Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[chubbs]

23 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

Wow.... just.... wow.

Listen to your yourself.

I'll just put this here, and let you struggle with your existential crisis.

 

Let me know when that trend starts upward due to our fossil fuel burning, so I can... run somewhere or something.

We've gotten much better at avoiding deaths in natural disasters through prediction and warnings. The number and intensity of climate-related disasters is increasing. The death toll from natural disasters this year could be relatively high due to the European heat wave and the Nepal landslide.  We'll see when the numbers come out next year.

[Brewbeer]

Quote

be willing to bet that a lot of fossil-fuel-burning boats were involved in the process of recovery

this is part of the frustration - focusing on minutia to distract from the elephant 

[WolfStock1]

1 hour ago, chubbs said:

We've gotten much better at avoiding deaths in natural disasters through prediction and warnings. The number and intensity of climate-related disasters is increasing. The death toll from natural disasters this year could be relatively high due to the European heat wave and the Nepal landslide.  We'll see when the numbers come out next year.

 

The increased economic damage is due to the huge increase in building on the coasts, in particular of luxury properties.   I lived right on the coast in both FL and CA over the past few decades, and have seen in firsthand.    Much of it also is due to generally increased economic prosperity (and population increase), and due to inflation.   As your economy grows, you're going to have a lot more stuff that can get damaged.

Not an indicator of "world death" but actually the opposite in fact.

 

Re: European heat wave

Much of that could have been prevented if a lot more people had air conditioning, as they do in places like the US.

 

[chubbs]

6 minutes ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

The increased economic damage is due to the huge increase in building on the coasts, in particular of luxury properties.   I lived right on the coast in both FL and CA over the past few decades, and have seen in firsthand.    Much of it also is due to generally increased economic prosperity (and population increase), and due to inflation.   As your economy grows, you're going to have a lot more stuff that can get damaged.

Not an indicator of "world death" but actually the opposite in fact.

Re: European heat wave

Much of that could have been prevented if a lot more people had air conditioning, as they do in places like the US.

 

You are handwaving. The number and intensity of climate-related disasters is increasing.

[WolfStock1]

16 minutes ago, chubbs said:

You are handwaving. The number and intensity of climate-related disasters is increasing.

It is?

[chubbs]

56 minutes ago, WolfStock1 said:

It is?

Per the caption title "this data should not be used assess the number of events because of changes in data reporting". The science consensus is clear that climate change is going to lead to increased disaster risk, mainly due to increased event intensity.  Here's a report on climate impacts by the US insurance industry. 

https://coalitionforaninsurablefuture.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Climate-impact-on-insurance-May-2026.pdf

[LongBeachSurfFreak]

Per the caption title "this data should not be used assess the number of events because of changes in data reporting". The science consensus is clear that climate change is going to lead to increased disaster risk, mainly due to increased event intensity.  Here's a report on climate impacts by the US insurance industry. 
https://coalitionforaninsurablefuture.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Climate-impact-on-insurance-May-2026.pdf

Give this recorded breaking (cc enhanced) Nino a chance to do its work. Not that I wish disaster on anyone but we have only just started. Ask the marine iguanas that are left (if any) how they felt about this event.


.

[WolfStock1]

1 hour ago, chubbs said:

Per the caption title "this data should not be used assess the number of events because of changes in data reporting".

 

Yes - specifically referring to the pre-1990s period when a lot of disasters went unreported, due to lack of detection (satellites) or mechanisms (internet).  (it's talked about elsewhere on the page that's from)

Surely you wouldn't propose that detection/reporting rate has gone *down* would you?   What would be the reason for such a thing?

Re: insurance - obviously the financial damages from disasters has gone up tremendously.   

And FWIW - I wouldn't propose that there isn't at least *some* increase in actual disaster levels in the works due to CC (despite the chart I posted); it's hard to tease out the level due to the noise of natural random variation.   I'm just illustrating that it's clear that there's not some kind of world-threatening trend here, by any stretch.

