Davos speaker calls for one billion people to stop eating meat, for the environment

[Hodad]

33 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

That whole post is so rife with little contextual errors it would take ten pages to begin to cover it.

But let's just start here. If I understand your stance correctly you're saying what you're now suggesting "climate change" is the believe that man's use of fossil fuels is causing or will cause calamities on earth so severe the survival of man is in jeopardy. And you say you have a nearly unanimous  consensus of scientists who are willing to put their reputations to it.

Very well, produce it.

 

Sure it is. ?

What happens to humans ultimately is largely outside the purview of climate science. How we adapt and attempt to survive, and to what degree we are successful is the realm of futurists. What climate science can do is to study the data of climate, track the changes that are happening and attempt to model the ways in which climate change may disrupt ecosystems and habitats--including those upon which humans rely. 

Anyone who has spent more than a half hour researching the matter can tell you that scientists aren't divided on the matter. There are piles of polls and surveys of the scientific community, but the peer-reviewed work  is most telling. Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. 

Quote

Abstract
While controls over the Earth's climate system have undergone rigorous hypothesis-testing since the 1800s, questions over the scientific consensus of the role of human activities in modern climate change continue to arise in public settings. We update previous efforts to quantify the scientific consensus on climate change by searching the recent literature for papers sceptical of anthropogenic-caused global warming. From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. We also use a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers in the whole dataset. We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

 

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

Weather, Buddy. Look it up. There was the pacific ocean equivalent of a hurricane that hit Seattle and Vancouver in the 60s. It's never happened since. We were told Atlantic landfall hurricanes were going to mightily increase immediately after one IPCC conference. They went quiet for over a decade. Then they started up again. Has to do with wind shear and ocean confluences. Has nothing to do with how much oil you use to heat your home in the winter.

There's no support for the idea anything listed has never happened before. Even your historical temperature record only covers 150 years.

And the 30,000 years old glaciers that are melting have been melting for 30,000 years.

If a 30,000 year old glacier has been melting for 30,000 years, wouldn’t it be fully melted by now? They can carbon date ice to determine when it froze.

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

You are unbelievably dumb. It beggars belief. Like, this can't be a real person. It's performance art, right?

The planets of our solar system have been "discovered" and identified since ancient times. 

Well.. Neptune was discovered in the late 1700’s, and Pluto in the 20th century, but the other planets have been known for a very long time. 
 

And… Pluto got a raw deal. But the existence of Pluto hasn’t changed.  

[Hodad]

23 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Well.. Neptune was discovered in the late 1700’s, and Pluto in the 20th century, but the other planets have been known for a very long time. 
 

And… Pluto got a raw deal. But the existence of Pluto hasn’t changed.  

I did not know Neptune was quite as recent. That is good learning. Thanks!

[Rebound]

9 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I did not know Neptune was quite as recent. That is good learning. Thanks!

You should take an intro Astronomy class sometime. It’s mind-blowing.  

[Infidel Dog]

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

Anyone who has spent more than a half hour researching the matter can tell you that scientists aren't divided on the matter. There are piles of polls and surveys of the scientific community, but the peer-reviewed work  is most telling. Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. 

 

You're going to have to trust me on this. Over the decade or so I've been interested in this topic I've spent more than a half hour reading both sides of the discussion.

There are more than a few of the study cataloguing papers like the one you offered. They generally have questionable methodology and in the final analysis don't say what you want them to. For example here's somebody who looked closely at yours:

"

Plain text: only 19 out of 3000 examined works quantify the human influence on the climate. The rest obviously do not make quantifiable statements. And even those 19 works do not analyze how the influence was quantified. A quantification of 50% anthropogenic share would already be evidence of the so-called consensus, but in other contexts it would already contradict the IPCC and the judgment of the climate opponent. Although the 2104 works are relevant and describe climate change, they do not even make implicit statements about the human cause. Why not? To speak of a far-reaching consensus of over 99% is truly brazen!"

https://philo.servin.de/wahrheit-und-konsens-2/

And I'm not sure where you got the idea the paper you cite is peer reviewed. The studies he catalogued were peer reviewed but according to what IOP tells me to look for to see if a paper is peer reviewed at their site yours doesn't seem to be.

https://publishingsupport.iopscience.iop.org/questions/peer-review-models-on-iop-journals/

And if we're running true to form the next thing a Climate Alarmist would do would be to tell me my cite can't be considered because he considers them big, fat poopy-heads. Something like that anyway.

Very well show me in your cited reference then where it says a consensus of scientists say climate doom is coming. 

This is important because if you're wrong (and you are) 99% of climate scientists aren't telling us Warmageddon is coming so why do we need all the new regulations, restrictions, governance and societal upheavals? I'll answer that one for you. We don't.

Edited January 24, 2023 by Infidel Dog

[Infidel Dog]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

And… Pluto got a raw deal. But the existence of Pluto hasn’t changed.  

No but what we consider it to exist as has. And that was my point. Scientific understanding isn't static. It's changing throughout history all the time.

[Infidel Dog]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

If a 30,000 year old glacier has been melting for 30,000 years, wouldn’t it be fully melted by now? They can carbon date ice to determine when it froze.

Ok when heat lands on the edge of a glacier it melts. You've got that bit down. Now let's guess what happens when snow lands in the interior.

Overall though the melting generally, in most cases, gradually but eventually wins out. There are cases of exceptions though where the odd glacier is actually increasing.

[Rebound]

20 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Ok when heat lands on the edge of a glacier it melts. You've got that bit down. Now let's guess what happens when snow lands in the interior.

Overall though the melting generally, in most cases, gradually but eventually wins out. There are cases of exceptions though where the odd glacier is actually increasing.

You’re just making this up. 
The reality is that glaciers on Antarctica and Greenland, and interior glaciers as well, are all melting at extreme rates, which will increase sea level. This will make hurricanes even more destructive to the coasts.  
 

