#btw I have not and Will not ever take part in Stupid Discourse regarding this series | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

interestray · 3 years

Text

it’s always a good moment when I see a critical role episode with so many things happening that my adhd can’t help but develop a mind of its own, so now that my hyper-fixations have stopped beating the shit out of me theres a couple things I wanna bring up most of it theory stuff and the rest personal things. btw its a long post be warned.

SPOILER ALERT- I’m talking about ep 117 of critical role and its a doozy.

I’ve doing my recent posts in a different format and I’m liking it so I’m gonna use it here. btw I gonna mention some ship stuff I want to make clear I have no hate for any ships mentioned but unless I say I like the ship just assume I’m indifferent.

1. I gonna say I called it because even if I’m wrong about about future stuff I was right that it’s not just Lucien in that body, even if Lucien is completely right about molly as the group knew him is gone forever Molly (which I don’t believe at all) is still a fragment of lucien’s soul. now past that I do think molly as a conscious being is still in there and trying to connect with his friends. why? because theres this weird disconnect with how lucien acts communicating with the m9 from a far vs in person, in person it seems like he had his guard way up but when they scry or message him the barrier is lowered a bit I think when his guard isn’t up Molly bleeds into his actions and mind more. I personally see Lucien at being 130% whole because Molly grew into his own thing.

2. regarding my predictions for this episode I’m gonna give myself 2 points (with 1 of the points being made up of half points) I was hoping for flirting and I think we definitely got some version of flirting between Lucien and Caleb so I get a half point for that, not gonna lie I was a little freaked out (in a good way) how fast Lucien zeroed in on Caleb, I hope if things don’t go pear shaped we get to see those two interact more.

3. Personal thing I really wanted to smack Fjord and Veth for most of the episode like they both had moments of being rational (fjord more so) but for the most part i just want to slap them.

4. it was kind of hilarious to see how freaked out Lucien was of the m9, like there was a little of the bad kind of freaked out feeling I think it was mostly like how Ludinus felt meeting Jester. like poor Lucien he’s just doing his thing and suddenly this group of puppies imprints on him and follows him around poor guy. Seems like Lucien has so distrust towards the tomb takers with the whole ‘we are one’ thing, it seemed to be a recent development. I’ve seen people talk about whether the tomb takers/Cree will backstab Lucien I think it’s possible.

5. I think some members of the m9 have realized Caleb’s not doing ok, most likely from the corpse scene and him talking over Beau (bad caleb bad). what they do with this info is gonna be interesting I personally think Cad should talk with him in private maybe have yasha there as well (also hugs please someone hug the sad wizard man him and Yasha both need it).

6. personal thing I don’t understand jester x Fjord as a possible canon ship at this point in the story like i got it in early campaign but I think they’ve both grown and changed to the point where a relationship between the two would end quickly after starting (whether in tears or not). the only times I like seeing their romantic interactions is when Laura and Travis bleed through and at that point its nots really jester and fjord. again no hate you do you I just don’t understand the appeal.

7. I’ve not watched campaign 1 for a few reasons yet but I’ve done research on some of the bigger events one of which was Percy’s resurrection where Taliesin watched how everyone was acting to decide whether to come back or not. I think Cad’s whole talk about what the rest of the m9′s goals towards Molly/Lucien is first Taliesin’s way of deciding whether Molly will be a npc after this arc or if he picks up playing him again (this all of course depending on whether the m9′s stupid actions don’t get Lucien killed), second I think this is Cad’s way of deciding whether his “debt” is payed and if it’s time for him to leave. To be clear I don’t think this was the final decision I think it was the first step to see whether anyone could say they want their friend back and we had two (almost 3) say yeah they do so I think it was a good start.

8. I can totally see Lucien kidnapping some of the m9. this sounds weird but stick with me, it looks like the tomb takers as a whole have a few important spots missing in their mission like they (probably) have a blood cleric in Cree the goliath and halfing seems more strength based I’m not sure about the human and Lucien is filling spot of a little bit of everything. Lucien has already pointed out Caleb as being curious and smart so I think out of the party is Lucien steals any of them it will be Caleb, if not Caleb tho I think Yasha could also be one that gets his attention (especially if Lucien ever sees them fight) I don’t he would kidnap anyone unprompted but if they go through with their stupid plan I’m sure he’ll want payback.

