On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 3:46:16 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> According to this:
>
> - Nature is changing. Today's hurricanes tend to be stronger, wetter, and less predictable than those of the last century. They hold more moisture, speed up more quickly, and stay together longer.
>
> https://news.yahoo.com/floridas-climate-exodus-already-begun-110000919.html

Pesticide use:

https://www.ecowatch.com/pesticides-climate-change.html

On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 10:59:51 AM UTC-7, gggg gggg wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 3:46:16 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> > According to this:
> >
> > - Nature is changing. Today's hurricanes tend to be stronger, wetter, and less predictable than those of the last century. They hold more moisture, speed up more quickly, and stay together longer.
> >
> > https://news.yahoo.com/floridas-climate-exodus-already-begun-110000919.html
> Pesticide use:
>
> https://www.ecowatch.com/pesticides-climate-change.html

https://www.commondreams.org/news/pesticides-climate-crisis-vicious-cycle

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 3:46:16 PM UTC-8, gggg gggg wrote:
> According to this:
>
> - Nature is changing. Today's hurricanes tend to be stronger, wetter, and less predictable than those of the last century. They hold more moisture, speed up more quickly, and stay together longer.
>
> https://news.yahoo.com/floridas-climate-exodus-already-begun-110000919.html

Does the state have a constitutional duty to protect its residents from climate change?:

https://news.yahoo.com/lawsuit-brought-kids-montana-could-132049713.html

It's June 12th and this is the third day where the daytime temperature where I live in London is 26°. This is going to go on and on for at least a week if not much more. And being June it could go on up to 40° before the end of summer, which is horrible to live through. I find it hard to sleep, and the daytime heat is unpleasant.

So I resent the conservatives in the EU parliament trying to stop the climate bill which is on the table currently on the grounds that "we've done enough for the planet - now is the time to give industry a boost". And in the UK Labour is going back on its pledge of putting £28 billion into climate action because "the time isn't right for it".

Fools, fools, fools, fools. Insupportable fools. Idiots, morons, cretins.

On 6/12/2023 3:30 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
> It's June 12th and this is the third day where the daytime temperature where I live in London is 26°. This is going to go on and on for at least a week if not much more. And being June it could go on up to 40° before the end of summer, which is horrible to live through. I find it hard to sleep, and the daytime heat is unpleasant.
>
> So I resent the conservatives in the EU parliament trying to stop the climate bill which is on the table currently on the grounds that "we've done enough for the planet - now is the time to give industry a boost". And in the UK Labour is going back on its pledge of putting £28 billion into climate action because "the time isn't right for it".
>
> Fools, fools, fools, fools. Insupportable fools. Idiots, morons, cretins.

How much air conditioning can be bought for 28 billion pounds?

Seriously, has anyone studied the trade-off between preventing (further) warming (by seriously damaging he world economy) on the one hand and devising measures to live with the effects of warming, such as the previously mentioned air conditioning, sea walls, etc.? It seems the climate activists think there is only one way - severely cutting CO2 emissions.

On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 12:30:42 PM UTC-7, Andy Evans wrote:
> It's June 12th and this is the third day where the daytime temperature where I live in London is 26°. This is going to go on and on for at least a week if not much more. And being June it could go on up to 40° before the end of summer, which is horrible to live through. I find it hard to sleep, and the daytime heat is unpleasant.
>
> So I resent the conservatives in the EU parliament trying to stop the climate bill which is on the table currently on the grounds that "we've done enough for the planet - now is the time to give industry a boost". And in the UK Labour is going back on its pledge of putting £28 billion into climate action because "the time isn't right for it".
>
> Fools, fools, fools, fools. Insupportable fools. Idiots, morons, cretins.

Anyone expecting politicians to do with right thing should read Lampedusa's 1958 novel "The Leopard" whose elderly main character says:

– What would the Senate do with me, an inexperienced legislator who lacks the faculty of self-deception, essential requisite for anyone wanting to guide others …Now you need young men, bright young men, with minds asking ‘how’ rather than ‘why,’ and who are good at masking, at blending, I should say, their personal interests with vague public ideals.

