"I don't recall the Republicans..."
Well you wouldn't, that is unfortunately one of the side effects you'll suffer living your life as a partisan wingnut.
The question is why are you telling us again? We already know - your repeated posts giving evidence to the fact aren't exactly subtle.
"Well, we're all about to see your assumptions and your faith tested. And I predict a continued rise in income inequality, with some various uglinesses on the side. If that happens, what will your reaction be?"
To double down and vote for him again in 2020, because next time it will be different!
It wont be anti-globalism because anti-globalism is inherently anti-corporatism. Anti-globalism would hurt Trump's own businesses and whilst he may have claimed to have stepped back from them (for at least 4 years) he'll still want his family to be getting rich off them.
I suspect you'll see targetted protectionism however claimed as anti-globalism - i.e. "We're placing sanctions on the Chinese because we're anti-global" when in fact those sanctions will just be targetted protectionism against say China's financial services organisations with the goal of making Goldman Sachs and such wealthier whilst still expecting to trade with China normally in other ways (i.e. buying cheaply manufactured shit from them).
It really only takes a few seconds to view any number of fact checkers that highlight precisely why you're wrong, and that can evidence any number of right wing falsehoods being peddled. There is no conspiracy, just malace and a will to push political ideas through lies, because people just don't like what you're selling when you try and sell it based on the facts of your argument.
The fact you didn't do that, and spent longer writing a response is precisely why you'll always be stuck in your ignorant echo chamber, unable to accept even the most moderate of arguments, bound to extremism through your wilful ignorance.
You no doubt hate people passionately like those in ISIS, and yet there you are, a victim to the exact same kind of brainwashing from the other side of the fence. If only you saw the irony of your position, yet doing so would conversely mean you were smart enough to just not be in that position in the first place. If you want to know how anyone ends up in an organisation as sick as ISIS, then you only have to look at the fact your first response was to try and attack me back, rather than to actually do even the simplest bit of research into right wing lies.
Call me a troll or shill or whatever all you will, it wont change the fact you're wrong. Unfortunately for you, reality denial doesn't actually change reality.
Those are basically the same conditions we dive in in the UK, through the summer months you'd be fine in a semi-dry suit which can be picked up quite cheaply. The other option that will suit year round is a dry suit, which are much more expensive, but can be hired pretty cheaply.
For a typical dive you'll still feel far warmer than you would on a winters day, so it's really not too bad, though I agree it's hardly the same as diving along the equator.
You're partly right - the answer really varies as different reefs are affected in different ways, but fundamentally global warming can exacerbate effects such as El Nino/La Nina, so that your 3c increase may become 5c for a time. The issue is that these ecosystems are fragile and it only takes small changes to do immense damage. It's not that nature can't adapt to temperature fluctuations and such, it's that it can't adapt at the rate of change we're forcing on it. In terms of global warming in general consider the Polar Bear, normally climate would change over thousands of years and Polar Bears would become more brown, have less insular fur and move south and become more like grizzlies, but we're forcing change to their environment in decades, that's just not long enough for enough generations to be selected for brown fur - you just aren't going to go from white fur to brown fur (and possibly lose some insulating features) and adapt in that kind of compressed time frame, which is why they're at risk.
For what it's worth there are reefs that don't seem particularly affected at all by the temperature change, the Great Barrier Reef seems to be one of the most especially fragile ones, and coupled with it's immense size this makes it stand out. See my other post elsewhere on this topic where I point out that the Red Sea reefs are currently at their most vibrant they've been in a long, long time regardless of temperature change, simply because of the reduction in tourism to Egypt. In contrast, much of the Great Barrier Reef is already protected from humans, yet is still suffering. This should really highlight how different reefs are affected in different ways, that they can recover, but recovery needs different things in different reefs - lack of human presence is doing wonders in Egypt's Red Sea, but it's doing nothing for the Great Barrier Reef, my suspicion being that the Great Barrier Reef suffers far more greatly from the changes in a body as large as the Pacific than the far better protected Red Sea does where humans are by far the largest problem.
Climate change isn't an inherent problem in itself, man-made or natural, you're right, it happens. The problem is the rate of climate change that's occuring right now, that's the real issue here, nature just doesn't have sufficient time to adapt right now which is why we're seeing events like this and why this period is often being called a mass extinction event period.
