Don’t forget that Arab countries did try to destroy Israel at one point..a few times actually. — schopenhauer1

Before or after they stole their land?

Just curious if it's "parity" would the Israeli government be justified in raping, beheading, and mutilating Palestinians in the exact same numbers in an unprovoked event at a time of their choosing? — schopenhauer1

In the exact same numbers? That would be an eye for an eye — if one begins history on October 7th and views that event, absurdly, as “unprovoked.” But instead Israel beheads and mutilates Palestinians at something like 100:1 at this point. No, that’s not parity. Nor is the military power or resources.

This leaves out all the unprovoked “mowing the grass” exercises that happened well before October 7th. To most genocide apologists, those — like every other act of state terrorism — were defensive. So think of Hamas’ actions as defensive too, in that case.

They have the power to do this, whilst minimizing their own casualties, try to regain their hostages, so they are doing so. — schopenhauer1

From Bibi’s mouth to your brain. You’re like an average US citizen in 2003 supporting the invasion of Iraq. As this atrocity drags on, you’ll see how grotesque your position was — assuming you have some decency.

Same question to you: what do the Israelis do? — tim wood

Stop the occupation and create the two-state solution that’s always been possible. At the very least, a ceasefire.

Whatever Gaza is, don't the Gazans bear some responsibility for that? — tim wood

They bear some responsibility for Israel creating a concentration camp? No, I reject that analysis. The thousands of children killed do not bear responsibility.

And if the Palestinians and Hamas wanted to stop the bloodshed, are there not some steps they could take that likely would lead to a rapid de-escalation? — tim wood

Hamas could agree to a ceasefire. As can the Israeli government. I don’t blame the citizens of either country for barbaric acts of their “leaders.” If I did, then every Arab country should be bombing Israel, which has killed FAR more Palestinians than Hamas has killed Israelis.

So when did global warming start? — Agree-to-Disagree

Anthropogenic climate change, which is what this thread is about, is the result of human activities— namely, pumping out greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in enormous quantities. Particularly the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas.

The burning of coal, oil, and gas was a major part of the Industrial Revolution, of course. That’s roughly 1750-onward.

Eh…nevermind. It’s not happening. Or rather the climate always changes and the science isn’t clear. Or whatever.

This is just crappy analysis, Tim. Being charitable, it ignores the lack of parity and the much more deadly violence of the Israeli government.

What Israel could have done is not turned Gaza into a concentration camp. The Palestinian women and children being slaughtered are victims— and you’re essentially blaming them for actions of Hamas. Again, if that’s truly the standard being used, then what Hamas did on October 7th was equally justified. Do we take that seriously?

Climate change denial (also global warming denial or climate denial) is the pseudoscientific[2] dismissal or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change. Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none.[3][4][5]

Climate change denial includes doubts to the extent of how much climate change is caused by humans, its effects on nature and human society, and the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.[6][7][8] To a lesser extent, climate change denial can also be implicit when people accept the science but fail to reconcile it with their belief or action.[9] Several social science studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism,[10][11] pseudoscience,[12] or propaganda.[13]

Fits several of our visitors on this thread to a tee. Worth posting occasionally.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

Oh and all you sources are biased and all of science is bullshit so nah nah.
— Mikie

Is NASA a biased source? — Agree-to-Disagree

Yeah, that was called satire. Not surprised you missed that.

4 millimeters per year is a lot less than 10 millimeters per year. Sorry you can't read, Mikie. — Agree-to-Disagree

No, the article cited, which he was responding to, was very clear: 10 mm. Sorry you can’t read.

Sea levels along coastlines from North Carolina to Texas have risen in excess of 10 millimeters a year (about a half inch) compared to an average of about 2 millimeters a year over the last century,

Also, even 3.4 (which is indeed accurate) is more than 2. So even with your adolescent attempts at a “gotcha” moment, you still look like an ignoramus.

Cool to see you never tire of embarrassing yourself though.

So the sea level was rising by 1-2 mm per year even before global warming started. — Agree-to-Disagree

Lol. Yeah, because global warming started in 2018.

:roll: Good lord.