The NOAA has been tracking both glaciers and the seasonal extents of the Arctic ice caps for decades, and the warming trend is very clear. And it is dangerous to humankind. 
 

The reason you don’t believe this is simple: You don’t WANT to believe it. Your TEAM doesn’t want to believe it. It’s part of your social identity. You can’t be on the TEAM if you merely believe these basic scientific facts. AND IT WILL HURT YOU AND YOUR FAMILY ONE DAY. 
 

Liberals aren’t saying these things to “win.”  I don’t win any more than anyone else.  The simple truth is that we need to accelerate our use of renewable electricity generation and transition quickly to electric vehicles.  

Edited January 24, 2023 by Rebound

[Hodad]

53 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

You're going to have to trust me on this. Over the decade or so I've been interested in this topic I've spent more than a half hour reading both sides of the discussion.

There are more than a few of the study cataloguing papers like the one you offered. They generally have questionable methodology and in the final analysis don't say what you want them to. For example here's somebody who looked closely at yours:

"

Plain text: only 19 out of 3000 examined works quantify the human influence on the climate. The rest obviously do not make quantifiable statements. And even those 19 works do not analyze how the influence was quantified. A quantification of 50% anthropogenic share would already be evidence of the so-called consensus, but in other contexts it would already contradict the IPCC and the judgment of the climate opponent. Although the 2104 works are relevant and describe climate change, they do not even make implicit statements about the human cause. Why not? To speak of a far-reaching consensus of over 99% is truly brazen!"

https://philo.servin.de/wahrheit-und-konsens-2/

And I'm not sure where you got the idea the paper you cite is peer reviewed. The studies he catalogued were peer reviewed but according to what IOP tells me to look for to see if a paper is peer reviewed at their site yours doesn't seem to be.

https://publishingsupport.iopscience.iop.org/questions/peer-review-models-on-iop-journals/

And if we're running true to form the next thing a Climate Alarmist would do would be to tell me my cite can't be considered because he considers them big, fat poopy-heads. Something like that anyway.

Very well show me in your cited reference then where it says a consensus of scientists say climate doom is coming. 

This is important because if you're wrong (and you are) 99% of climate scientists aren't telling us Warmageddon is coming so why do we need all the new regulations, restrictions, governance and societal upheavals? I'll answer that one for you. We don't.

I didn't say that article was peer reviewed. I said the peer reviewed work is more telling, and that article provides a snapshot of the peer reviewed work. Though I think you and your german blogger misunderstand the point of the article. The article isn't an exhaustive survey or catalog of hard climate science papers. It's a random sample review that provides insight into how scientists treat the notion of anthropogenic climate change in their actual published, peer reviewed work. 

 

Get it. Like if you randomly pick up 3K papers with keyword hits for climate change, does it feel like there is a debate about warming or mankind's role in warming? The answer is no. There is virtually zero debate among scientists on those fundamental facts. Get it? 19 of those papers were attempting to quantify the impact, but the majority of papers were not. But regardless of whether a papers was attempting to quantify mankind's effect, many of them include that fact as a starting premise or part of their understanding of reality.

Whereas there is almost no sentiment to the contrary. 

That's the point of such a review: to see the scientific sentiment as reflected in actual peer-reviewed work. 

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, reason10 said:

Shut the fck up, TROLL.

She's RIGHT and YOU'RE the TOP TROLL who doesn't know the difference between CO2 from biological processes and fossil fuels.

Here's a clue for YOU: biological CO2 like that from termites, is continually RECYCLED and DOES NOT increase the concentration in the atmosphere like burning fossil fuels does.

Bet you STILL don't understand the difference. LMAO

Edited January 24, 2023 by robosmith

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, reason10 said:

A chairman of WHAT? Does his company specialize in climate technology? I may know science better than some rich bitcch who is probably just trying to impress the liberal chick who is currently blowing him.

Imagine living in a blue state with inferior public schools and graduating a total IGNORAMUS who doesn't know anything?

Wait a minute? YOU ARE.

As a successful Florida substitute teacher, it is not my job to foist my opinions of any lesson plan. I merely present the plan, keep order in the class, grade papers and take attendance.

Oh, by the way BAT GUANO FOR BRAINS what in the name of ZEUS'S BUTTHOLE does my profession have to do with the subject of this thread? Are you just so FCKING STUPID that you can't think of anything else other than to go after my job?  Are you REALLY THAT FCKING IGNORANT?

(I suppose I could attack your profession, but it might seem a little silly attacking your parents for allowing you to live in their basement while cashing your welfare checks and filling their pantry with stuff bought by your food stamp, BEETCH.)

If you actually KNEW about science you'd have a much better job doing research than substitute teaching public schools. LMAO

Thing is you just keep demonstrating how ignorant you are in your POSTS HERE. 

Edited January 24, 2023 by robosmith

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, reason10 said:

Gee! You get a participation trophy for correctly identifying the substance CO. I guess you'll probably want a college degree for announcing that we are CARBON BASED LIFE FORMS.

This is why so many people laugh at you every time you open that Woke pie hole. You've NEVER actually had to THINK of anything.

I have presented REAMS of evidence proving that (a) 95-57 percent of all greenhouse gasses are WATER VAPOR, and (b) all combined human  production of CO released into the atmosphere is a FRACTION of what is released by TERMITES.

And so you found the word CARBON.

Do you want a cookie for all that hard work?

No, I want a cookie for schooling you in ACTUAL SCIENCE and YOUR IGNORANCE.

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, reason10 said:

What does RACE have to do with this discussion?

(Boys and girls, this has got to stop. I know you children are mostly a bunch of uneducated moe rons, but when you lose an argument you don't look any smarter by calling your superior a racist.)

