ozimoron

I believe that's mainly about worker's compensation and insurance. For example, the "bottler" will have had specific training in how to pick up heavy things but probably not a QA officer. If you did your back in and the company hadn't given you this training they would have potentially a huge payout, fine and conviction. You were permitted to carry a part case because that was judged to be under a specified weight limit. As convoluted and unproductive as it may have seemed it is the only way a large company can operate. They must have an OH&S plan for every job. The union would be a signatory to those rules.

dee gwa?

I think there is but anyway it's good enough for me. I read the entire site. Maybe I'm just a sheeple.

Agreed. Here's a chart for just the past 150 years and some info. http://www.climate.gov/media/12885 https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

You doubt? Have you read much of their website? The links are noaa.gov and nasa.gov.

Ultimately it won't help much. Like Jakarta, the main culprit has been pumping ground water causing the city to actually sink.

There's already an overwhelming amount of evidence that humans are responsible. It's also been posted here. Go read NASA and NOAA websites and come back here and tell us there isn't any evidence that humans are causing climate change.

Yes, it would get milder as the earth would be cooling. Climate changes due to natural causes happen at a tiny fraction of the rate that it's changing now.

Australia is more urbanised than either the UK or US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_by_country

The [Australian] Bureau of Meteorology is on alert for yet another La Niña season. There's a 70 per cent chance that Australia's east coast will have to contend with the climate driver for a third year in a row. This is very unusual, and other countries have already declared La Niña. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-31/what-is-a-la-nina-season-bom-forecast-explained/101385452

Disinformation, the decision to ban fertiliser had nothing to do with climate change. It was an issue of chemical pollution. And it was imports, not production. Part of the rationale was foreign reserves were being depleted. The big clue as to whether a post is disinformation is lack of a link. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/20/sri-lanka-fertiliser-ban-president-rajapaksa-farmers-harvests-collapse

They didn't flood as much hundreds of years ago and the klongs were a valuable transport infrastructure, part of Thai history.

Yes, they already have electric klong ferries in Bangkok.

That's a fairly old article and certain discoveries made recently like enormous caverns under antarctic glaciers and more rapidly melting glaciers in greenland and the arctic have likely changed those estimates now. Furthermore, the article says this Between 1900 and 1990 studies show that sea level rose between 1.2 millimeters and 1.7 millimeters per year on average. By 2000, that rate had increased to about 3.2 millimeters per year and the rate in 2016 is estimated at 3.4 millimeters per year. Sea level is expected to rise even more quickly by the end of the century. so, you are quoting an estimate which is 22 years old and which the article itself says would be wrong after 2016. Cherry picking much?

disclaimer: article is 2 years old. On Friday, Steven Biss, the attorney of California Republican Representative Devin Nunes, said that he and his client are "at a dead end" after a judge threw out their subpoena to discover the identity of a Twitter user who publishes unflattering media about Nunes under the guise of "Devin Nunes' Cow." In March 2019, Nunes filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit against two parody Twitter accounts: one claiming to be written by his mother and another claiming to be written by a cow from his family's dairy farm. Nunes said the "cow" conspired to damage his re-election chances. https://www.newsweek.com/devin-nunes-attorney-says-he-cannot-find-out-identity-twitter-cow-1510608

Do you think climate change science lives and dies on the models? There's empirical evidence as well and that evidence is showing us catastrophic weather outcomes which are far from normal and which are obviously getting worse every year. Models are by definition, not accurate. It is not a valid criticism of them, it's a feature, not a bug. Their function is to identify a trend and attempt to quantify that trend within a range. Models are not all joined at the hip.

I cited the NOAA and NASA websites. If I had read nothing else, that would easily be enough more me. As it happens, I have read plenty but I have never read any credible research which contradicts what they say. If you look back at forecasts you can see that models are not accurate which is bigly different from saying they are wrong. You would have been one of those hanging Copernicus a thousand years ago.

NOAA and NASA have lots of facts as well as forecasts. That's why I believe them.

I think he's got another Time magazine cover lying around somewhere as well. Or maybe the other one isn't really a Time magazine cover.

I still work in statistics. The models are not wrong by "wide" margins. You have not produced any of the numbers you claim. I cite NOAA and NASA to feel certain that climate change is real and that it's a world crisis. You cite nothing.

Big swerve you made right there. Unwilling to declare whether you believe NOAA and NASA?

Every single government accredited scientific agency and every single university on the planet is more than thousands.

NOAA and NASA don't post facts? Again, do you believe them or not? If you're going to make a contrary stand, lets find out exactly where you stand on the world's premier climate change authorities.

Yep, the denier talking point is that if scientists can't nail the numbers down to 0.01 (a number for illustration) degree then they have no idea.

You don't believe NOAA and NASA, among thousands of others?