 

[WolfStock1]

3 hours ago, Brewbeer said:

this is part of the frustration - focusing on minutia to distract from the elephant 

There are many elephants here.

In this case I'm just giving an example of how the world benefits from fossil fuel use.   Multiply that times a couple billion, and you can see how it has brought prosperity - including things like the ability for humanity to help the world in various ways - including helping to do things like preserve endangered species.   And... doing things like flying hundreds of jets each year to climate conferences (?)

[chubbs]

1 hour ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

Yes - specifically referring to the pre-1990s period when a lot of disasters went unreported, due to lack of detection (satellites) or mechanisms (internet).  (it's talked about elsewhere on the page that's from)

Surely you wouldn't propose that detection/reporting rate has gone *down* would you?   What would be the reason for such a thing?

Re: insurance - obviously the financial damages from disasters has gone up tremendously.   

And FWIW - I wouldn't propose that there isn't at least *some* increase in actual disaster levels in the works due to CC (despite the chart I posted); it's hard to tease out the level due to the noise of natural random variation.   I'm just illustrating that it's clear that there's not some kind of world-threatening trend here, by any stretch.

 

What you are illustrating is that you are not well informed about climate science. Science says we should expect an increase in a variety of natural disasters. What we have seen so far is consistent with that expectation. That's why the insurance industry is more concerned about climate science than you are.

[Typhoon Tip]

14 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

Re: reefs

Generally hitting record levels these days, e.g.:

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.aims.gov.au/monitoring-great-barrier-reef/gbr-condition-summary-2023-24

There's only been significant record-keeping since the 1980's, so we don't know what the trend is, or whether or not bleaching events that we've seen are normal vs CC-caused or not.

Certainly not seeing any "death of the world" trending there.

Re:  Extinctions - let's look at that, shall we?

Here's a database of recent extinctions:

https://recentlyextinctspecies.com/database/most-recent-global-extinctions

Starting from the top:

Achatinella apexfulva - land snail; native to Hawaii; made extinct by introduction of predator by the rosy wolfsnail, deforestation, and the Jackson's chameleon.  Not climate change.

Ecnomiohyla rabborum - Rabb’s fringe-limbed treefrog; made extinct by chytrid fungus.  Not climate change.

Microcolpia parreyssii parreyssii - Parreys' thermal snail; existed in only one tiny locaion, made extinct by groundwater extraction.   Not climate change.

etc. etc.   (not about to look up the details on the whole list)

Wikipedia list of extinct species:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_extinct_species

Cursory search - could not find a single one made extinct by climate change.    There are thousands of them listed though, so maybe there are some I didn't see.

The vast majority of extinctions happening, by far, are due to things *other* than climate change.   Hunting, fishing, habitat loss due to deforestation, introduction of new predators, etc etc.   Most of these are human-caused, yes, but not climate change.

Bottom line: Fearmongering.

There is no "world death" looming, of any sort.   At least not due to climate change.

That data, particularly how they relate/conveys behavior about the natural setting, are misleading the way you've presented. 

...a basic interpretation skill of the data is needed here:

1 ... systems in nature seldom move along predictable well behaved trajectories.  As an aside, and obvious caution is also needed.  GBR system is one example.  Note,  ~40% of the whole world's reefs are at risk of extinction due to climate change. 

2, logical flaw in you one example anyway:  That GBR system shows recovery; that does not evince any kind of proof of  either sustainability there - certainly there's no logic in using one example that the world is safe from climate change, either.  But we'll let that tacit exception go...  

3, the primary aspects that affect coral:

• Thermal stress and bleaching: heat can kill corals, or weaken them and reduce growth and reproduction—even if they survive.
• Mechanical stress from turbid waters... this arrives from enhancing wave action in the mean energy, as well as specific to tropical cyclones.
• Competing biology.  Example, Crown-of-thorns starfish that eat living coral.
• Specific species ... coral reefs are a vast colony of different species.  Some regions of the world have more(less) phenology. 