You have the reading comprehension of a  blue stater, so for all I know you probably think my observations AND THE LINKS I PROVIDED are in another language. How about getting off your lazy, unproductive entitled Woke ass and actually READ the thread and READ the reliable links I have provided. Come back to class when you can keep up.

Florida third graders have better reading comprehension.

Too bad their substitute teacher DOES NOT. LMAO

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

Weather, Buddy. Look it up. There was the pacific ocean equivalent of a hurricane that hit Seattle and Vancouver in the 60s. It's never happened since. We were told Atlantic landfall hurricanes were going to mightily increase immediately after one IPCC conference. They went quiet for over a decade. Then they started up again. Has to do with wind shear and ocean confluences. Has nothing to do with how much oil you use to heat your home in the winter.

There's no support for the idea anything listed has never happened before. Even your historical temperature record only covers 150 years.

And the 30,000 years old glaciers that are melting have been melting for 30,000 years.

Do you have ANY idea what powers a hurricane? ㊙️ It's warm OCEAN WATER.

When the OCEAN gets HOTTER, Hurricanes GET STRONGER.

Strongest hurricanes may have not struck North American land for a decade but they certainly didn't "go quiet."

Here is the list for the last 30 years.

Quote

South-West Indian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	14	11	4	Edwina	20
Australian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	9	8	5	Oliver	2		Oliver, Polly, Roger, Naomi
South Pacific (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	10	8	4	Prema	2	$60 million	Prema, Rewa
Worldwide	110	78	44	Koryn	1,928	$4.3 billion	6
1994	Atlantic	12	7	3	Florence	1,189	$1.93 billion
	Eastern Pacific	22	20	10	Gilma	4	$20 million		Tied for most Category 5 hurricanes (with 2002 and 2018) Included John, the longest lasting tropical cyclone on record
	Western Pacific	52	36	19	Melissa and Seth	1,287	$8.14 billion
	North Indian	5	4	2	BOB 02	418	$240 million
	South-West Indian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	15	12	9	Geralda	484	$165 million
	Australian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	11	10	6	Theodore			Pearl, Sharon, Annette
	South Pacific (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	6	5	3	Theodore
	Worldwide	120	91	50	Geralda	3,279	$10.3 billion	3
1995	Atlantic	21	19	11	Opal	182	$12.3 billion	Luis, Marilyn, Opal, Roxanne	Tied for fifth most active season on record
	Eastern Pacific	11	10	7	Juliette	124	$31 million	Ismael	Record inactivity for tropical depressions
	Western Pacific	47	24	8	Angela	1,314	$1.2 billion
	North Indian	8	3	2	BOB 07	554	$46.3 million
	South-West Indian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	12	10	5	Marlene
	Australia (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	11	9	8	Chloe	8	$8.5 million	Violet, Warren, Agnes, Gertie
	South Pacific (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	1	1	0	William	2	$2.5 million	William	Featured record inactivity in the basin
	Worldwide	110	76	41	Angela	2,184	$13.5 billion	9
1996	Atlantic	13	13	9	Edouard	248	$6.5 billion	Cesar, Fran, Hortense
	Eastern Pacific	14*	9*	5*	Douglas	46
	Western Pacific	52	31	16	Herb	935	$6.8 billion
	North Indian	9	5	2	BOB 05	2,075	$1.9 billion
	South-West Indian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	13	9	5	Bonita	109	$50 million
	Australia (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	21	17	6	Olivia	1	$57 million	Barry, Celeste, Ethel, Kirsty, Olivia, Fergus	Included Olivia, which produced the world's highest non-tornadic winds on record
	South Pacific (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	8	6	2	Beti	2	$5.6 million	Beti
	Worldwide	130	87	44	Bonita	3,416	$15.3 billion	10
1997	Atlantic	9	8	3	Erika	12	$111 million		Included one subtropical storm
	Eastern Pacific	24	19	9	Linda	261	$551 million	Pauline, Paka
	Western Pacific	47	28	16	Ivan and Joan	4,181	$4.59 billion		Most Category 5's on record
	North Indian	10	4	1	BOB 01	1,197
	South-West Indian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	14	7	3	Helinda	275	$50 million
	Australia (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	12	12	6	Pancho	34	$190 million	Rachel, Justin, Rhonda, Sid
	South Pacific (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	19	16	7	Gavin	59	$143 million	Drena, Gavin, Hina, Keli, Martin, Osea
	Worldwide	108	89	44	Linda	6,019	$5.6 billion	12
1998	Atlantic	14	14	10	Mitch	12,010	$21.1 billion	Georges, Mitch	Second deadliest season on record Featured Mitch, the deadliest storm in the basin since 1780
	Eastern Pacific	16	13	6	Howard	54	$760 million
	Western Pacific	30	16	8	Zeb	924	$951 million
	North Indian	12	6	3	ARB 02	10,212	$3 billion
	South-West Indian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	20	5	1	Anacelle	88
	Australia (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	13	11	6	Thelma	3	$8 million	Katrina
	South Pacific (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	18	12	6	Ron and Susan	35	$33.6 million	Martin, Osea, Ron, Susan
	Worldwide	117	77	40	Zeb, Ron, and Susan	23,326	$25.8 billion	5
1999	Atlantic	16	12	8	Floyd	195	$8.2 billion	Floyd, Lenny
	Eastern Pacific	14	9	6	Dora	16
	Western Pacific	45	20	5	Bart	976	$18.4 billion
	North Indian	8	4	3	BOB 06	15,780	$5 billion		Included the strongest tropical cyclone on record in the Bay of Bengal
	South-West Indian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	11	7	2	Evrina	2	$800 million
	Australia (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	12	9	6	Gwenda	6	$250 million (AUD)	Rona, Elaine, Gwenda, John	Included the strongest tropical cyclone on record in the basin
	South Pacific (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	20	7	3	Dani
	Worldwide	117	62	32	Gwenda	16,975	$32.6 billion	6
2000	Atlantic	19	15	8	Keith	79	$1.2 billion	Keith	Included one subtropical storm
	Eastern Pacific	22	19	6	Carlotta	27	$84 million
	Western Pacific	51	23	13	Bilis	467	$7.11 billion
	North Indian	6	5	2	BOB 05	238	$185 million
	South-West Indian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	16	8	4	Hudah	1,044	$800 million		Included one subtropical depression with gale-force winds
	Australia (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	13	12	7	Paul	0	$150 million (AUD)	Steve, Tessi, Rosita, Sam
	South Pacific (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	19	6	4	Kim	1
	Worldwide	121	85	42	Hudah	1,856	$9.5 billion	5
2001	Atlantic	17	15	9	Michelle	105	$7.1 billion	Allison, Iris, Michelle
	Eastern Pacific	19	15	8	Juliette	13	$401 million	Adolph
	Western Pacific	45	26	16	Faxai	1,287	$2.3 billion	Vamei
	North Indian	6	4	1	ARB 01	108	$104 million
	South-West Indian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	13	8	4	Ando	4
