Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,517
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    gopenoxfox
    Newest Member
    gopenoxfox
    Joined

worst long term prediction ever ?


DTWXRISK
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • DTWXRISK changed the title to worst long term prediction ever ?

IF anything ... this,

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/an-ancient-era-of-global-warming-could-hint-at-our-scorching-future

My own op-ed:

Simple conceptual question to mull over:    It took the Earth a billion years to create and stow all these volatility in the form of fossil fuels; humanity comes along and threatens to release all that reactive chemistry ... back into the dynamic system in just 500 years ... and yes, time is a variable that matters!

   What the f do you think is going to happen?   Nothing??  

The PETM -like acceleration debate has been going on for years. It isn't new, no.  But, we're already seeing sudden sea floor methane releases ... These are evidences.  Siberian blow-out phenomenon, we're- most likely - heading in a direction of Methane inclusion in this whole mess...turning an already non-linear rise in global temperatures, into something that is accelerating too fast for most systems of nature on the planet to adapt.  It is not frankly clear with climate prediction modeling whether they are factoring in that 'wild card'.   

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

IF anything ... this,

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/an-ancient-era-of-global-warming-could-hint-at-our-scorching-future

My own op-ed:

Simple conceptual question to mull over:    It took the Earth a billion years to create and stow all these volatility in the form of fossil fuels; humanity comes along and threatens to release all that reactive chemistry ... back into the dynamic system in just 500 years ... and yes, time is a variable that matters!

   What the f do you think is going to happen?   Nothing??  

The PETM -like acceleration debate has been going on for years. It isn't new, no.  But, we're already seeing sudden sea floor methane releases ... These are evidences.  Siberian blow-out phenomenon, we're- most likely - heading in a direction of Methane inclusion in this whole mess...turning an already non-linear rise in global temperatures, into something that is accelerating too fast for most systems of nature on the planet to adapt.  It is not frankly clear with climate prediction modeling whether they are factoring in that 'wild card'.   

and a new mass extinction event on a much shorter timeframe than previous ones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Twitter: “Disappearing” the warming.

The trick: Use the model’s 1991-2020 baseline without disclosing that baseline is much warmer than those used by the major climate records (GISS, NCDC, Berkeley, HadCrut, etc.). 
 

What appears as normal is actually well above normal in the climate record.

image.thumb.jpeg.07b600b0ee248a980a1491215728898f.jpeg

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/2/2022 at 2:24 AM, LibertyBell said:

and a new mass extinction event on a much shorter timeframe than previous ones

Well ...actually, ..it's a short google effort to find accredited bio-informatic that points out we are already in a mass extinction event.    The most likely causal candidate in fact being, climate changing too fast for adaptation rates -

...already happening.  

That said, rate of species loss could also increase ... it's not a linear metric, either.  Duh.  I mean, if a comet smacks the planet and wipes out 80% of everything inside of a week, that would be an example of a greatly accelerated extinction event, huh.  

That is obvious arithmetic, I know, but the sad fact of the matter is, ...there is sooo much disconnect between humanity's various exploits, needed to run the industrial engine, vs consequences of profligate usage of nature.  It isn't always abundantly clear that people really get it. 

As an aside, ...you know, it honestly isn't really the fault of our fathers...

It was circumstantially unknowable - but that doesn't stop the damage, just because the forefather's of oil-fueled innovation didn't know any better. So, generations later, the responsibility and culpability was never part of the journey, thus, those simple dot-connections have to be spelled out.  Those that now "use" uncertainty to dial up the rev rate of the engine, don't connect to a morality.   Maybe there is large background population of sociopaths amongst us all, who have no compunctions in manipulating for gain.  Or, the the idea of institutional multi-generational ways and means that provide the very spirit of existence, as being the reason for detonating an entire planet - it's just too big to wrap their heads around...  So, of course it can't be true, then.  

Either way, it seems they number too vastly to stop - it's really like we are executing the step 2 of the Fermian explanation.

sorry - not bloviating at you per se.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

From Twitter: “Disappearing” the warming.

The trick: Use the model’s 1991-2020 baseline without disclosing that baseline is much warmer than those used by the major climate records (GISS, NCDC, Berkeley, HadCrut, etc.). 
 

What appears as normal is actually well above normal in the climate record.

image.thumb.jpeg.07b600b0ee248a980a1491215728898f.jpeg

 

Don,

 Nice catch about this map's climo base! JB is notorious for these kinds of tricks. I also try to keep in mind biases/agenda of the messenger. I realize these could go either way depending on the messenger, but JB has over the decades pushed against GW and tends to be cold biased, regardless (example: his cold biased E US winter fcasts).

 

 Another thing to keep in mind is the strength of the current La Nina. The latest weekly as well as May, 2022, overall, were the coldest for their respective periods in Nino 3.4 since 1999:

Weekly: https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/wksst9120.for

Monthly: https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/ersst5.nino.mth.91-20.ascii

 

 Related to this, the met. spring SOI of +16.8 was the 2nd highest on record by a good margin going back to 1876. Only 1917's +18.3 was higher:

 https://data.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/SeasonalClimateOutlook/SouthernOscillationIndex/SOIDataFiles/MonthlySOIPhase1887-1989Base.txt

 

Besides the obvious BN E and C Eq. Pac., La Nina in summer favors BN in W. S America, part of W Africa, and S Asia (per bottom right of maps below):

side-by-side.jpg?resize=812,420&ssl=1

 So, JB is taking advantage of using very warm climo of 1991-2020 combined with La Nina climo favoring cool low latitudes this time of year.

 One more thing: this is merely a forecast of 46 days as opposed to actual. So, it may not even verify closely. Maybe there is a cold bias of the Euro weeklies in June/July at these low latitudes.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Well ...actually, ..it's a short google effort to find accredited bio-informatic that points out we are already in a mass extinction event.    The most likely causal candidate in fact being, climate changing too fast for adaptation rates -

...already happening.  

That said, rate of species loss could also increase ... it's not a linear metric, either.  Duh.  I mean, if a comet smacks the planet and wipes out 80% of everything inside of a week, that would be an example of a greatly accelerated extinction event, huh.  