9. I get a full point for crying at both the Yasha clover scene and Molly’s card about Caleb.

10. So my best friend is also a fan of critical role but he always works Thursday’s so he’s behind on actively watching the shows, but I can watch them so I take notes of all the funny, interesting, and weird shit that happens then I call when he gets off work to tell him everything that happened then we talk about what we think will happen next. why does this matter? because before the molly reveal when we first heard about them going to aore (I don’t know how to spell the ruin place) I said I had a feeling Essek would probably show up and run into the m9. well I was right so i’m supper happy, hearing floaty bois voice was awesome I hope Essek and Lucien meet at some point (hopefully not while trying to kill each other that would be sad).

11. Caleb’s eighth floor is so interesting like I hope we get to see all the rooms at some point, I think the room we saw this episode was his room at the asylum (mostly from it’s disarray and how drab it was) as for who he was talking to? I’ve seen a lot of people says its Essek or Astrid (I can smell the incoming discourse) I think it’s neither, it’s probably the simplest answer himself or more specificly Bren. I think he was talking to the Bren that spent years in that bed and chair wasting away.

12. wtf do you mean the big snow worm has a double reason for hunting the party Matt?! (I have no clue what that means).

13. the m9′s decision to try and get to A2 before Lucien and take whatever is there is such a shit idea, why did he kill Vess because she was a traitor she betrayed him what are they m9 about to do betray him even after the warning about straying from the path (which btw I think was molly warning them). If they actually go through with this plan I hope Cad is right on Lucien getting amused at them instead of fucking pissed. good news is that even if they get there before Lucien they could still salvage the thing with Lucien by saying they wanted unbiased answers. I get they’re grieving and in a bunch of pain but use the common sense I know you have and learn more about whats happening before fucking it all up. (also I get half a point from Lucien kicking Vess’s body)

14. I will say I mostly loved this episode (except for the ending) but them talking about possibly scattering Lucien to get Molly back no matter how brief did unsettle me a lot. no matter my feelings about Molly this is Lucien’s body when he was scattered molly did have the right to the body so I don't think any of his actions were wrong or bad but now that Lucien is whole again his bodily autonomy should not be violated just for a unsure chance Molly would come back. As it is Lucien seemed already uneasy and annoyed with stuff molly did (ex-tattoos).

15. I originally wasn’t gonna put this point but I think I should. when Taliesin said “he thought they would be on the other side of this” I think most people thought it was in reference to how it seems like Lucien is evil (I still don’t think he is) but what if he meant Molly’s arc. think of it wouldn’t it make sense for Molly’s arc to focus on his past coming back to meet him what if they always intended for Lucien to become whole again and it was suppose to be Lucien’s thoughts/feelings bleeding into molly’s. but Molly died so instead we’re getting the inverse Lucien has to come to terms with his past as Molly and the people Molly left behind coming into his life. I think it would be a good arc him learning that you can’t run from or ignore the past no matter how much you want to it can and will come bite you in the ass. would also make sense why Lucien and Molly both have that attitude towards their pasts (you know other than being pieces of the same person).

#critical role #Mollymauk #cr lucien #I already had an idea for Lucien kidnaps/saves Caleb story it's only grown now #I hope Yasha and Caleb get a hug soon #lets the introverts cuddle and cry together #Lucien and Caleb need a ship name #Don't look at me I'm terrible at naming things #so happy to see floaty hot boi again #he sounded happy to hear from them #Matt and Taliesin both had faces that I have deemed untrustworthy this episode #ray's interests #keep forgetting that one

8 notes · View notes

roxannepolice · 5 years

Note

Long asks anon again, here to offer my opinion on the current wank. Rey as a character is rather blatantly breaking sw story rules and nothing is going to get SFF fans hackles up like rule breakage. This is root of both the MarySue accusations and current wank. Rey has a tragic backstory thats doubling as the only failure she can call her own. But its a) damn near entirely offscreen and b) serves as convenient justification for why shes competent at near everything that comes up.