	Australia (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	13	10	2	Walter			Abigail
	South Pacific (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	10	6	2	Waka	8	$52 million	Paula, Sose, Trina, Waka
	Worldwide	119	82	42	Faxai	1,525	$9.9 billion	10
2002	Atlantic	14	12	4	Isidore	53	$2.6 billion	Isidore, Lili
	Eastern Pacific	21	16	8	Kenna	7	$101 million	Kenna	Tied for most Category 5 hurricanes (with 1994 and 2018)
	Western Pacific	44	26	15*	Fengshen	725	$9.5 billion	Chataan, Rusa, Pongsona
	North Indian	7	4	0	BOB 04	182	$25 million
	South-West Indian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	15	13	10	Hary	106	$290 million
	Australia (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	10	8	3	Chris	19	$1 million (AUD)	Chris
	South Pacific (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	16	4	2	Zoe			Zoe
	Worldwide	124	80	40	Zoe	1,092	$12.5 billion	8
2003	Atlantic	21	16	7	Isabel	92	$4.4 billion	Fabian, Isabel, Juan
	Eastern Pacific	17	16	7	Nora	23	$129 million
	Western Pacific	45	21	14	Maemi	360	$5.7 billion	Yanyan, Imbudo, Maemi
	North Indian	7	3	1	ARB 06	358	$163 million
	South-West Indian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	13	12	7	Kalunde	115	$3 million		Included one subtropical depression with hurricane-force winds
	Australia (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	12	11	5	Inigo	60	$12 million	Erica, Inigo,	Included the cyclone tied for the most intense in the Australian basin
	South-West Indian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	16	9	7	Erica	23	$293 million	Ami, Beni, Cilla, Heta
	Worldwide	131	88	48	Inigo	1,031	$10.7 billion	12
2004	Atlantic	16	15	9	Ivan	3,100+	$60.1 billion	Charley, Frances, Ivan, Jeanne	Included one subtropical storm
	Eastern Pacific	18	12	6	Javier
	Western Pacific	45	29	19	Chaba	2,428	$18.1 billion	Sudal, Tingting, Rananim
	North Indian	9	4	1	BOB 01	587	$130 million		First season with named cyclonic storms
	South-West Indian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	18	9	5	Gafilo	396	$250 million		Included the strongest cyclone on record in the basin
	Australia (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	10	9	3	Fay		$22 million (AUD)	Monty, Fay
	South Pacific (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	15	3	1	Ivy	15	$7.8 million	Ivy
	South Atlantic	1	1	1	Catarina	3	$350 million		First hurricane on record to strike Brazil
	Worldwide	129	80	44	Gafilo	6,529	$78.9 billion	10
2005	Atlantic	31	28	15	Wilma	2,280+	$180 billion	Dennis, Katrina, Rita, Stan, Wilma	Second costliest hurricane season on record Second most storms Tied (with 2020) for most hurricanes and major hurricanes Most tropical cyclones and Category 5's (4) in one season Most retired names Only year to use the Greek alphabet until 2020. Featured Wilma, the strongest storm on record in the basin Featured Katrina, tied as costliest storm on record Included 1 subtropical storm and 1 subtropical depression
	Eastern Pacific	17	15	7	Kenneth	6	$12 million
	Western Pacific	33	24	13	Haitang	436	$7.6 billion	Matsa, Nabi, Longwang
	North Indian	12	3	0	Pyarr	273	$21.4 million
	South-West Indian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	19	8	3	Juliet	78
	Australia (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	14	10	6	Ingrid			Harvey, Ingrid
	South Pacific (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	17	8	5	Percy		$55 million	Meena, Nancy, Olaf
	Worldwide	141	94	49	Wilma	3,073	$188 billion	13
2006	Atlantic	10	10	5	Gordon and Helene	14	$500 million
	Eastern Pacific	25	19	11	Ioke	14	$355 million	Ioke
	Western Pacific	40*	24*	15*	Yagi	3,886	$14.4 billion	Chanchu, Bilis, Saomai, Xangsane, Durian
	North Indian	12	3	1	Mala	623	$6.7 million
	South-West Indian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	11	8	3	Carina	59
	Australian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	16	11	7	Glenda	1	$808 million	Clare, Larry, Glenda, Monica
	South Pacific (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	20	7	5	Xavier
	Worldwide	132	80	46	Yagi & Glenda	4,597	$16 billion	10
2007	Atlantic	17	15	6	Dean	423	$3 billion	Dean, Felix, Noel	Included one subtropical storm Includes two Category 5 Hurricanes (Dean and Felix) that made landfall
	Eastern Pacific	15	11	4	Flossie	42	$80 million
	Western Pacific	34	24	14	Sepat	388	$7.5 billion
	North Indian	11	4	2	Gonu	16,248	$9.7 billion
	South-West Indian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	17	11	6	Dora and Favio	172	$337 million		Included the 2nd wettest tropical cyclone on record
	Australia (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	13	9	4	George	152	$87.1 million	George, Guba
	South Pacific (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	12	5	1	Daman	4		Cliff, Daman
	Worldwide	115	87	37	George	17,429	$20.7 billion	7
2008	Atlantic	17	16	8	Ike	1,047	$49.5 billion	Gustav, Ike, Paloma	Only year on record in which a major hurricane existed in every month from July through November
	Eastern Pacific	19	17	7	Norbert	45	$152 million	Alma
	Western Pacific	40	22	11	Jangmi	1,936	$5.9 billion
	North Indian	10	4	1	Nargis	138,927	$14.7 billion		Second-costliest North Indian cyclone season on record Included 6th deadliest tropical cyclone on record
	South-West Indian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	12	10	9	Hondo	123	$38 million
	Australian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	14	7	3	Billy	1	$22.4 million	Helen
	South Pacific (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	13	7	1	Funa	12	$64.2 million	Gene
	Worldwide	124	83	40	Jangmi	142,091	$70.3 billion	6
2009	Atlantic	11	9	3	Bill	9	$58 million
	Eastern Pacific	23	20	8	Rick	16	$188 million
	Western Pacific	41*	22	13	Nida	2,348	$10.5 billion	Morakot, Ketsana, Parma
	North Indian	8	4	0	Aila	421	618 million
	South-West Indian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	15	11	4	Cleo	29
	Australian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	17	9	3	Hamish	2	$123 million	Hamish, Laurence
	South Pacific (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	14	5	0	Lin and Mick	6	$64.2 million	Mick
	Worldwide	126	78	31	Nida	2,831	$11.5 billion	6
2010	Atlantic	21	19	12	Igor	314	$4.53 billion	Igor, Tomas	Tied for fifth most active season on record Tied for second most hurricanes in a season on record
	Eastern Pacific	13*	8	3	Celia	268	$1.62 billion		Least active Pacific hurricane season on record tied with 1977
	Western Pacific	29	14	7	Megi	384	$2.96 billion	Fanapi	Quietest Pacific typhoon season on record
	North Indian	8	6	5	Giri	402	$2.99 billion
	South-West Indian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	11	7	4	Edzani	85
	Australia (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	15	9[nb 3]	3	Ului	4	$758 million	Magda
	South Pacific (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	12	7