That is obvious arithmetic, I know, but the sad fact of the matter is, ...there is sooo much disconnect between humanity's various exploits, needed to run the industrial engine, vs consequences of profligate usage of nature.  It isn't always abundantly clear that people really get it. 

As an aside, ...you know, it honestly isn't really the fault of our fathers...

It was circumstantially unknowable - but that doesn't stop the damage, just because the forefather's of oil-fueled innovation didn't know any better. So, generations later, the responsibility and culpability was never part of the journey, thus, those simple dot-connections have to be spelled out.  Those that now "use" uncertainty to dial up the rev rate of the engine, don't connect to a morality.   Maybe there is large background population of sociopaths amongst us all, who have no compunctions in manipulating for gain.  Or, the the idea of institutional multi-generational ways and means that provide the very spirit of existence, as being the reason for detonating an entire planet - it's just too big to wrap their heads around...  So, of course it can't be true, then.  

Either way, it seems they number too vastly to stop - it's really like we are executing the step 2 of the Fermian explanation.

sorry - not bloviating at you per se.

I see such sociopathic behavior from various cartels-- not just fossil fuels, but logging (deforestation), the chemical cartels, various  farming cartels (animal farming, big ag, etc.), basically humanity screwing up the environment for short term gains, resulting in long term losses.

I see an "everyone for themselves" kind of situation developing where society divides into various factions because of these different emergencies coming to a head all at the same time.  Like you said, the mass extinction event is already happening and has been for a few decades, but as more people realize what's going on, they will (and already have) divided into different factions and society becomes much more divisive....like a panic driven reaction, as they are looking to do whatever it takes to save themselves rather than face the hard decisions that need to be made in order to save society and the planet.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

From Twitter: “Disappearing” the warming.

The trick: Use the model’s 1991-2020 baseline without disclosing that baseline is much warmer than those used by the major climate records (GISS, NCDC, Berkeley, HadCrut, etc.). 
 

What appears as normal is actually well above normal in the climate record.

image.thumb.jpeg.07b600b0ee248a980a1491215728898f.jpeg

 

There really is no such thing as "average" or "normal" as that always keeps changing.  Why don't we just go decade by decade and show them how each decade has been warmer than the previous one?  We need to stop using averages and normals when those no longer apply because of how quickly the climate is changing.  I think expressing it as decade over decade changes is much easier.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just had a short conversation with someone on the WUWT blog who was trying to claim CMIP6 predictions were off by 4 standards of deviation from the UAH temperature. I had to point out that the UAH anomalies are baselined on the 1991-2020 period while the CMIP6 prediction he was looking at was on the 1880-1910 baseline. Furthermore his 5 month lead time prediction from Dec. 2021 was significantly worse than the CMIP6's 1709 month lead time prediction for the May 2022 anomaly. And I see these astonishingly bad contrarian predictions and misrepresentation of reputable predictions literally on a monthly basis. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/30/2022 at 10:51 PM, DTWXRISK said:

The video from 2011 ---watch it 2x and note all the predictions that joe blowhole BUSTardi got wrong.

https://youtu.be/3mzUjn2Z-2E

You're being generous. He didn't even make it 5 years with this one. Him and the rest of the AGW minimizer crowd were alllllll over the place proclaiming GW was dead as the main driver when that Super Nina hit.

He's like the best contrarian indicator ever. If the guy was a stock, being short would be making a killing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
5 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Dishonorable mention to the other Italian-American weather guru named Joe, for this atrocious forecast at the Heartland Institute's ICCC in July 2014:

 

 At one time, I felt there was a possibility for at least a pause in GW due to the last two very weak sunspot cycles. I was being open-minded. I even allowed enough time for an assumed lag based on the ideas that afternoon highs occur several hours after the daily solar high point and summer's hottest normals occur a month after the summer solstice. However, I pretty much gave up on this idea a few years ago when I saw GW still didn't appear to be slowing to any great degree other than temporary halts due to La Niña. Has there been any significant slowing?
 

 We're now nearly 14 years past the late 2008 very weak minimum and nearly 3 years past the 2019 very weak minimum. Even taking into account lag, I now find it hard to believe that there will be a GW pause of a significant length of time due solely to the sun. The sun doesn't seem to be as significant of a factor as I at one time thought was possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 6/4/2022 at 11:34 AM, donsutherland1 said:

From Twitter: “Disappearing” the warming.

The trick: Use the model’s 1991-2020 baseline without disclosing that baseline is much warmer than those used by the major climate records (GISS, NCDC, Berkeley, HadCrut, etc.). 
 

What appears as normal is actually well above normal in the climate record.

image.thumb.jpeg.07b600b0ee248a980a1491215728898f.jpeg

 

 

Everyone has a "trick" on both sides. Just being honest. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/4/2022 at 12:11 PM, Typhoon Tip said:

Well ...actually, ..it's a short google effort to find accredited bio-informatic that points out we are already in a mass extinction event.    The most likely causal candidate in fact being, climate changing too fast for adaptation rates -

...already happening.  

That said, rate of species loss could also increase ... it's not a linear metric, either.  Duh.  I mean, if a comet smacks the planet and wipes out 80% of everything inside of a week, that would be an example of a greatly accelerated extinction event, huh.  

That is obvious arithmetic, I know, but the sad fact of the matter is, ...there is sooo much disconnect between humanity's various exploits, needed to run the industrial engine, vs consequences of profligate usage of nature.  It isn't always abundantly clear that people really get it. 

As an aside, ...you know, it honestly isn't really the fault of our fathers...

It was circumstantially unknowable - but that doesn't stop the damage, just because the forefather's of oil-fueled innovation didn't know any better. So, generations later, the responsibility and culpability was never part of the journey, thus, those simple dot-connections have to be spelled out.  Those that now "use" uncertainty to dial up the rev rate of the engine, don't connect to a morality.   Maybe there is large background population of sociopaths amongst us all, who have no compunctions in manipulating for gain.  Or, the the idea of institutional multi-generational ways and means that provide the very spirit of existence, as being the reason for detonating an entire planet - it's just too big to wrap their heads around...  So, of course it can't be true, then.  

Either way, it seems they number too vastly to stop - it's really like we are executing the step 2 of the Fermian explanation.

sorry - not bloviating at you per se.

