placeholder

If they were competitors of Twitter, it would be illegal. But they're not. And, of course, at this juncture, it's kind of absurd to claim that Twitter is a free speech site when Musk has repeatedly silenced his critics and those whose political opinions he disagrees with.

Or maybe Iran already has retaliated? Just not the expected target. Several U.S. personnel injured in suspected rocket attack at Al Asad air base: officials The attack comes as Iran vows to attack Israel https://www.foxnews.com/world/several-u-s-personnel-injured-suspected-rocket-attack-al-asad-air-base-officials

You cite no facts backed by links even to a non-credible source, much less a credible one. However, I do agree with your characterization of " the idea that we can stop it changing if only we all drive an EV or pay more taxes, or kill all the ruminants on the planet and eat bugs instead," is nonsense. Of course, it's nonsense of your own invention. Climatologist do no claim that any one of these actions by itself can solve the problem. That is your own invention. You compound the nonsense by asserting that it's irrelevant whether climate "is changing faster than before." If you were offered 2 investment options, equally secure, but one that offers a rate of return 1% and another that offers a rate of 10%, you would judge that difference to be irrelevant, too?

Here is a link to an excellent explanation of why certain gases exert a greenhouse effect and why there are differing degrees of potency: https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/what-makes-methane-more-potent-greenhouse-gas-carbon-dioxide

The calculations of methane's potency as a greenhouse gas depend on how long into the future that potency is projected. Because methane decays much more rapidly than CO2, the longer the projected timespan, the lower that methane/CO2 ratio is. Over 20 years it's 80 times as potent; over 100 years, 28 times as potent. This links to an excellent article about how this works and why different lengths of time were chosen in the first place https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-do-we-compare-methane-carbon-dioxide-over-100-year-timeframe-are-we-underrating

The only plans I have hear about are those that call for Arab nations like the UAE to send their troops to maintain law and order and suppress military activity in Gaza. It would take a remarkable degree of naivete to believe that other arab nations would want to be seen as Israel's enforcer. And why would a guerilla force be easy to destroy when leaderless? Why is a highly structured hierarchy necessary to a guerilla war? As for ordinary citizens turning on Hamas, any evidence that's happened yet?

Sure. After all, how could a guerilla movement thrive given that Israel doesn't want to occupy Gaza. Clearly, with no stable authority installed, Hamas is just going to disappear. Because that's happened never before in these kind of wars but the 100th time is the charm.

And the best thing about that is, once he's dead, the problem is solved. No one will be there to replace him. And the guerilla war, which is what the situation is now, will evaporate. Yippee.

So what's your point? What does it mean to say "But we won't know until it happens." What won't we know?

Well, on the one hand there's an unsupported opinion by an anonymous member of aseannow..com, and on the other, the conclusions of climatologists associated with NASA. It's a tough choice to make, but I'll go with the climatologists.

You seem bizarrely resistant to the fact that the potency of greenhouse gasses is not a matter for legitimate debate. It's been measured in laboratories. The knowledge of their potency goes all the way back to the 19th century. And their exact potency was determined long before anthropogenic climate change became an issue.

More gobbledygook. There have been many polarity flips. Not much evidence for disasters.

But who exactly is expecting what impact? This are reading that show a net energy imbalance and all you've got is this? Some kind of vague generalization?

The total number of people employed keeps rising. But as I pointed out above, when there's strong demand for workers, those who previously were categorized as discouraged workers, start to look again for work. That can raise the percentage of the unemployed even though more people are working.

Still very low by historical standards. And the fact is that the economy is still packing on jobs. This means that lots of those now looking for work were previously categorized as discouraged workers so not counted as looking for work encouraged by the strong labor market.

I guess you missed the chanting about real GDP growth, pay gains in real dollars particularly for those at the lower end of the payscale, and the huge number of people being added to payrolls. I also noted the bizarre chanting over the past year coming from the right about how the economy was in disastrous shape.

The earth's magnetic field has flipped many times. No, We're Not All Doomed by Earth's Magnetic Field Flip https://archive.ph/ebYp4#selection-4587.0-4587.55

Warren Buffet has made no secret of the fact that he thinks stock valuations are too high. Not the same thing as believing that the economy is due for a crash.

The stock market is not the economy.

This is what is called a "When did you stop beating your wife" question.

As the Noble Memorial Economics prize winner Paul Samuelson once remarked, "The stock market has predicted nine out of the last five recessions." https://quoteinvestigator.com/2023/11/01/predict-nine/?amp=1 So this sharp drop is hardly conclusive.

First off, most models have predicted the overall rate of global warming very accurately. Even those old modals that predated the massive computing power that subsequently became available. Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming Study debunks idea that older models were inaccurate Climate change doubters have a favorite target: climate models. They claim that computer simulations conducted decades ago didn't accurately predict current warming, so the public should be wary of the predictive power of newer models. Now, the most sweeping evaluation of these older models—some half a century old—shows most of them were indeed accurate. https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming Since these models were based on the warming properties of greenhouses gasses, our comments about CO2 are just obfuscation. The same goes for your comment about the Earth's shape. It differs very, very slightly from a sphere. "The Earth’s rotation creates an outward force that is highest at the equator and zero at the poles. Since the Earth is not perfectly solid throughout, this force results in the Earth being ‘squashed’ into a slightly flattened sphere... The diameter at the poles is about 12,714km and at the equator is about 12,756km; hence the amount of flattening (or ‘oblateness’) is only about 0.3 per cent." https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/why-isnt-the-earth-a-perfect-sphere And satellites have been used to measure the energy balance since 1997 Direct Observations Confirm That Humans Are Throwing Earth's Energy Budget off Balance https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3072/direct-observations-confirm-that-humans-are-throwing-earths-energy-budget-off-balance/

Where don't you get your news from? U.S. Oil And Gas Production Are Ahead Of Last Year’s Record Pace Last year marked a record for U.S. oil production with an average daily production of 12.93 million barrels per day (BPD). That record was 5% greater than the previous record of 12.31 million bpd set in 2019. However, current data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) shows that average daily production thus far in 2024 is 13.12 million bpd — 7.1% ahead of the production level of a year ago and 1.4% higher than last year’s record pace. U.S. natural gas production tells a similar tale. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2024/04/26/us-oil-and-gas-production-are-ahead-of-last-years-record-pace/ https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DCOILWTICO What do you think would be the effect on oil and gas prices if the US greatly accelerated production of oil and gas? Not exactly an effective way to pay down the debt. As for Democrats' war on the middle class...it's not Democrats who have massively slashed taxes on the wealthy. Or who consistently try to undermine Social Security. The latest attack goes to the Trump administrationh which changed the way inflation was computed with the result that benefits to the elderly are lower. The Republicans also opposing measure to impose the Social Security Tax on higher levels of income. And have no problem with leaving millions of Americans with no affordable access to health insurance.

Yes the climate is always changing. But the thing is it's about rate of change. And the data is overwhelming at this point that greenhouse gases are responsible for the increased rate of change.

I see you get your information from Qanon. Not surprising.