Atlantic	20	19	7	Ophelia	114	$18.6 billion	Irene	Tied for fifth most active season on record
Eastern Pacific	13	11	10	Dora	43	$204 million
Western Pacific	39	21	8	Songda	3,111	$7.18 billion	Washi
North Indian	10	2	1	Thane	360	$277 million
South-West Indian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	11	4	2	Bingiza	77			Included one subtropical depression with gale-force winds
Australia (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	26	10	6	Yasi	3	$3.52 billion	Carlos
South Pacific (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	17	7	5	Wilma	13	$33 million	Vania, Wilma, Yasi, Atu
South Atlantic	1	1
Worldwide	132	72	39	Songda	3,721	$29.8 billion	7
2012	Atlantic	19	19	10	Sandy	354	$78 billion	Sandy	Tied for fifth most active season Tied (with 2016 and 2020) for most active season before July Record tying 8 named storms forming in August
	Eastern Pacific	17	17	10	Emilia	8	$27.9 million
	Western Pacific	35	25	14	Sanba	2,487	$20.5 billion	Vicente, Bopha	Second costliest season ever recorded
	North Indian	5	2	0	Nilam	128	$56.7 million
	South-West Indian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	15	13	4	Funso	164			Included one subtropical depression with gale-force winds
	Australia (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	19	7	2	Lua	16	$230 million	Heidi, Jasmine, Lua
	South Pacific (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	24	7	5	Jasmine	27	$333 million	Cyclone Evan, Cyclone Freda
	Worldwide	131	89	45	Sanba	3,184	$99 billion	8
2013	Atlantic	15	14	2	Humberto	47	$1.51 billion	Ingrid	Included one subtropical storm Tied (with 1982) for fewest hurricanes since 1930
	Eastern Pacific	21	20	9	Raymond	181	$4.2 billion	Manuel	Costliest Eastern Pacific hurricane season on record
	Western Pacific	49	31*	13	Haiyan	8,513	$25.7 billion	Sonamu, Utor, Fitow, Haiyan	Deadliest season since 1975 Featured Haiyan, the second strongest storm to make landfall on record
	North Indian	10	5	3	Phailin	323	$1.5 billion
	South-West Indian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	10	10	7	Bruce	137	$89.2 million
	Australia (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	18	11	6	Narelle	20	$2.2 billion	Oswald, Rusty
	South Pacific (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	22	3	2	Sandra
	Worldwide	139	67	41	Haiyan	9,221	$35.2 billion	8
2014	Atlantic	9	8	6	Gonzalo	21	$439 million
	Eastern Pacific	23	22	16	Marie	49	$1.6 billion	Odile	Tied for record number of hurricanes with 1990, 1992 and 2015
	Western Pacific	32*	23*	11*	Vongfong	576	$12.4 billion	Rammasun
	North Indian	8	3	2	Nilofar	183	$3.4 billion		Tied for record earliest (with 2019)
	South-West Indian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	15	10	3	Hellen	8
	Australia (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	17	9	4	Ita	22	$1.15 billion	Ita
	South Pacific (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	19	6	2	Ian	12	$48 million	Ian, Lusi
	Worldwide	121	78	42	Vongfong	871	$19 billion	5
2015	Atlantic	12	11	4	Joaquin	89	$732 million	Erika, Joaquin
	Eastern Pacific	31	26	16	Patricia	44	$565 million	Patricia	Record number of tropical depressions Tied for record number of hurricanes with 1990, 1992 and 2014 Featured Patricia, the strongest hurricane in the Western Hemisphere
	Western Pacific	39*	27*	18*	Soudelor	350	$14.8 billion	Soudelor, Mujigae, Koppu, Melor
	North Indian	12	4	2	Chapala	363	$379 million
	South-West Indian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	12	11	3	Eunice	111	$46 million		Record number of very intense tropical cyclones
	Australia (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	14	7	6	Marcia	2	$732 million	Lam, Marcia
	South Pacific (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	19	8	2	Pam	17	$360 million	Pam, Ula
	Worldwide	136	92	49	Patricia	976	$17.6 billion	11
2016	Atlantic	16	15	7	Matthew	748	$16.1 billion	Matthew, Otto	Tied (with 2012 and 2020) for most active season before July Featured Matthew, the first Category 5 in 9 years
	Eastern Pacific	23*	22*	13	Seymour	11	$95.8 million		Earliest season on record
	Western Pacific	51	26	13	Meranti	972	$18.9 billion	Meranti, Sarika, Haima, Nock-ten
	North Indian	9	4	1	Vardah	401	$717 million
	South-West Indian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	8	6	3	Fantala	13	$4.5 million		Included one subtropical depression with gale-force winds
	Australia (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	19	4	0	Stan				Featured record inactive season
	South Pacific (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	16	6	4	Winston	49	$1.4 billion	Winston	Costliest season on record Featured Winston, the strongest storm on record in the Southern Hemisphere
	Worldwide	140	81	41	Winston	2,194	$43.7 billion	7