The mass extinction event, if there is one, will probably be war(s) because some  places are becoming for favorable for human life and some places become more hostile.  Almost all of the SW past 100W seems unsustainable soon based on the trends.  Los Angeles and San Francisco can build desalinization plants someday, but that won't work well in California's Central Valley, Phoenix or Las Vegas.  Water wars around the world would seem possible.  I'd think most of the ECUSA cities will be able to adjust if the rate of sea level change stays modest.  Miami, maybe not.

 

Famine in countries of limited military means to secure water would probably happen.  Probably not a K-T boundary asteroid extinction event, barring a major nuclear exchange.  My understanding is Siberia will become more favorable for agriculture, or the nation whose leader threatens first strike nuclear attacks may not need a war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 8/7/2022 at 7:07 PM, GaWx said:

 At one time, I felt there was a possibility for at least a pause in GW due to the last two very weak sunspot cycles. I was being open-minded. I even allowed enough time for an assumed lag based on the ideas that afternoon highs occur several hours after the daily solar high point and summer's hottest normals occur a month after the summer solstice. However, I pretty much gave up on this idea a few years ago when I saw GW still didn't appear to be slowing to any great degree other than temporary halts due to La Niña. Has there been any significant slowing?
 

 We're now nearly 14 years past the late 2008 very weak minimum and nearly 3 years past the 2019 very weak minimum. Even taking into account lag, I now find it hard to believe that there will be a GW pause of a significant length of time due solely to the sun. The sun doesn't seem to be as significant of a factor as I at one time thought was possible.

Having undergone a similar change in thinking, I appreciate the honesty and humility. While I never denied that co2 was a significant ghg, from 2007-2010 I entertained the idea that 21st century warming could be around 0.5C due to false ideas about sun cycles, ocean cycles, and negative feedbacks. That experience taught me to have greater deference to the professional experts in a field, especially when my own understanding is incomplete. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/27/2022 at 11:27 AM, Ed, snow and hurricane fan said:

The mass extinction event, if there is one, will probably be war(s) because some  places are becoming for favorable for human life and some places become more hostile.  Almost all of the SW past 100W seems unsustainable soon based on the trends.  Los Angeles and San Francisco can build desalinization plants someday, but that won't work well in California's Central Valley, Phoenix or Las Vegas.  Water wars around the world would seem possible.  I'd think most of the ECUSA cities will be able to adjust if the rate of sea level change stays modest.  Miami, maybe not.

 

Famine in countries of limited military means to secure water would probably happen.  Probably not a K-T boundary asteroid extinction event, barring a major nuclear exchange.  My understanding is Siberia will become more favorable for agriculture, or the nation whose leader threatens first strike nuclear attacks may not need a war.

Read the articles I linked too, we're killing off all our pollinators, there most definitely is a mass extinction.

We are screwing ourselves AND all other species.

https://usrtk.org/pesticides/chlorpyrifos/

Scientific research shows that chlorpyrifos, a widely used insecticide, is strongly linked to brain damage in children. These and other health concerns led several countries and some U.S. states to ban chlorpyrifos years ago, but the chemical has still been allowed for use by farmers in the U.S. after successful lobbying by its manufacturer.

In August 2021, the Biden Administration announced that it would acknowledge the danger to children and would ban the pesticide from agricultural use. Chlorpyrifos was banned from household use more than 20 years ago.

The new rule is slated to take effect in early 2022.

The decision comes after an order issued in April by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, directing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban farm use unless safety of the chemical could be proven.

https://usrtk.org/pesticides/maryland-pollinator-protection-act-pesticide-industry-opposition-playbook/

 

Days after Maryland state legislators introduced a bill aimed at protecting pollinators by restricting the use of neonicotinoid insecticides in residential areas, a group of representatives of Bayer, Syngenta, CropLife America, Maryland Farm Bureau, and the Maryland Department of Agriculture planned and executed a counter-offensive. Emails obtained by U.S. Right to Know show the strategies they used over the next two and a half years.

The emails are a rare window into the pesticide industry’s playbook for trying to keep a group of controversial pesticides on the American market. The industry group touted pesticide industry efforts to protect pollinators, collaborated closely with the Maryland Department of Agriculture, and tried to recruit a bee expert to testify on their behalf, among other efforts to defeat the bills.

Neonicotinoids, or neonics, are the most widely used insecticides in the world. They are toxic to bees and other pollinators. The European Union has banned several neonics for outdoor use out of concern for pollinators. Over the winter of 2014 to 2015 when Maryland delegates drafted the first bill banning neonics, the state’s beekeepers lost 45 percent of their honey bee colonies. Globally, wild and domestic pollinator species are in decline. There is a growing body of evidence linking neonics to pollinator declines.

Although the Maryland Department of Agriculture has never attributed a bee kill to neonics, neonics have caused mass bee deaths in other places. Studies have demonstrated that neonics at levels found in the environment can impair bee brain cells, which makes them worse at navigating, foraging, and flying.

The Maryland Pollinator Protection Act was signed into law in May 2016, after a stronger bill died in committee in 2015. A 2014 version limited neonic purchases to certified pesticide applicators, but was withdrawn by its sponsor.

https://usrtk.org/pesticides/glyphosate-health-concerns/

Glyphosate, a synthetic herbicide patented in 1974 by the Monsanto Company and now manufactured and sold by many companies in hundreds of products, has been associated with cancer and other health concerns. Glyphosate is best known as the active ingredient in Roundup-branded herbicides, and the herbicide used with “Roundup Ready” genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Herbicide tolerance is the most prevalent GMO trait engineered into food crops, with some 90% of corn and 94% of soybeans in the U.S. engineered to tolerate herbicides, according to USDA data. A 2017 study found that Americans’ exposure to glyphosate increased approximately 500 percent since Roundup Ready GMO crops were introduced in the U.S in 1996. 

Why is Bayer taking glyphosate off the U.S. consumer market?

