Bkk Brian

There you go assuming I don't understand again. I understand what the facts tell us via evidence provided. I also understand that making predictions is variable as a direct result of policy actions taken in the future, solar activity is decreasing and the chart you referred to had the volcanic activity variables smoothed out. How Do We Know Climate Change Is Real? There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

I've already informed you why they are not exact because they are dependent on the outcomes of the policy makers.

Why? What's that got to do with policy makers decisions?

They do not control policy makers, this model is based predictions for the next 300 years based on what actions the policy makers put in place. The IPCC has no control over policy makers. That's the whole point of the report to give them the necessary information on what needs to be done and what will happen if they don't. IPCC report https://www.wri.org/insights/ipcc-climate-report

You give me one more chance? I'll ignore the idle remark and post the full graphic for you along with asking you, what do you find so strange, they have given different estimates based on how the world responds to climate change and what measures it puts in place. The SSP's differ due to policy decisions that will be taken by governments or not as the case may be.

Yes I read the link I just posted for you, that why I inserted in my post and he's correct the world is not going to end if it reaches an increase of 1.5%, your welcome. Regards the graph you posted earlier, its no longer in your post so its impossible to comment on it.

You can debate or troll, if you want to debate I'll be happy to do that, if you want to troll as above then carry on in your own little bubble

Of course he's optimistic, the main message from the IPCC report is to try and keep climate change below 1.5% increase with the policies its published. If the world can do that then its in a far better position to keep decreasing it but serious intervention is needed to achieve those targets and its impossible to say if all the worst polluting countries will contribute as they should. No one said the world would end. From the report: "Only with ambitious emissions cuts can the world keep global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C, the limit scientists say is necessary for preventing the worst climate impacts. Under a high-emissions scenario, the IPCC finds the world may warm by 4.4 degrees C by 2100 — with catastrophic results." Here's the English version of your link without paywall. https://www.dw.com/en/climate-change-do-not-overstate-15-degrees-threat/a-66386523 Still waiting for the link to your graphic by the way.

Article 4: FINANCIAL INVOLVEMENT IN DRUG AND PROSTITUTION I predict it'll go as far as MTG's impeachment filing a couple of months ago, that is, nowhere. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene introduces articles of impeachment against Biden You may also want to check up on: House Republicans are starting to realize that they don't have the votes to impeach Biden's Cabinet or even launch an official inquiry into the president.

Why the need for migration then? The UN International Organization for Migration has cited estimates of as many as 1 billion environmental migrants in the next 30 years, while more recent projections point to 1.2 billion by 2050, and 1.4 billion by 2060. Report on the Impact of Climate Change on Migration (October 2021)

So tell me, what is it I don't understand about science that makes you make such a false statement?

No please don't bother to explain it, just provide the link to that particular report or download pdf, the link I gave you is to the full report, that full report has hundreds of sub links, one of which you screen grabbed. While I wait here's a summary:

Really? Can you give me the download links for those figures or better still with a screenshot, I presume you have noted their assessment are based on confidence levels, are both those predictions in the high confidence bracket?

Indeed, its not clear cut and backs up my previous statement

When I read reference to MTG and the Jan 6th attacks I always think of her statements after the fact: Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said at a Republican event in New York over the weekend that if she had organized the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol "we would have won" and "it would've been armed," according to video from her appearance that was posted on social media. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-jan-6-capitol-attack-wouldve/story?id=95065444

Even better not to troll

What page section that you downloaded in the pdf's give a lot of different outcomes?

No problem, like I said you just can't please them: Republicans Are Mad They Got The Hunter Biden Special Counsel They Asked For Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) does not think much of the appointment of U.S. Attorney David Weiss as special counsel for the Justice Department’s investigation into Hunter Biden, the president’s son. Attorney General Merrick Garland “knows Weiss will protect Hunter,” Blackburn scoffed in a social media post on Saturday. But Weiss’ appointment is exactly what she and other congressional Republicans requested. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/republicans-are-mad-they-got-the-hunter-biden-special-counsel-they-asked-for_n_64d7d880e4b07d7a00216d90

Meanwhile in Texas the Supreme courts decision is now leading to tensions that are at odds with their own extreme abortion laws that they put in place following Roe v Wade. It seems the lawmakers there have just not thought this through at all................ DALLAS -- The state of Texas is questioning the legal rights of an “unborn child” in arguing against a lawsuit brought by a prison guard who says she had a stillborn baby because prison officials refused to let her leave work for more than two hours after she began feeling intense pains similar to contractions. The argument from the Texas attorney general's office appears to be in tension with positions it has previously taken in defending abortion restrictions, contending all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court that “unborn children” should be recognized as people with legal rights. It also contrasts with statements by Texas' Republican leaders, including Gov. Greg Abbott, who has touted the state's abortion ban as protecting “every unborn child with a heartbeat.” https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/texas-questions-rights-fetus-after-prison-guard-stillborn-102207307

Exactly. That was the implication of my post. I know quite a few Russians doing online work.

Exactly, trial is set for 2nd Jan and Jack Smith said it should take just four to six weeks.

They didn't drive a mini tank through the front door. They shouted first “Craig Robertson, come out with your hands up! This is the FBI.” When Robertson wouldn’t comply, agents attempted to break his front door down but they could not get it open. It was only then that they used a breaching vehicle to go through the window. Its not like this was the first time the FBI had visited him, the previous time they had already warned him about his posts on Social Media.

This sums it all up from that link "Trump supporters and other right-wingers have seized on his death to imply or claim that Robertson was executed for his political views — turning him into a martyr for free speech." He made numerous death threats that were far beyond normal free speech and pointed a gun at the FBI along with ignoring their commands. Had he complied then he would still be alive today and at home after having been interviewed by the FBI.

How do you know the church was only two blocks away? Because your wrong on him not having a criminal conviction before albeit from 2007.

Actually the IPCC is based on scientific evidence but then you obviously didn't read it