      So, you're use in exemplifying the GBR demonstrates a too limited, too linear response mechanism in how/why the affects/effects in the vitality of reef.   'Oh, since there's a recent regrowth' no thermal stress.  Incorrect.  Your are not even aware that a biological competition within the reef, combined with transients in growth offsets - causing temporary rebound, or much in the way of the complexity of how these individually differentiating factors, then interact to create curve behavior that moves up and down but is misleading over larger data sets.  

WRT to GBR example...  studies by AIMS and Yale point to the biggest factor in recent regrowth was particularly fast-growing species, Acropora.  The corals produced were during a relatively favorable interval for species, but that does not represent the vitality of the whole structure.  It can't. Not when the vitality requires a vast phenology of species input.  Overall, bleaching events were still extensive but less intense than those earlier events, causing less mortality. But, the recnet increase was driven mostly by the Acropora. 

So the rise is better explained by rapid coral growth plus a temporary reduction in regional stress factor, not as evidence of a sustained ocean-cooling trend.

.. I don't have time to run down the rest of you list of probably similarly shallow refutation points... I'll stop here. 

Good luck with your debate.

 

 

[Brewbeer]

Quote

There are many elephants here.

this is just more more distraction, and no one here is disagreeing that fossil fuels have contributed to human progress, that's just more distraction

please stay on topic:  the continued use of fossil fuels is progressively impacting climate and ecosystems and accelerating the rate of climate change, and what we are going to do about it (hint on the second part: not much)

[WolfStock1]

1 hour ago, Brewbeer said:

this is just more more distraction, and no one here is disagreeing that fossil fuels have contributed to human progress, that's just more distraction

please stay on topic:  the continued use of fossil fuels is progressively impacting climate and ecosystems and accelerating the rate of climate change, and what we are going to do about it (hint on the second part: not much)

 

Well except that wasn't the topic, if you follow the discussion back.   The topic was existential crisis, which is not the same as progressive or even accelerating levels of impacts.    ("Exist" of course being the root of "existential") 

To equate those two would require a third assumption - that the progression would either continue forever, or that it would reach a pace where adaptation is impossible.   The first is physically impossible.   For the latter - given the adaptability level of humans - our ability to live in both in the arctic and the extreme tropics, and the fact that earth has transitioned through *all* extremes several times in the past, with life still thriving, it will certainly not be happening.   

 

[GaWx]

5 minutes ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

Well except that wasn't the topic, if you follow the discussion back.   The topic was existential crisis, which is not the same as progressive or even accelerating levels of impacts.    ("Exist" of course being the root of "existential") 

To equate those two would require a third assumption - that the progression would either continue forever, or that it would reach a pace where adaptation is impossible.   The first is physically impossible.   For the latter - given the adaptability level of humans - our ability to live in both in the arctic and the extreme tropics, and the fact that earth has transitioned through *all* extremes several times in the past, with life still thriving, it will certainly not be happening.   

 

What do you think about the possibility of unmodeled negative feedbacks eventually stopping the warming and thus causing at least the most extreme climate model solutions to end up being way overdone? Is this a realistic possibility?

[WolfStock1]

4 hours ago, GaWx said:

What do you think about the possibility of unmodeled negative feedbacks eventually stopping the warming and thus causing at least the most extreme climate model solutions to end up being way overdone? Is this a realistic possibility?

 

Why would a negative feedback be required to stop warming?   Warming is by definition not a state of equilibrium.  Cessation of warming would only require removal of positive influence, not the introduction of a negative influence.

Specifically - at some point we're going to run out fossil fuels to burn (albeit slowly).   Unless I miss my guess - that will result in CO2 growth in the atmosphere slowing to a halt, and then probably reversing some as it gets re-absorbed by existing plant life.   (That offset is already taking place to some extent vis a vis the greening that's being seen; though the effects are small right now).