In July 2021, Monsanto owner Bayer AG said it would remove glyphosate-based herbicides from the U.S. consumer market by 2023 due to litigation. More than 100,000 people are suing Bayer alleging they developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma from exposure to the company’s glyphosate herbicides, such as Roundup. For more information about the lawsuits and documents released via discovery, see our Monsanto Papers page

 

https://usrtk.org/food-related-diseases/junk-food-target-communities-of-color-increasing-risks-covid-19/

 

In the United States, health disparities in nutrition and obesity, often deriving from structural racism, correlated closely with the alarming racial and ethnic disparities related to Covid-19. Structural inequalities across U.S. society contribute to this problem, including unequal access to fresh healthy foods, unequal access to health care, socioeconomic factors and excess exposure to toxic chemicals and unhealthy air.

For more information about structural inequities in our food system, see resources from Duke University’s World Food Policy Center and the Food First Institute for Development and Food Policy.

Another problem is that food companies specifically and disproportionately target communities of color with their marketing for junk food products. In this post we are tracking news coverage and studies about racial disparities in junk food advertising.

Data on the disproportionate targeting of junk food advertising and marketing to communities of color

TV Advertising, Corporate Power, and Latino Health Disparities, American Journal of Preventative Medicine (June 2022)

  • “Overall greater health-adverse and fewer health-beneficial advertisements are broadcasted on Spanish-language than on English-language TV. Unchecked corporate marketing strategies may serve as a commercial determinant of health disparities for Latino populations by Spanish-language TV.”

 

https://usrtk.org/pesticides/bayer-osu-neonic/

 

Agrichemical giant Bayer helped fund a study by university academics, then pressured them to omit photos that implicated a defective insecticide-treated seed product as a threat to bees, according to communications obtained by U.S. Right to Know.

Several seed and insecticide companies, including Bayer, paid Ohio State University researchers to determine how much their insecticide-coated seed products affected bees during corn planting season in 2014 and 2015. After the researchers presented their preliminary results to “stakeholders,” which included funders, a Bayer official asked that their final report exclude photos of insecticide-coated corn seeds in which the product appeared defective. He also urged the researchers to qualify statements in the final report that discussed threats to bee health in ways that benefited Bayer’s corporate interests.

neonic-treated-seed-279x300.jpeg

One of the seeds Johnson and Watters photographed after they observed insecticidal coatings flaking off in the field in 2015.

Although the photos and all the researchers’ conclusions ultimately made it to the final publication, internal emails show the seed and chemical industry funders intensely scrutinizing the researchers’ findings during pre-publication presentations. The study’s funding contract allowed funders to review and comment on findings prior to publication, and required pre-approval for any press releases or sharing of results.

This situation serves as an example of how agrichemical companies attempted to influence scientific research at a public university. Emails show how an industry funder tried to control and spin researchers’ results. Internal communications and research contracts are elements of sponsored research that are typically hidden from the public, but in this case, they provide insight into corporate sponsors’ involvement in the research process.

 

https://usrtk.org/food-related-diseases/ilsi-rebrands-again/

 

One of the world’s most powerful food industry lobby groups is rebranding itself to better serve its food industry funders. This comes after years of academic articles – some of them based on documents obtained by U.S. Right to Know – and adverse coverage in major news outlets made it harder for the group to do stealth lobbying and public relations work for food companies. 

ILSI-is-a-lobby-group-300x130.jpgThe International Life Sciences Institute, founded in 1978 by a Coca-Cola executive, is changing its name. It will now call itself just by its acronym, ILSI. The global federation of groups also unveiled a new logo and updated website on May 23, and announced a renewed focus on “scientific integrity.” 

“I don’t know whether to laugh or cry,” said Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University. “ILSI has always claimed to be independently science-based, but if there were ever any doubts, we now know beyond question that ILSI is a classic food industry front-group.” 

“Many investigators have exposed ILSI’s behind-the-scenes lobbying efforts against public health measures that might reduce food product sales,” she said. 

 

https://usrtk.org/monsanto-papers/

Discovery documents  

Read internal Monsanto documents   As part of the discovery process during the litigation that preceded the settlement, Monsanto had to turn over millions of pages of its internal records. The Monsanto Papers and other court records are shared below, including documents regarding the company’s ghostwriting of an important paper published in the year 2000, and how the company used that “independent” scientific literature to promote and defend its herbicides. 

Background 

Three years after Germany’s Bayer AG bought Monsanto in 2018, Bayer set aside more than $16 billion to cover  litigation liability associated with thousands of U.S. lawsuits alleging Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicides, such as Roundup, cause a type of cancer called non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). 

After losing three out of three trials in cases brought against Monsanto by cancer victims, Bayer said in June 2020 that it would pay more than $10 billion to settle roughly 100,000 of the claims.  The proposed resolution came two years after Bayer bought Monsanto for $63 billion and one year after U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria ordered Bayer/Monsanto to enter into mediation with plaintiffs’ attorneys. The settlement became mired in difficulties, and drew complaints from plaintiffs who said the individual amounts they’ve been offered are too little to constitute fair compensation. While many law firms have reached settlement agreements with Bayer, many others have not as of August 2021. 

In late July 2021, Bayer said it would set aside another $4.5 billion to cover Roundup cancer claims. The company also said it would stop selling Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides to U.S. consumers by 2023, but would keep selling the products to commercial applicators and farmer

 

https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/jon-entine-genetic-literacy-project/

 

Genetic Literacy Project is an influential front group that partners with Bayer and other chemical companies to promote GMO foods and pesticides and argue for deregulation. Bayer paid the Genetic Literacy Project $100,000 from July 2020 to June 2021 for its work “to prevent legislative overreach in genetic engineering,” according to the group’s IRS form 990. Donor’s Trust, the secretive funding vehicle that funds attacks on climate science, is also a donor. 

Prior to 2020, the Genetic Literacy Project claimed not to accept corporate funding, despite emails and internal corporate documents showing how the group assisted pesticide companies with their product defense efforts. We discuss the evidence here, and describe how GLP plays a leading role in efforts to attack and discredit scientists and journalists who raise concerns about chemical industry products.

Origins as Monsanto’s PR firm 

Jon Entine, founder and director of Genetic Literacy Project, is also the founder and principal of ESG MediaMetrics, a public relations firm that had Monsanto as a client in 2011 when the firm registered the GeneticLiteracyProject.org domain.

