bobjohnsonforthehall

Again "probably". Actually I will give you some credit on this one. I did not realize that plant based milks are getting as popular as they are. I have researched a bit and it seems they are really taking off over the past year or so. So you are correct on this one. Still. Hands off my burger!

Ok that I can certainly agree with. Anyone who closes their mind on either side of this issue is simply a partisan hack and not interested in science. Definitely agree with you there. But that goes for both sides. No? I mean, anyone who closes their mind to the possibility of skeptics being right is guilty of the same thing you are condemning "climate deniers" of. Correct?

Yeah not going to happen. Like the glaciers at Glacier National Park. This arbitrary 2030 deadline for 90% extinction will come and go and everyone who touted will just keep whistling past the graveyard.

Different variation of the same theme that is as incorrect today as it was when Ehrlich first postulated it. Only today it is couched in a "climate change" wrapping. And I suppose if one is gung ho to reduce one's carbon footprint, creating fewer people who would laso have a carbon footprint is a way to go. And hey, that's fine with me. If people I disagree with don't want to procreate more power to you.

That's great for you. Not my thing though. And "probably" doesn't quite cut it as a reason for whatever bankruptcies you are referencing. Research the reasons and I would highly doubt it has anything to do with "plant based milk".

Not more population. The location of said increase in population. Along with poor undergrowth policy. And cyclical weather patterns. And carelessness. Lethal combination no doubt.

Pretty much yes. If they are moving the base it is due to land subsidence and landfill settling. Sorry to be the bearer of such bad news.

If were an actual thing. Which it isn't. Coral adapts amazingly well. It thrived in oceans far more acidic during much warmer times with far more CO2 than we are currently experiencing.

Paul. Ehrlich. My goodness.

So Fox are Nazi like propagandists? Good to know. Please do continue.

Not really no. Plant based burgers aren't too bad. but they are about as unhelathy as they can possibly be. So what's the point exactly? I'm going to eat something that is full of things that are bad for me just to avoid meat? Sorry. Not happening. And plant based dairy is driving real milk into bankruptcy? Lol. Hyperbole much?

Wow. Lots to unpack there. However, I will say that your constant use of the term "climate denial movement" is rather telling. Why argue on merits when labeling your opposition is much faster and more effective. Amirite? My suggestion on this front would be using this invective a tad less often while accusing others of "spreading propaganda". Just an FYI. As to Dr Mann, being cited and published is what makes him an authority? Back when science was actually...your know...concerned with science I could see that being true. These days unfortunately "publish or perish" is the rule of the day. Add in the grant money needed to continue actually working in the profession, and there is little wonder why Mann and his ilk are so revered within the echo chamber that is the scientific community these days. Many papers these days, including the one cited in another thread regarding oceans warming, are nothing more than a pile-on to gets one's name on something to keep the grant money flowing. There is often an inverse relationship between the number of names on the paper and the quality of the work. That particular one being a prime example. You say that the "climate denial movement" is shrinking. Not entirely sure where you get that idea. Seems quite a few countries throughout the world are heading away from your way of thinking. Perhaps I am wrong. What do I know? Whether there are a billion people or just one, being correct has nothing to do with the number of people who "believe" something to be true. You use the term propaganda. I would postulate that the propaganda has been on your side for decades. Simply substitute the term "climate alarmist movement" for "climate denial movement" and it is quite applicable to most of your above statement. Except for the scientific peer review part. Which, again, tough to penetrate an echo chamber that is so beholden to the money that flows only in one direction. Same with media. The more sensational the better. So alarmism wins every time. Gets more clicks. Science is not afraid of contrary views. It welcomes it. It is always pushing what is perceived to be accurate. If it didn't we'd all still be eugenicists. Wouldn't we?

Really? A mass extinction event? Really? No I mean...Really?

Or it could just be cyclical, to go along with more population in areas prone to such issues as well as poor undergrowth management.

Not all flooding is caused by "sea level rise". Subsidence has far more to do with it. If those that talk a good game regarding climate change and sea level rise actually practiced what they preached, they would not be buying multi million dollar homes in areas where some claims say will be under water in a couple of decades. See also: Obama, Barack and Michelle

Which ones?

Ah yes. The "population problem". Paul Ehrlich is still revered by so many yet couldn't have possibly been more wrong about pretty much everything.

Good luck with that. And by that I mean...get your hands off my burger!

Who is this "they" you speak of...that you are equating to nazis?

That doesn't do anything to answer my post regarding the sensitivity and accuracy of the math used in the paper.

And the amount of heat being added to the oceans BY THE SUN is what? A thousand times that? Every second? Yawn.

Yes. True genius he. Quite the scientist.

That's a good indication that all of this has little to nothing to actually do with trying to save the planet from humans. Developed nations CO2 emissions are projected to decrease over the coming decades, while CO2 emissions from developing nations (China, India etc) are expected to increase by some 87%. If this was truly about saving the planet from CO2 emissions, people would be throwing China, India et al under the bus en masse. Instead you rarely hear criticism regarding not only their currently large emissions as a global percentage, but also their trajectory of future emissions as a global percentage. Why would that be?

China cleans up its polluting? Does their "scrubbing of all emissions" include the building of more coal plants than are being built in the rest of the world combined or no? Blue ocean event? Is that like the glaciers in Glacier National Park completely disappearing this year? Only they're not? Or the plethora of other dommsday predictions that have failed to materialize over the decades? But yeah. Michael Mann and stuff. True genius.

Certainly true. I do not have a problem with individuals who believe that humans are causing great harm to the climate. I have far more of a problem with people like Mann who have made themselves into something of a cottage industry and become quite wealthy and well healed while simultaneously doing their best to protect their status by slandering and trying to shut down conversation and dissension. He is the antithesis of what science is supposed to be. Thus the lol.