I'll let you into a current diving secret, and you may find this news rather positive. Because of the current lack of tourism in Egypt due to terrorist attacks elsewhere in Africa on tourists, the Egyptian revolution and subsequent military crackdowns as a result of the coup, and the bombing of the Russian civilian airliner by ISIS or whoever decided to take responsibility the red sea reefs have made an astounding and profound recovery in just a couple of years.
The sheer volume of life and quality of the reef is probably one of the best in the world right now, many old time divers have told me it's the most vibrant they've seen it since the sport was in it's infancy over 40 years ago, and the great thing is it's incredibly cheap now because they're desperate for tourists and because the tourist trade workers are desperate for jobs there's more than enough people to look after you so you're getting 5 star service for 2 star travel prices with one of the best reefs int he world to boot.
But in general, it may also be a question of where you have decided to dive. Some of the most hyped places are actually not that great as dive sites - the Great Barrier Reef isn't that great a diving spot, similarly the Belize hole is heavily hyped, but overrated. In contrast the Red Sea currently before tourism picks up again, places like Komodo, and the Galapagos which are far more expensive, will give you a much more positive picture. Also the lesser visited Caribbean islands are good spots - ignore the most popular like Aruba, Jamaica, Barbados and so forth and go for places like Turks and Caicos. If you really have the money then get yourself to remote places like Ascension Island, and the few boats that go to the most remote of the Galapagos Islands.
Outside of this even local diving can be great, you don't get quite the widespread colours of the most beautiful tropical reefs here in the UK for example (though there is more colour under the UK waters than most realise), but for sheer fun not much beats diving with seals in the Farne Islands and down in Cornwall, and for history buffs and wreck divers, you don't get much better than Scapa Flow where the bulk of Germany's fleet (74 ships) was scuttled at the end of World War 1 to cripple their naval ability. Most places in the world will have great diving sites of some sort or another.
But the take away from the Red Sea scenario specifically is this, that although we're undoubtedly doing immense damage to reefs, it seems some at least can recover and recover quickly if we leave them alone. This wont be true everywhere, as much of the Great Barrier reef is already protected, and because of its exposure to the Pacific does seem to make it more prone to this sort of event, but if we can stop it I have faith that these reefs wont be gone forever, I believe they can and will recover - the difficulty is in stopping it in the first place, if we can do our part and manage that, then nature can and will fix the rest for us as it has temporarily in the Red Sea now that humans have been heavily removed from the equation.
Of course expensive is always going to be relative, but I don't think this is necessarily true. I wouldn't for example say that it's more expensive than something like skiing, or snowboarding, or having a hobby such as playing with motorbikes, or hotrods. I think most people could afford to dive, if they wanted to, but beyond that I think you're right - it's just not on most people's radar.
I understand there has actually been a decrease in people diving in recent years, so I think there is probably some income link to it whether real, or perceived, I suspect maybe the biggest factor is for people who don't live near a diving site and that the really prohibitive part is actually the transport to a diving site if you have to fly or drive a thousand miles. This said, many rust belters probably don't realise they have some of the best wreck diving sites in the world next to them in the great lakes - that sort of thing is just not well advertised, so I'd wager awareness of the accessibility of the sport is as big a factor as decreasing income.
"The bright, vibrant colours you see in pictures aren't what you will ever see underwater on a tourist trip.
Red light, and the colour tones nearest red, are basically gone after 1 meter of seawater. There's simply not enough light in that spectrum making it from the surface, to the coral, to your eyes. That's why a lot of fish are red - the colour basically vanishes unless it's up in your face."
Nonsense, I do a lot of underwater photography and this simply isn't true. Our eyes are incredibly good at adjusting to the reduction in the colours as we go deeper, and it's only really when you start going below around 20metres that you really start to get so little light that your eyes just can't compensate well anymore. Reefs are incredibly colourful down to the common basic recreational limit of 18m - something like a rainbow parrotfish will look exactly as colourful as it does in any of the most colourful pictures you can find on Google images at 15 metres.
There are of course times this isn't true, when there are issues with water conditions such as diving in water that is suffering some form of algae bloom, or silt kick up where the algae or silt particulate in the water will of course have light bounced of of itself.