Entine was also employed at that time by Statistical Assessment Services (STATS), a nonprofit group that journalists have described as a “disinformation campaign” that downplays health harms of toxic products. GLP was developed as a “cross disciplinary program with STATS,” according to web archives. In 2015, GLP moved under the umbrella of a new group, the Science Literacy Project, which inherited STATS tax ID.

STATS was a “major player in the public relations campaign to discredit concerns about bisphenol A,” according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Its parent organization, the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA), was paid by tobacco giant Phillip Morris in the 1990s “to pick apart stories critical of smoking.” Entine was a director of the CMPA in 2014/2015, according to tax forms.

 

https://usrtk.org/gmo/center-for-food-integrity-partners-with-monsanto/

 

The Center for Food Integrity (CFI), formerly the Grow America Project, is an industry-funded 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization that conducts research, lobbying and public relations campaigns to “earn consumer trust” for processed food and agrichemical companies, including DowDuPont, Monsanto, Cargill, Costco, Grocery Manufacturers Association, Hershey, Kroger and trade associations for meat, dairy and soybeans.

In the five-year period from 2012-2016, CFI spent over $23 million on various marketing and messaging programs to promote industry messaging to build trust in GMO foods, pesticides, food additives and antibiotics in meat. CFI’s 501(c)(3) arm, the Foundation for Food Integrity, funds research to inform messaging attempts to build consumer trust, with a spending budget of $823,167 from 2012-2016. Sponsors in 2012 included Monsanto, CropLife America and the US Farmers and Ranchers Alliance.

PR for the industrial food chain 

Board members for the Center for Food Integrity hail from the largest chemical, processed food and drug companies; the board includes executives from Cargill, Corteva Agrisciences (formerly DowDuPont), Chik-fil-A, Merck, McDonald’s, and trade associations for the soy, dairy and sugar industries. The president and founder of CFI, Charlie Arnot, also runs Look East (formerly CMA), a PR company for the food and agrichemical industries that offers services in branding and reputation management.

Terry Fleck, the executive director of CFI for 16 years since its inception, was also executive vice president at Look East. He retired in 2022. In April 2022, CFI appointed a new executive director, Mickie French, a former PR consultant for Coca-Cola,  Johnson & Johnson, Microsoft, Mars, Nestle, and former executive at Tate & Lyle and FleishmanHillard PR firm. 

“Industry partner” in Monsanto’s attack on IARC cancer panel

An internal Monsanto document identifies the Center for Food Integrity as an “industry partner” in Monsanto’s public relations plan to discredit the World Health Organization’s cancer research arm, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), to protect the reputation of Roundup weedkiller. In March 2015, IARC judged glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup, to be probably carcinogenic to humans.

The Monsanto plan lists four tiers of industry partners to engage in its public relations efforts. CFI is listed as a Tier 3 “industry partner” along with two other food-industry funded groups, the International Food Information Council and the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

According to the document, these groups were part of a “Stakeholder Engagement team” that could alert food companies to Monsanto’s “inoculation strategy” to provide education about glyphosate levels and to describe Monsanto’s preferred studies as “science-based studies versus [the] agenda-driven hypothesis” of the independent cancer research panel.

 

https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/monsanto-relied-on-these-partners-to-attack-top-cancer-scientists/

 

elated: Secret Documents Expose Monsanto’s War on Cancer Scientists, by Stacy Malkan

This fact sheet describes the contents of Monsanto’s confidential public relations plan to discredit the World Health Organization’s cancer research unit, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), in order to protect the reputation of Roundup weedkiller. In March 2015, the international group of experts on the IARC panel judged glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup, to be probably carcinogenic to humans.

BrandProducts_Image_Large-copy-copy.jpg

The Monsanto plan names more than a dozen “industry partner” groups that company executives planned to “inform / inoculate / engage” in their efforts to protect the reputation of Roundup, prevent the “unfounded” cancer claims from becoming popular opinion, and “provide cover for regulatory agencies.” Partners included academics as well as chemical and food industry front groups, trade groups and lobby groups — follow the links below to fact sheets that provide more information about the partner groups.

Together these fact sheets provide a sense of the depth and breadth of the corporate attack on the IARC cancer experts in defense of Monsanto’s top-selling herbicide.

 

https://usrtk.org/pesticides/secret-documents-expose-monsantos-war-on-cancer-scientists/

 

DeWayne Johnson, a 46-year-old father dying of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, was the first person to face Monsanto in trial last June over allegations the company hid evidence about the cancer-causing dangers of its Roundup weedkiller. Juries have since returned with three unanimous verdicts finding that glyphosate-based Roundup herbicides were a substantial cause of cancer, and leveling massive punitive damages against Bayer (which now owns Monsanto).  Thousands more people are suing in state and federal courts, and corporate documents coming out of the trials are shining light on the heavy-handed tactics Monsanto used to deny cancer risk and protect the chemical that was the lynchpin of its profits.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.eenews.net/articles/inside-fdas-forever-chemicals-catastrophe/
4:54 AM
Lawyers for DuPont knew the Food and Drug Administration had a serious concern that the company’s new food packaging product might be toxic.

Beagles and rats that were fed DuPont’s grease-resistant coating for paper wrappers had enlarged livers after three months, a report showed.

The year was 1966.
4:54 AM
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21297031-fda-memo-on-zonyl-pin-down-extent-of-use
4:54 AM
Inside FDA, toxicologists were irritated. “The petition is not acceptable for filing,” they wrote in an internal memo. The scientists wanted a two-year health study of the nonstick coating and the unfamiliar chemicals it was made of.

A key chemical in that mixture is now infamous: PFOA, a notorious polluter of U.S. water supplies.

The DuPont product, Zonyl RP, entered the picture as the nation was transforming its food system. Americans wanted eating to be fast, easy and cheap. At supermarkets, paper and plastic containers were delivering more food options to millions of people. Fast-food restaurants wrapped burgers and fries for working families.

With billions of dollars in future sales in the balance, questions about Zonyl’s safety were trouble for DuPont. So the company cut the amount of the coating it planned to apply to food packaging in half. Only in “exceptional circumstances,” DuPont’s lawyer assured FDA, would the substance rub off packaging and make it into people’s food.

