placeholder

What are you on about? That Japanese scientist who got the Nobel Prize for his climate change research created an algorith that predicts the rise in global temperatures very accurately. In fact, climate models, even early ones, have mostly been very accurate in predicting the level of global warming. A few that weren't only got it wrong because they overestimated the quantity of greenhouse gases would be emitted into the atmosphere. They didn't foresee environmental laws requiring greater fuel efficiency and similar effects Even 50 Years Ago, Climate Models Were Way More Accurate Than Deniers Claim t's a common refrain from those who question mainstream climate science findings: The computer models scientists use to project future global warming are inaccurate and shouldn't be trusted to help policymakers decide whether to take potentially expensive steps to rein in greenhouse gas emissions. A new study effectively snuffs out that argument by looking at how climate models published between 1970 - before such models were the supercomputer-dependent behemoths of physical equations covering glaciers, ocean pH and vegetation, as they are today - and 2007. https://www.sciencealert.com/decades-old-climate-models-did-make-accurate-predictions As for prescribing suitable modes of action, again, you are just dead dead wrong. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/

Why does a question being broad make it meaningless? The rise in greenhouse gases due to human activity is warming the oceans and atmosphere at a far faster and increasingly fast pace than before the Industrial Revolution. What exactly is meaningless about that?

So you have say, 50,000 climatologists who are not doing research because they are motivated to do actual science but because of the big bucks that everyone knows climatologists earn? And instead of challenging others' false research they contrive their results to support it? Do you have any idea of how bonkers your claim is? How much lockstep would be required for the scientific review process to function as you claim?

Is "mess" really an adequate term? Maybe if you're trying to mitigate the horror of it and treat it as though the onus for it doesn't lie on one side or the other.

So the wealthy and influential are responsible for this but are acting individually? And you don't think the climate movement is a conspiracy even though 99.9% of climatological research supports human caused global warming? So those 99.9% have independently arrived at their false conclusions? Really?

You got a source for that? Care to share it?

Really? You got some kind of economic analysis for that? You think fossil fuel companies agree with your contention? Fact, there are huge economic developments in line with what climatologists are reporting. Just not huge enough. You offer nothing but conspiratorial assertions unbacked by an kind of factual analysis. You've got nothing.

Really? You got some evidence to support that? Because I did a search and I couldn't find any from the extreme left as you call it. But from MAGA supporters, which I guess is what you mean by the extreme right, there's a superabundance. Maybe you're referring to the time when those extreme leftists raided the Capitol in search of Nancy Pelosi?

Another nonsensical deflection. Why do you think what the wealthy and influential and selfish do has any bearing on the facts of the threats posed by climate change? Why pay any attention to anyone but actual climatologists?

A very tendentious assumption that takes no account of the power of the wealthy to alter tax policies and other laws to favor themselves. There is this notion among the right, that empirical evidence doesn't support, that the lower the tax rate, the greater the incentive to produce. Empirical evidence shows otherwise. Right now, extreme poverty may be at the lowest level in history. But how long is that going to continue? Already some densely populated areas of the world are being threatened by bouts of extreme heat that already is approaching the limits of human toleration. And it's not just the urban heat island effect. Rural India is already experiencing heat waves so extreme that it's dangerous to work during the daytime. And further increases are already baked in, so to speak. And not just heat. Thanks to anthropogenic climate change, the atmosphere holds more water. Combine that with the rapid rate of glacial melting, and you get Pakistan 2022 where a third of the country was underwater. And climactic conditions are only going to get more severe. As climatologists point out, there is a huge difference between the world at 1.5 degrees centigrade warmer and 2.0. And the former already looks to be out of reach.

You're seriously blaming the efforts of something called the "stop having kids" crowd? Really? you think it's a bad thing that unmarried teenagers aren't having children they can't support? As for the rest, whose arm is being twisted? What evidence do you have that this has anything to do with anything other than people rationally choosing not to have so many children? You think in fully developed nations one income is enough for people to enjoy a standard of living they aspire to? Those days are long gone. And the fact that the means to make that choice i.e. birth control is readily available?