Reys instantly good at the force because of a convenient force download that to the best of my knowledge only occured in the noncanon KOTOR II and quite frankly cant blame most of the general audience for not getting because without prior knowledge or the novelizations why would they? She has darkness in her but as so far used and touched it consequence free and its almost entirely symbolically externalized on the Kylo (and in SW symbolism is Real in a way it isnt in other narratives) Shes strong in the force because Light rises to meet Dark but to quote the current crop of movies ‘thats not how the force works) or at least thats never how it worked before. Shes the first SW protagonist to go behind enemy lines and come out with both hands in the second movie. For ppl wondering how come Luke and Ani never get labeled MarySues, this is why, they got thier asses handed to them, Rey hasnt. There /is/ something /off/ in Reys story, and ppl pick up on it. if you can make a post (w/ over 1k notes!) about how great it is that a character meant to prop up 7hrs worth of movies has little to no character development to go through, somethings off. If multiple ppl can make posts about how its neat Rey can tap into the darkside (still characterized as evil in ST) consequence free (with some quite frankly stupid justifications, 'shes disciplined’ really? jedi lacked a lot of things thats not one of them) somethings off and again, if the only failure your main heroine has is /entirely retroactive something’s off/. If the story were getting with the is the story most ppl think we are, a 'female empowerment’ (i dont feel particularly empowered by being told I have an equal chance at being a deus ex machina but ok) than well, her story is over and theres no need for IX (hell it could have been over in TFA, most ppl assumed she had accepted her place as the future jedi in that one) and no need for reylo The ST was always gonna deconstruct all that came before it purely by virtue of being a sequel. The tragedy of anakin skywalker is now a farce, the happy ot ending now a tragedy, and the mythopoetic structure shot to shit in the name of serialization and perpetual warfare. this stand true for all the sequel characters including rey and ben. the only question is are we going to get anything out of it? I compare it to home renovation. You can knock out a wall and the walls gone, but new opportunities arise. With Benlo, I’m reasonably confident that there will be at least some attempt to take advantage of the new space. With rey and the resistance kids? not so much. it just feels like they knocked down a blue wall to rebuild it as pink one and at the point it just feels like a waste of time because ive seen this before. Ive seen pure cinnamon roll desert orphan reform jedi order If this was all youre going to do that the fuck was the point? which circles around to my problem with team good guy this go around and That Scene. JJ twisted the story into a pretzel to justify the winners of the last round being the underdogs again and then rian twisted so much further the storys head may as well be up its own ass. And then at the very end he shoots it all to shit and rushes to reassure us its all gonna be okay. He removes the entire point of the underdog trope /the tension that comes from the fact that they might lose/. I mean there wasnt a whole lot of that to begin with already but really? So theres no tension that Reys gonna win so her journey feels frictionless, and theres no question where shes gonna end up so full offense why give a shit? Thats where the whole 'can rey lose a fight?’ thing comes from. Ppl want conflict in her arc to justify its existence and give us a reason why this her story to begin with. if the only character going through growth for all three movies is ben, if the only characters whos fate is up in the air is ben, and if all the tension in the reylo relationship comes from ben, then why is this /reys story/? why not just make it about the character actually driving all the drama and thus, the story? As a final thought, im going to add that having Kylo be aware and insecure that hes never gonna be as Iconic as Vader was a great story choice, regardless of where ends up. Current Rebels, on the other hand, seems to have not gotten the memo that they are never gonna be as iconic as Original Rebels, and the story itself seems to being trying to sell them to me as being better. Rey is Luke but better, Poe/Finn are Han wo the smuggler grit, and id be lying if i said it didnt piss me off.

Long asks anon to kick down ur door again, AND ANOTHER THING. SW is a lotta things. Subtle aint one of them, and St hasnt changed in that regard. If you have to debate it chances are either a) ur arguing counter to the text in which case mor power to you but not really helpful for predictions or intended meaning or b) /it aint there. A bunch of ppl didnt like anidala, but nobody doubted we were supposed to think they were in love by the end of AOTC, bunch of ppl didnt like poes arc, but no one doubts he fucked up by not listening to holdo was the intended take away. Which brings to rey and flaws or lack there of. Were told rey has flaws but she has yet to suffer any real consequences from them with the exception of The Damn Parentage Wank, which again, pulls the double duty of making her hyper competent at everything. Because rey has no consequences for her flaws, from a story function pov there aren’t any. If rey did have a flaw to overcome, we would all agree what it was

Now won’t you all just look at this beautiful, spot on rant which has been lagging in my askbox since the last time Rey’s flaws or lack thereof were the discourse’s focus (November, I believe?) and suddenly became a thing again, courtesy of Tweetgate. I think you really summed up the crux of this debate wonderfully, anon.

