An entirely different mindset is required, of mourning, resignation, and stoical compassion. — unenlightened

You lose me here. If we all simply resign, it’s certainly over. If we continue to act, something may happen — at the least we can mitigate the absolute worst. 2C is better than 3C or 4C. That trajectory has already changed. It just hasn’t changed enough.

The genocide — oh, sorry, I mean that very just “war” on innocent children — continues. Eight thousand dead and counting.
— Mikie

Boo hoo — Merkwurdichliebe

What a truly repugnant response.

The genocide — oh, sorry, I mean that very just “war” on innocent children — continues. Eight thousand dead and counting.

“Woops, total accident.”

“Good enough, carry on.”

But it does matter because there is a HUGE difference between WAR and GENOCIDE. — schopenhauer1

Right. And this is genocide. Sorry you can’t get your mind around it. Too bad.

8000 children murdered, and apologists are outraged over…the accuracy of “genocide” and “concentration camp.”

You, Benkie, and others who are perfectly capable of more precise language are falling back on terms applicable to the Nazi extermination of Jews. — BC

If it’s provocative, it’s to get people to understand the situation. Is there truth to it? Yes. Likud is not the Nazi party, however. But I don’t say Nazi concentration camps or say Gaza is Auschwitz, and never have. “Open air prison” is also accurate— but if using that term is preferable because it makes people feel better, I’m not interested.

You two, Mikie and @Benkei should be performing at a higher level of expression, especially since you are moderating, — BC

As I’ve said, this isn’t made up by me — I’m repeating Norm Finkelstein, who himself is citing the Israeli scholar Baruch Kimmerling. Based on what I’ve read, spoken to Palestinians about, and seen, I think it’s an accurate description. It’s not hyperbole .

As for genocide— sorry, but that’s exactly what’s happening.

acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group

I see no way around it when looking at the numbers. We can blame Hamas or excuse it all as “defense” or accidental or (the most inhumane of all, in my view) collateral damage. But that’s buying into a government’s justifications and narrative. Every government and every group, including those deemed terrorists, give some justification for their actions. Hamas does too— and we shouldn’t buy into it.

These numbers are unacceptable. Period. I don’t care what the reason is. You shouldn’t be killing 8000 children. That’s a fucking monstrosity and we should all be outraged.

Thousands of Palestinians dead after hundreds of Jews murdered because that is the calculus Hamas uses — tim wood

Ohh it’s really Hamas that’s murdering 8000 children, not Israel. Got it. Be sure to explain that to their parents.

But their choice is commitment to murder - not what I think but what they in every way make explicitly clear year after year after year after year. — tim wood

Israel or Hamas? Since the IDF are far more effective terrorists, I’ll assume you mean them.

What the oil companies believe or say has nothing to do with my views. But a cute attempt. — Tzeentch

Yet you repeat their propaganda verbatim. What a coincidence.

But anyway, you missed the point entirely. I’m not shocked.

Some low-brow attempt to shove me into the camp of the oil companies? :brow: — Tzeentch

Not at all. Just seems to me for someone claiming such skepticism about institutions, that skepticism about the propaganda of oil companies seems disproportionately thin.

And no I do not defend it. Nor claim it is entirely justified. I do claim to have an understanding of it. — tim wood

So you have an “understanding” of genocide. Yeah, I do too. I understand how savage and immoral it is, and that it should be stopped immediately.

8000 children.

For if nothing else, four generations of Gazans have shown they cannot govern themselves. — tim wood

They haven’t had a chance to govern themselves. Hamas was never given a chance, the Palestinian people were never given a chance. They’ve been living in an “open air prison” for decades, and have now had thousands of their children killed.

I’m sure they really give a rat’s ass about what you think they’ve shown.

It’s happening all around us, constantly — and trusting a graph doesn’t require much strain.

But it’s funny to have such doubts about science, yet repeat wholesale the demonstrable propaganda of oil companies. Apparently they’re trustworthy. Keen judgment.

All because some imbecile couldn’t bring himself to admit he lost. Trump’s never lost at anything.

Tens of thousands — millions — of fraudulent votes. Easy enough to check out if one actually takes the (predicted) claims of a degenerate con man seriously.

This is excellent. Well said sir.

But don’t you know it’s about control, and that the big Green lobby stands to make billions— and Bill Gates and George Soros and scientists have been wrong before and Greta Thunberg is a patsy and so on…

Cool. Keep up the good work rationalizing genocide as it unfolds before our eyes.

your first priority is the crime itself, and not its antecedents whatever they may be. — tim wood

How convenient.

But yes, even starting the clock on October 7th makes no difference: this is still genocide. Thousands of innocent bodies later — and growing — and you and others like you are still convinced it’s justified (or defensive, or accidental, etc).

I guess Hamas just needed better PR. Bombing refugee camps and murdering flag-waving hostages would then excused when they say “oops, our bad.”

Israel is the greater power, backed by the US for geopolitical reasons to the tune of billions of dollars. Gaza is a concentration camp whose people have been living with Israeli occupation and terrorism for decades. There is no parity here.

21,000 Palestinians killed so far. Including over 8,500 children and over 6,000 women.

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