placeholder

These are my words? "Another nothing post from a guy using fossil fuels every minute."

One sure way to know that someone has got nothing is when they make it personal.

This is like someone calling himself a Christian but they don't believe that Jesus was the son of God. And whatever Marx's other beliefs might have been, they're not relevant to Marxism. This is like saying that because Marx disapproved of eating eggs, Marxists shouldn't eat eggs.

More irrelevant nonsense from you. Who is promoting cars or planes that run solely on solar power? And far more new renewable power plants are being built than fossil fuel power plants. At a Glance: How Renewable Energy Is Transforming the Global Electricity Supply Even as Fossil Energy Still Provides Most of the World’s Electricity, New Electricity Generating Capacity Is Dominated by Renewable Energy Projects https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2023/how-renewable-energy-is-transforming-the-global-electricity-supply.html Massive expansion of renewable power opens door to achieving global tripling goal set at COP28 https://www.iea.org/news/massive-expansion-of-renewable-power-opens-door-to-achieving-global-tripling-goal-set-at-cop28

Yes, among extreme right wingers there is this Pavlovian reflexive use of "Marxist" to mean anyone they disagree with. Above all else, Marxists believe that the state should own all means of production for the benefit of workers. Obviously nothing to do with abortion.

This is like saying there's wide disagreement about the effects of greenhouse gasses on global warming. Only if you count the ignoramuses who deny any connection between the 2. There isn't wide disagreement that the costs of solar has beaten coal for the past few years. And it's now beating gas as well. Solar Is Cheapest Energy Source Says IEA By Irina Slav - May 28, 2023, 10:00 AM CDT IEA: new solar projects are the cheapest source of power on a LCOE basis. Substantial cost related to renewables that gets overlooked on a regular basis is the need for storage capacity to offset the intermittency problem. The IEA calculates that on a value-adjusted basis—and with cost assumptions in place—solar comes in at $60 per MWh while gas is $20 more expensive at $80 per MWh. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Solar-Is-Cheapest-Energy-Source-Says-IEA.html

But here is news about a report from scientists: Getting to 100% renewables requires cheap energy storage. But how cheap? To spoil the ending: The answer is $20 per kilowatt hour in energy capacity costs. That’s how cheap storage would have to get for renewables to get to 100 percent. That’s around a 90 percent drop from today’s costs. While that is entirely within the realm of the possible, there is wide disagreement over when it might happen; few expect it by 2030. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/8/9/20767886/renewable-energy-storage-cost-electricity Form Energy to begin manufacturing iron air batteries in Weirton to stabilize electrical grid https://www.wesa.fm/environment-energy/2024-02-19/weirton-form-energy-battery-manufacturing

As usual, you've missed the point. Fossil fuels are now replaceable.

Thanks for the nostalgia for a time when there were no feasible replacements for fossil fuels. What's that got to do with the future?

More unproved, unbacked assertions from you. Got any evidence to back your claim up?

First off, the research on deaths from heat caused kidney disease is still in its early stages. In fact, it's not included in climate statistics since it's a newly noticed phenomenon. That figure of 12,000 has nothing to do with deaths caused by kidney disease. But I noticed that you ignored the fact that pollution caused by burning fossil fuels is responsible for a lot more than 2.8 million deaths per year. Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for 1 in 5 deaths worldwide New research from Harvard University, in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester and University College London, found that more than 8 million people died in 2018 from fossil fuel pollution, significantly higher than previous research suggested—meaning that air pollution from burning fossil fuels like coal and diesel was responsible for about 1 in 5 deaths worldwide. The study, “Global Mortality From Outdoor Fine Particle Pollution Generated by Fossil Fuel Combustion,” published in Environmental Research, is based on a groundbreaking analysis that enabled the researchers to directly attribute premature deaths from fine particulate pollution (PM 2.5) to fossil fuel combustion. “Often, when we discuss the dangers of fossil fuel combustion, it’s in the context of CO2 and climate change and overlook the potential health impact of the pollutants co-emitted with greenhouse gases,” said Dr. Joel Schwartz, Professor at Harvard Chan School and co-author of the study. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/news/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-responsible-for-1-in-5-deaths-worldwide/

Those numbers don't reflect all the health damage caused by climate change. For instance kidney disease. It's seen a huge rise, particularly in those who have to labor out of doors in increasing heat. Rising temperatures linked to kidney disease Scientists from Brazil and Australia have found evidence of a link between rising temperatures and renal diseases. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/01/climate-change-rising-temperatures-linked-to-kidney-disease/ And the fact is that the cause of global warming, the burning of fossil fuels, creates pollution which kills millions and millions yearly and impairs the health of millions more.

