placeholder

As is typical of you, when you've got nothing you make it personal.

That's your solution? You think industries that pollute are going to care about Bill Gates setting an example? You've got nothing.

Given that the scientific research from thousands of articles supports anthrogenic climate change, how to explain that except in one of two ways: 1) anthropogenic climate change is a real phenomenon 2) the scientific community is conspiring to suppress evidence that disproves existence of anthropogenic climate change

I guess the same to be said restricting pollution of the air and water. Fond of dirty air and dirty water much?

How is this different from other taxes? Is all taxation enacted in furtherance of some conspiracy?

Wow! So unexpected! Offering a conspiracy theory and providing no evidence that such a conspiracy exists. You should publish this in The Journal of Because I Said So.

Your opposition to Sunak will certainly make some voters think twice... about voting for the opposition.

I read the definitive rebuttal to this. it is in the esteemed scientific journal known as The Daily Mail. It states quite conclusively that Mark Zuckerberg has recently bought more beachfront property in Hawaii. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2792238/mark-zuckerberg-buys-700-acres-hawaii-island-100m.html

Yes, we must do everything we can to protect Little Oil against Big Green. It's a fight worth choking for.

I'm all for giving her credit for her contribution to the issue. But I used Tyndall because I wanted a rebuttal based on airtight evidence.

Whiletechnically the UK is in recession, unemployment is very low. Inflation has declined sharply. For most people those two issues are far more important than GDP growth.

As opposed to the equitable way that fossil fuel companies distribute their profits now? Or how the rulers of various oil producing states lavish those funds on their citizens and stint on themselves? At least that must be the case in the alternative universe that you clearly inhabit.

Another irrelevant deflection about celebrities and such that has nothing at all to do with the science.

Another person who confuses science with celebrity. First off, why is it hypocrisy? Again, even if they lose the property, will that affect their standard of living? What's more, do you know how high Obama's property is above sea level? Do you know whqt rate the sea level is rising there? As for why it's called Greenland? The story goes that Erik the Red named it Greenland to attract settlers. But no one really knows why. Including you. Which is not to say that Greenland was never green. "Greenland was once truly green, according to new research which shows that the southern highlands of the country used to be home to a lush boreal forest... The scientists reached their conclusion after analysing ancient DNA from the base of an ice core taken at the Dye 3 site in southern Greenland... The samples were dated back to between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, making them the oldest authenticated DNA obtained so far." https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/28003-greenland-once-truly-green-scientists-reveal

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.