Might as well complete the article— because it is actually interesting for those interested in more than cherry picking to score points on the internet:

Between 1901 and 2018, the average global sea level rose by 15–25 cm (6–10 in), or an average of 1–2 mm per year.[2] This rate accelerated to 4.62 mm/yr for the decade 2013–2022.[3] Climate change due to human activities is the main cause. Between 1993 and 2018, thermal expansion of water accounted for 42% of sea level rise. Melting temperate glaciers accounted for 21%, with Greenland accounting for 15% and Antarctica 8%.[4]: 1576  Sea level rise lags changes in the Earth's temperature. So sea level rise will continue to accelerate between now and 2050 in response to warming that is already happening.[5] What happens after that will depend on what happens with human greenhouse gas emissions. Sea level rise may slow down between 2050 and 2100 if there are deep cuts in emissions. It could then reach a little over 30 cm (1 ft) from now by 2100. With high emissions it may accelerate. It could rise by 1 m (3+1⁄2 ft) or even 2 m (6+1⁄2 ft) by then.[6][7] In the long run, sea level rise would amount to 2–3 m (7–10 ft) over the next 2000 years if warming amounts to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F). It would be 19–22 metres (62–72 ft) if warming peaks at 5 °C (9.0 °F).[6]: 21 

Yeah. Thank god we have these climate scientists skeptical geniuses on the thread to inform us as to why there’s no reason to worry, and no reason to do anything. It’s not flooding where they live, so what’s the problem?

Oh and all you sources are biased and all of science is bullshit so nah nah.

That bastion of integrity and wisdom. — Tzeentch

Lol. Yeah, it must not be happening. Keep plugging your eyes and ears — it’s fun to watch.

I'm sure the insurance companies must be worried sick about those supposed two milimeters of sea level rise per year. — Tzeentch

You should be sure— because they are. Hence why they’re retreating. See above. Also, it’s 10 millimeters, not 2. Sorry you can’t read.

Climate Change’s $150 Billion Hit to the U.S. Economy

https://www.wsj.com/science/environment/climate-change-us-economy-c9fbda96?mod=mhp

From the socialist bastion, Wall Street Journal.

Why haven't any of the beaches gotten smaller in the past 25 years from rising sea levels. — Merkwurdichliebe

:rofl:

Sea levels along coastlines from North Carolina to Texas have risen in excess of 10 millimeters a year (about a half inch) compared to an average of about 2 millimeters a year over the last century, said Sönke Dangendorf, an assistant professor at Tulane University. "The science is very clear."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/04/12/sea-level-rise-has-hit-southeast-us-hard-studies-say-whats-next/11637202002/#:~:text=Sea%20levels%20along%20coastlines%20from,assistant%20professor%20at%20Tulane%20University.

A 20-Foot Sea Wall? Miami Faces the Hard Choices of Climate Change

Insurers retreat from Coastal Virginia as climate risks soar

“If I don’t see it or know about it, it doesn’t exist.” Ignorance is bliss indeed.

People are not skeptical when they are told things that they want to believe are true. — Agree-to-Disagree

Yes, especially those who (understandably) want to believe climate change isn’t happening. There’s plenty of motivation there. I’d like to believe that too. I’d like to believe that nuclear weapons aren’t that destructive, etc.

So you’re describing yourself very well indeed.

Guess we’ve run through most of the denial list. There must be SOMETHING left to pick from…wonder who will be bold enough to step forward. To help, I give the following:

There’s nothing happening
There is no evidence
One record year is not global warming
The temperature record is simply unreliable
One hundred years is not enough
Glaciers have always grown and receded
Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
Mauna Loa is a volcano
The scientists aren’t even sure
Contradictory evidence:
It’s cold today in Wagga Wagga
Antarctic ice is growing
The satellites show cooling
What about mid-century cooling?
Global warming stopped in 1998
But the glaciers are not melting
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Sea level in the Arctic is falling
Some sites show cooling
We don’t know why it’s happening
There’s no consensus:
Global warming is a hoax
There is no consensus
Position statements hide debate
Consensus is collusion
Peiser refuted Oreskes
The models don’t work:
We cannot trust unproven computer models
The models don’t have clouds
If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Prediction is impossible:
We can’t even predict the weather next week
Chaotic systems are not predictable
We can’t be sure:
Hansen has been wrong before
If we can’t understand the past, how can we understand the present?
The scientists aren’t even sure
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Climate change is natural
It happened before:
It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
Greenland used to be green
Global warming is nothing new!
The hockey stick is broken
Vineland was full of grapes
It’s part of a natural change:
Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
Mars and Pluto are warming too
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
Climate is always changing
Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
The CO2 rise is natural
We are just recovering from the LIA
It’s not caused by CO2:
Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor
Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
Mars and Pluto are warming too
CO2 doesn’t lead, it lags
What about mid-century cooling?
Geological history does not support CO2’s importance
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
It’s the sun, stupid
Climate change is not bad
The effects are good:
What’s wrong with warmer weather?
Climate change can’t be stopped
It’s too late:
Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
It’s someone else’s problem:
Why should the U.S. join Kyoto when China and India haven’t?
The U.S. is a net CO2 sink
It’s economically infeasible:
Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster
—

https://grist.org/climate/skeptics-2/

Listen to all these critical thinkers who, despite getting their silly armchair musings shot down over and over again regarding a subject one has to actually know something about before talking, still try to save face by retreating into vague generalities about how unthinking the masses are.

