UN Climate Report: 'Atlas of Human Suffering' Worse, Bigger 116
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Associated Press: Deadly with extreme weather now, climate change is about to get so much worse. It is likely going to make the world sicker, hungrier, poorer, gloomier and way more dangerous in the next 18 years with an "unavoidable" increase in risks, a new United Nations science report says. And after that watch out. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report said Monday if human-caused global warming isn't limited to just another couple tenths of a degree, an Earth now struck regularly by deadly heat, fires, floods and drought in future decades will degrade in 127 ways with some being "potentially irreversible."
Today's children who may still be alive in the year 2100 are going to experience four times more climate extremes than they do now even with only a few more tenths of a degree of warming over today's heat. But if temperatures increase nearly 2 more degrees Celsius from now (3.4 degrees Fahrenheit) they would feel five times the floods, storms, drought and heat waves, according to the collection of scientists at the IPCC. Already at least 3.3 billion people's daily lives "are highly vulnerable to climate change" and 15 times more likely to die from extreme weather, the report says. Large numbers of people are being displaced by worsening weather extremes. And the world's poor are being hit by far the hardest, it says.
More people are going to die each year from heat waves, diseases, extreme weather, air pollution and starvation because of global warming, the report says. Just how many people die depends on how much heat-trapping gas from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas gets spewed into the air and how the world adapts to an ever-hotter world, scientists say. The report lists mounting dangers to people, plants, animals, ecosystems and economies, with people at risk in the millions and billions and potential damages in the trillions of dollars. The report highlights people being displaced from homes, places becoming uninhabitable, the number of species dwindling, coral disappearing, ice shrinking and rising and increasingly oxygen-depleted and acidic oceans. Some of these risks can still be prevented or lessened with prompt action. "Today's IPCC report is an atlas of human suffering and a damning indictment of failed climate leadership," United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said in a statement. "With fact upon fact, this report reveals how people and the planet are getting clobbered by climate change."
Today's children who may still be alive in the year 2100 are going to experience four times more climate extremes than they do now even with only a few more tenths of a degree of warming over today's heat. But if temperatures increase nearly 2 more degrees Celsius from now (3.4 degrees Fahrenheit) they would feel five times the floods, storms, drought and heat waves, according to the collection of scientists at the IPCC. Already at least 3.3 billion people's daily lives "are highly vulnerable to climate change" and 15 times more likely to die from extreme weather, the report says. Large numbers of people are being displaced by worsening weather extremes. And the world's poor are being hit by far the hardest, it says.
More people are going to die each year from heat waves, diseases, extreme weather, air pollution and starvation because of global warming, the report says. Just how many people die depends on how much heat-trapping gas from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas gets spewed into the air and how the world adapts to an ever-hotter world, scientists say. The report lists mounting dangers to people, plants, animals, ecosystems and economies, with people at risk in the millions and billions and potential damages in the trillions of dollars. The report highlights people being displaced from homes, places becoming uninhabitable, the number of species dwindling, coral disappearing, ice shrinking and rising and increasingly oxygen-depleted and acidic oceans. Some of these risks can still be prevented or lessened with prompt action. "Today's IPCC report is an atlas of human suffering and a damning indictment of failed climate leadership," United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said in a statement. "With fact upon fact, this report reveals how people and the planet are getting clobbered by climate change."
Another screed from the Climate Grifters (Score:1, Flamebait)
IPCC: ‘Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth’
Re: (Score:2)
Developed nations profited greatly from emitting vast amounts of CO2. Now they are telling developing nations that they can't do the same thing, they have to keep emissions down because the climate is already buggered.
Obviously that is never going to fly unless the developed nations commit to not only reducing their own emissions, but to helping the developing ones do likewise, and helping them cope with the climate change that developed nations largely caused.
If you want to call it redistribution of wealth
Re: (Score:2)
LOL - If those developing cultures were any more deserving of the natural resources we exploited and profited from they would advanced, done the same and got their share. Its really that simple, 'we' got there first so to damn bad.
Its also true that a lot of them have way more to lose from climate change than 'we' do. Honestly they should be GREATFUL 'we' are even addressing our own emissions and not sending them the bill to do it. Let alone expecting us to help them.
Re: (Score:3)
If you take that attitude then the world is fucked, including your country. If the climate change doesn't get you the resource wars will.