That's what you want it to mean. 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. He added, “Just as the U.S. economy was overexposed to mortgage risk in 2008, the economy today is over exposed to climate risk.” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-is-destabilizing-insurance-industry/ Home insurers cut natural disasters from policies as climate risks grow Some of the largest U.S. insurance companies say extreme weather has led them to end certain coverages, exclude natural disaster protections and raise premiums In the aftermath of extreme weather events, major insurers are increasingly no longer offering coverage that homeowners in areas vulnerable to those disasters need most. At least five large U.S. property insurers — including Allstate, American Family, Nationwide, Erie Insurance Group and Berkshire Hathaway — have told regulators that extreme weather patterns caused by climate change have led them to stop writing coverages in some regions, exclude protections from various weather events and raise monthly premiums and deductibles. https://archive.ph/mwZER

And why does being mentioned last make it of little or no account?

Right. All this information reported on comes from the world's leading scientific journals. So on the one hand, we have an anonymous poster on aseannow.com on one side of the issue, and actual scientific researchers on the other. I'm going to do the crazy thing and go along with the scientists. You've got nothing.

Even before the covid pandemic, world hunger was on the rise: Global hunger continues to rise, new UN report says 821 million people now hungry and over 150 million children stunted, putting hunger eradication goal at risk https://www.unicef.org/eap/press-releases/global-hunger-continues-rise-new-un-report-says Can you cite some evidence from scientific journals or the IPCC report that predicted that millions would have died already?

You really don't have a clue about the current state of research, do you? Antarctic ice sheet collapse could add 3 meters to sea-level rise The East Antarctic Ice Sheet could be in more danger of collapsing than previously thought, National Geographic reports. The ice sheet is the world's largest, holding 80% of the planet's ice. But some 400,000 years ago, a large chunk about the size of Arizona collapsed into the ocean, causing sea levels to rise by more than 3 meters. The worrying thing is that this happened during a period of relatively mild warmth, according to a study published yesterday in Nature. And it could happen again. https://www.science.org/content/article/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse-could-add-3-metres-sea-level-rise West Antarctic ice sheet faces ‘unavoidable’ melting, a warning for sea level rise Accelerating ice losses are all but “unavoidable” this century in vulnerable West Antarctic ice shelves as waters warm around them, according to new research. And the analysis could mean scientists were too conservative in predicting about one to three feet of sea level rise by 2100. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/10/23/sea-live-rise-antarctic-ice-loss/ Greenland losing 30m tonnes of ice an hour, study reveals A significant part of the Greenland ice sheet itself is also thought by scientists to be close to a tipping point of irreversible melting, with ice equivalent to 1-2 metres of sea level rise probably already expected. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/17/greenland-losing-30m-tonnes-of-ice-an-hour-study-reveals#:~:text=A recent study suggested the,level rise probably already expected.

The response to certain disasters, like hurricanes, has greatly improved thanks to greatly improved forecasting and transportation, and medical progress. But the consequences of other slow moving disasters like ocean acidification, sea level rise, and loss of glaciers, aren't so easily remedied

"The film includes segments intended to refute critics who say that global warming is unproven or that warming will be insignificant. For example, Gore cites the retreat of nearly all glaciers caused by melting over recent decades, showing nine cases, such as the Grinnel and Boulder Glaciers and Patagonia. He discusses the possibility of the collapse and melting of a major ice sheet in Greenland or in West Antarctica, either of which could raise global sea levels by approximately 20 feet (6m), flooding coastal areas and producing 100 million refugees. Melt water from Greenland, because of its lower salinity, could then halt the currents that keep northern Europe warm and quickly trigger dramatic local cooling there. It also contains various short animated projections of what could happen to different animals more vulnerable to global warming." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth#:~:text=The film includes segments intended,and Boulder Glaciers and Patagonia. None of this is inconsistent with climatological research.

This is your idea of evidence?

what would be wrong still? What predictions about glaciers, the severity of hurricanes, etc was wrong?

Always wrong? Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate? The majority of the film, covering issues like Himalayan Glaciers, Greenland and Antarctica losing ice, the severity of hurricanes and other weather phenomena, was accurate and represented the science as it stood. Since the release of the film, considerably more evidence has been found in support of the science and projections in the film. https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=187

Really? Offering someone else's opinion constitutes an endorsement? And as the article which you originally linked to and are now ignoring, Gore did not categorically state that such melting would occur.

Ultimately, so what? Gore is not a scientist. If it's science you want, go to scientific journals. There the consensus is overwhelming.

Here is the headline of the article you originally linked to: Al Gore did not ‘predict’ ice caps melting by 2013 but misrepresented data It goes into a great deal of detail about why what you are now claiming and that fox news article you linked to is a misrepresentation.