As per her testimony during your immortal climate trial; Michael Mann spared no underhanded effort to discredit Ms. Curry in academia. I don’t think this paper will earn her any credibility there either. Although it should. Ivory towers can be the bastions of closed mindedness.
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
– Max Planck Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers (1949) (ref. ChatGPT)
That’s why the saying, “Science advances one funeral at a time” exists. It also applies to the military. As for Curry’s paper, it’ll be ignored or denounced because a lot of people are making money off of the climate change scam. None of them want to see their gravy train end.
They should put me in charge of the climate apocalypse. Somewhere around here I’ve got an outline for a story about the day some aliens came and stole the Earth’s oceans. The heroine of the story is an unemployed sex toy looking for a new job and her trusty sidekick, a talking stick.
IIRC there’s a Superman or Mandrake the Magician comic to that effect. A supergiant nomadic space alien appears on the scene and has run out of water. Somehow our hero (can’t remember which) convinces the alien that he can take some of the Earth’s ocean water but not all of it. So a giant straw appears down out of the sky into the Pacific. IIRC the comic made no mention if any ocean life gets sucked up the straw.
Please search to see if you can identify a Mandrake The Magician comic with the story line of a SuperGiant Space Alien that is allowed to suck up some of the Earth’s ocean water because he needs water.
Yes, there is a Mandrake the Magician storyline that matches your description. The story involves a super-giant alien named Qork, who is so massive that he is the size of a country, with Mandrake appearing as small as a microorganism in comparison. Qork is a gentle giant who is dying of thirst and wishes to drink water from Earth’s oceans. However, he refuses to endanger any people and is willing to sacrifice his own life to avoid causing harm. Mandrake communicates with Qork using telepathy and helps resolve the situation.
This storyline is referenced in the TV Tropes entry for Mandrake the Magician under the tropes “Gentle Giant” and “Our Giants Are Bigger.” Unfortunately, the exact publication details, such as the specific comic strip issue or date, are not provided in the available sources. The Mandrake the Magician comic strip, created by Lee Falk and illustrated by Phil Davis (later Fred Fredericks), ran from 1934 to 2013, and this story is one of many fantastical adventures involving aliens, magic, and other extraordinary elements.
To locate the precise comic strip or issue, you may need to consult comprehensive Mandrake the Magician archives, such as those available through Comics Kingdom or collections like Hermes Press reprints of the King Features strips. Additionally, fan resources like MandrakeWiki (www.mandrakewiki.org) may list specific story titles or dates, though the provided reference does not include a direct link to this particular Qork storyline.
I didn’t follow Mandrake and quit buying comics in 1964 (too expensive compared to a paperback book). But the idea did come from a comic of that era, an image of a bridge over a dry riverbed, looking out to a dead sea bottom. 1964 was my annus mirabilis in terms of baseline ideas. I’ve spent the remaining 60 years fleshing them out and writing all those books and stories.
I too didn’t have the finances to support a comic book habit. Mandrake appeared in our weekly comics section of the Sunday paper. Back when there were these things called newspapers.
I remember Mandrake from the “Sunday Funnies.” I think part of my problem with him was, I already knew “get with child a mandrake root.” I can’t remember what I really followed besides Buck Rogers. Weirdly, I liked the Sunday version of Buzz Sawyer “with Roscoe Sweeney.”
I also enjoyed reading about the adventures of Roscoe Sweeney. As over time the comic became very little about Buzz Sawyer and far more about Roscoe. In the original WWII story line wasn’t Buzz Sawyer a bomber pilot and Roscoe one of his crew? But I digress. We all know how significantly the CO2 dumping B17 contributed to climate change.
I think, based on 1943 illustrations that Buz (one zee only) was the pilot of an SBD, and Roscoe (enlisted Naval aircrewman) was his gunner. This was a dive bomber that could dogfight, most memorably when three Zeroes jumped an SBD, which shot down two. The third was destroyed after losing a wing in a head-on collision, which the SBD survived. Can’t beat that. Not to mention six carriers sunk.
When I googled for other stuff concerning apocalyptic climate change, I got some interesting things. One’s view of the direness of climate change seems to affect how one views the nature of apocalyptic climate change claims. For example, another in the vein of the DeAngelo/Curry paper:
Exaggerated climate claims erode trust in science, hindering genuine environmental efforts. Accurate communication is key to progress.