Re: Another screed from the Climate Grifters (Score:2)
First world problems. (Score:1, Flamebait)
These are first-world problems for retired politicians in order to travel all over the world for conferences on climate change.
Nonsense (Score:3)
As all my fellow Slashdot armchair climatologists know, there is no need to worry about these alarmist reports.
It's always consistently cool and comfortable in our moms' basements, and in fact, this supposed "outside temperature" doesn't even exist.
Re: (Score:1)
One good nuclear exchange of NATO with either Russia or China and you'll forget all about what fossil fuel can do to climate, it's peanuts.
Re: Nonsense (Score:2)
One âoegoodâ exchange? I donâ(TM)t think we need any particular order of magnitude to notice how awful that would be
Re: (Score:1)
but the orders of magnitude make a difference if the exchange makes dent in climate and environment. One or a few no. Couple tens of weapons, no. Hundreds or more from each side, yes.
Today's IPCC report is an atlas of human suffering (Score:2, Informative)
https://www.vox.com/2014/11/24... [vox.com]
Let me know if there is any change. TIA
Re: (Score:3)
None of this is relevant.
Not sure what your point is here?
Re: (Score:2)
Inconvenient for the end of the world narrative, I know.
127 ways? (Score:2)
I'm not even going to consider panicing unless they come up with OVER 9000 ways.
PS The shortage isn't toilet paper this time, but plastic and cardboard.
Won't you think about the children?!? (Score:2)
Hmm.... seems like someone must have asked that once or twice before?
Yeah, no good sensationalist fear-mongering could go without the "kids" angle.
Thing is? Humanity has never been static, failing to come up with any new solutions for pressing problems. I see no reason to believe this climate challenge would be the one unique time in history that things were different?
I'd say that as just one example, a kid still alive in 2100 would be WELL past the current guesses that Space-X is making about how long befo
When and Why I Became A Client Skeptic (Score:1)
And then it added:
"If upon completion, the Fourth Assessment Report disagrees with the statements in this Summary for Policymakers, the Fourth Assessment Report will be modified to align it with this Summary For Policymakers."
And
Re: (Score:2)
Yawn.
Re: (Score:3)
I call bullshit. There's half a dozen [www.ipcc.ch] related press releases on the IPCC site, and none of them say any such thing. Feel free to link to such a statement, if you can find one.
Still, if you are truly willing to dismiss "anything scientists have to say" on such a thin pretext then I can well imagine you believing whatever malicious misinterpretation you got fed. Tell me, do you genuinely dismiss everything any scientist says, on every subject - or does it depend on their results?
I'll Take Things That Didn't Happen for 1000, Alex (Score:2)
"Trust me - I once saw a statement by the IPCC where they said the science would be changed after the fact to match a political narrative agreed on in advance"
Data is poor and then they edit it to fit. (Score:1, Troll)
They have only collected good weather data for aprox 100 years.
The 1930's had some very hot years, all of them have been edited and revised way down.
They only collected it in a few places.
They estimate / simulate the data for a bunch more.
They do get some valuable data from ice cores & tree ring.
The satellite era has produced some nice data, mapping the ice formations & temp.
But when they write a report or model the climate, the data is restricted to a time period that produces a chart that supports
Re: (Score:2)
The 1930's had some very hot years,
In the USA, not really anywhere else. The USA is not the whole world.
Can we build more nuclear power plants now? (Score:2)
Wow, this is new. A report on how if we don't lower CO2 emissions now that our children could grow up in some purgatory. Well, thanks to NATO nations closing their nuclear power plants while we buy Russian natural gas and Chinese solar panels we have cities in Ukraine on fire, and NATO gives them band-aids and helmets.
Can we build more nuclear power plants now?
While Europe was closing perfectly safe, and paid for, nuclear power plants we saw Russia and China build nuclear power plants. They paid for thos
Re: (Score:2)
TLDR; version: I'll start believing what they're saying when they start acting like they believe it themselves. Sounds about right.
This is what conservatives want. (Score:2)
Leftist Ideaology (Score:2)
Label someone the enemy. Attack them relentlessly without provocation. IOW, you are Putinesque. Not a good fragrance.
Not mentioned enough is Putin listed rejecting communism as one of the reasons for attacking the Ukraine. Now comes all the commutards wanting to talk about how great communism will be when someone finally figures out how to implement it without it turning into a dictatorship.
failed science (Score:1)
For all you idiot comentards. Your 3 hardest years of your upbringing were fifth class. Definitely failed science for your whole school education.