The nation’s food safety watchdog agreed, effectively waiving the longer-term health study.

For the next half-century, PFOA would find its way into the American diet through everything from buttery popcorn to burgers and pizza.
4:55 AM
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21295354-fda-memo-determining-use-of-zonyl-is-safe
4:55 AM
While much of the public focus so far has been on drinking water, the dangers of PFOA and similar compounds in food packaging have largely been overlooked, especially by regulators.

In a six-month investigation, E&E News reviewed decades of FDA, corporate and court documents to form a clearer picture of the federal response to the chemicals’ presence in food. Critics of FDA describe an agency that sets a high bar for alerting the public of food chemical safety issues, even when PFOA and similar compounds are detected in food at relatively high levels.

FDA rarely checks back in with chemical makers about what is already in the food supply — even as science exposes more about health effects.

Scientists have linked PFOA to kidney and testicular cancers, liver problems, thyroid issues, low birth weight, and the suppression of children’s immune systems. A study of blood samples from 1999 to 2012 found the human-made compound can remain in people’s bodies for years. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study estimated that almost every American had it in their blood.

For the past 20 years, activists, lawyers, regulators and Hollywood stars have trained a spotlight on polluted aquifers around company towns like Parkersburg, W.Va., where DuPont released the chemical into the Ohio River. But that scrutiny has seldom focused on PFOA and related chemicals in food, even as the Biden administration says it is mounting a “whole of government” effort to limit exposure to those substances across the country.

“The focus has been on drinking water, but food is major,” said Betsy Southerland, a former director of science and technology in EPA’s Office of Water. “EPA has focused on what EPA can regulate, and the question is how much longer is it going to take FDA to do something on food.”

Food and chemical policy analysts say FDA is far out of step with EPA on a significant public health issue. Many of the same experts say the two-year study FDA could have required in 1966 might have offered the first clues about PFOA and the larger family of chemicals it is part of called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.
4:57 AM
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6380916/
4:57 AM
https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/bisphenol-bpa-use-food-contact-application
4:57 AM
FDA’s approach to PFAS echoes its handling of the compound bisphenol A, or BPA, a chemical additive in plastics. BPA was approved in the 1960s for food contact use. But studies in labs around the world have since linked low levels of BPA to reproductive, cognitive and developmental health effects. Europe is weighing a broad ban on BPA in food containers after having already banned its use in baby bottles.

By contrast, when FDA ended authorization for BPA in baby bottles and infant formula packaging a decade ago, the decision was based not on health concerns but on findings that U.S. consumers had abandoned those products. FDA still considers BPA safe for food containers and the coating inside metal cans.

Public health advocates say that sluggish response is playing out again with PFAS. So far, FDA has largely ignored requests for a national ban on PFAS use in food packaging, while multiple states are doing just that. California, New York, Washington, Vermont, Maine and Minnesota have all banned the chemicals outright in food packaging. Six more have policies limiting their use.

“Is FDA doing enough? No, they are not,” said Liz Hitchcock, director of Safer Chemicals Healthy Families. 

 

Environment and health experts argue FDA food programs suffer from limited attention within the agency. So much of the agency’s muscle is dedicated to reviewing and approving drugs.

FDA Commissioner Robert Califf is solidly within the realm of medicine and pharmaceuticals, not food. And he managed to almost completely avoid questions about food during his Senate confirmation hearing. Califf was confirmed in February.

FDA has asked Congress for more funding to address “emerging chemical and toxicology issues” — including PFAS. For fiscal 2022, FDA requested nearly $20 million in new funding for hiring more toxicologists to monitor the food supply. At the same time, that additional funding represents just a fraction of the $6.5 billion budget proposal, which largely focuses on the agency’s drug work.

For 120 years, Americans have worried that their food is laced with dangerous chemicals. Scientists have long warned that — simply put — not enough is known about exposure to toxic substances through food.

In 1902, Congress funded a food testing project by a team of chemists led by one of the earliest American consumer advocates, Dr. Harvey Wiley, that helped build public support for reform measures. Wiley and his acolytes crusaded for the Food and Drugs Act of 1906, which cracked down on companies that sold “adulterated” food.

But it wasn’t until 1958 that food additive makers would be required to show regulators their products are safe. Aimed at pesticide oversight, Congress barred FDA from approving food additives shown to cause cancer.

FDA toughened chemical safety reviews for food and food packaging in the 1970s only to have those rules undone through deregulation in the 1990s.

Since then, pharmaceuticals boomed, turning into a $1 trillion industry and dominating the agency’s focus.
5:03 AM
“The true story of FDA is that drugs are the thing and everything else is kind of like a pimple on an elephant’s butt,” said University of Maryland professor Rena Steinzor, who teaches food law. “If you really wanted to bang your head against the wall, you’d be trying to get FDA to do something on chemicals.”

With consumer demand for chemical-free food growing, it is corporations and states — not FDA — leading the way. Fast-food chains like McDonald’s, Wendy’s and Sweetgreen are phasing out wrappers and containers treated with PFAS. Whole Foods, Safeway, Trader Joe’s and other grocers also say they are working with suppliers to cut down on packaging coated with the chemicals.

“If corporations are going ahead and doing this, it seems common sense that the federal government should,” said California Assemblymember Phil Ting, a Democrat from San Francisco who sponsored the state’s bill banning PFAS in food packaging. 
5:04 AM
EPA Administrator Michael Regan, left, listens to Detlef Knappe, a professor at North Carolina State University, right, describe the work of a laboratory that tests water samples for “forever chemicals,” or PFAS. Regan visited the campus in Raleigh, N.C., last October, after announcing the agency’s plans to address PFAS pollution nationwide. | Travis Long/The News & Observer via AP

Under President Biden, EPA Administrator Michael Regan has led the federal push against PFAS pollution.

Standing at a lectern in Raleigh, N.C., in October, east of the polluted Cape Fear River watershed, Regan announced EPA would crack down on certain chemicals, including PFOA, under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The agency will also designate PFOA as a hazardous substance under the Superfund program, opening the door to more aggressive polluter-funded environmental cleanups, including at military bases where the chemical was used in firefighting foam.

A month later, EPA concluded PFOA was a “likely carcinogen” (E&E News PM, Nov. 16, 2021).