This paper offers a unique criticism of such apocalyptic narratives and their usefulness for public engagement with climate change. It is argued here that the apocalyptic narrative is not an effective strategy for motivating the public to take action on climate change. Therefore, we must rethink how we narrate climate change and its solutions, if we wish to better engage audiences and successfully mitigate climate change.
We found that the hallmarks of apocalyptic rhetoric-a linear temporality emphasizing a catastrophic end-point that is more or less outside the purview of human agency-permeate selected discourse. Two variants of the apocalyptic frame impact human agency: tragic apocalypse constitutes global warming as a matter of cosmic Fate; and comic apocalypse suggests that mistaken humans have a capacity to influence (within limits) the global warming narrative’s end. We conclude with suggestions for structuring climate change communication in ways that enable more members of the public to become active advocates for, and participants in, mitigating global warming.
Basically, one side points out the dishonesty of apocalyptic claims and the other side complains that the approach just isn’t working for some reason, perhaps because it’s not engaging enough or invokes fatalism.
There’s no awareness of the endless stream of apocalyptic climate change claims that have come and gone. When one can point to dozens of false claims, thats’ going to dent your credibility.
It should dent their credibility but it doesn’t. I’ve been bringing this up for 25 years to the same people who still remain attached to their beliefs and look at all the old people who have been living through these failed predictions since the 1960s. Then there are the younger high iq dorks who can’t even google how many times the predictions have been wrong.
The big mistake has always been putting specific dates on their predictions, which is why there are people who believe this nonsense saying they should move away from doing so.
They have to imply something timewise or they won’t be taken seriously. Even if they talk vaguely about the harm to grandchildren, that implies a date range.
“As the paper concludes, “Attempts to suppress fossil-fuel use aggressively are socially destructive… [and] would impose significant avoidable costs on humanity.””
That’s the point. They view the agricultural revolution as the source of evil in the world and that if we all lived as hunter gatherers but without the hunting, we would all be at one with nature and at peace with each other in our true queer forms. Except for the robosexuals, they are out of luck.
Not only are the variations we see in temperature and climate in line with natural variation, it doesn’t matter as glaciation will return in the geological near future. We should enjoy the good times and do what we can to prepare for glaciation by spreading life throughout the solar system.
As per her testimony during your immortal climate trial; Michael Mann spared no underhanded effort to discredit Ms. Curry in academia. I don’t think this paper will earn her any credibility there either. Although it should. Ivory towers can be the bastions of closed mindedness.
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
– Max Planck Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers (1949) (ref. ChatGPT)
That’s why the saying, “Science advances one funeral at a time” exists. It also applies to the military. As for Curry’s paper, it’ll be ignored or denounced because a lot of people are making money off of the climate change scam. None of them want to see their gravy train end.
The out of work academics can always get jobs selling used cars. They’d be good at that.
Comparing climate academics to Used Car Salesman is a real low blow, to the car salesmen.
They should put me in charge of the climate apocalypse. Somewhere around here I’ve got an outline for a story about the day some aliens came and stole the Earth’s oceans. The heroine of the story is an unemployed sex toy looking for a new job and her trusty sidekick, a talking stick.
IIRC there’s a Superman or Mandrake the Magician comic to that effect. A supergiant nomadic space alien appears on the scene and has run out of water. Somehow our hero (can’t remember which) convinces the alien that he can take some of the Earth’s ocean water but not all of it. So a giant straw appears down out of the sky into the Pacific. IIRC the comic made no mention if any ocean life gets sucked up the straw.
Grok to the rescue:
Please search to see if you can identify a Mandrake The Magician comic with the story line of a SuperGiant Space Alien that is allowed to suck up some of the Earth’s ocean water because he needs water.
Yes, there is a Mandrake the Magician storyline that matches your description. The story involves a super-giant alien named Qork, who is so massive that he is the size of a country, with Mandrake appearing as small as a microorganism in comparison. Qork is a gentle giant who is dying of thirst and wishes to drink water from Earth’s oceans. However, he refuses to endanger any people and is willing to sacrifice his own life to avoid causing harm. Mandrake communicates with Qork using telepathy and helps resolve the situation.