Originally there were 4 codefendants in this case. 2 pleaded guilty. One got convicted. And Steve Bannon got pardoned. Unfortunately for Bannon, he can still be prosecuted by a state. And, in fact, a NY district attorney is doing just that. Given the fate of the other 3 defendants, the odds look pretty good that if Bannon doesn't plead out, he'll be convicted, too.

What I've noticed isn't discussed here is the unequal consumption of resources. The wealthiest 1 percent of the world's population generates twice as much carbon emissions as does the bottom 50%. https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-richest-1-percent-more-double-emissions-poorest-half-humanity

Cheer up. Sub-Saharan Africa is still growing rapidly in population. Europe, at least, can benefit from its proximity and surplus population.

That kind of list by itself t really isn't very useful. It takes no account of the population of these countries. Of the top 10 countries listed, only Saudi Arabia and Austral have a population of over 10 million and most of them a lot fewer than that. The number 1 country, Palau has less than 20,000 people. #2 Qatar has about 3 million Here's another list from that page organized by total emissions China — 11680.42 United States — 4535.30 India — 2411.73 Russia — 1674.23 Japan — 1061.77 Iran — 690.24 Germany — 636.88 South Korea — 621.47 Saudi Arabia — 588.81 Indonesia — 568.27 Both numbers have to be factored in.

Even if it were true that all those Pacific islands were rising (it isn't) that would still constitute a tiny fraction of all the land mass above water. And believe it or not, the continents aren't built on coral reefs. As for Shoreham beach you were scrupulously measuring the seal level for 62 years? Rising sea levels threaten the south-east "Dr Raymond Ward, principal lecturer in physical geography in the School of Environment and Technology, said: ‘in the south-east sea level is currently 21cm higher than in 1901 and is rising by 4mm per year, but predictions are that the rate of rise will increase over the next 20, 50 and 100 years’. And he warned: “Climate change is exceptionally serious in the south-east. If you get a big storm surge and the sea level is higher, it could overwhelm our current defences.” Dr Ward said the rise in sea level in the south-east was predominantly caused by climate change linked to an increase in methane and CO2." https://www.brighton.ac.uk/news/2019/rising-sea-levels-threaten-the-south-east

I think it's very likely that they will gain a majority in the House at least. But what makes this so ridiculous is that William Barr was AG for most of the 2nd half of Trump's term in office. He appointed an obviously biased prosecutor to try and prove there was a conspiracy in the Justice Dept to get Trump. He completely failed at that. The DOJ also had plenty of opportunity to investigate Biden's alleged ties to various corrupt schemes. What makes these true believers think that the House and/or the Senate can accomplish what the DOJ couldn't?

I've been waiting for someone else to comment on the quite blatant anti-semitism to be found in the last sentence of SunnyinBangrak's post. Given his political stances, it's not surprising coming from him. The game goes for the these 2 members who approved of his comment:

I think he means either all the foolish people who believe that all human beings live on one planet or all the foolish people who believe that the Earth is very nearly a perfect sphere.

Apparently, Musk disagrees with you: Elon Musk says Twitter can't become 'a free-for-all hellscape,' should be 'warm and welcoming' https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2022/10/27/elon-musk-says-twitter-hellscape/10616726002/ Elon Musk plans Twitter content moderation council as questions about Trump return loom https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/28/musk-plans-twitter-content-moderation-council-as-questions-about-trump-return-loom.html

It's a country where citing confidential government economic statistics is a capital crime. So not exactly friendly to leaks, is it?

I guess it's too difficult for the right wing to denounce his anti-Semitism while expressing sympathy for his condition? For them is that like walking and chewing gum at the same time?

Who is they? Climatologist? You got some research papers to cite to back up your claim that this is what climatologists were predicting? You've got nothing like the usual garbage. And I guess this is one case where recycling garbage is not a good thing.

You're right. There are plenty of independent news sources to refute such nonsense.

One of the big lies of climate science denialists is that climate science is very complex. Actually the basic thesis that greenhouse gases are causing global warming is a very simple one. It was put forth in a scientific formulation by a Japanese scientist in 1966. He had comparatively very primitive computers to rely on. And his predictions have been born out. For which he won the Nobel Prize. The only way your comment about the consensus of climatologist would be possible is if there were some kind of conspiracy. Human caused climate change is as established a scientific theory as any theory can be. At this point it's like denying the predictive ability of Newtonian physics.