On Tuesday, 13 June 2023 at 02:18:12 UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
>>It seems the climate activists think there is only one way - severely cutting CO2 emissions.

Of course they do, like any other sane people. That's what the science says. End of story.

The rest is just greenwashing.

On 6/12/23 8:17 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
>
> Seriously, has anyone studied the trade-off between preventing (further)
> warming (by seriously damaging he world economy) on the one hand and
> devising measures to live with the effects of warming, such as the
> previously mentioned air conditioning, sea walls, etc.?  It seems the
> climate activists think there is only one way - severely cutting CO2
> emissions.

Your framing disregards the economic damage of not trying to prevent
climate change.

On 6/13/2023 7:40 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 June 2023 at 02:18:12 UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
>>> It seems the climate activists think there is only one way - severely cutting CO2 emissions.
>
> Of course they do, like any other sane people. That's what the science says. End of story.
>
> The rest is just greenwashing.

No, the science says if you cut CO2 emissions you help the environment. It doesn't say you SHOULD, as opposed to building sea walls and installing more and better air conditioning. Making the choice is a matter of preference and economics in addition to science.

On 6/13/2023 10:45 AM, mINE109 wrote:
> On 6/12/23 8:17 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>
>> Seriously, has anyone studied the trade-off between preventing (further) warming (by seriously damaging he world economy) on the one hand and devising measures to live with the effects of warming, such as the previously mentioned air conditioning, sea walls, etc.?  It seems the climate activists think there is only one way - severely cutting CO2 emissions.
>
> Your framing disregards the economic damage of not trying to prevent climate change.
>

On the contrary (if I understand what you are getting at). My framing ASSUMES the the benefit of reducing CO2 and/or vesting in methods to accommodate warming over doing nothing.

On Tuesday, 13 June 2023 at 18:20:54 UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 6/13/2023 7:40 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 13 June 2023 at 02:18:12 UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
> >>> It seems the climate activists think there is only one way - severely cutting CO2 emissions.
> >
> > Of course they do, like any other sane people. That's what the science says. End of story.
> >
> > The rest is just greenwashing.
> No, the science says if you cut CO2 emissions you help the environment. It doesn't say you SHOULD, as opposed to building sea walls and installing more and better air conditioning. Making the choice is a matter of preference and economics in addition to science.

The science is clear. We need to cut emissions quickly and severely.

Scientists give us the facts. That's their job and they are very good at it..

Actual choices will be made by a mixture of ignorant and greedy politicians, industrialists and economists and a relatively fewer number of sane and visionary citizens of our planet who are actually ready and willing to try and save it.

Air conditioning is a luxury few have and is directly contradictory to saving energy. It's the last thing the planet needs. What the planet needs is less heat, not rich bastards watering their plants and filling their swimming pools while millions are starving.

On 6/13/23 12:24 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 6/13/2023 10:45 AM, mINE109 wrote:
>> On 6/12/23 8:17 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>
>>> Seriously, has anyone studied the trade-off between preventing
>>> (further) warming (by seriously damaging he world economy) on the one
>>> hand and devising measures to live with the effects of warming, such
>>> as the previously mentioned air conditioning, sea walls, etc.?  It
>>> seems the climate activists think there is only one way - severely
>>> cutting CO2 emissions.
>>
>> Your framing disregards the economic damage of not trying to prevent
>> climate change.

> On the contrary (if I understand what you are getting at).  My framing
> ASSUMES the the benefit of reducing CO2 and/or vesting in methods to
> accommodate warming over doing nothing.

Assuming the benefit if done is not the same as assessing the damage if
not done.

There has been discussion along the lines you propose, but generally
those arguing deviations from the status quo are too expensive are
suspect in their methodology and disinterest.