2017	Atlantic	18	17	10	Maria	3,364	$282 billion	Harvey, Irma, Maria, Nate	Costliest hurricane season on record Highest rainfall produced by a tropical cyclone in the United States and its territories First-ever three Category 4 U.S. hurricane landfalls in a single season Second season to feature multiple Category 5 landfalls after 2007 Featured Harvey, tied as most costly storm on record
	Eastern Pacific	20	18	9	Fernanda	45	$69 million
	Western Pacific	41	27	11	Lan	860	$14.3 billion	Hato, Kai-tak, Tembin
	North Indian	10	3	1	Ochki	834	$3.65 billion
	South-West Indian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	8	5	3	Enawo	449	$272 million
	Australia (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	28	11	3	Ernie	57	$2.82 billion	Debbie
	South Pacific (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	20	4	2	Donna	3	$48 million	Cook, Donna
	Worldwide	141	85	39	Maria	2,698	$303 billion	10
2018	Atlantic	16	15	8	Michael	173	$49.9 billion	Florence, Michael	Included one subtropical storm
	Eastern Pacific	26	23	13	Walaka	52	$1.57 billion		Tied for most Category 5 hurricanes (with 1994 and 2002)
	Western Pacific	44*	29*	13	Kong-rey & Yutu	771	$18.4 billion	Rumbia, Mangkhut, Yutu
	North Indian	14	7	3	Mekunu	343	$4.3 billion
	South-West Indian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	13	12	8	Cilida	35	$59 million
	Australia (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	27	11	3	Marcus	1	$190 million	Marcus
	South Pacific (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	16	8	3	Gita	11	$337 million	Gita, Josie, Keni
	Worldwide	150	104	51	Kong-rey & Yutu	1,497	$74.9 billion	8
2019	Atlantic	20	18	6	Dorian	98	$12 billion	Dorian	Included Hurricane Dorian, tied for the highest sustained winds at landfall
	Eastern Pacific	21	19	7	Barbara	7	$16.1 million		Latest date for the first depression to form since reliable records began in 1971
	Western Pacific	52	29	17	Halong	388	$34.1 billion	Lekima, Faxai, Hagibis, Kammuri, Phanfone	Costliest season on record.
	North Indian	12*	8*	6	Kyarr	173	$11.5 billion		Tied for record earliest (with 2014) Featured record number of very intense tropical cyclones Featured Cyclone Kyarr, the strongest tropical cyclone on record in the Arabian Sea
	South-West Indian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	15*	13*	11	Ambali	1,095	$2 billion		Record storms, cyclones, and intense tropical cyclones in a single season Costliest season
	Australia (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	16	8	5	Veronica	14	$1.72 billion	Trevor, Veronica
	South Pacific (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	11	6	3	Pola		$1.43 million
	South Atlantic	2	2	0	Iba
	Worldwide	143	105	56	Halong	2,090	$60.6 billion
2020	Atlantic	31	30	14	Iota	417	$51.146 billion	Laura, Eta, Iota	Most active Atlantic hurricane season in recorded history Tied (with 2012 and 2016) for most active season on record before July Most amount of storms forming in September on record (10)
	Eastern Pacific	21	17	4	Marie	47	$250 million		Featured the earliest recorded tropical cyclone east of 140W
	Western Pacific	32	23	10	Goni	457	$4.06 billion	Vongfong, Linfa, Molave, Goni, Vamco	Includes Goni, the strongest storm to make landfall on record.
	North Indian	9	5	3	Amphan	269	$15.8 billion		Included the costliest storm on record in the basin
	South-West Indian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	7	7	3	Ambali	46	$25 million
	Australia (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	15	7	3	Damien	28	$4.3 million	Damien, Harold, Mangga
	South Pacific (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	7	4	3	Yasa	34	$132 million
	South Atlantic	3	3	0	Kurumí	70	Unknown
	Mediterranean tropical-like cyclone	1	1	1	Ianos	4	$100 million
	Worldwide	122	95	36	Goni	1,386	$71.5 billion
2021	Atlantic	21	21	7	Sam	158	>$55.178 billion		Third most active season on record
	Eastern Pacific	12	12	4	Felicia	5	$100 million		Featured the earliest recorded tropical storm east of 140W
	Western Pacific	25	12	3	Surigae	503	$2.04 billion
	North Indian	3	2	2	Tauktae	194	$4.94 billion
	South-West Indian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	10	7	3	Faraji	34	$11 million
	Australia (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	22	8	3	Niran	272	$519 million	Seroja
	South Pacific (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	10	4	2	Niran	7	$448 million
	South Atlantic	3	3	0	Raoni	70	Unknown
	Worldwide	127	90	36	Surigae	1332	$79.1 billion
2022	Atlantic	16	14	8	Fiona	337	>$56.65 billion
	Eastern Pacific	19*	19*	10*	Orlene	26	>$54.2 million
	Western Pacific	36	25	10	Nanmadol	490	$3.384 billion
	North Indian	15	3	0	Asani	79	Unknown
	South-West Indian (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	17*	15*	6*	Darian	376	$312 million
	Australia (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	30*	9*	3	Darian	4	>$75 million
	South Pacific (Jan.–July/Aug.–Dec.)	11*	5*	2*	Dovi	2	>$105 million
	South Atlantic	1	1	0	Yakecan	2	$50 million
	Worldwide	42	20	13	Nanmadol	1,316	>$60.6302 billion