We just had a years rain in a few days. Many river systems along the east coast just had their biggest floods, not just highest in 100 year but 1000 year.
Dams at 200% capacity. The weather system is now heading for Sydney. It is getting worse quicker than scientists anticipated.
If you didn't have your head up your ass or hadn't yet popped out of Mum's twat you mig
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the comments here so far are from people who are not real skeptics, but who distort the facts to fit their own "anti-global warming" narrative, without any concern for the search for truth.
It's very scary to see that coming from a reasonably well educated, science-friendly user base.
Re: (Score:2)
Too many people (Score:1)
What do they think that the maximum number of humans should be? Do we need to get rid of 4, or is it 5, billion people in the next ten years?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry. It won't take ten years if the wrong moron pisses is Putin's cheerios.
Such predictions have not been very accurate (Score:1)
Sorry, but that is an irrefutable fact. Practically none of the climate change predictions over the last 40 years have panned out.
It is getting more difficult for me to believe these predictions are credible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Such predictions have not been very accurate (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Practically none of the climate change predictions over the last 40 years have panned out.
That assertion is false. See, for example, https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/ [realclimate.org].
Oh no! (Score:1)
"The end of the world is here! Women and minorities hardest hit!" :D
Re: (Score:2)
Brawndo The Thirst Mutilator (Score:1)
it has what plants crave
Re: Fuck off Slashdot (Score:1, Troll)
Re: Fuck off Slashdot (Score:5, Informative)
Atmospheric physics doesn't actually care if you think its outlandish. Its laws follows the tyrany of Navier and Stokes, not the tyrany of mere men.
I've seen in the past few weeks two of my friends have to retreat into emergency accomodations from wildfires nearly burning down their entire town, that the very team I worked on had predicted a decade ago, but got our report buried by administrators worried about upsetting the conservative government who wanted to argue about whether weather stations are accurate because they didnt understand why sensors are calibrated.
Thankfully I'm working in Soils now, so only have to worry about incredulous farmers instead of incredulous politicians. At least when farmers fail their science education , they do so honestly.
So frankly, I couldn't give a fuck if people think climate science is plausible or not. None of this is scientifically controversial, just politically controversial.
Re: Fuck off Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
The danger is that people give up. Sometimes I despair, I look at the UK and how far it needs to go and just can't see a way it can be done. Millions of homes and other buildings that can't easily be upgraded to emit less CO2, and really need demolishing. There's no money, it's all been wasted on corruption and brexit.
We know what needs to happen, but the monumental scale of the task is quite daunting for a country like the UK. We are not good at infrastructure type projects.
Re: Fuck off Slashdot (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The solution is easy. You can't sell a house without it being EPC rating B or higher. Then introduce laws that allow banks to lend special mortgages that bring EPC ratings up to B that are partially government protected. Solution done and it will be 90% paid for by homeowners and not the taxpayer. Also massively stimulate the building trade as they reskin and insulate millions of Victorian houses.
Re: (Score:2)
The solution is easy. You can't sell a house without it being EPC rating B or higher. Then introduce laws that allow banks to lend special mortgages that bring EPC ratings up to B that are partially government protected. Solution done and it will be 90% paid for by homeowners and not the taxpayer. Also massively stimulate the building trade as they reskin and insulate millions of Victorian houses.
Many people who are relatively poor live in houses with low EPC ratings and can't afford 'special mortgages'. So your 'solution' condemns those who are less well off to live in the same houses the rest of their lives, unable to take opportunities for work elsewhere. It sounds pretty awful.
Re: (Score:2)
None of this is scientifically controversial, just politically controversial.
Neither is humans senselessly killing each other on battlefields for the love of Greed, but we've been pretty good at that stupid shit for the last few thousand years.
Actually, nothing is really "controversial" anymore when humans are involved. Each generation seems to be just a little more ignorant asking the same dumb questions over and over again, expecting a different kind of human to pop out and somehow not repeat the worst of human history.
Nope, we're still the same dumbfuck creatures hell-bent on wa
Re: (Score:2)
In order to survive climate change, I'd suggest replacing voting elections with sortition. Its one way to break up business interests and their manipulation.