I particularly agree with the part about Rey not getting narratively punished for whatever flaws we’d like her to have (great point about returning from behind the enemy lines with both arms still in place), when SW don’t stay away from allowing characters to get “punished” even for otherwise applaudable features - vide Padmé, whose idealism is what Palps manipulates into gaining more power (this is why Padmé will never come off as a Mary Sue or too perfect, btw). But I’ll say even more - Rey doesn’t even get called out on her flaws, except for by Ben, who’s mostly dismissed as a baddie like Palpatine saying Luke was foolish to rely on his friends. Let’s just consider one thing - both Anakin and Luke get called out on their flaws by Yoda (Anakin repeatedly and by lots of other people for that matter) whereas with Rey, the same grumpy-yet-jolly senex pops up from the afterlife to further inform us what a great jedi material she is.

TBH, I have a very cynical theory as to why Rey is being pushed as the main character while it’s difficult to deny that it’s Kylo Ben who does all the plot heavy lifting. I’m pretty sure Ben’s arc was the first one DLF thought out (and the big question is, was it the only one they thought out) and only later on decided to make Rey the main character, which also involved much less spontaneous writing. Mind you, it’s not as if benepemption didn’t have a manufactured subtaste to it, but with Rey’s heroine’s journey stiff structure occasionally substitutes any in-world explanations of her actions (this is why I have to hope renperor has some narrative purpose rather than happening because lovers need to be separated and anti-hero needs to achieve what he wanted in 2nd act). I feel as if whatever potential her character had (and hopefully still has, pending IX) got smothered by layer upon layer of making her likable by everyone, which largely relied on negative characterization: she’s not helpless, she’s not too naive, not cynical, not too emotional, not too emotionless, not morally corruptible, not anything you’ve ever complained about regarding any SW character, not falling for the bad boy, not not not - and in the end it’s kinda difficult to say what Rey is like and while the goal of making her widely likable was achieved, it also made it almost impossible to view her as loveably flawed/annoying like the classic characters. And on top of all this is the matter of making her a nobody just like you!, as DLF appears to say with uncle Sam’s gesture (which also kinda assumes the existence of a Star Wars fan as some uniform entity? because if you identify with her, good for you, I just don’t understand why the franchise assumes I’ll identify with her by the grace of being a SW fan alone), because, as you excellently put it, the message here is that everyone can be chosen by God - which again, it’s not as if the saga ever contradicted this, so why the hell make a case of it? I can’t agree that it’s made into Rey’s flaw, though, imo her low birth only serves to further frame her as an oppressed virtue. And I definitely agree regarding too much of her growth being left off-screen, or before the story ever begins. The problem here isn’t even that it is left off-screen (it’s not as if we had huge insight into any of the pt or ot characters) but rather that her characterizations is left off-screen while being depicted as at least untypical (unique to put it bluntly) for her situation (same goes for Finn). A hopeful, kind person growing up on her on her own in slavery under a nicer name is a rarity and DLF makes a case for it being a rarity - and this sparks up curiosity in her past, as if market pandering to Re/sky wasn’t enough. So from this pov her un-reveal being frustrating isn’t just a case of not wanting to love her or her self only a potentially deeper psychological question getting answered with well, light.

I should add, Ben’s arc feels like the most spontaneous one (though Finn’s may yet be a masterpiece) and he’s the one to admit his fear of not living up to Vader’s legacy, because I think he’s the character serving as the creators’ vessel, more or less like Luke was Lucas’ avatar in ot. In his fear regarding Vader’s legacy one can feel Disney’s fear due to having bought popculture’s holy grail and not being entirely sure what to do with it. On this background, Rey (a literal scavenger of OT’s pieces) and rebels 2.0 repeatedly blessed by Leia come off as what DLF would want to be. And the result is that the character which was supposed to be Vader 2.0 proves the most original and surprising one, whereas “breaths of fresh air” come off as room aromatizers with “fresh” written on them.

And as far as the plot being bended into a pretzel and then disappearing up it’s own ass, well, a part of me is still hoping that taking virtually the same villains as before is a mythological-psychoanalitical metaphor of a nigredo repeating itself until the unconscious gets accepted by the conscious…. but, tbh, as the leaks flow this hope is withering.

#asks #cleaning up the askbox #long asks anon #sw negativity #let rey free from the corset disney

48 notes · View notes

michaelmullen · 7 years

Text

Another installment in an endless argument about climate change

Ok, I've been out of the loop for a couple weeks. I had to deal with life. Now, in the post you put out on February 21 at 5:02 pm, you seemed to think I was disregarding or taking lightly Cern's information. Quite the contrary, I was taking issue with the interpretation of Cern's information by Dennis Avery, the author of the article in American Thinker. THAT is what I was referring to when I said "a simplistic reading of the Cern Study". I would generally consider CERN to be one of the more credible sources of scientific information, including on the study you cited. I just disagreed with that guy's conclusions about the study. Because I read the study. And it doesn't look to me like it said what he said it said. Gad, did that last sentence make any sense?