 

Please point out the decade YOU BELIEVE "went quiet."

Edited January 24, 2023 by robosmith

[Rebound]

4 hours ago, reason10 said:

o: September 23, 1846 p: November 13, 1846	Neptune		13th Planet (1846)[a] 8th Planet (1851)	Galle and Le Verrier[29][30]
o: October 10, 1846 p: November 13, 1846	Triton		Neptune I	Lassell[31]
o: September 16, 1848 p: October 7, 1848	Hyperion		Saturn VII	Bond, Bond,[32]Lassell[33]
1850s
o: October 24, 1851	Ariel		Uranus I	Lassell[26]
	Umbriel		Uranus II
1870s
o: August 12, 1877	Deimos		Mars II	Hall[34][35][36]
o: August 18, 1877	Phobos		Mars I
1890s
o: September 9, 1892 p: October 4, 1892	Amalthea		Jupiter V	Barnard[1][37]
i: August 16, 1898 o: March 17, 1899	Phoebe		Saturn IX	Pickering[38][39]

Those are the time lines for the discoveries of the planets I mentioned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_discovery_of_Solar_System_planets_and_their_moons

 

You provided a list of MOONS, not planets. You shouldn’t be teaching children if you can’t read a simple table.   The only planet on your list is Neptune.

 
As I explained, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Saturn and Jupiter are easily visible with the naked eye and have been known for thousands of years. Venus is brighter than any star in the sky by relative magnitude and is so bright that it will cast a shadow on a moonless night. But Jupiter, Mars and Saturn are also very bright and easy to see if you’ve got decent vision. Hint: Mars is the red one. 

Edited January 24, 2023 by Rebound

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

 

Whereas there is almost no sentiment to the contrary. 

Legitimate scientists that are cited published most of their work more than 20 years ago. There was a turnaround in temperatures predicted, which obviously did not happen.

[taxme]

On 1/23/2023 at 3:24 PM, reason10 said:

And this is from a major corporation that the Democrats probably IGNORE when it comes to tax laws.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/davos-speaker-one-billion-people-stop-eating-meat-innovation-environment

Davos speaker calls for one billion people to 'stop eating meat' for 'innovation' and the environment

Siemens AG chairman said the future will bring proteins that are zero carbon, healthier and tastier than meat

A speaker at the World Economic Forum (WEF) called on one billion people to "stop eating meat" to combat climate change. 

"If a billion people stop eating meat, I tell you, it has a big impact. Not only does it have a big impact on the current food system, but it will also inspire innovation of food systems," Siemens AG Chairman Jim Hagemann told the WEF crowd in Davos, Switzerland, on Wednesday. 

He was "inspired" by his 24-year-old daughter who asked him how he could advocate for "zero carbon value chains" and still eat meat products. 

To bring you up to speed on this ignorant hack, here are the talking points:

1. There is no climate change. (For climate change, there has to be MAJOR changes in local weather conditions, which is the very definition of climate change)

2. Termites produce more C02 in the atmosphere than all human activity combined.

3. The largest concentration of greenhouse gasses (which keeps the surface of the earth from resembling the surface of the moon) is WATER VAPOR, which is 97 percent of all greenhouse gasses. (Makes sense, since THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH IS WATER). Only 29 percent of the ENTIRE surface of the earth is land. (including continents and islands)

https://bettermeetsreality.com/how-much-land-is-there-on-earth-what-is-it-used-for/

4. Out of that 29 percent, HALF of that is used for ALL agriculture. (Growing food.) That means 14.5 percent of the earth's land surface produces ALL agriculture, FEEDING EVERYONE.

https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture

Out of that 14.5 percent, 77 percent of that is dedicated to cattle production.

That means ELEVEN  PERCENT OF THE ENTIRE EARTH'S SURFACE IS DEDICATED TO RAISING MEAT.

The numbers don't lie. But that retard from Siemens (who I guarantee you has a succulent T-bone steak every night for dinner) somehow thinks 11 percent of the earth's surface is somehow outpacing the 97 percent of all greenhouse gasses and somehow changing the climate.

 

 

 

When the WEF globalist elite ilk and our butt kissing politicians decide that they will eat bugs only instead of meat, well, that would help out a lot for the climate. There are a hell of a lot of globalists and their supporters out there that if they would stop eating meat and start eating bugs, then the planet could be saved from HA-HA climate change. Just leave the meat for the peasants. But we should all know by now that it will be meat for the elite and bugs for the peasants. 