That aside - surely you understand that there are all kinds of as-yet-unmodeled effects that can happen, right?   Despite the growth of AI - we are not yet omniscient.  

(Of note: Your question isn't actually relevant to the question at hand, since we're talking about world death, and even the most extreme models e.g. RCP 8.5 don't call for that.     I don't believe *any* models call for that.)

[LibertyBell]

9 hours ago, GaWx said:

What do you think about the possibility of unmodeled negative feedbacks eventually stopping the warming and thus causing at least the most extreme climate model solutions to end up being way overdone? Is this a realistic possibility?

That's not going to stop it. What will stop it is climate engineering which is already underway and which will rapidly accelerate beginning in 2030.

 

11 hours ago, Brewbeer said:

this is just more more distraction, and no one here is disagreeing that fossil fuels have contributed to human progress, that's just more distraction

please stay on topic:  the continued use of fossil fuels is progressively impacting climate and ecosystems and accelerating the rate of climate change, and what we are going to do about it (hint on the second part: not much)

Yes but ignorant people dont even realize they are ignorant. 

 

11 hours ago, chubbs said:

What you are illustrating is that you are not well informed about climate science. Science says we should expect an increase in a variety of natural disasters. What we have seen so far is consistent with that expectation. That's why the insurance industry is more concerned about climate science than you are.

He's willfully ignorant. The fossil fuel cartel loves that that's why it was so easy for them to engage in a 50 year cover up. 

 

16 hours ago, chubbs said:

You are handwaving. The number and intensity of climate-related disasters is increasing.

Clearly billion dollar disasters are on a rapid rise.

 

On 10/15/2026 at 7:36 AM, LongBeachSurfFreak said:

Well finally some sense. Agreed, it’s not that big of a problem (yet). But not thinking about future generations is selfish. I’m sure there are a few environmental issues from the past you would have wanted not to have happened. Personally I wish we left at least a percentage of old growth forest on the east coast. Easily avoidable in retrospect. But past generations were, selfish. Same game here. Difference is we can do something about it.


.

He is an entitled ignorant fool who makes no sense and doesn’t know or care about what's going on in the world.

 

On 10/15/2026 at 8:28 AM, Typhoon Tip said:

The reality vs mere notion of an 'existential crisis' is more debatable than a bullet point.  No question....  With the ambrosia  of empirical data that points to a crisis, a crisis that is geophysically determined by taking said data and implementing in physical/mathematical laws of nature ...  no one can say there is no existential crisis with any assurance - in fact, quite the contrary.

However, one may personally define crisis differently than the next person.

Define crisis:

is there a false dawn at the 3am as a fiery wall is imminently cresting the horizon in 20 minutes?  No   

are we in a proven multi-species die off that is presently being considered a mass extinction event ? Yes    

The problem with acknowledging the latter is in part misrepresentation. That's the problem with "any" misrepresentation - however... I would argue that there are those choosing the wrong information to be true relative to that uncertainty. Because in the whole of it, there is both truth and falsity. People could and should choose information based upon some ability to objectively filtrate either content -

As an aside ... there's also a gleaming logical flaw in denialism. If the price of denying is death... why take the risk?  You cannot circumstantially be more certain in your denial than is the science in the other direction.  So the cost of doing nothing, for what? so we don't have to change... It baffles the mind that this is a position at all.

 

 

 

And there is more to the planet than one's own property which deniers dont get. 

 

On 10/15/2026 at 8:38 AM, LongBeachSurfFreak said:

We are definitely on the same page. If we do not get a handle on this asap, we pass a point of no return. Positive feedback loops overwhelming take over. That’s where I think the real threat that isn’t modeled excists. How do you model and account for something we do not fully understand. Then what happens to humanity at 5c? Certainly we aren’t supporting 8 billion with 2/3’s of the earth uninhabitable. Worst case scenario we can go further (though I’m not sure it’s possible) and go full hot house earth. Thats obviously a species ending event.


