at 11:18 AM, KuroShiro said:

 

 

Everyone should please stop talking about Climate Change. That's not the problem, it's a symptom, your thread title doesn't address the real issue: humans are destroying the Planet Earth.

 

 

Rapid Permafrost Thaw Unrecognized Threat to Landscape, Global Warming Researcher Warns

Quote

Turetsky adds: “It’s happening faster than anyone predicted. We show that abrupt permafrost thawing affects less than 20 per cent of the permafrost region, but carbon emissions from this relatively small region have the potential to double the climate feedback associated with permafrost thawing.”

https://news.uoguelph.ca/2019/04/rapid-permafrost-thaw-unrecognized-threat-to-northern-landscape-global-warming-researcher-warns/

Quote

“We work in areas where permafrost contains a lot of ice, and our field sites are being destroyed by abrupt collapse of this ice, not gradually over decades, but very quickly over months to years,” said Turetsky.

 

[Nintendao]

Tao Teh Ching chapter 13: we should prize calamities as our own body?

 

if we were not alive, what planet would we even have to destroy?

 

anyway.. good to see u again, void

Edited May 1, 2019 by Nintendao

[joeblast]

6 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

Rapid Permafrost Thaw Unrecognized Threat to Landscape, Global Warming Researcher Warns

https://news.uoguelph.ca/2019/04/rapid-permafrost-thaw-unrecognized-threat-to-northern-landscape-global-warming-researcher-warns/

 

you forgot one of they key words in there

 

estimate

[flowing hands]

 

Edited May 1, 2019 by flowing hands
file did not load

[joeblast]

Climate Change - The (Bending of the) Facts 

 

 

this is analogous to when ISIS was doing fake beheadings in front of the green screen  (ya know, after al qaeda said screw you guys we're not doing that)

[Trunk]

Climate change...

 

 

[voidisyinyang]

On 5/1/2019 at 3:32 PM, flowing hands said:

 

 

 

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3263/9/4/188/htm

 

Quote

 

Conservative estimation of CH₄ [METHANE] ebullition from the coastal ESAS [East Siberian Arctic Shelf] areas yields an annual contribution of at least 9 Tg-CH₄, which increases annual atmospheric flux from the ESAS to 17 Tg-CH₄, on par with flux from the entire Arctic tundra [11]. That estimate does not include the non-gradual CH₄ release discovered recently on the outer ESAS. Sustained CH₄ release to the atmosphere from thawing Arctic subsea permafrost and dissociating hydrates were suggested to be positive and likely to be significant feedbacks to climate warming [32,33].

 

Since most hydrate deposits in the Arctic are permafrost-controlled, stability of permafrost is a key to whether hydrates are stable [31]. According to the permafrost thermobaric conditions of the Laptev Sea shelf, there are gas hydrates in the underwater permafrost. However, due to the absence of deep drilling, direct data on the presence of gas hydrate formations is not observed. Nevertheless, by indirect evidence, a number of researchers associate active gas shows with dissociation of gas hydrate formations [12,34,35,36].

 

The reason for the hydrate destabilization on the Arctic shelf can be both permafrost degradation as a result of the temperature increase, and the processes of penetration of seawater and salt ions contained in it into the layer of hydrate saturated frozen sediments.

 

 

[voidisyinyang]

On 4/30/2019 at 11:56 PM, Nintendao said:

Tao Teh Ching chapter 13: we should prize calamities as our own body?

 

if we were not alive, what planet would we even have to destroy?

 

anyway.. good to see u again, void

 

thanks! Please enjoy conservation biology professor Guy McPherson's latest talk on his McPherson Paradox of abrupt global warming (Global Dimming plus ESAS Methane Bomb = near term human extinction)

 

[joeblast]

13 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

 

 

and now that we've "established" one straw man, we can move on to another assumed catastrophe that's just waiting to bomb off because of the fallacy that was just used.  is this one going to make the original fallacy's alleged supposed calculated modeled and estimated effects even worse?

 

...when "the point's too important to make"

 

so what's going to be done when the sun doesnt keep its end of the bargain up?  that's when the modeled estimated assumptions go sideways

 

and when the ocean starts reducing the co2 ppm as it cools off?  we're going to be able to measure it.  if the sun doesnt return to its nominal comfortable resonance, all your base are belong to us

[voidisyinyang]

On 4/28/2019 at 8:54 PM, windwalker said:

Its been a little quite for awhile....good debate between opposing view points.