On 6/13/2023 1:42 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 June 2023 at 18:20:54 UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 6/13/2023 7:40 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 13 June 2023 at 02:18:12 UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>> It seems the climate activists think there is only one way - severely cutting CO2 emissions.
>>>
>>> Of course they do, like any other sane people. That's what the science says. End of story.
>>>
>>> The rest is just greenwashing.
>> No, the science says if you cut CO2 emissions you help the environment. It doesn't say you SHOULD, as opposed to building sea walls and installing more and better air conditioning. Making the choice is a matter of preference and economics in addition to science.
>
> The science is clear. We need to cut emissions quickly and severely.
>
> Scientists give us the facts. That's their job and they are very good at it.
>
> Actual choices will be made by a mixture of ignorant and greedy politicians, industrialists and economists and a relatively fewer number of sane and visionary citizens of our planet who are actually ready and willing to try and save it.
>
> Air conditioning is a luxury few have

28 Billion pounds can buy a lot of air conditioning.

and is directly contradictory to saving energy. It's the last thing the planet needs. What the planet needs is less heat, not rich bastards watering their >plants and filling their swimming pools while millions are starving.

The goal is not to save energy. Saving energy (cutting COs2) is a means to the goal, which is to have an acceptable standard of living. Rejecting all other possibilities outright reveals that this is a religion to you. You have accepted one course of action as a matter of faith.

On 6/13/2023 2:14 PM, mINE109 wrote:
> On 6/13/23 12:24 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 6/13/2023 10:45 AM, mINE109 wrote:
>>> On 6/12/23 8:17 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Seriously, has anyone studied the trade-off between preventing (further) warming (by seriously damaging he world economy) on the one hand and devising measures to live with the effects of warming, such as the previously mentioned air conditioning, sea walls, etc.?  It seems the climate activists think there is only one way - severely cutting CO2 emissions.
>>>
>>> Your framing disregards the economic damage of not trying to prevent climate change.
>
>> On the contrary (if I understand what you are getting at).  My framing ASSUMES the the benefit of reducing CO2 and/or vesting in methods to accommodate warming over doing nothing.
>
> Assuming the benefit if done is not the same as assessing the damage if not done.
>

Geez, my assumption was for the purpose of the discussion of whether to cut CO2 or adjust to a warmer climate, or more likely how much to "invest" in each. If you want to suggest that the optimal policy is to do nothing, I suppose that's possible, but then Andy's scientists would be wrong since that course of non-action leaves us all dead, apparently.

> There has been discussion along the lines you propose, but generally those arguing deviations from the status quo are too expensive are suspect in their methodology and disinterest.

Andy is rightthat the politicians will f*ck it up. For sure they will ignore anything a decent economist recommends.

On 6/13/23 1:44 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 6/13/2023 2:14 PM, mINE109 wrote:
>> On 6/13/23 12:24 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>> On 6/13/2023 10:45 AM, mINE109 wrote:
>>>> On 6/12/23 8:17 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Seriously, has anyone studied the trade-off between preventing
>>>>> (further) warming (by seriously damaging he world economy) on the
>>>>> one hand and devising measures to live with the effects of warming,
>>>>> such as the previously mentioned air conditioning, sea walls,
>>>>> etc.?  It seems the climate activists think there is only one way -
>>>>> severely cutting CO2 emissions.
>>>>
>>>> Your framing disregards the economic damage of not trying to prevent
>>>> climate change.
>>
>>> On the contrary (if I understand what you are getting at).  My
>>> framing ASSUMES the the benefit of reducing CO2 and/or vesting in
>>> methods to accommodate warming over doing nothing.
>>
>> Assuming the benefit if done is not the same as assessing the damage
>> if not done.

> Geez, my assumption was for the purpose of the discussion of whether to
> cut CO2 or adjust to a warmer climate, or more likely how much to
> "invest" in each.  If you want to suggest that the optimal policy is to
> do nothing, I suppose that's possible, but then Andy's scientists would
> be wrong since that course of non-action leaves us all dead, apparently.