Perfection.

:up:

I agree, grift is a major part of it. — Agree-to-Disagree

A consensus amongst the forum climate-denying geniuses. Cool.

Observation: maybe if there were ONE intelligent, reasonable Trump supporter anyone on the forum, there could be a chance for some consensus.

I suppose it’s a good thing though, in case anyone “on the fence” looks on. But isn’t it strange?

Stupid? For noticing the narrative shift and wondering where it came from? — Tzeentch

Oh…you were serious.

No no, not stupid at all. You’re really on to something. Keep up the investigation.

Ohh so it WAS a joke. I should have known you weren’t that stupid — my bad!

Did anyone ever wonder why they changed their brand from "global warming" to "climate change"? — Tzeentch

“They.” Lol.

I’ve got an author right up your alley that can explain it to you:



Let me give you want you want so you can go back to sleep: it’s because “they” want to trip you up! Global warming wasn’t working for them, so they had to change their “brand” — to garner more influence and bring in more money!

as have multiple news outlets and forensic analysis — NOS4A2

Oh don’t you mean

the news […] the experts [that have] gotten everything wrong about every issue. — NOS4A2

Funny how it’s okay to trust them…sometimes. If they’re part of our team, or helping our team in some fashion, this is the criterion for truth. It’s how we know it’s legit. That news, and those experts, are fine.

At least within the cult.

No no — it benefits our team, therefore it’s important and suddenly we care about lying and “immoral” behavior (hookers bad; porn stars, fine). Etc

his laptop showed that from 2013 through 2018 Hunter Biden brought in about $11 million via his roles as an attorney and a board member with a Ukrainian firm accused of bribery and his work with a Chinese businessman now accused of fraud. — NOS4A2

That’s right— Hunter Biden is better than you. Your analysis is something we wipe off our shoes.

In unrelated news, please rant more about how the election was stolen…

My view is the exact opposite. Too many people underthink the consequences of their vote and who is elected. — Relativist

That’s also true. But I had a specific group in mind— the kind that thinks a lot about this stuff, but to a fault.

Thanks for proving my point. Your assessment of “truth” is worthless, as you prove with each passing day.

Regarding climate models.

For decades, people have legitimately wondered how well climate models perform in predicting future climate conditions. Based on solid physics and the best understanding of the Earth system available, they skillfully reproduce observed data. Nevertheless, they have a wide response to increasing carbon dioxide levels, and many uncertainties remain in the details. The hallmark of good science, however, is the ability to make testable predictions, and climate models have been making predictions since the 1970s. How reliable have they been?

Worth reading for the answer (Spoiler alert: they’ve been remarkably accurate in their predictions):

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right.amp

Indeed.

How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?

Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.

It’s because you’ve gotten everything wrong about every issue. — NOS4A2

Lol. According to the NY Post. Thank god they get things right.

What worries me more are those who believe it doesn't matter who wins, because both candidates are flawed. — Relativist

That’s a tough one. So many intelligent people make this argument— some good friends of mine (in “real life”) — that I’m trying to be more sympathetic towards it while also holding the feeling that I’m being asked to deny reality, which is frustrating. I’ve probed pretty hard and still haven’t been given convincing answers— but I’m definitely open to them.

If I thought that voting third party (I really like Cornel West, for example) would make a big difference, even in the long run, I’d do so and encourage others as well.

Both parties are indeed beholden to special interests, mostly corporate — Wall Street, big oil, Pharma, insurance, etc — but there are still ideological and policy differences, which are becoming more and more vast. Go down the line and it’s obvious. Climate change. Guns. Abortion. Voting rights.

I think the mistake is overthinking elections. It’s buying into the idea that this is our main power, and so we have to endlessly debate how to leverage it. But when you look at local politics, where practical things get done (zoning boards, school boards, budget committees), it’s more about which administration will hinder your goals.

