Yes - that title is over the top - another woefully misleading headline, which seems more plentiful these days. Hardly "blaming..for climate change": "A study has suggested Caucasian Americans’ diet is contributing significantly more to climate change than the diets of other demographic groups in the country." and "The study’s authors note that the White population, as portion of the U.S. total, was 61.3 percent, with Latinx...accounting for 17.8 percent and the Black population accounting for 13.3 percent...In light of these proportions it’s hardly surprising the White population’s diet was a greater contributor to climate change in terms of greenhouse emissions..."
Yes - that title is over the top - another woefully misleading headline, which seems more plentiful these days. Hardly "blaming..for climate change": "A study has suggested Caucasian Americansâ diet is contributing significantly more to climate change than the diets of other demographic groups in the country." and "The studyâs authors note that the White population, as portion of the U.S. total, was 61.3 percent, with Latinx...accounting for 17.8 percent and the Black population accounting for 13.3 percent...In light of these proportions itâs hardly surprising the White populationâs diet was a greater contributor to climate change in terms of greenhouse emissions..."
A series of newly discovered documents clarify the extent to which the U.S. government, its advisory committees and the fossil fuel industry have understood for decades the impact carbon dioxide emissions would have on the planet.
The documents obtained by Climate Liability News show how much the National Petroleum Council (NPC), an oil and natural gas advisory committee to the Secretary of Energy, knew about climate change as far back as the 1970s. A series of reports illuminate the findings of government-contracted research that outlined the dangers associated with increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
They also shed light on how this advisory group to the federal government understood the fossil fuel industryâs contributions to climate change, and unveil the strategies it used to downplay the industryâs role. (...)
I am happy to report that this web-page now looks just fine in Opera (Chromium-based). Whatever formatting sin I committed by copying and pasting from a Reuters news piece appears to have disappeared. Perhaps it took a few moments for the RP server to respond to my edits.
Gotta say. Overall, this web-site works really, really well. The responsiveness of the RP hosts and helpers is nothing short of stellar.
Proclivities wrote:
I remember the new site interpreting some characters into odd extended characters and turning them into wide lines several months back. It's weird; in the old site the HTML for that line shows up as a string of lower-case circumflexes separated by commas (I've deleted it in this repost). Anyhow, the new site is no longer widened out for this thread in Chrome either.
It may still be something in that horizontal line code, but it could easily be something beneath it, like something in one of those profuse posts with links, etc....
I already went in and edited/cleaned-up the HTML code. Let's see if I can paste it here:
Flooding at a U.S. Air Force base in Nebraska that damaged buildings and forced the removal of a plane integral to the nation's nuclear attack response highlight the risks climate change poses to national security, experts said on Monday. Special interests and the 'righteous' have been ignoring US collective security considerations for a long time.
Will it be any different this time?
I remember the new site interpreting some characters into odd extended characters and turning them into wide lines several months back. It's weird; in the old site the HTML for that line shows up as a string of lower-case circumflexes separated by commas (I've deleted it in this repost). Anyhow, the new site is no longer widened out for this thread in Chrome either.
It may still be something in that horizontal line code, but it could easily be something beneath it, like something in one of those profuse posts with links, etc....
I already went in and edited/cleaned-up the HTML code. Let's see if I can paste it here:
<a href="https://www.reuters.com/articl... U.S. Air Force base underscores climate risk to security: experts</a><br><br>Flooding at a U.S. Air Force base in Nebraska that damaged buildings and <br>forced the removal of a plane integral to the nation's nuclear attack response <br>highlight the risks climate change poses to national security, experts said on Monday.<br><br>âââââââââââââ<br><br>Special interests and the 'righteous' have been ignoring US collective security considerations for a long time. <br><br> Will it be any different this time?
@Proclivities: You are likely correct except I am posting on the 'new' RP site. However, for the moment I cannot read your entire post on Opera. But I was able to read your post and edit my original HTML-offending post with FireFox.
Still looks weird in Opera. Probably should flush the cache or something.
It may still be something in that horizontal line code, but it could easily be something beneath it, like something in one of those voluminous posts with links, etc....
@Proclivities: You are likely correct except I am posting on the 'new' RP site. However, for the moment I cannot read your entire post on Opera. But I was able to read your post and edit my original HTML-offending post with FireFox.
Still looks weird in Opera. Probably should flush the cache or something.
EDIT from FF: Closing Opera did not work. The right edge still bleeds into nothing hiding text and hiding the reply/edit/delete links. Oh well, serves me right for sticking with an obscure web browser from Norse-land.
I believe my previous post to this forum has changed the formatting of the page. Oops. Anyway a moderator can rectify that? Delete my post if necessary?
In the HTML for that post, there is a long string of "M-space" dashes being used as a horizontal line; because it is a continuous string it cannot be "wrapped". That is probably what is broadening the page. Removing that line or shortening it will probably fix the page. There is also a pasted "H2" command, but that may not be borking the page. I had to reply to this post of yours using the 'legacy' site - you may have to edit that other post using the legacy site as well. The legacy site also has a 'horizontal line" command.
I believe my previous post to this forum has changed the formatting of the page. Oops. Anyway a moderator can rectify that? Delete my post if necessary?
Just keep posting until it scrolls off the bottom.
I believe my previous post to this forum has changed the formatting of the page. Oops. Anyway a moderator can rectify that? Delete my post if necessary?