Its a little dated  they talk about C02 ppm at 350,,,its now at 410 or 411 ppm

 

 

 

Rosenfeld, D., Zhu, Y., Wang, M., Zheng, Y., Goren, T., & Yu, S. (2019). Aerosol-driven droplet concentrations dominate coverage and water of oceanic low level clouds. Science, eaav0566.

 

 sci-hub.tw/10.1126/science.aav0566

 

pdf

 

 December 26 2018: https://www.pnas.org/content/115/52/13288.short?rss=1

 

Quote

 "Under the Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5) emission scenario, by 2030 CE, future climates most closely resemble Mid-Pliocene climates"

 

[Patrick Brown]

Just passing so will add that no real scientist is going to make drastic claims about climate change. The idea that human activity is the cause are not proven. In fact it seems that the whole climate change meme has been hijacked by left-wing politics! 

 

Evidence has been skewed and a sense of fear instilled to distract people away from reality! So what is the reality that I'm referring to? Well it's a move towards globalism by a world cabal who seek greater control over people mainly because of the growing planetary  population. Also buSINess and new-tec are the means by which such control will be attained and of course they get to make an incalculable amount of money!  

 

Tis the season of the beast and there will be death and chaos but it won't have anything to do with global warming!  

[voidisyinyang]

On 5/5/2019 at 11:41 AM, Patrick Brown said:

Just passing so will add that no real scientist is going to make drastic claims about climate change. The idea that human activity is the cause are not proven. In fact it seems that the whole climate change meme has been hijacked by left-wing politics! 

 

Luckily mass-mind control indoctrination in the US is a 100% tax deductible corporate welfare subsidy - otherwise how else would the masses be mind controlled?

Quote

 

Public perception (55%) comes from a survey conducted by John Cook on a representative USA sample, asking the question "How many climate experts agree that the global warming we are witnessing is a direct consequence of the burning of fossil fuels by humans?" Participants were requested through professional survey firm Qualtrics.

Statistic of 97% climate scientists agreeing on human-caused global warming comes from Doran & Zimmermann (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010) and Cook et al. (2013).

 

 

Sorry - you can't feel "special" - you're just part of the brainwashed mass-mind controlled majority. haha.

 

 

[joeblast]

13 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

 

Sorry - you can't feel "special" - you're just part of the brainwashed mass-mind controlled majority. haha.

 

 

its always amusing seeing the propagandized state these sorts of things   (ya know, things that the brainwashed mass mind controlled majority believes)

 

cant predict the solar cycle, cant predict el nino, but oh so positive we've fkd ourselves with co2 and the hundred year projection is spot on  what a hoot, we've got 12 years until the planet tips on its side and guam falls off into orbit because of climate change

Edited May 7, 2019 by joeblast

[voidisyinyang]

2 hours ago, joeblast said:

its always amusing seeing the propagandized state these sorts of things   (ya know, things that the brainwashed mass mind controlled majority believes)

 

cant predict the solar cycle, cant predict el nino, but oh so positive we've fkd ourselves with co2 and the hundred year projection is spot on  what a hoot, we've got 12 years until the planet tips on its side and guam falls off into orbit because of climate change

2 hours ago, joeblast said:

its always amusing seeing the propagandized state these sorts of things   (ya know, things that the brainwashed mass mind controlled majority believes)

 

cant predict the solar cycle, cant predict el nino, but oh so positive we've fkd ourselves with co2 and the hundred year projection is spot on  what a hoot, we've got 12 years until the planet tips on its side and guam falls off into orbit because of climate change

 

yes the Models are not very good at predictions - science is very precise but not very accurate. For example we know from science that Jupiter and Saturn periodically resonate in their orbits - and this resonance changes Jupiter from protecting Earth from comets and asteroids - and so every few hundred million years - the resonance of Saturn and Jupiter lines up and then this causes an asteroid or comet to hit Earth. But science can not predict WHEN this will happen. Actually it's only through supercomputer iterations that the results are achieved - without the math involved enabling any deductions. Math professor of quantum chaos - Steve Strogatz - he has stated that science now is inherently "authoritarian" because of our dependence on the supercomputer iterations to make our predictions. I have corresponded with Professor Strogatz.