Dr Bronner sums it up - no other source needed! (Score:2)
Re: Fuck off Slashdot (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're a member of any political party, then you're already being told what to think. That's their purpose, to control you.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're a member of any political party, then you're already being told what to think. That's their purpose, to control you.
It works scarily well too!
Re: (Score:3)
What confuses me is that Democrats will approve of a natural gas pipeline from Russia to Germany
I wasn't aware that they did. I have seen many criticise it.
but not one from Canada to the USA.
Is one being proposed?
Re: Fuck off Slashdot (Score:4, Interesting)
So if you weren't paying attention.
Nord 2 [reuters.com] pipeline Russia to Germany. And of course the Keystone XL [vox.com] Biden cancelled the permits for. Which ran from Canada to the US. HTH.
Re: (Score:2)
Keystone XL [vox.com] Biden cancelled the permits for. Which ran from Canada to the US. HTH.
How would a pipeline carrying Canadian oil to US ports for export improve the US natural gas position? Or its oil position, for that matter?
Re: (Score:2)
So if you weren't paying attention.
Seemingly not on NordStream 2, which I had seen criticised quite widely in the USA in the past.
Re: (Score:2)
WRT to Democratic approval of Russia->Germany natural gas see this [reuters.com] about six weeks ago, and this [reuters.com] last year.
WRT regard to Canada->US natural gas, I think the GP is confused and is likely talking about Keystone XL which would not have carried any natural gas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"LGBTQ2+"? Are we putting version numbers on this now? What will "LGBTQ3" look like?
I thought tracking the charging standards for cell phones was bad enough. What version of Quick Charge is that? 3.0, 4, or 4+? USB-PD 2.0, 3.0, or 3.1? Which one supports 12 volt charging? Was it 2.0 and 3.1 but not 3.0? WTF is PowerIQ? How many versions of that?
Re: (Score:2)
PowerIQ stands for Pony Other Weird Erotic Raw Indefinite Queer, there are many versions.
Re: (Score:2)
"LGBTQ2+"? Are we putting version numbers on this now?
The forward-thinking alphabet people realized they were running out of letters so they have expanded to numbers and symbols.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not exactly convinced that republicans nor democrats are really to blame for the vasts amounts of nonsense within the US. Whether you agree or disagree with climate change (in my day, we just called it "global warming" but that somehow became "politically incorrect"), the constant that has remained throughout is the two-party system. What a fun game of political tennis that we all get to watch and sometimes pretend to participate within - each side hits the grift ball back and forth to keep their favori
Re: (Score:2)
To clarify, I meant to say that neither major party is alone to blame. Which insinuates that they are both playing a co-op game at the public's expense, but I suspect most repliers won't bother reading this correction
Re:Fuck off Slashdot (Score:5, Interesting)
Just to clarify to the ignorant, the Republicans of America are 1000 times worse and will deny global warming while drowning in the flood. Those that do die of COVID are denying it on their death beds... sure not as many; but that is as obvious as one gets and this is slow moving global warming we are talking about.
We NEED rank voting in the USA and that is just a start. Gerrymandering has foolishly led to politicians that are unaccountable; that both sides have created. This is how the GOP can easily afford to kill a small % their voters without trouble - in the short term.
Re: Fuck off Slashdot (Score:4, Informative)
That's a long rant containing nothing defensible. Even after reversing your (comedic?) language, there's a lot of thing you claim people say that nobody says, and a lot of bad logical leaps. Your anger is build on... nothing actually true.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I know you're being glib, but there's a Southern Hemisphere as well that does the opposite and both hemispheres count towards world tempratures.
And there's the recordings of the following agencies that shows a continuous upward trend in temperatures.
* UK Met Office Hadley Centre
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
* NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences
* Japan Meteorological Agency
I honestly can't believe there's still people that dismiss global warming. I can't believe we have to wait proba
Re: (Score:1)
I know you're being glib, but there's a Southern Hemisphere as well that does the opposite
You mean, as Summer turns to Fall, the temperature gets... colder??? Whoa. Stop the presses!
I honestly can't believe there's still people that dismiss global warming.
You clearly weren't around in the 1970s, when warnings of global cooling was all the rage.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean, as Summer turns to Fall, the temperature gets... colder??? Whoa. Stop the presses!
Considering your joke was about northern hemisphere season change being mistaken for global warming, I felt it necessary to point out.