On to the next thing: here's the PNAS paper about the scientific consensus again. Now just to be clear, this is a different consensus study entirely from the much ballyhooed one that you referenced. I suspect you did not read this article the first time around after I posted it in this thread on February 23rd at 2:23am. http://m.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full. Did you read it? If not, will you please read it? One more time, the study in this PNAS paper has absolutely nothing to do with the IPCC study which climate change skeptics like to lambast. Sure, the consensus for millenia was the earth is flat and it's "turtles all the way down". But that was the consensus amongst the ill informed. Scientific consensus is a different thing. And yes, scientists are subject to the same sorts of pressures as any other humans, but, the Earth was proven to NOT be flat in a number of places and times--ancient China, Persia, Babylon, Egypt, Greece. Independently those wise guys reached a consensus, at least to the extent that they agreed over the final conclusion that the earth is not flat, even though they did not know about each other or each other's work. And it was the consensus among doctors in the middle ages that bleeding someone to treat ulcers was a good idea. Right, consensus ain't everything. BUT, when alot of modern scientists doing good research using solid empirical methods reach similar conclusions, it MEANS SOMETHING. And when you first say that there IS NOT a consensus, then when a study is found that clearly shows there IS a consensus--and at THAT point you say "well consensus doesn't matter anyway"--you start sounding like suddenly you don't want to discuss it because maybe you are losing the argument.

Right, clouds cover more of the earth's surface area, but only clouds above large masses of particularly verdant greenery (like rain forests) are going to have the biogenic elements which that study was refering to. I like looking at Google Earth sometimes.

If atmospheric CO2 does not trap heat much, then why is it then when you are in an unvented room full of people it quickly becomes stuffy, and warm?

"End of the world"? No, perhaps not. But a mere 1 foot rise in sea level would displace millions, and that's a low estimate if enough "permanent" ice melts. It's like good ol' Rush Limbaugh likes to say: "A nuclear war is NOT going to destroy the planet or end all life". Ok, fair enough, but if the only life that survives is rats and cockroaches, well, that's close nough to destroyed for me. So, could melting sea ice "end the world"? No. But we have other things to discuss if the distinction between "end the world" and "catastrophically affect all civilization" REALLY matters to you! Regarding the article you shared about increased sea ice, it seems to argue AGAINST the conclusions you seem to think it supports. Read the entire article. Quoting from the article itself 'Editor’s note: Antarctica and the Arctic are two very different environments: the former is a continent surrounded by ocean, the latter is ocean enclosed by land. As a result, sea ice behaves very differently in the two regions. While the Antarctic sea ice yearly wintertime maximum extent hit record highs from 2012 to 2014 before returning to average levels in 2015, both the Arctic wintertime maximum and its summer minimum extent have been in a sharp decline for the past decades. Studies show that globally, the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice." And "Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s. The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.". Oh, did I mention that there is a NEW NAVIGABLE OCEAN up North that did not used to exist at all period when I was 20? At least not without an ice breaker in the middle of summer. I bet you didn't read the whole article that you shared about Antarctic sea ice. I don't think it at all makes the point you seem to think it does. Beware the pitfalls of confirmation bias. And the article about the undersea geologic event that melted some ice: even in the article itself, they point out that the geological event would melt "some" ice, a "small hole" in the ice. But the ice loss--particularly deasonal ice loss--in the Arctic has been ocean wide, not just above that deep sea vent. Btw, money for valuable research such as is discussed in the article from Nasa's Goddard Research which you shared will likely be completely cut. Very soon.