This storyline is referenced in the TV Tropes entry for Mandrake the Magician under the tropes “Gentle Giant” and “Our Giants Are Bigger.” Unfortunately, the exact publication details, such as the specific comic strip issue or date, are not provided in the available sources. The Mandrake the Magician comic strip, created by Lee Falk and illustrated by Phil Davis (later Fred Fredericks), ran from 1934 to 2013, and this story is one of many fantastical adventures involving aliens, magic, and other extraordinary elements.
To locate the precise comic strip or issue, you may need to consult comprehensive Mandrake the Magician archives, such as those available through Comics Kingdom or collections like Hermes Press reprints of the King Features strips. Additionally, fan resources like MandrakeWiki (www.mandrakewiki.org) may list specific story titles or dates, though the provided reference does not include a direct link to this particular Qork storyline.
I didn’t follow Mandrake and quit buying comics in 1964 (too expensive compared to a paperback book). But the idea did come from a comic of that era, an image of a bridge over a dry riverbed, looking out to a dead sea bottom. 1964 was my annus mirabilis in terms of baseline ideas. I’ve spent the remaining 60 years fleshing them out and writing all those books and stories.
I too didn’t have the finances to support a comic book habit. Mandrake appeared in our weekly comics section of the Sunday paper. Back when there were these things called newspapers.
I remember Mandrake from the “Sunday Funnies.” I think part of my problem with him was, I already knew “get with child a mandrake root.” I can’t remember what I really followed besides Buck Rogers. Weirdly, I liked the Sunday version of Buzz Sawyer “with Roscoe Sweeney.”
I also enjoyed reading about the adventures of Roscoe Sweeney. As over time the comic became very little about Buzz Sawyer and far more about Roscoe. In the original WWII story line wasn’t Buzz Sawyer a bomber pilot and Roscoe one of his crew? But I digress. We all know how significantly the CO2 dumping B17 contributed to climate change.
I think, based on 1943 illustrations that Buz (one zee only) was the pilot of an SBD, and Roscoe (enlisted Naval aircrewman) was his gunner. This was a dive bomber that could dogfight, most memorably when three Zeroes jumped an SBD, which shot down two. The third was destroyed after losing a wing in a head-on collision, which the SBD survived. Can’t beat that. Not to mention six carriers sunk.
Er, ahem, graphic novels…
When I googled for other stuff concerning apocalyptic climate change, I got some interesting things. One’s view of the direness of climate change seems to affect how one views the nature of apocalyptic climate change claims. For example, another in the vein of the DeAngelo/Curry paper:
versus
and
Basically, one side points out the dishonesty of apocalyptic claims and the other side complains that the approach just isn’t working for some reason, perhaps because it’s not engaging enough or invokes fatalism.
There’s no awareness of the endless stream of apocalyptic climate change claims that have come and gone. When one can point to dozens of false claims, thats’ going to dent your credibility.
Wow. How to pile it deeper and deeper. Maybe at some point, when the pile is too deep, one should stop digging?
It should dent their credibility but it doesn’t. I’ve been bringing this up for 25 years to the same people who still remain attached to their beliefs and look at all the old people who have been living through these failed predictions since the 1960s. Then there are the younger high iq dorks who can’t even google how many times the predictions have been wrong.
The big mistake has always been putting specific dates on their predictions, which is why there are people who believe this nonsense saying they should move away from doing so.
They have to imply something timewise or they won’t be taken seriously. Even if they talk vaguely about the harm to grandchildren, that implies a date range.
“As the paper concludes, “Attempts to suppress fossil-fuel use aggressively are socially destructive… [and] would impose significant avoidable costs on humanity.””
That’s the point. They view the agricultural revolution as the source of evil in the world and that if we all lived as hunter gatherers but without the hunting, we would all be at one with nature and at peace with each other in our true queer forms. Except for the robosexuals, they are out of luck.
Not only are the variations we see in temperature and climate in line with natural variation, it doesn’t matter as glaciation will return in the geological near future. We should enjoy the good times and do what we can to prepare for glaciation by spreading life throughout the solar system.