Post #3888939

RE: https://fediscience.org/@rahmstorf/116935538264736579 I see the BBC article actually as top example for anti-alarmism and impact denial. He uses rhetorical tools to obfuscate facts, falsifies facts so impacts sound even desirable, attests decades of experience to Prof Waters but none to Stefan, … In nearly every paragraph you find deliberate lies and impact denial. He claims that some studies would show that AMOC has not slowed down. But avid followers of Rahmstorf know: every study agrees with the slowdown rate. Even AR6 attests slowdown. He claims that East Canada receives warm water when the Gulfstream jumps North due to convection shutdown. Sounds nice for East Canada eh. That's why he writes it. But the jump only goes to 40°N and doesn't warm waters anywhere near Canada. So why make it sound as if? Because it's his agenda: climate impact denial to the extent even of falsifying facts. That the wind-driven part of the AMOC around Antarctica won't slow down does not mean, as he falsely implies, that AMOC can't collapse. His agenda is clearly: invent stories that make the real risk for England go away so that the public and politics won't act on the ALARM. Pure A-holery and certainly not "excellent".