placeholder

Actually, we're still in an ice age. This is what's called an interglaciation period. And that doesn't explain why the rate of warming has accelerated so rapidly and in line with the consensus of climatologists.

That's a dubious generalization.

Why don't I ask her mum what?

The issue isn't how much ice is left it's how much ice it's losing and going to lose. That melted ice is what's going to affect sea levels and currents.

"Foote’s results were not definitive, Hayhoe says, with too many uncontrolled factors in the experiment." https://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/09/02/the-woman-who-identified-the-greenhouse-effect-years-before-tyndall/

Far less people are dying because 1)Huge improvements in advanced warnings 2) Faster transportation to faster escape 3)Improved disaster relief 4)Improvements in medical care I don't care about your anecdotal assessments of construction methods As for rampant inflation...the world had a brief bout of rampant inflations following the covid epidemic. Most of the 21st century has been marked by low inflation. In addition, as I already pointed out, what's stopping insurance companies from raising their rates instead of fleeing?

We'll be flying from Chiang Rai to Ubon in a few days accompanied by our nine year old niece. Her mother is already there. Do we need any kind of documentation to allow her to fly with us?

Thanks for the conspiracy theory. What don't you understand about the fact that they are abandoning markets? Not exactly a route to profitability. And what do mortality rates have to do with damaged property? There are obvious reasons why mortality has gone down from natural disasters that have nothing to do with their intensity.

Surprise! Surprise! more mind reading from a right winger. As for whatever beachfront property Bill Gates may have, given his vast wealth, even if it all disappeared under water tomorrow, I doubt that it would affect his financial situation much. For those whose financial interests are keenly affected by climate change it's a different story: As climate catastrophes rise, reinsurers reduce risks Monaco (AFP) – Natural disasters are now happening so frequently that reinsurers -- the firms that sell insurance to insurance companies -- are scaling back their exposure to such risks... Reinsurers identified climate change as the biggest risk they now face in a survey by PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation. "Climate change is the number-one risk once again as reinsurers bear the brunt of the cost of catastrophe claims from an ever-increasing number of extreme weather events," the report said. https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230913-as-climate-catastrophes-rise-reinsurers-reduce-risks Climate Change Is Destabilizing Insurance Industry The president of one of the world’s largest insurance brokers warned Wednesday that climate change is destabilizing the insurance industry, driving up prices and pushing insurers out of high-risk markets. Aon PLC President Eric Andersen told a Senate committee that climate change is injecting uncertainty into an industry built on risk prediction and has created “a crisis of confidence around the ability to predict loss.” Reinsurance companies, which help insurers pay catastrophic losses, “have been withdrawing from high-risk areas, around wildfire and flood in particular,” Andersen told the Senate Budget Committee. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-is-destabilizing-insurance-industry/ Homes in parts of the U.S. are "essentially uninsurable" due to rising climate change risks "The insurance industry is raising rates, demanding higher deductibles or even withdrawing coverage in regions hard-hit by climate change, such as Florida and Louisiana, which are prone to flooding, and California because of its wildfire risk. " https://www.cbsnews.com/news/insurance-policy-california-florida-uninsurable-climate-change-first-street/

So who exactly is endorsing this document?

The question is not whether or not these attacks are verified, but whether they are evidence of genocidal intent.

The site published the document. It doesn't mean that all or even most of its staff or board endorsed it. It was not published as a document emanating from Genocide Watch.

Also, this document was published on www.genocidewatch.com This same website features on interview with , Dr. Gregory H. Stanton, Founding President, Genocide Watch. He points out that as International Law currently stands, to prove a charge of genocide, it has to be established that genocide was the sole intent of the parties doing the killing. He notes that this is like saying that someone couldn't be convicted of murder if it was committed during a robbery. https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/can-the-world-court-stop-israel

Can you share with us who signed on to this statement? I didn't notice any names endorsing it. I did go to the originating site and found that I could sign on to it and claim whatever position and degree I chose to. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeAb9JlXytEEKwyrzg8IYUivDe_4Ebe8tdbJe2kxRlupdWh9w/viewform?vc=0&c=0&w=1&flr=0 I don't know whether the information I provided would be vetted or not. I've seen other such documents offered on the internet. For example: Public Statement: Scholars Warn of Potential Genocide in Gaza https://opiniojuris.org/2023/10/18/public-statement-scholars-warn-of-potential-genocide-in-gaza/

I'm sure you think that what you posted is relevant, but you failed to explain why.

If, as you claim, she's aiming at angsty teen age girls, she's missing her target: More Than Half Of U.S. Adults Say They’re Taylor Swift Fans, Survey Finds Some 45% of avid fans are millennials, people between the ages of 27 and 42, while 23% are baby boomers, 21% are Gen Xers and just 11% are members of Gen Z—those 26 and under. https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisadellatto/2023/03/14/more-than-half-of-us-adults-say-theyre-taylor-swift-fans-survey-finds/?sh=110354146877

Since you've got nothing in the of fact to make a refutation, you make it personal instead.

There is a huge disconnect between the headline of this article and the text of this article from the JNS. While the headlines screams " more worries about terrorists", the article itself only criticizes the emphasis some news services place on collateral casualties. What the article itself is criticizing is the absence of cheerleading.

I knew about her but I guess it depends on what is meant by "proven". Since Tyndall's results were definitive I went with him.

What neither have you seem to recognize that it wasn't so much the fact that Suozzi won as that he beat the polling by a substantial margin. The polls had him ahead by anywhere from 1 to 4 points. This has been a consistent feature not only of the midterms, but of subsequent Congressional elections since.

Another right winger who apparently believes that People magazine and such are scientific journals.

On the other hand: Climate Model Criticized for Unrealistic Scenarios, Raises Awareness of Potential Impact A recent climate model predicting a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), triggering a new ice age, has stirred debate among scientists. The Dutch team from Utrecht University published their work, suggesting that the AMOC could reach a tipping point, leading to severe consequences for the climate system and humanity. However, British scientists have criticized the study for relying on unrealistic scenarios that do not align with actual climate conditions. https://isp.today/climate-model-criticized-for-unrealistic-scenarios-raises-awareness-of-potential-impact/ The Carbon Brief Interview: Prof Jonathan Bamber https://www.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-interview-prof-jonathan-bamber/

Apparently, the publicity hasn't worked since you clearly have no idea what her music is like or what the demographic breakdown of her fans is.

You seem to be missing the point. There's no evidence that this kid is tracking her for her political opinions. And Taylor Swift has plenty of reasons to want to stop him tracking her that have nothing to do with politics. Like lunatic stalkers: Accused Taylor Swift stalker arrested 3 times in 5 days outside of her NYC home https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/music/2024/01/25/david-crowe-taylor-swift-stalker-suspect-arrest/72351226007/ And she should have expected from Fox News lunatic right wing conspiracy theories about the nature of her relationship with a football player?

What's this kid tracking her jet got to do with her political opinions? Just because you're apparently obsessed about that do you think he is? She's probably the biggest celebrity in the world now and has been for a while. You don't think that's reason enough for him to track her?