 

But empirical data is often not incorporated into the above models - since even a supercomputer can not model say the ecology of the Amazon rainforest - it's just too complex. So for global warming, for example, cloud dynamics are not included in the models. Nor is the East Siberian Arctic Shelf methane "bomb." So we now know that cloud sulfur aerosol pollution has prevented the Earth from doubling in warming due to CO2 increase from industrial activity. So that is called the McFearSun Mustache Paradox. In other words - the more "Leftist" renewable energy that is propagated for a Liberal Elite Technological UN control of the EArth - the more the Earth will warm due to lack of sulfur aerosol pollution. This is not insignificant and the effect is localized - hence India and China would be MUCH warmer were it not for all their coal pollution smog.

 

Here's a good example of some empirical data not included in the global warming supercomputer models.

 

Quote

But these blow-outs must have involved enormous forces at the bottom of the Barents Sea, since the holes have been blasted out of solid bedrock.

 

 

So these are newly discovered previous methane bomb blowouts.

 

 

Quote

Methane gas blow-outs

The craters are what remain after a methane gas explosion. Or more correctly: gas blow-outs.

 

So we can look to the past - this has happened before. Only now the scale of time is much faster - an order of magnitude faster than any previous extinction.

 

http://sciencenordic.com/giant-gas-craters-discovered-bottom-barents-sea

 

Cracked gas chambers in the seabed south of Svalbard could blow out and create craters that are up to 30 metres deep, say scientists.

OK let's go back to our asteroid/Comet analogy. It's happened before right - but science can not predict exactly when - due to the inherent quantum chaos dynamics involved. It's nonlinear resonance and so only the "iterations" can make the prediction. Small changes in initial conditions can have great resonance changes in the outcome.

Quote

Andreassen thinks there will be more large blow-outs in the ocean floor south of Svalbard, as the seabed becomes warmer and gas-hydrate reservoirs thaw.

But she can’t promise that researchers will catch the actual blow-out.

“The biggest blow-outs in the Barents Sea occurred when the ice melted, 12,000 to 15,000 years ago,” she said.

Andreassen says there is probably even more methane gas locked in the seabed around Greenland and in the Arctic Ocean than is found in the Barents Sea.

That could lead to some extremely large craters.

ok so what about an asteroid or comet?

Quote

Dinosaur-Killing Asteroid's Impact Also Caused Abrupt Global ... - NPR

 

https://www.npr.org/.../asteroid-impact-that-wiped-out-the-dinosaurs-also-caused-abrupt...

May 24, 2018 - Asteroid Impact That Wiped Out The Dinosaurs Also Caused Abrupt Global Warming ... years, or decades, ushering in a global winter that killed off plants ... temperature changes around the time of this mass extinction event.

 

https://skepticalscience.com/Rapid-climate-change-deadlier-than-asteroid-impacts.html

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgqkbzG8xGM

 

An intimate, personal, honest, frank, direct conversation with Climate Change specialist Arek Sinanian, author of 'A Climate For Denial" and one of the international participant to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)...because scientists, specialists, analysts, consultants and other Climate Change professionals are also normal human beings like you and me....worried about the same daily life issues as you and me regarding Climate Change and asking the same questions.

 

 

 

 

[joeblast]

just when one thinks he's heard it all.....its now more dangerous than fkn asteroid impacts

 

(waits for the qualifier "from a certain point of view")

 

fkn comedy hour here in the climate change thread

 

 

I love the admission that the models have no predictive capability beyond next week but the long term predictions are still to be absolutely trusted

Edited May 7, 2019 by joeblast
I keep wondering how much more retarded the statements can get...

[Jonesboy]

I’ve been gone for a month and are we still talking about methane bombs?

 

I just want to add I do believe in Big Foot  but not the Loch Ness monster. 99% of scientists would agree with me based on computer models. Climate change may bring about the extinction of this unique species. A methane bomb would kill them for sure.

 

We all need to support carbon taxes to save the planet and Big Foot but not the Loch Ness monster because that’s fake.

[Patrick Brown]

Yep the climate schism has been outed as just more clown politics. I would suspect there's a money trail which leads back to the left! 

 

The loonies know that time is running out and people are waking up so we should expect even greater absurdities to be propagated.