If the choice is Trump or Biden, which it will be, it’s obvious to me who’s worse— and it does no good pretending that a vote for anyone else is much more than giving the worst candidate more of a chance, which is counterproductive to say the least. Unless you’re in a safe state, it’s just kind of silly to vote third party or not vote at all. What you’re doing is acting against your professed interests.

But I digress.

Now it’s “Trump has never been convicted of insurrection!” As if that would matter to cultists.

Trump is convicted. The predictable response: “The judge was corrupt— or the jury was stacked against him,” etc. It doesn’t end.

There reaches a point where a person is no longer amenable to reason or evidence. Look no further than election denial, climate denial, 2nd amendment enthusiasts, flat earthers, etc. Doesn’t matter — there will always be some excuse to go on believing what you wanted to believe in the first place.

Earth Was Due for Another Year of Record Warmth. But This Warm?

Interesting read. Gifted article.

Earth is finishing up its warmest year in the past 174 years, and very likely the past 125,000.

Unyielding heat waves broiled Phoenix and Argentina. Wildfires raged across Canada. Flooding in Libya killed thousands. Wintertime ice cover in the dark seas around Antarctica was at unprecedented lows.

This year’s global temperatures did not just beat prior records. They left them in the dust. From June through November, the mercury spent month after month soaring off the charts. December’s temperatures have largely remained above normal: Much of the Northeastern United States is expecting springlike conditions this week.

That is why scientists are already sifting through evidence — from oceans, volcanic eruptions, even pollution from cargo ships — to see whether this year might reveal something new about the climate and what we are doing to it.

You don’t have a clue about what you’re talking about. But that tracks with literally everything else you’ve posted.

Anyway: (1) 800 thousand years isn’t short, and the data is accurate indeed. (2) We’re warming at an alarming rate, and we know why (greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestation). Nothing to do with “models.”

The “models” you do speak of have been remarkably accurate. What they’ve done is underestimated the warming, however.

Also, this isn’t normal:



If you can’t see why this would be troubling to climate scientists, you’re practically illiterate. Or going out of your way to find reasons for denial. We all know you’re a climate denier— but maybe there’s something to the illiteracy part too— I can’t be certain.

Not hard to predict the future in this case. More emissions of greenhouse gases, more warming. Climate deniers desperation to find faults is pathetic, as always.

Latest analysis of monthly averages:



https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/26/climate/global-warming-accelerating.html

So hard to predict what will happen in the future! Despite the fact that this was indeed predicted — decades ago. And understood over 100 years ago.

Asteroid hurtling towards earth. Those in denial: “You have failed to consider the risks of PREVENTING the asteroid from hitting us!”

We don't have complete knowledge of its history and the accurate data that we have is from a relatively short time period. — Agree-to-Disagree

800 thousand years isn’t short.

Watching people bend over backwards denying what’s happening before their eyes (accurately predicted by scientists— in fact underestimated) is pretty funny.

“It’s a hundred years from now! Models are always wrong!”

Except this was known over a hundred years ago. Eh, denial runs deep.

From a certain point of view, there are no individuals. Where an individual begins and ends is basically arbitrary. Same with a group. There are beings all around us of all kinds— we humans categorize them in our perception and our language.

The focus on “great men” is as arbitrary as “great nations” or “great peoples.” It can be that simple if we want it to be— Namely, if we want to tell the story of history as a series of humans who we deem worth remembering. Personally, I think it’s mostly crap. There’s so much chance involved it’s barely worth considering, and most achieved their status as a result of others’ influence anyway, from Alexander to Napoleon.

Yeah, another shocker: just ignore whatever you disagree with. In line with the rest of your juvenile ramblings.

During the first six weeks of the war in Gaza, Israel routinely used one of its biggest and most destructive bombs in areas it designated safe for civilians, according to an analysis of visual evidence by The New York Times.

The video investigation focuses on the use of 2,000-pound bombs in an area of southern Gaza where Israel had ordered civilians to move for safety. While bombs of that size are used by several Western militaries, munitions experts say they are almost never dropped by U.S. forces in densely populated areas anymore.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/21/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-bomb-investigation.html

What a shocker.

the news told you the world is ending — Lionino

It’s not ending. But keep repeating your news that tells you it doesn’t exist. Much better strategy.

Care to trot out Fred Singer next, as a “relevant” source? :lol:

Better to scurry away like the many deniers before you. Save yourself the further embarrassment.

Microplastics are painting an apocalyptic future — Lionino

Microplastics are a grift. You’re an alarmist.