Regarding confirmation bias, you could also be using confirmation bias. If sharing an article that supports my idea is automatically evidence of confirmation bias, then how are we ever supposed to get beyond that point in any discussion? Sure, I am biased: that is because I am convinced. I did not start life biased toward the idea of human caused climate change (though I might have gotten there sooner than alot of others, because I paid attention way back prior to Al Gore's movie). I have watched the science develop over the last several decades with increasing concern, and my certainty of the problem has slowly mounted. So far, skeptics attempts over the last several years to convince me otherwise have failed for a variety of reasons. That's not because I have an inner need to support--as you put it-- a "political and environmental agenda" which I "seem to feel is a superior ideology". Rather, I think I see an increasing weight of evidence in favor of the idea of anthropogenic climate change, and since I see it as a dangerous trend I want to say something about it, and try to change people's minds. So when I am trying to argue the point with someone, I try to find supporting evidence. Isn't that how we are SUPPOSED to debate and discuss? Isn't that what CITATION means? When I cite an article from Scientific American--or perhaps the Proceedings of the Nat'l Academy of Sciences--I am not indulging in confirmation bias, I am citing evidence that supports the conclusion. When I toss out 5 articles from sources with alot of expertise in covering scientific issues that support the conclusions I am arguing for, that is not confirmation bias, that is, rather, an attempt at assembling something like a bibliography that helps to support my claims. Don't "confirmation bias" me: the exact same argument could be used on you, and YOUR supporting documentation when you and I started this whole discussion was one article from a less than credible source. .

Now, regarding political agendas and superior ideologies, I was a republican and fairly conservative in the 80s and early 90s, of the "fiscal conservative and otherwise center-right leaning pragmatist" school of WF Buckley et al. One of the things that started my drift away from the GOP back then was what looked to me like the Rush Limbaugh Shaped political blinders which the GOP was increasingly donning especially toward questions of the environment. Perhaps the airy fairy Left sometimes wears rose colored glasses about certain issues (or at least, tinkerbell shaped glasses, Lol). Well, by the same token, the Right has been wearing dark "EIB" glasses for a number of years (which is part of the reason we find ourselves, politically, where we are now). Leaving aside what I consider to be all the various areas that the malign influence of Mssrs. Limbaugh, Hannity, and a number of others have had on our political discourse and the direction of our country in general over the last couple decades, [in MY opinion] Rush being so evidently wrong (and philosophically wrong also) on environmental issues led to me re-evaluating alot of other things as well. But I digress again: getting back to the point, Rush Limbaugh has flogged and flaunted his particular political agenda and superior ideology (though he probably would not call it that; sounds too pointie-headed and liberal) very effectively, to the point that his words have become the textus receptus of the GOP, and folks on the Right in general conversation often quote Him without being aware they are even doing so. Steadfast, cleverly phrased, emotionally satisfying, frequently vituperative opposition to most environmental laws and in particular anthropogenic climate change (which Rush found hilarious going all the way back) has been Rush Limbaugh's--and increasingly the GOP's--stance for a long time. Climate change skeptics often come across as superior and dismissive, after all, they are not stupid enough to fall for that BS... Do not accuse me of supporting the idea of anthropogenic climate change due to a need to support a superior ideology. Rather, address your own confirmation bias that insists that your ideology of climate skepticism is superior.

Regarding solar fluctuations and their impact on climate, it seems evident to me that 1] though there have been studies, even so yes you are right it certainly needs to be studied more (good luck getting funding for THAT currently) but 2] what is known seems to indicate strongly that the saturation of CO2 in the atmosphere is a much greater driver, partially because higher carbon content maintains higher temperatures for longer periods of time AND spreads the increased ambient temperatures more evenly throughout the atmosphere. So that even when 1] the Earth is farthest from the sun in the slightly elliptical orbit, or 2] the sun is eclipsed by the moon, or 3] the Northern Hemisphere is leaning away from the sun in winter, still the heating which the sun DOES do even in those circumstances is held onto more effectively, lasts longer, and thus requires less solar energy the next time the sun does it's thing. In other words, the atmspheric carbon is a blanket: the sun might heat things up, but the carbon keeps it cozy, and thicker carbon means a cozier time for all. And not only does atmospheric carbon act as a blanket, it also acts as a lens, focusing and increasing the effects of the sunlight as that sunlight is hitting the atmosphere. http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/06_3.shtml https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sun-spots-and-climate-change/

Warming may be good for flora and fauna in a general sense, but too much can drastically impact what flora grows where (and thus we come to the potential impact of climate change on agriculture). Classic Limbaugh argument: there will be MORE plants growing if climate change occurs, how can that be bad? Because those plants might grow other than in the wheat fields of central Kansas, that's why. And the corn fields of Iowa might not have corn growing there. That's why. And land that is currently forested and which we harvest for timber might stop being able to support timber, and jobs will be lost. And let's say the optimal corn growing climate region ends up being in the middle of, say, downtown Chicago, are we going to convert all that concrete into farm land just because the weather is right for crops? Probably not. If such changes ocur and the causes are NOT anthropogenic, then the changes happen and we deal with it. But if they happen and it was caused by humans, future generations will wonder what we were thinking...

0 notes