placeholder

Actually, if you had any real knowledge of who's attacking prostitution you'd know that it's mostly liberal state that are leading the way to decriminalization of prostitution. 5 of the 6 states mentioned here are blue states. https://reason.com/2023/03/17/states-try-to-reform-prostitution-laws-for-better-and-worse/

False "Pro-prostitution feminists hold that prostitution and other forms of sex work can be valid choices for women and men who choose to engage in it. In this view, prosttution must be differentiated from forced prostitution, and feminists should support sex worker activism against abuses by both the sex industry and the legal system." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_prostitution Feminists for Sex Workers: Our Manifesto https://www.eswalliance.org/the_femifesto You can be a feminist and a sex worker Sex workers deserve to be afforded the same dignity and respect as any other woman https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/you-can-be-a-feminist-and-a-sex-worker-8744176.html

Clearly, you're not familiar with the economic concept of externalities.

Unfortunately, slinging insults like that does say a lot about someone. And as for it not being directed at the IPCC. My entire comment was about the IPCC. So you went off on some unexplained tangent? "As stated previously, I read one of their reports and I felt like I didn't learn much." Given the exhaustive details the full report goes into, your comment about it being vague is bizarre. No you didn't. Here's what you claimed "I've read the IPCC report once. " "Concepts must be well defined. Period" And are you someone who wants to understand a text or a schoolmarm giving out grades. And you specifically said that the IPCC report doesnt address adaptation. It does. And you've clearly got no answer for how adaptation addresses the destruction of ecosystems.

Who says the plan is to reduce CO2 output only by a few percentage points. You think we can we just snap our finger and eliminate the use of fossil fuels?

The carbon tax is a tax on industry not individuals. It was meant to reflect the real cost of pollution and climate change. You know, externalities.

Another person substituting semantics for science. The issue isn't change. It's rate of change. The earths surface is warming at an accelerated rate of change.

Trying to pull a fast one? You concluded before thusly: "So, the world is ending because we are generating too much CO2," Now you've changed the meaning to "climage change ending the world as we know it" And if your referring to the natural world,, the answer to that is a big fat abvious yes. Glaciers are disappearing. Coral reefs are beginning to vanish, etc. Southern Europe is drying up. And if you're referring to the human world, the answer to that is yes too. Climate change is causing humans to migrate, helping to foment wars, making cities in warm climes a lot less liveable..

I don't think your question makes sense. Are you claiming that ozimoron is denying that CO2 generated by burning fossil fuels is not causing global warming?

You don't understand. People don't care whether or not they have jobs when it comes to the economy. They don't care how easy it is to find them. What they care about is....scratch that.

"Her low pay meant she was unable to continue paying rent for her mum and children - and they were forced to leave their accommodation." Becausse while that agency may be headed by evil S.O.B.s they wouldn't lie to the government. And there would be no way, they could report they were paying her a legal wage but actually weren't?

Well, since she said her family has been evicted, we know how she's paying the rent. She's not. And given the hours she works, she may make enough to feed her family. As for telling all to reporters, "Still frightened of her former employers, we're calling her Terri to protect her identity."

Who in this thread said "the world is ending because we are generating too much CO2." Try being truthful for a change. And why do you think climate change is only a concern of the left? Just because it's taken a perverse turn in the USA, that doesn't mean that whole word is divided on left right lines on this issue. And even in the USA, not too long ago, it was conservatives who proposed a carbon tax as a way to deal with global warming.

The number of hungry people has doubled in 10 countries. A new report explains why https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/09/16/1123523622/the-number-of-hungry-people-has-doubled-in-10-countries-a-new-report-explains-wh How climate change paved the way to war in Syria https://www.dw.com/en/how-climate-change-paved-the-way-to-war-in-syria/a-56711650 Conflict and Climate https://unfccc.int/blog/conflict-and-climate#:~:text=Sudan's civil war is often,conflict%2C but along indirect pathways. Climate Change Is Fueling Migration. Do Climate Migrants Have Legal Protections? https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/climate-change-fueling-migration-do-climate-migrants-have-legal-protections

What has this got do do with your obviously false claim that "25 yrs ago, we used to get solid months of 100°F +/- for a couple months in the Memphis, TN area." How does that data you presented support your claim that you "used to get sold months of 100°F."