I can't stop you from pretending that's what I said.

>> There has been discussion along the lines you propose, but generally
>> those arguing deviations from the status quo are too expensive are
>> suspect in their methodology and disinterest.
>
> Andy is rightthat the politicians will f*ck it up. For sure they will
> ignore anything a decent economist recommends.

They'll also latch on to attractive but wrong commentary by political
scientists, meteorologists, etc. An argument that decarbonizing is too
expensive and doesn't do enough while disrupting their oil company
donors is sure to please politicians.

On 6/13/2023 6:31 PM, mINE109 wrote:
> On 6/13/23 1:44 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 6/13/2023 2:14 PM, mINE109 wrote:
>>> On 6/13/23 12:24 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>> On 6/13/2023 10:45 AM, mINE109 wrote:
>>>>> On 6/12/23 8:17 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seriously, has anyone studied the trade-off between preventing (further) warming (by seriously damaging he world economy) on the one hand and devising measures to live with the effects of warming, such as the previously mentioned air conditioning, sea walls, etc.?  It seems the climate activists think there is only one way - severely cutting CO2 emissions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your framing disregards the economic damage of not trying to prevent climate change.
>>>
>>>> On the contrary (if I understand what you are getting at).  My framing ASSUMES the the benefit of reducing CO2 and/or vesting in methods to accommodate warming over doing nothing.
>>>
>>> Assuming the benefit if done is not the same as assessing the damage if not done.
>
>> Geez, my assumption was for the purpose of the discussion of whether to cut CO2 or adjust to a warmer climate, or more likely how much to "invest" in each.  If you want to suggest that the optimal policy is to do nothing, I suppose that's possible, but then Andy's scientists would be wrong since that course of non-action leaves us all dead, apparently.
>
> I can't stop you from pretending that's what I said.
>

I said "if." When you say "pretending," that's an insult. Why did you have to go that route in this conversation? It wasn't necessary or called for.

>>> There has been discussion along the lines you propose, but generally those arguing deviations from the status quo are too expensive are suspect in their methodology and disinterest.
>>
>> Andy is rightthat the politicians will f*ck it up. For sure they will ignore anything a decent economist recommends.
>
> They'll also latch on to attractive but wrong commentary by political scientists, meteorologists, etc. An argument that decarbonizing is too expensive and doesn't do enough while disrupting their oil company donors is sure to please politicians.
>

On 6/13/23 7:41 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 6/13/2023 6:31 PM, mINE109 wrote:
>> On 6/13/23 1:44 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>> On 6/13/2023 2:14 PM, mINE109 wrote:
>>>> On 6/13/23 12:24 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>> On 6/13/2023 10:45 AM, mINE109 wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/12/23 8:17 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seriously, has anyone studied the trade-off between preventing
>>>>>>> (further) warming (by seriously damaging he world economy) on the
>>>>>>> one hand and devising measures to live with the effects of
>>>>>>> warming, such as the previously mentioned air conditioning, sea
>>>>>>> walls, etc.?  It seems the climate activists think there is only
>>>>>>> one way - severely cutting CO2 emissions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your framing disregards the economic damage of not trying to
>>>>>> prevent climate change.
>>>>
>>>>> On the contrary (if I understand what you are getting at).  My
>>>>> framing ASSUMES the the benefit of reducing CO2 and/or vesting in
>>>>> methods to accommodate warming over doing nothing.
>>>>
>>>> Assuming the benefit if done is not the same as assessing the damage
>>>> if not done.
>>
>>> Geez, my assumption was for the purpose of the discussion of whether
>>> to cut CO2 or adjust to a warmer climate, or more likely how much to
>>> "invest" in each.  If you want to suggest that the optimal policy is
>>> to do nothing, I suppose that's possible, but then Andy's scientists
>>> would be wrong since that course of non-action leaves us all dead,
>>> apparently.
>>
>> I can't stop you from pretending that's what I said.
>>
>
> I said "if."   When you say "pretending," that's an insult.  Why did you
> have to go that route in this conversation?  It wasn't necessary or
> called for.