.

This planet can't support 8 billion as it is NOW AND we see evidence of that everywhere.

 

On 10/15/2026 at 9:00 AM, Typhoon Tip said:

If someone is distorting, or attempting to alter an understanding of reality, that is “demagoguery” or gaslighting. 

The data that is real and empirical does not support a grand CC conspiracy to fabricate a climate crisis to jump in bed with macro-economics required to rewire the world around a green infrastructure, though...   The following does not support the first sentence above.

Glaciers melted...

Seas already rising ...

Global temperatures exceed previous record along a contiguously accelerating curve ...

Species dying off or in states of diaspora due to lacking the ability to adapt at a pace their habitats are forcibly changing ...

Math and physics demonstrating that these should exactly happen - and here we are...

This compendium of objective realities does not suggest a grand CC conspiracy.    They suggest CC.  Period.  

 

 

The fossil fuel cartels have been trying to cover it up since the 1970s.

 

On 10/15/2026 at 9:05 AM, Brewbeer said:

many people don't believe this is an existential crisis for long term human civilization because so far, many people have been able to adapt to the changes that they have experienced, so far  

it has already become an existential crisis for some people living in and around Miami as king tides increasingly impact low lying neighborhoods; people can't sell their homes because the value is greatly diminished due the reoccurring sunny day flooding, which is progressively getting worse.  for a person who lives in such a neighborhood and needs to sell and leave, it IS an existential crisis.  same goes for millions who live on only feet above sea level in southeast Asia, which have substantially less means that the home owner getting flooded out in southern Florida has

we've been discussing AGW/climate change and it's on-going effects since the 1970s.  it's well understood.  because the facts and basis for it are so widely accepted, there is a general frustration with people who won't accept the facts, or modify their behaviors accordingly 

 

 

It's not just coastal areas billion dollar disasters are on a rise everywhere. Exxon began the cover-up in the 1970s we have proof of that.

 

 

On 10/15/2026 at 10:01 AM, Typhoon Tip said:

...there's also a moral consideration... 

It's one thing to be a hunter, with a gun or arrow ... traipsing through the bush stalking stock for the winter.  Not to sound too 'out there' but to for brevity, "Gaia" set that table of predator-prey relationship since the beginnings of life some billions of years ago. 

Obliviously swiping ecologies clean from a smoke stack 10,000 miles away ... I'll tell ya, at a minimum that's an interesting philosophy for the process of global Darwinism.   you know?  strong survive and so forth.  It just seems, however, that's an overstep on "evolution's intent" - poetically... who deserves reprisal? 

How's that for a creepy prelude.  haha

Anyway, an "existential crisis" should include all species of the planetary system, not just human kind. Particularly considering ... the holistic system ..."Gaia" or whatever you wanna call it, has to be healthy if and when our technology can't keep up if/when our own adaptation rate is being tested.   The world is experiencing a mass die off, and it is inextricably connected to CC. 

Anthropomorphic culpability in that die-off is, in a clinical sense, an incredible achievement by the machinery of Darwinian heh...

It smacks of that stuff about how technological feedback creates a paradox, 'Evolution evolves the means to de-evolve the progenitor to the previous state'.  Basically, tech makes survival easy; "easy" stops Darwinism; traits dissolve away because nature never holds onto attributes - entropy ensures decay.   That's at least one plausible explanation for Fermi's Paradox right there.  I'm sure there's more direct means ...like, species A can't survive their technological infancy before blowing themselves to kingdom come ...   If we survive the dad's gun scenario, we have this slow cook Law of Lessening Returns. 