EPA has a long history with PFAS, stemming from a health crisis in the early 2000s after the Parkersburg, W.Va., plant polluted the region’s watershed. A seven-year study starting in 2005 collected blood samples from nearly 70,000 people in the Ohio River Valley. It linked PFOA exposure to cancer, among other health problems. 

By 2006, EPA had brokered a deal with manufacturers to voluntarily phase out certain PFAS that research had shown to be harmful.

It would be another decade before FDA started limiting the use of PFAS in food packaging.

In 2016, FDA stripped Zonyl of its 1966 authorization after the agency concluded science no longer supported a finding that the product was safe. DuPont had already taken its grease-resistant coating off the market.
5:05 AM
In written answers to questions, FDA officials justified the agency’s decision 50 years ago to allow the product on the market. The agency had calculated that human dietary exposure would be limited, and DuPont’s short-term study on dogs and rats didn’t result in changes to the animal’s cell structures.

But, according to FDA documents, agency toxicologists in February 1966 still had a lot of questions about DuPont’s product and just how popular nonstick paper and cardboard would be in fast-food America.

“From what I have been able to learn, it would be difficult to pin down the extent of use,” Ernest Hagan, the agency’s chief toxicologist, wrote his team that month.
5:06 AM
Nearly all PFAS in use today that were approved by formal petitions to FDA were greenlighted prior to 1994, long before the health impacts of any compounds were widely understood.

That formal process has fallen out of favor with chemical manufactures, who today often turn to the less-rigorous Food Contact Substance notification process created in the 1990s. It covers chemicals in everything from packaging to cookware.

Still, there is another option for PFAS manufacturers. It allows companies to add substances to food, or its packaging, and choose whether to notify FDA. A chemical must be “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS, for a company to skip notification.

Critics of that process say it leaves public health regulators in the dark about toxicity levels and the amount of a chemical going into food packaging.

Peter Lurie, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, said there is no way for FDA to know if there are PFAS on the market that went through the “secret GRAS” process.

“It’s not really possible to regulate a market when you don’t know what’s in it,” said Lurie, who was a high-level staffer at FDA until 2017. “At a minimum that means the agency is perpetually behind the eight ball, because there is always a chemical of which they knew little suddenly coming to public attention that produces a scramble to catch up.”

Created in 1958, GRAS was originally intended to cover widely used ingredients like flour, vinegar and sugar. Since then, it has been stretched to cover almost any chemical.

FDA officials noted that a company can take a chemical straight to consumers if the scientific information it relies on is “publicly available.” Further, it should be able to point to “qualified experts” who recognize the safety of the chemical.

That is true, but there are no restrictions on who those experts can be and if they can be paid by manufacturers.
5:07 AM
This is a loophole big enough to drive a truck through,” said Tom Neltner, chemical policy director at the Environmental Defense Fund. “We’ve seen compounds show up in food that we can’t explain unless it got there through GRAS.”

One product, PharmaGABA, is a dietary supplement sold as good for the brain. Its maker, Pharma Foods International Co., turned to the GRAS process after the agency raised questions about total dietary exposure in 2008. The chemical is marketed as “a functional food ingredient in multiple kinds of food products worldwide,” including in chocolate marketed as a sleep aid. 

When PharmaGABA representatives bristled at FDA questions about the product, an agency chemist acknowledged that the product didn’t actually need FDA approval.

“We cannot require anything, as this is a voluntary program and we don’t want to frighten anyone away,” he wrote in an email.
5:08 AM
he process overhauled after safety concerns were raised about artificial sweeteners. But by the 1990s, the agency turned again to a more business-friendly approach: Companies could submit their own conclusions about food additive safety.

Health groups sued over the rule. They argued it undermined food safety. Members of Congress, including Connecticut Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro, have since filed bills to close what critics say is a gaping loophole in government oversight of food safety.

Experts say FDA rarely uses its enforcement muscle to stop companies from marketing unsafe products. In a rare case, FDA in 2010 warned beverage companies that the caffeine they were adding to alcoholic drinks was an “unsafe food additive.” The agency threatened to seize the products.

“Death is a serious endpoint, and FDA acts when there is death, but there are other serious impacts of these chemicals that aren’t death — like impacting your immune system or fetal development — and that’s where the GRAS loophole is a big problem,” EDF’s Neltner said.
5:08 AM
Once deployed in food packaging, chemicals can remain in use for decades, even as new science emerges showing new human health effects. FDA rarely reviews its prior approvals.

The result is an agency caught off guard by an industry that, in a number of high-profile examples, has failed to inform regulators about their products’ health impacts.

In 1975, DuPont warned 3M Co. about the toxicity of PFOA but did not relay that information to FDA, which had already approved the compound for use in food wrapper coatings years earlier. DuPont also did not share information with FDA in 1987 after finding Zonyl could contaminate food at over three times the level FDA had approved. 

It wasn’t until 2008 that FDA acted on seven food contact substances that included legacy long-chain PFAS like PFOA. The long-chain compounds accumulate and remain in the body for longer periods, leading to heightened concerns about their health implications. FDA flagged the seven PFAS as having been “voluntarily ceased by the manufacturer.” 

But that nonbinding status means FDA’s approvals for those chemicals are still in effect. Manufacturers could legally bring the substances back to market if they wanted. Critics say FDA should be more aggressive and ban the chemicals outright, rather than waiting for industry to voluntarily stop using the compounds.

Eight years later, FDA deauthorized the use of five additional long-chain PFAS and related products, including Zonyl — an action taken only after environmental groups petitioned for three to be banned and a manufacturer, 3M, voluntarily discontinued the other two.

As scrutiny on health effects associated with long-chain PFAS increased, including from EPA, chemical makers went looking for substitutes. FDA approved 19 short-chain PFAS compounds for use in food packaging between 2002 and 2016. With fewer carbon atoms, according to manufacturers, the substitutes would not bioaccumulate at dangerously high levels. 
5:10 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/12/chemical-giants-hid-dangers-pfas-forever-chemicals-food-packaging-dupont
5:10 AM
That included a 2010 approval for a compound called 6:2 FTOH made by Japan’s Daikin Industries Ltd. and DuPont.