Flooding at a U.S. Air Force base in Nebraska that damaged buildings and forced the removal of a plane integral to the nation's nuclear attack response highlight the risks climate change poses to national security, experts said on Monday.
ââââââââââââ
Special interests and the 'righteous' have been ignoring US collective security considerations for a long time.
Kurt, I'm gonna try to keep this brief because I have no interest in wandering into the side issues (like the "indoctrinated" kids confronting Feinstein and AOC). The subject here is Climate Change. If you want to focus on all the media circus surrounding climate change, start another thread.
"I'm familiar with the ongoing revisioned IPCC report and how it has been discredited. Some cited participants have sued to have their names and attributed information removed because it was misrepresented in the report. If that is your gold standard, then I cannot find any way to see you considering an alternate view. If you believe that the science is settled, then what is there even to discuss ? Seriously ... Your mind is made up. I am and will always be a denier in your mind. Ipso facto."
As R_P posted, citation please. Yes, the IPCC report has generated criticisms and objections but I don't know of any reputable science-based consensus that has discredited the report. Maybe you could point us to reports or publications of such consensus.
I don't have enough training in climatology or global warming to state whether the IPCC report should be considered a "gold standard." AFAICT it's one of many science-based assessments stating that we are near a point of causing irretrievable and catastrophic damage to our global environment.
If you find and/or read science-based assessments disputing the IPCC report and ones like it, please share them with us. I don't think anyone here wants to avoid or block a serious discussion on this topic. AFAICT, though, most RPs posting here think global warming is real and serious, so I think you could say those people have made up their mind.
"Seriously ... Your mind is made up. I am and will always be a denier in your mind."
This, however, I object to. You don't get to tell me what I think. I have bent over backward to be polite to you despite your repeated attempts to turn debates on this and other matters into a personal matter about you and how other RPs treat you. As I have said before: if you genuinely want to prevent being attacked personally in this forum, I suggest you post substantive, fact-based statements.
You wrote:
"Forget about discussions between believers and non-believers ? Really ? There is no room for open discussions anymore ? Ah, yeah, you're right, it's settled science."
I grant you this: I should have done a better job of expressing myself when I wrote this:
"Forget about the reported confrontations between believers and non-believers." Lemme try again: forget about news stories that focus on the spectacle of people disagreeing about global warming but ignore the subject of global warming. Focus on the evidence supporting the global warming beliefs of those people. Read evidence-based assessments about global warming that stand on both sides of the coin.
Look: a lot of scientists have gathered a great deal of evidence over decades suggesting that global warming is real and is about to do catastrophic damage unless we dramatically change our ways. Other scientists (not as many as the first group) dispute the first group's conclusions, both in degree and kind.
If you would like to discuss whether we're on the edge of catastrophe or not, that'd be great. That topic should interest all of us.
But if you want to focus on whether our kids are being indoctrinated, or whether AOC is uninformed/crazy/power-mad/unstable/dangerously socialist, I have no time for you. And spare me your bu>>$h!^ about Eco-Nazis and the persecution of global warming skeptics/deniers.
You want to be taken seriously? Stick to facts. Support your assertions with evidence.
++++++++++++
About the video clips you posted:
1. AOC is not the Be All and End All of thinking about global warming on the left. To focus on her alone is to wallow in spectacle. The right isn't going to make global warming go away by hyper-focusing on her and demonizing her. AOC right now is pretty much the Flavor of the Month.
1a. But whatever you think of her beliefs and statements, you have to honor her for speaking her mind about serious topics. From what I remember, you admired Trump for doing the same thing. Remember the Wall, buddy?
2. In that first clip you posted, AOC said: "...the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change..." . She likely meant to say something like "...the world is going to end if we don't address climate change in 12 years..." If she has repeatedly uttered variations on the first statement, then she's either uninformed or misleading people. Even if she meant to say something like the second statement, she's engaging in hyperbole.
2a. Again, AOC is one person in the Democratic party and beyond her temporary celebrity status, not actually all that powerful in terms of drafting and passing legislation. The movement to fight global warming is not led by AOC.
2b. From what I can tell, the people on the right who focus on AOC are desperately trying to avoid serious discussion on the topics she brings up....like global warming.
3. In the second clip, AOC talks for over a minute about how the criticisms leveled at her express her own inner doubts about herself—the doubts we all have when we're tired, lonely, stressed, etc. But then she points out that she has power because she's at least trying to succeed and get people to talk about matters like global warming. "The power is in the person who's trying, regardless of the success" (1:17 in). The way she sees it, she's putting out ideas and is driving discussion about global warming. To the critics of her and the Green New Deal, she says "You do it! You try! 'Cause you're not! 'Cause you're not. So until you do it, I'm the boss. How about that?" (starting around 1:45 in).
3a. That's the extent of her claim of being the boss. If that scares or troubles you, then you need counseling.
3b. Perhaps you can find strength and courage from AOC's words that I quoted in Point 3. Be the one who tries to express skepticism about global warming with evidence-supported posts. No one's going to disrespect you if you back up your skepticism with evidence. Be the Boss, Kurt!
4. And no Eco-Nazis will come to your home and take over your thermostat. Promise.
You leave Kurt's thermostat alone, Edwin! He likes it warm in the winter!
is way over the top. Here is the journal article: 
