placeholder

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.

Your comment makes no sense. Richard Lindzen, one of the leading scientists denying global warming made a bet that global average temperature would fall rather than rise. Maybe the bet would be worth it at those odds, but do you seriously believe that he just made that bet to make a possible killing?

You clearly didn't read the link you cited. Gore was referring to a prediction made by a climate researcher. He got that prediction somewhat wrong but he never claimed what you said he did. And you're also wrong about everybody claiming that temperatures would continue to rise. In fact, climate change denialists said just the opposite. They claimed that in the 21st century temperatures would decline. Richard Lindzen, one of the leading denialists, actually publicly offered to bet that in 20 years the average global temperature would actually decline. "Professor Lindzen had been willing to bet that global temperatures would drop over the next 20 years. No bet was agreed on that; Dr Annan said Prof Lindzen wanted odds of 50-1 against falling temperatures, so would win $10,000 if the Earth cooled but pay out only £200 if it warmed." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/aug/19/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment#:~:text=Professor Lindzen had been willing,£200 if it warmed. And he was far from alone in making that prediction.

False. It's not the same old same old Major insurance companies are actually refusing to take on new properties and some are even abandoning the California market. California loses 2 more property insurers in growing crisis "However, as a rising number of insurers have limited coverage or exited the state, some homeowners are left with only the insurance option of last resort, the government-created FAIR Plan. Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara is trying to stem the exodus with a new “Sustainable Insurance Strategy,” which includes rules that insurers must write at least an average of 85% of their California market share in high wildfire risk communities." https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/california-loses-two-more-property-insurers-growing-crisis...

No, I've heard and read of the right wing hysteria about Black Rock. But before I get to that, as I noted previously, Larry Fink is CEO of Blackrock. The sources I cited were McKenzie Woods, Lazard, and Ernst & Young. As for Blackrock, I've got news for you, they aren't boycotting fossil fuels as the loons in states like Texas maintain. Even BlackRock Funds Buying Oil Stocks Are Banned by Texas ESG Fight Texas bars its public pensions from investing in 350 funds run by asset-management giants such as BlackRock Inc. and Invesco Ltd. because a key Republican state official says they “boycott” the oil and gas industries. But a Bloomberg News analysis found that the 72 BlackRock funds on the prohibited list have invested more than $2 billion in the oil industry, while an Invesco fund allocates about 20% to oil and natural gas companies, some of which are also Texas-based. https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/even-blackrock-funds-buying-oil-stocks-are-banned-by-texas-esg-fight-1.2020179 Or is Bloomberg lying, too?

They weren't behind paywalls for me. I don't subscribe to them. And it's pretty bizarre that you repeatedly made unfounded statements without having actually read the texts. But here are links I created using archive.ph. The first is to the Vox article that explains what it would take for renewables to power 100% of the U.S. grid. https://archive.ph/45Grt https://archive.ph/C3j8x https://archive.ph/pVVRv https://archive.ph/izGU7

It's hard to resist jeering at someone who repeatedly tells the same falsehood: the 2 companies I cited as examples are manufacturing real batteries for real use in the real world. What don't you understand about that?

The potency of CO2 as a greenhouse gas was proved in the 19th century by the eminent Irish Physicist, John Tindall. Have you been sleeping for the past 150 or ss years?

I got news for you. Languages change over time. That includes connotations. Not surprising to find fossilized thinking in a fan of fossil fuel.

What pie in the sky? They exist. They have batteries in operation at power plants. Their new 765 milllion dollar plant is about to open. Their batteries are being successfully used. It's headed by Mateo Jaramillo, the former head of the battery division of Tesla. And it's not just this company. There are lots more. For example: Natron Energy starts manufacturing ‘50,000+ cycle-life’ sodium-ion batteries at Michigan factory Natron Energy has started commercial-scale operations at its sodium-ion battery manufacturing plant in Michigan, US, and elaborated on how its technology compares to lithium-ion in answers provided to Energy-Storage.news. At full capacity the facility will produce 600MW of Natron’s ‘Prussian Blue’ electrode batteries primarily for the stationary energy storage system (ESS) market annually. At first it will mainly ship products to data centres starting in June, before expanding to industrial mobility, EV fast charging and telecommunications, among others. https://www.energy-storage.news/natron-energy-starts-manufacturing-50000-cycle-life-sodium-ion-batteries-at-michigan-factory/

What's Larry Fink got to do with the analyses of 3 other financial firms. And as for channeling investments away from fossil fuels, once again you don't seem to understand how capitalism works. You think that fossil fuel companies should get first dibs on investments? As for my childish jeering, pretty much all I have to say is that you made a claim, and when I noted that dictionaries universally disagreed with you, you asserted that they were woke. You pretty much made fun of yourself with comments like that.

Had you bothered to read the articles you would know that Form already has successfully created battery storage for power plants using this technology. Now they're scaling it up with a massive factory.

I have to ask are you familiar with even basic economics? How are renewable responsible for the sharp rise in price of natural gas? If there were more power plants in Germany relying on natural gas and less reliance on renewables, would that have made the situation better or worse? It's not a trick question. I'll even give you a hint: look up the law of supply and demand. And maybe, do ya think that the high cost of power in Australia might have something to do with the high cost of coal and natural gas? Most of Australia's power still comes from those 2 sources. Do you think building more power plants relying on coal and natural gas would lower or increase the cost of these fossil fuels? What has happened in Australia is that coal power plants are aging out and not enough new renewable plants are being built. That's a result of bad planning. Not inherently a fault of renewables.

This isn't about who approached who. It's about what the purpose of the payment to Stormy Daniels was.