Two years later, in a discovery first reported by The Guardian, FDA found the companies had not disclosed studies showing that 6:2 FTOH is toxic to the liver and kidneys. In response, FDA conducted its own review of the science on the compound and found that it also remains in the body for long periods of time. 

That discovery was a problem for the agency, which relies on formulas to calculate whether chemicals are safe for food packaging. Those formulas assume chemicals don’t bioaccumulate. 

In 2019, FDA subsequently asked three 6:2 FTOH manufacturers for more information about the chemical’s toxicity in rodents. One company volunteered to do a two-year study, a proposal the agency rejected because it would take too long.

But FDA accepted a proposal from other companies to voluntarily phase out the use of 6:2 FTOH within five years. Those documents do not show any effort to negotiate that timeline, raising questions about why a five-year phaseout was deemed swift enough for a high-risk chemical when the agency rejected a two-year study into the compound’s toxicity. 

Groups like the Environmental Defense Fund and Breast Cancer Prevention Partners say the 6:2 FTOH saga should call into question all FDA approvals on short-chain PFAS and have petitioned the agency to ban all PFAS as food contact substances.

In a statement, FDA said it “re-evaluates the safety of the authorized use of food contact substances when new data becomes available.” The agency pushed back on criticism of its approach to chemicals, saying conclusions “are based on the totality of the scientific evidence available at the time.”
5:11 AM
When FDA found PFAS in three foods last summer, the agency reassured the public that the detections should not cause alarm.

“Based on the best available current science, FDA has no indication that PFAS at levels found in the fish sticks and protein powder, or … in the canned tuna, present a human health concern,” the agency said in a statement. 

That messaging runs counter to EPA health advisories for certain chemicals in drinking water. EPA’s current advisory for PFOA and another chemical, called PFOS, in drinking water is 70 parts per trillion (ppt). That number is currently under review and expected to drop, with regulation also on the horizon (E&E News PM, Nov. 16, 2021)

Tests found concentrations of PFOS in fish sticks exceeded that health advisory. For protein powder, the concentration doubled the drinking water advisory at 140 ppt of that chemical. The agency also found 33 ppt of the compound in fish sticks. And all three products also contained other compounds. 

But FDA did not appear to be alarmed by levels in foods exceeding EPA’s water health advisory, instead emphasizing only that its findings showed PFAS in amounts below 150 ppt, calling them “low-level detects.” 

The agency didn’t respond when asked how it chose 150 ppt as the cutoff for a “low-level detect.” But in the statement to E&E News, FDA officials said it stands to reason that PFAS “levels of concern” would be different for food than water. The general public consumes more water than individual foods, they said.

But Sunderland, the Harvard toxicologist, observed that the agency isn’t looking at the cumulative effects of PFAS exposure through multiple foods and by drinking water. European regulators, she noted, have been much more cautious about certain PFAS in food. They have set safety thresholds that are much lower even than EPA’s drinking water standards.  

“What is FDA’s mission, to protect the statistical average consumer?” she asked. “Or is it to protect real people who eat real foods?”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/highly-processed-food-linked-faster-cognitive-decline-rcna40999

Eating lots of highly processed food is linked to faster cognitive decline, research finds
In a study, adults who ate more processed food saw a 25% faster decline in their ability to plan and execute a task than people whose diets did not contain much processed food.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/evidence-links-highly-processed-food-cancer-death-rcna45713

Even more evidence links highly processed food to a greater risk of cancer and death
A pair of studies suggest that a diet high in ultra-processed food raises one's risk of colorectal cancer and mortality overall. They're not the first to find that correlation.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412019301254

 

Prenatal exposure to air pollution as a potential risk factor for autism and ADHD

 
 
Under a Creative Commons license
Open access

   

 

Highlights

 

We performed population-based research, with data on clinical diagnoses of autism and ADHD.

We had access to data on other neuro-developmental disorder, perinatal factors, and SES.

We modelled NOx with an extensive emission database and dispersion modelling.

We did not find an association of ADHD and NOx at relatively low-exposure levels.

We found a link between prenatal exposure NOx-exposure and autism.

 

https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/conditions/autism/index.cfm

Air pollution – Researchers found early-life exposure to air pollution may be a risk factor for autism.

    Children of mothers living near a freeway, and traffic-related pollution, during the third trimester of pregnancy were twice as likely to develop ASD. A distance of 1,014 feet, or a little less than 3.5 football fields, was considered near a freeway.2
    Children with a mutation in a gene called MET, combined with high levels of exposure to air pollution, may have increased risk.3
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

He doesn't make any predictions. The only time he even wanders into that territory he says "by 2030."  The unbelievable lack of self-awareness it takes to post something like this when you are on the side of "Children in North America and Europe won't know what snow is by the year 2015" or "There will be no ice on the polar caps in the summer" (It reached record levels in the southern hemisphere a couple years later) or "Seafront property will be underwater" (The bankers and climate fraudsters are still buying up ocean front property because the water levels haven't budged). Or the side that worries that warm temperatures -- associated with abundance of life would be something to worry about to begin with! Imagine thinking it would be better to slide into an ice age than to turn the entire planet into a tropical paradise!

You're a bunch of lunatics. Literally worse than every other religion combined. Doomsday prophecies you merely push back by 10 years every time they fail to materialize. At least the Christians believe God is coming to save them. You think you need to enslave all of the non-believers or the world is going to end in -- what is it, now? Seven years?

Please seek help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of us here are on the side of peer reviewed literature.  I have not seen "Children in North America and Europe won't know what snow is by the year 2015" or "There will be no ice on the polar caps in the summer" or "Seafront property will be underwater" (assuming the context is all seafront property here) appearing in the academic literature. BTW...SH sea ice is at record low levels for this date. That is actually unexpected. The IPCC predicted that sea ice in the SH would increase up to at least 2030 and possibly even 2060 before beginning the decline under most emission pathways. You might find it more beneficial to read the peer reviewed literature. I always recommend the IPCC as an entry point. AR6 WGI is only 2400 pages and relatively easy to read. You can then dive into the details by cross referencing the 10,000 or so first order citations and the hundreds of thousands or millions of second, third, etc. order citations as you feel the need.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...