Is your escalation called for? Is that 'if' a free pass to put words in
my mouth by implication? How is 'pretending' different from 'supposing'?

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 3:46:16 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> According to this:
>
> - Nature is changing. Today's hurricanes tend to be stronger, wetter, and less predictable than those of the last century. They hold more moisture, speed up more quickly, and stay together longer.
>
> https://news.yahoo.com/floridas-climate-exodus-already-begun-110000919.html

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/scientists-issue-increasingly-dire-warnings-as-ocean-surface-temperatures-spike

On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 2:56:35 AM UTC-7, Andy Evans wrote:
> On Wednesday, 31 May 2023 at 04:03:17 UTC+1, gggg gggg wrote:
>
> > "GM Crops Likely to Worsen Climate Change Related Problems for Farmers":
> >
> > https://countercurrents.org/2023/05/gm-crops-likely-to-worsen-climate-change-related-problems-for-farmers/
> GM crops have been a cynical exercise in making money for those firms like Monsanto that have been pushing them. First make money selling the crops, then make money selling pesticides to go with the crops and then tie farmers into tyrannical deals so they couldn't get out of using them. Shameful, when the yields were apparently no better.

(2023 Y. upload):

"Robert Kennedy, Jr. On Suing Monsanto and The Dangers of Round-Up"

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 3:46:16 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> According to this:
>
> - Nature is changing. Today's hurricanes tend to be stronger, wetter, and less predictable than those of the last century. They hold more moisture, speed up more quickly, and stay together longer.
>
> https://news.yahoo.com/floridas-climate-exodus-already-begun-110000919.html

https://news.yahoo.com/report-makes-troubling-predictions-next-110000799.html

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 3:46:16 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> According to this:
>
> - Nature is changing. Today's hurricanes tend to be stronger, wetter, and less predictable than those of the last century. They hold more moisture, speed up more quickly, and stay together longer.
>
> https://news.yahoo.com/floridas-climate-exodus-already-begun-110000919.html

Antarctica:

https://news.yahoo.com/climate-change-hits-antarctica-hard-150000898.html

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 3:46:16 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> According to this:
>
> - Nature is changing. Today's hurricanes tend to be stronger, wetter, and less predictable than those of the last century. They hold more moisture, speed up more quickly, and stay together longer.
>
> https://news.yahoo.com/floridas-climate-exodus-already-begun-110000919.html

Texas heat wave:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/06/23/texas-early-heatwave-fueled-by-climate-change-experts-say/70347624007/

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 3:46:16 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> According to this:
>
> - Nature is changing. Today's hurricanes tend to be stronger, wetter, and less predictable than those of the last century. They hold more moisture, speed up more quickly, and stay together longer.
>
> https://news.yahoo.com/floridas-climate-exodus-already-begun-110000919.html

https://news.yahoo.com/climate-change-linked-increase-domestic-220819013.html

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 3:46:16 PM UTC-8, gggg gggg wrote:
> According to this:
>
> - Nature is changing. Today's hurricanes tend to be stronger, wetter, and less predictable than those of the last century. They hold more moisture, speed up more quickly, and stay together longer.
>
> https://news.yahoo.com/floridas-climate-exodus-already-begun-110000919.html

(2023 Y. upload):

"Earth's Vital Signs Are Going HAYWIRE | The Kyle Kulinski Show"

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 3:46:16 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> According to this:
>
> - Nature is changing. Today's hurricanes tend to be stronger, wetter, and less predictable than those of the last century. They hold more moisture, speed up more quickly, and stay together longer.
>
> https://news.yahoo.com/floridas-climate-exodus-already-begun-110000919.html

(2023 Y. upload):

"Meteorologist on receiving death threats over his climate crisis reports""