CC and the perils in store ... it reminds me of that "Star Trek: Next Generation" episode, "The Ensigns of Command".  In that episode, a kind of xenophobic alien antagonist species known as "Sheliak" claim rights to a planetary system where several generations of colonist had adapted and were surviving - naturally ... not wanting to yield to the Sheliak's demand. Meanwhile, the Sheliak make it clear they would be willing to exterminate the "infestation", apparently having no compunctions in doing so... The colonist have technology, but they are vastly inferior, as well, had been completely closed off from the Federation for over a hundred years, and therefore, had sort of devolved to this incredulous state ... Implicit in the plot is that they can't see the Sheliak threat so they don't believe it to be what it is purported to be in lieu of the majesty they can see, which is their proud achievement as a surviving colony. 

The episode is a Sci Fi story exploring sociological aspects - really quite fascinating.  "Data" ( Brent Spiner), essentially a cyborg life form, was the only crew member that could withstand the "hyperonic" ( whatever that is/means) radiation the colonists themselves learned to adapt to, so he, being the less human of lot is naturally charged with the responsibility of exposing and convincing these people, first hand, of the existential threat the Sheliak impose...  Things aren't going so well.  He is even violently opposed to for his typical ingratiating uber polite methodical approach and efforts...  But the true hero is a sympathizer and realist member of the colony that restores him from a 'shut off' state, just in time!  He rises to demo the Sheliak's ability, first hand, by destroying the aqueduct that feeds the colony by use of his modified phaser.   Heh, everything in Start Trek is always solved by phasers or triquarters.  Stunned by the power of what the phaser did, Data seizes the moment and tells them that the Sheliak will obliterate them from space, 'Without you ever having seen the faces of your annihilators'.  

In other words, tell a human they are in danger, they'll look around and float trial balloons.  If they see it happening, they get out of the way.  At last, the colonists acquiesce. 

I find all that strikingly metaphoric where, just because humanity cannot real see, feel or sense the danger of CC directly, they are more than willing to deny the peril of it as being real.   

This is a major failing of the democratic system.  In addition to stripping first amendment rights from corporations and preventingbsuper mergers like Exxon Mobil we also need to stop letting ignorant people vote. Doing those two things will fix most issues.

I love Star Trek but perhaps those aliens should have been annihilated by The Federation.

 

 

On 10/15/2026 at 10:03 AM, Typhoon Tip said:

I didn't shift anything. 

Nor have I been in your debate, guy -  merely made the observation that people have different ideas on the nature of what a existential threat is - time and imminence being a part of that.  

By the way, you are factually wrong much of the time.

"- it has very much *not* been due to global warming; "   garbage semantics.

Climate-related die-offs are happening now.  If you want to dodge acknowledgement by saying they’re not all caused by climate change alone that's elementary anyway, but doesn't work to abase the former. I also said the toxicity ( meaning pollution) plays a roll.  Either way, this can and should all be under anthropomorphic activity. That's not 'goal posts', that's intelligence.  It is divisive to attempt to do otherwise, that or ignorance, anyway, because the use of fossil fuels for combustion creates toxicity, in conjunction green-housing... But as far as temperature specifically, a clear current example is coral reefs:  NOAA reports that the fourth global coral bleaching event affected about 84.4% of the world’s coral reef area with bleaching-level heat stress between January 2023 and September 2025.  Plus, I spoke of diasporas in that, too - which is species migrations... which is evidentiary supporting the same notion. There's plenty of others, and I'm not going to do the petty low-brow game of citing them for you - go do the research.

More broadly, warming and extreme weather are already affecting wildlife and this is just flat empirical fact.   Habitat loss, disease, and other pressures are scienced and heavily papered. 

 

You are completely wasting your time with a fool who actually thinks fossil fuels are a good thing. The fossil fuel cartels are directly involved with the sixth mass extinction in the planet's history. They aren't the only ones but they are a major culprit. The polar bears who are cannibalizing each other haven't even been brought up yet.

 

 

Instead do something worthwhile and check out my conversation with AI that I posted in the science forum.

