placeholder

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

You make an excellent point. I, for one, will now support the impeachment of Hunter Biden.

Someone else who wants to substitute semantics for science. What is it about so many of you denialists that you don't seem to understand the significance of the rate of change?

The previous high temperature heat record 38.6 °C (101.5 °F), set in Warnsveld in 1944, was broken on 24 July in Eindhoven (North Brabant) where the temperature reached 39.3 °C (102.7 °F).[69] The following day, 40.7 °C (105.3 °F) was measured in Gilze-Rijen (also North Brabant).[44][70][71] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_European_heat_waves

What Journal was it published in?

https://www.britannica.com/science/paleoclimatology

The science of climatology got its start in the 70s when computers became barely powerful enough to start crunching the necessary data. So who cares what people said before that? They simply didn't have the tools necessary to investigate.. Or maybe you believe that science is like fine wine: the older it is, the better.

Remember that he publicly blasted the Justice Dept for the same reason when he was President.

How about something called a carbon tax? This was actually a plan created by political conservatives as a way to use market forces to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, that plan was created by conservatives adopted an attitude that has been technically described as "Science, shmience."

More likely they'll say something like "it's summer, it's supposed to be hot." Because, you know, that's how science and scientists work. They don't deal with actual temperatures. Hot, warm, medium, cool, and cold are sufficient for them.

You mean no matter how much they slash and mutilate these programs, no matter how much the Tories expand private care, as long as these programs exist, the govt. is left wing? You really want to go with that?

You clearly don't understand the concept trends. If you start your baseline with an anomalous year, then sure, it's going to show cooling for a while. But as I pointed out,, and apparently to no avail, a similar event occurred in 1997-98, And denialists were claiming that it showed global warming wasn't a real thing. Now, that year, hot as it was, does not even rank in the top 10. Did global warming stop in 1998? No, but thanks to natural variability, volcanic eruptions, and relatively low solar activity, the rate of average global surface warming from 1998-2012 was slower than it had been for two to three decades leading up to it. How much slower depends on the fine print: which global temperature dataset you look at, whether it includes the Arctic, and the exact time periods you compare. Regardless, the big picture of long-term global warming remained unchanged. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/did-global-warming-stop-1998 Why 2023 is shaping up to be the hottest year on record Spiking temperatures in the world’s oceans and the arrival of El Niño weather conditions in the Pacific mean that 2023 is shaping up to be the hottest year on record, with researchers saying the planet is entering “uncharted territory”. The previous hottest year on record was 2016, which is also when the world was last in a warming El Niño weather pattern (although some agencies say 2020 also tied for the top spot). Now, temperature records this month suggest 2023 could be tracking close to 2016. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2378692-why-2023-is-shaping-up-to-be-the-hottest-year-on-record/

What the graph actually shows is that 2016 was the year of a major El nNno. Just like this year is shaping up to be. In major El Nino years, temperatures rise sharply. The same thing was said by denialists in the wake of the 1997-98 El Nino. That surface temperatures weren't as high as they were for that year therefore the climate was cooling. Now that anomalous year doesn't even rank in the top ten for average highest temperature. In fact, we've had La Ninas over the past 9 years, in which the average temperature tends to be cooler, and they all had a higher average temperature than that El Nino year.

Exxon actually did fund research in the 70s about the effects of greenhouse gases on climate. When their scientists concluded that the consequence of increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would be global warming, Exxon did the honorable thing and suppressed their research.

What kind of funding do you think is needs? This isn't lab work. Nor is it fieldwork.This is purely computational.

No, virtually no climatologists believe that the Milankovitch cycle or any other planetary cycle is responsible for the current episode of rapid warming. The last person to try something like that one on was a person named Valentina Zharkova who posited that some sort of orbital cycle was responsible for warming. Her paper got retracted after a major basic error was discovered in her work. Apparently, she failed to account for the fact that Planet Earth also exerts a gravitational field. https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/03/paper-that-claimed-the-sun-caused-global-warming-gets-retracted/ If so much debate is raging in the scientific community about a planetary cycle's effect on climate change, where are the research papers in support of such a theory?

Please share me me a source that says an FD-1023 is other than what the FBI says it is. It is actually their form, is it not? You're seriously claiming that the FBI is lying about the definition of their form? Whatever is behind the formulation of your believe, it sure ain't critical thinking.

I've provided strong independently verifiable evidence of what an FD-1023 is. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, provide it. I'm not going to hold my breath.

And it would certainly count as a credible source. Unfortunately, it's not exactly an indication of critical thinking or a love for truth to ignore exactly what the FD-1023 is and what it is not.

You clearly don't understand what an FD 1023 document is. "As many of you know, the FD-1023 is the form our special agents use to record raw, unverified reporting from confidential human sources (CHSs). FD-1023s merely document that information; they do not reflect the conclusions of investigators based on a fuller context or understanding. Recording this information does not validate it, establish its credibility, or weigh it against other information known or developed by the FBI in our investigations. https://socxfbi.org/SFSA/SFSA/Featured-Articles/Message-from-the-FBI-on-the-FD-1023-Request-from-Congress.aspx Do you understand what "unverified" means?

Say what you will about America's recent wars, at least they were far from our borders so massive and prolonged blowback was impossible for its opponents to accomplish. Can you imagine what the retaliation of enemies who share a very long border would look like? You think American citizens will cheer this incursion even if it means they'll be getting blown up in return? And for what? How can anyone be so fatuous like Ramaswamy as to believe that drugs are a supply side problem? Any drug. But fentanyl most of all, given how much power it packs into such a very small package. This idea is nuts. Anyone who believes otherwise has learned nothing from the past 50 years about what wars can and cannot accomplish.

Thanks for your enlightening comment. So much hard evidence there to think over.

Once again, no need to apologize. It was easy to understand. If someone has a problem understanding what you wrote it says a lot about them and nothing about you. Basically, their criticism is a form of snobbism. I think of you as being the Jack Kerouac of aseannow.com.