The globalist ilk will be flying around the world in their private gas guzzling private jets and they will still be driving their gas guzzling hummers. Like covid 19, climate change is just another radical pile of nonsense and sadly many fools out there will do as they are told.

If you want to start eating bugs, live in a cashless society, and be able to ride a bicycle to work one day, then just continue to sit back and do nothing. That is just what the globalists and our useless politicians want us to do. 

Just like the John Kennedy assassination, the Twin Towers, covid 19, and now climate change they were all just part of a global conspiracy of many conspiracies that goes on every day in the world. Tomorrow, the globalists, our politicians, and the MSM will soon have another crises that they will create in order to try and keep us peasants on their hook. 

[Aristides]

Of course he is right but I still like meat. What to do?

[Aristides]

7 hours ago, reason10 said:

o: September 23, 1846 p: November 13, 1846	Neptune		13th Planet (1846)[a] 8th Planet (1851)	Galle and Le Verrier[29][30]
o: October 10, 1846 p: November 13, 1846	Triton		Neptune I	Lassell[31]
o: September 16, 1848 p: October 7, 1848	Hyperion		Saturn VII	Bond, Bond,[32]Lassell[33]
1850s
o: October 24, 1851	Ariel		Uranus I	Lassell[26]
	Umbriel		Uranus II
1870s
o: August 12, 1877	Deimos		Mars II	Hall[34][35][36]
o: August 18, 1877	Phobos		Mars I
1890s
o: September 9, 1892 p: October 4, 1892	Amalthea		Jupiter V	Barnard[1][37]
i: August 16, 1898 o: March 17, 1899	Phoebe		Saturn IX	Pickering[38][39]

Those are the time lines for the discoveries of the planets I mentioned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_discovery_of_Solar_System_planets_and_their_moons

 

FFS did you even read the link you posted

 

Quote

Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn were identified by ancient Babylonian astronomers in the 2nd millennium BC.^[7] They were correctly identified as orbiting the Sun by Aristarchus of Samos, and later in Nicolaus Copernicus' heliocentric system^[8] (De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, 1543)

 

[Infidel Dog]

5 hours ago, Rebound said:

You’re just making this up. 
The reality is that glaciers on Antarctica and Greenland, and interior glaciers as well, are all melting at extreme rates, which will increase sea level. This will make hurricanes even more destructive to the coasts.  
 

The NOAA has been tracking both glaciers and the seasonal extents of the Arctic ice caps for decades, and the warming trend is very clear. And it is dangerous to humankind. 
 

The reason you don’t believe this is simple: You don’t WANT to believe it. Your TEAM doesn’t want to believe it. It’s part of your social identity. You can’t be on the TEAM if you merely believe these basic scientific facts. AND IT WILL HURT YOU AND YOUR FAMILY ONE DAY. 
 

Liberals aren’t saying these things to “win.”  I don’t win any more than anyone else.  The simple truth is that we need to accelerate our use of renewable electricity generation and transition quickly to electric vehicles.  

Currently the sea level rise is about 7 inches per hundred years. That can be easily adapted to.

When exactly were you expecting to see this massive flooding of the coast land caused by this Greenland/Antarctic glacial melt? We've been hearing these scare stories since Gore. Who by the way bought ocean front property with his global warming windfall money. As did say another true believer of the the democrat party named Biden with wherever his found millions came from. Oh yeah, and Obama. What do they know about Greenland/Antarctic melt that they don't fear drowning in their new multi million dollar beach bungalows?

Edited January 25, 2023 by Infidel Dog

[Michael Hardner]

21 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Currently the sea level rise is about 7 inches per hundred years. That can be easily adapted to.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says: 

"Sea level along the U.S. coastline is projected to rise, on average, 10 - 12 inches (0.25 - 0.30 meters) in the next 30 years (2020 - 2050), which will be as much as the rise measured over the last 100 years (1920 - 2020)."

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/sealevelrise-tech-report.html 

[Infidel Dog]

We've been hearing scary climate predictions since the 80s. None of them ever happen. If models could really predict the future modelers would quit the modeling game and make a killing at the track.

At current rate of sea level rise the oceans are rising at a rate of 7 inches per 100 years.

[Michael Hardner]

19 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

1. We've been hearing scary climate predictions since the 80s. None of them ever happen.

2. If models could really predict the future modelers would quit the modeling game and make a killing at the track.

3. At current rate of sea level rise the oceans are rising at a rate of 7 inches per 100 years.

1. If you cherry pick the crazy ones, as often happens, and quote those back then yes they don't happen.  I looked at a few sources - not blogs but research organizations have indicated that while temperature predictions are aligning, sea level rise is outpacing predicitions.
2. You CAN make a killing at the track.  Bet the favourite to show.  You're welcome.
3. What is your cite on that one ?

[Infidel Dog]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. If you cherry pick the crazy ones, as often happens, and quote those back then yes they don't happen.  I looked at a few sources - not blogs but research organizations have indicated that while temperature predictions are aligning, sea level rise is outpacing predicitions.

First, on the track...you don't have a clue what you're talking about and I'm not getting into why I do, but you should take my word for it. It's one of the four five topics I know more than the average guy about. Betting the favourite to show will give you a pleasant Sunday at the track where you might make enough to buy yourself a cheese burger and a beer. And if you lose it won't be enough to hurt. That's not the way professionals bet though and they are around.

Too bad you're not R&R I'd tell you to take out a second mortgage and take your genius idea to the track to get rich. 

Now on sea level rise...

If you use the last hundred years of real world data you're going to get Six years per century to Eight using a period from 1993 . At one time I used to just see 7 per century as the estimate of current rise but those seem to have disappeared. Nevertheless 6 to 8 remains seven as far as I'm concerned.

Edited January 25, 2023 by Infidel Dog