 

 

On 10/15/2026 at 1:56 PM, GaWx said:

 My stance has been and still is:

-whereas CC/AGW has its clearly detrimental effects and thus I’m not happy about it (plus I selfishly prefer cold over warmth way down here in the deep SE), its effects aren’t all bad and that’s naturally largely being ignored by the extreme doomsayers. I‘m referring mainly to the increased greening of the globe that has occurred and also the reduced number of deaths from cold, which has killed many more than heat per organizations that compile the stats even though the balance could change if it gets hot enough, of course

-there very well could be some negative feedback loops that aren’t being modeled well as regards how much warmer it will ultimately get, which if true would mean that the worst case scenarios aren’t realistic

It depends on where you live. If you live in an island nation in the Pacific and must migrate you better bet it's an existential threat.  That's why mass migration is now happening. 

 

On 10/15/2026 at 10:49 PM, GaWx said:

 
 What are your thoughts about the horrible 2023 FL Keys bleaching event caused by prolonged record hot SSTs in the low 90s? Key West buoy hit an amazing 92.8F during the late afternoon of 8/2/23! Several of us here followed this disaster and posted about it:

 

 The devastation there was amplified by the persistent heat as measured by the amazingly high DHW:

Two species were nearly wiped out! The good news though is that they saved genetic material from them thank goodness:

However, even these coral species are not entirely lost.

During the heat wave, scientists saved about 150 genotypes, a.k.a. genetic material, of elkhorn coral and 250 genotypes of staghorn. They’re stored in biobanks at the Mote laboratory and The Reef Institute in West Palm Beach, Florida. The material will be used to propagate and reintroduce staghorn and elkhorn corals once conditions are more favorable.

https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/two-florida-coral-species-were-nearly-wiped-out-heat-wave

This is just the beginning the fact is this horrible event should never have been allowed to happen.in the first place. 

 

 

[WolfStock1]

9 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

That's not going to stop it. What will stop it is climate engineering which is already underway and which will rapidly accelerate beginning in 2030.

 

Yes but ignorant people dont even realize they are ignorant. 

 

He's willfully ignorant. The fossil fuel cartel loves that that's why it was so easy for them to engage in a 50 year cover up. 

 

Clearly billion dollar disasters are on a rapid rise.

 

He is an entitled ignorant fool who makes no sense and doesn’t know or care about what's going on in the world.

 

And there is more to the planet than one's own property which deniers dont get. 

 

This planet can't support 8 billion as it is NOW AND we see evidence of that everywhere.

 

The fossil fuel cartels have been trying to cover it up since the 1970s.

 

It's not just coastal areas billion dollar disasters are on a rise everywhere. Exxon began the cover-up in the 1970s we have proof of that.

 

 

This is a major failing of the democratic system.  In addition to stripping first amendment rights from corporations and preventingbsuper mergers like Exxon Mobil we also need to stop letting ignorant people vote. Doing those two things will fix most issues.

I love Star Trek but perhaps those aliens should have been annihilated by The Federation.

 

 

You are completely wasting your time with a fool who actually thinks fossil fuels are a good thing. The fossil fuel cartels are directly involved with the sixth mass extinction in the planet's history. They aren't the only ones but they are a major culprit. The polar bears who are cannibalizing each other haven't even been brought up yet.

 

 

Instead do something worthwhile and check out my conversation with AI that I posted in the science forum.

 

 

It depends on where you live. If you live in an island nation in the Pacific and must migrate you better bet it's an existential threat.  That's why mass migration is now happening. 

 

This is just the beginning the fact is this horrible event should never have been allowed to happen.in the first place. 

 

 

 

You are *so* brainwashed.   I would urge to be skeptical of information you receive, looking into the veracity of it and thinking about all the factors involved, rather just accepting what you're being fed without question.

But again - you're ignoring my statements, in your blindness.    Let me state once again:

I AM NOT CLAIMING THAT MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT IMPACTING THE WORLD

Somehow you keep forgetting that, and trying to assert that I'm making claims that I am not.   You are arguing against a strawman.

 

Have fun.