"The other thing the photographers do is they take photos with the strongest possible flash, and only take photos in the coolest parts of the reef; nearest the cool open water and on a slope, not on the hot flat deck that's right below the surface and catches the refracted sunlight 10 hours a day with the least mass flow."
Again, nonsense. We take photos wherever we can find a great photo and that's never restricted by depth or geography, but simply whether we're in the right place at the right time to get a great subject. That can be at 30cm, or it can be at 100 metres. My camera has perfectly good enough white balance to shoot consistently without my strobes down to about 10 metres. Below that I do indeed take strobes, but I've had some great shots without them even at 18m.
"Other things to consider are that you're less likely to see Nemo and more likely to find small hussars, sea cucumbers, and the stingrays and reef sharks."
That really depends where you go, many tourist dives are actually unlikely to see things like reef sharks and stingrays because animals tend to get bigger the deeper the water and they tend to keep tourists who aren't that comfortable with diving in relatively shallow (i.e. above 18m) dives. In some regions you of course get these creatures coming into the shallows, but for the most part on a tourist dive you're going to stay fairly close to the coast, and you'll see countless smaller fish like you would typically see in the most colourful marine aquariums.
It's fairly obvious you've never been diving, because you're basically wrong about everything. The GP was referring to the fact that in some areas the damage to reefs is substantial such that the beautiful colours are gone, not that reefs that are healthy are not colourful below 1 metre.
So let me get this straight, you're a "Senior Systems Engineer/Architect", and you can't use Google or news websites, therefore you believe none exist?
How have you not been fired yet if you're that stupid and that incompetent?
GP is right, you're so far into the propaganda zone that you believe the insanely ridiculous idea that no right wing lies exist? That's astoundingly ignorant, I doubt you'll heed it, but hear this in case there's some dwindling hope for you, I'm telling you now; with a comment so obviously nonsensical you're so far into your self-created echo chamber that you have an astoundingly distorted view of the world, and desperately need to take a step back and consider that you might be wrong about some things, that you might have been misled about somethings, and that you've become an unquestioning mindless zealot for your cause.
Good luck, you'll need it stuck that far in the propaganda machine - and that applies to anyone in your situation, whether right or left, this aint a partisan issue, it's an issue of folks like you being screwed up with propaganda to the point of utter absurdity where even someone making a balanced non-partisan argument is "the enemy" like the GP was. Politics isn't broken because of the politicians, it's broken because voters like you put tribalism over rationality.
To take a proactive role in Panspermia. I think our terrestrial bacteria, water bears and extremophiles should be seeded on as many suitable planets as possible. We're not going to be around forever so we should definitely get as much potential for new sapient life to evolve somewhere else. Or at least an eon or two of life on some previously uninteresting backwater planet that had no previous chance of having life evolve the "hard way" on it.
I actually agree with you that neo-Nazi is an invalid designation, because it does indeed require adherence to a very specific ideology, and not all alt-right supporters agree with it.
What isn't an invalid designation though is far-right, and given that that term is already well understood, and does accurately describe the entirety of alt-right I'm not sure why, given that alt-right is against political correctness, and for calling a spade a spade, they don't just stick with this accurate and correct designation of far-right.
It's almost as if they know full well their views are despicable to the majority, and that they believe if they call themselves other than what they are that that makes it okay, but then that also makes them hypocritical in that they're creating a new PC term "alt-right" instead of just using the existing correct term, "far-right".
That's why it's really quite hard to take the alt-right movement seriously as anything other than a bunch of irrational far-right hypocrites, because there's no logic to the movement or the viewpoint when the name they use to identify in itself goes against one of their most precious beliefs - the idea of being able to call something what it is rather than hide behind PC terms like "alt-right".
Are you really so insecure in your beliefs and so naive that you think hiding behind alt-right somehow makes your far-right views less repugnant? Why are you so fearful of accepting your actual political leaning that you have to pretend it's something it's not by hiding behind an alternative name, much like how North Korea calls itself a Democratic People's Republic when it's anything but? Reality distortion by restricting yourself to far right news? Angry but deep down know you're focussing it on the wrong things?
I'm genuinely intrigued as to how you justify the very hypocrisy at the core of your movement and why you don't have the courage to stand by your political beliefs objective designation and just call it what it is.
"And exactly what "right wing" false claims are you talking about?"
All of them I imagine.
Before Xerox, five carbons were the maximum extension of anybody's ego.