You clearly weren't around in the 1970s, when warnings of global cooling was all the rage.
That argument is on par with "if evolution is true, why are there still apes?" in the fact that there's massive amounts of resources on the solved topic that people refuse to look into.
https://www.insidescience.org/... [insidescience.org]
https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
Also dude, it's not just predicting this thing is going to happen at some future point, those 4 agencies I listed have been tra
Re: (Score:2)
It does feel like the whole world is going through some giant global MKUltra experiment.
Climate Change is SCIENCE (Score:5, Insightful)
Anthropogenic Climate Change is confirmed and the IPCC findings endorsed by every single scientific and meteorological institution on the planet - even including the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Dismissing it as "grift" is science denial, simple as that.
If you don't like the proposed solutions, feel free to promote whatever ideologically-favourable alternative you prefer, but frothing at the mouth every time it appears in the news is not going to make it go away. And claiming that it's somehow the fault of the US Democrats specifically just paints you as an obvious political agitator.
Re: (Score:2)
If I may - I think the problem here is less about "climate change" (ie, global warming) being real, and more about political parrots on both sides just doing what they do, all day, every day. There is always some minor measure of the general population that is overly excitable about some repercussion of global warming abatement - it really doesn't matter what form the abatement takes, you will find a solidly vocal 1-2% (at least), on both sides, that will pound digital pavement (because internet-tough-guy-m
Re:Climate Change is SCIENCE (Score:4, Insightful)
I appreciate the thought here, but a major part of the problem here is the association with politics at all. Scientific observation has nothing whatsoever to do with political ideology, despite the outsized fringe voices you mention trying to make it so. Physics doesn't care if you're left or right or centrist. The decades of peer-reviewed observation from scientists all around the planet make it abundantly clear that AGW has and will continue worsening no matter who is in power. The ranting from denialist trolls here and elsewhere won't stop it happening, though they have slowed our response.
And we need to respond, or we will be caught with our pants down. Most of the world has recognised the problem, and is debating the best way to deal with it - and the debate over climate policy is where it should get political, not climate science.
Re: (Score:2)
"Most of the world has recognised the problem, and is debating the best way to deal with it..."
No, not so. Neither China nor Russia has recognized the problem, and neither one is even debating how to deal with it. They haveno intention of doing anything to reduce emissions.
The Russian model, remember, is completely un-alarming forecasts. You can guarantee that this is state sanctioned. The Chines obviously don't believe it, they are building coal fired plants, making and buying cars, erecting huge concret
Re: (Score:2)
The current alarm and doom and gloom about the climate and the role of CO2 emissions is confined to a fairly small section of the political class in the US, UK, Germany and Australia.
That assertion is trivially disproved. Scientists and scientific institutions have been saying for decades that we must act, from 1700 scientists [ucsusa.org] saying in 1992 that action is required "if vast human misery is to be avoided", to over 15,000 scientists [oup.com] in 2017 highlighted "the current trajectory of potentially catastrophic climate change due to rising GHGs from burning fossil fuels" and saying "time is running out". Heck, even some 2500 economists [archive.org], including nine Nobel laureates, said back in 1997 that "we
Re: (Score:2)
The current alarm and doom and gloom about the climate and the role of CO2 emissions is confined to a fairly small section of the political class in the US, UK, Germany and Australia.
That assertion is trivially disproved. Scientists and scientific institutions have been saying for decades that we must act, from 1700 scientists [ucsusa.org] saying in 1992 that action is required "if vast human misery is to be avoided", to
That 1992 letter is a laundry list of "concerns". WRT CO2, they only wrote "Predictions of global warming are still uncertain—with projected effects ranging from tolerable to very severe—but the potential risks are very great.". So the effect could be anywhere from nothing to tolerable to severe. What policy could you push through based on that?
Re: Climate Change is SCIENCE (Score:2)
the effect could be anywhere from nothing to tolerable to severe
Where did they say the effects might be "nothing"? Did you just invent that?
For most people Covid is "tolerable to severe". Humanity will of course survive that, like I don't doubt we will survive climate change. But Covid has killed millions and cost trillions, which would have been great to avoid if we could - and the risks from climate change's effects will be far more extensive, ranging from losing much of our best coastal real estate and farmland up to the potential collapse of major food chains.