Thanks for revealing that your claims to rationality were just a facade. Comments like "Captain Obvious" "unimaginateve morons" show where you really stand. Had you really wanted to know what the five areas of concern are all you would have had to have done is do a search in Google. It took me less than a minute to find this: "The IPCC's five reasons for concern are: threats to endangered species and unique systems, damages from extreme climate events, effects that fall most heavily on developing countries and the poor within countries, global aggregate impacts (i.e., various measurements of total social, economic and ecological impacts),[2][3] and large-scale high-impact events." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasons_for_concern#:~:text=The IPCC's five reasons for,%2C economic and ecological impacts)%2C ANd of course, that was a summary of what they had gone into in more detail before in the few pages before. Had you actually read the report, or even glanced at its table of contents, which clearly you haven't, you would know that the those "unimaginative morons" in the IPCC have not ignored the very issue of adaptation: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-ii/ But given what the consequences of anthropogenic climate, I'm not sure what effect building condos to withstand tornadoes is going to have on ecosystems. Or why one wouldn't want to avert as much change and degradation of the environment as is possible to spare that damage and to reduce expense of adaptation..

In other words, you've got nothing.

Wow, not long before your post I predicted that someone would make a claim like the one you just did. Apparently, to you hot is hot and how hot doesn't matter. As for your false claim that "25 yrs ago, we used to get solid months of 100°F +/- for a couple months in the Memphis, TN area."... here's a link to the national weather service that shows the average high for each day in july which is typically the hottest month. The low 90's is more like it. https://www.weather.gov/meg/climatememjul

The woman in question pretty clearly explained how it could be done. The employer in the UK has a strong connection to a powerful person back in her home country who could make life miserable for her family if she complains.

I have no idea what your point is unless you mean that I don't believe that there is a conspiracy among climatologists to promote falsehoods.

Another conspiracy theorist.

Yes, when it comes to scientific issues, creativity is crucial. Far more relevant than citing the findings of scientists.

Because nothing serious is already happening due to global warming?

Since you haven't stated your position here in even broad strokes, I reckon you're going to have to get used to being called a denialist. Of course, that might be altered if you actually divulge the relevant aspects of your stance.

There are climate denialists, there are climate alarmists, and then there are are climatologists. You know, climate scientists. And their consensus is that it's going to get pretty grim if the average temperature increase from the baseline goes over 1.5C and a lot grimmer if it goes over 2 C. You can read the latest IPCC summary report. It begins with an executive summary. If you want to see a summary of the summary, so to speak, of how their risk assessment has grown grimmer over time, you can skip the details and just go to page 181, a segment of which is quoted here. (AR5 is the previous report.) Increased Reasons for Concern There are multiple lines of evidence that since AR5 the assessed levels of risk increased for four of the five Reasons for Concern (RFCs) for global warming levels of up to 2°C (high confidence). The risk transitions by degrees of global warming are now: from high to very high between 1.5°C and 2°C for RFC1 (Unique and threatened systems) (high confidence); from moderate to high risk between 1°C and 1.5°C for RFC2 (Extreme weather events) (medium confidence); from moderate to high risk between 1.5°C and 2°C for RFC3 (Distribution of impacts) (high confidence); from moderate to high risk between 1.5°C and 2.5°C for RFC4 (Global aggregate impacts) (medium confidence); and from moderate to high risk between 1°C and 2.5°C for RFC5 (Large-scale singular events) (medium confidence). {3.5.2} https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2022/06/SR15_Chapter_3_HR.pdf