This i
Re: (Score:2)
the effect could be anywhere from nothing to tolerable to severe
Where did they say the effects might be "nothing"? Did you just invent that?
For most people Covid is "tolerable to severe". Humanity will of course survive that, like I don't doubt we will survive climate change. But Covid has killed millions and cost trillions, which would have been great to avoid if we could - and the risks from climate change's effects will be far more extensive, ranging from losing much of our best coastal real estate and farmland up to the potential collapse of major food chains.
This is why you will continue hearing all these calls from experts in so many fields to friggin' do something while we still can.
When they wrote in 1992 that "Predictions of global warming are still uncertain", they basically said "we don't know, we think something might happen, but we aren't sure what." It's the same thing you could say every time you go for a drive.
Re: (Score:2)
So to you, any degree of uncertainty about the future means "could be nothing at all"? Did you miss the very next part of that sentence; "the potential risks are very great"?
Nowhere did they say, "we think something might happen". They were a lot more definite than that:
Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about.
Air pollution near ground level, and acid precipitation, are already causing widespread injury
The total marine catch is now at or above the estimated maximum sustainable yield
some critical forest types will be gone in a few years, and most of the tropical rain forest will be gone before the end of the next century. With them will go large numbers of plant and animal species.
Much of this damage is irreversible on a scale of centuries, or permanent.
No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished.
A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated.
Re: (Score:2)
No, not so. Neither China nor Russia has recognized the problem
China is the world leader in wind and solar energy production, and building more capacity rapidly, as well as building out their long-distance power transmission capabilities to allow the renewable energy generated in western China to get to eastern China where the population and industry is. Yes, they're also building coal plants, but many of those are replacing less efficient coal plants, and so reduce CO2 output on balance. China is heavily focused on the problem, but is also trying to cope with rapidly-
Re: (Score:2)
And we need to respond, or we will be caught with our pants down.
And that would be the job of politics. Science brings facts to the table. Politics brings decisions and sets up actions.
And yes, a lack of action is also a political decision.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing you found that "climate has always changed" argument on the same cave wall as the hand prints, because it's just as ancient and irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
"Hey, someone keeps putting poison in our drinking water upstream! Should we stop them?!"
Water quality has always been changing and will always be changing and humans will (hopefully) continue to adapt. If not we would have stopped existing thousands of years ago.
Re: (Score:3)
This continuing obsession of yours with blaming a specific US political party for decades of energy decisions around the globe is just weird.
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing is the fault of Democrats, ever!
Well except slavery, the KKK, the Jim Crow south, eugenics, trying to filibuster the civil rights act, snubbing Jesse Owens, KKK members in Congress into the 2000s, but that is all. Just those few trivial things.
I always *love* it when folks trudge out this old bromide. "It wuz da Democrats then that...[did whatever]!". All the while quite consciously "forgetting" that almost to a man, every one of those then Democrats have since become Republicans. Sure, there are a few exceptions, Manchin of WV, who might as well be a Republican. I'm born and raised a US Southerner, I know well what it means to have Southern Democrats ie "Dixie-crats" running the state. Look up John Connolly, governor of Texas in the 60's, who st
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You can always look at NASA's graph of how world temperatures have gone in the past
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital... [nasa.gov]
or NOAAs graph
https://www.climate.gov/news-f... [climate.gov]
Seriously, not being able to predict the exact temperature 14+ days from now is a completely different thing to understanding how much extra heat is trapped by carbon increasing average temperatures.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, someone had a bad day!
Re: (Score:2)
Voting Republican in the United States is just a shift in grift from voting Democrat. And sometimes that shift is only in the words being said, not in the direction the money flows. Both parties pilfer the middle class and hand the goods off to the upper class already. The major parties don't give the slightest fuck about anybody but the upper 1% or less of society outside of trying to brainwash the masses into voting for them numbly and stupidly like the cattle they see us as.
This "my team" bullshit is
Re: (Score:2)
Over half the discussion fucked off (Score:2)
So why did you propagate the troll's Subject?
(Last example as of 101 comments posted so far. Scroll bar indicates about 60% of the discussion above this point. But the next Subject is also trollage. Same troll seeking insurance? Or a race among trolls to be the biggest idiot?)
Re: The Beating of a Climate Denier (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Climate Denier wins because they are probably an American and there are no actual Antifa there.