Care to retract now that even the new U.N. report (along with all the other studies I linked) reportedly says almost exactly what I suggested....faster and higher sea level rise than previously predicted, likely above 3 ft by 2100, hundreds of millions of refugees, massive loss of sea life, loss of water for billions, droughts, floods, and diseases expected to drastically reduce the amount of food production world wide, etc....or are you going to continue to, head in the sand, ignore the scientific consensus to stand on the 5+ year old report that was lambasted by the scientific community as unbelievably optimistic when it was released?

Had you read the Forbes article (or the other links provided) you would know it was reiterating NOAA data and predictions, not making it's own.
But it's a waste of time to point out the science if you aren't willing to examine it.

I'm still in.

*Heavy sigh*
No. They don't say that. The science has evolved in the last 5 years. (Edit: Might check how old and out of date that ipcc report is, btw. Please note you ignore all science done since the 2014 IPCC report you reference that used melting equations and extrapolated rather than measured data sets, data and models they admit are incomplete. They have not updated their sea level estimates since the fifth assessment, which itself raised them approximately 60% over the fourth, which raised them significantly from the third...... Other nonpolitical scientific groups have adjusted the findings to include up to 6.5' or higher rise by 2100 under worst case conditions, the path we're firmly on today.)

Even if you were correct, and I don't agree one bit you are, is just under a 3' rise not bad enough for you in the next 70 years? That's at least 140 million people and all coastal habitats displaced, with more to come. I and others expect worse, but surely that's disaster enough for you, isn't it? The world couldn't deal with one million Syrians, 140 million coastal refugees, and whatever number of non coastal climate refugees fleeing drought or flood sure seems an unavoidable planetary disaster. That doesn't consider the two billion people who rely on Himalayan glaciers for their water, glaciers in rapid retreat.

I guess you dismiss the science from NOAA based simply on it being presented in Forbes without reading it then....so I should just dismiss the IPCC, another non scientific economically focused group discussing science?

Here's some more science then. Edit: Seems most CURRENT projections using up to date data are more in line with my expectations than yours.

https://phys.org/news/2019-05-metre-sea-plausible.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48337629

https://time.com/5592583/sea-levels-rise-higher-study/

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5056

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/sea-level-in-the-5th-ipcc-report/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
Note the updated chart near the top showing more current projections compared to ipcc predictions.

*my content?*

@newtboy,

Walking backwards to simplify, my main point is that simply blaming ALL fossil fuel usage on the company providing the fossil fuel is stupid and misleading in the extreme. We don't see millions of people willingly abandoning fossil fuels and living in abject poverty to save the world, instead they are all very willing and eagerly buying them and this video lets all those people off the hook. This video lets everybody keep using fossil fuels, and at the same time pointing the finger at Shell and saying it's all their fault. It's an extremely detrimental piece of disinformation.

"explain what, specifically, I claimed that's not supported by the science."
-Complete collapse of the food web
-Wars over hundreds of millions or billions of refugees
-Loss of most farm land and hundreds of major cities to the sea
-Loss of well over 1/2 the producers of O2
-Eventual clouds of hydrogen sulfide from the ocean covering the land
-Runaway greenhouse cycles making the planet uninhabitable for thousands if not hundreds of thousands or even millions of years

No sir.
I even mentioned one group in America that never adopted petroleum...Amish...and I would counter your assertion with the fact that most people on earth don't live using oil, they're too poor, not too fortunate. 20-30 years ago, most Chinese had never been in a car or a commercial store bigger than a local vegetable stand.

Both customers and non customers are the victims.
Using (or selling) a product that clearly pollutes the air, land, and sea is immoral.

Yes, it's like our business is predicated on rebuilding wrecked cars overnight which we do by using massive amounts of meth. Sure, our products are death traps, sure, we lied about both our business practices and the safety of our product, sure, our teeth and brains are mush....but our business has been successful and allowed us to have 10 kids (8 on welfare, two adopted out), and if we quit using meth they'll starve and fight over scraps. That's proof meth is good and moral and you're mistaken to think otherwise. Duh.

Yes, we overpopulated, outpacing the planet's ability to support us by far...but instead of coming to terms with that and changing, many think we should just wring the juice out of the planet harder and have more kids. I think those people are narcissistic morons, we don't need more little yous. Sadly, we are well beyond the tipping point, even if no more people are ever born, those alive are enough to finish the biosphere's destruction. Guaranteed if they think like you seem to.

Um, really? Complete collapse of the food web isn't catastrophic?
Wars over hundreds of millions or billions of refugees aren't catastrophic? (odd because the same people who think that are incensed over thousands of Syrians, Africans, and or South and Central American refugees migrating)
Massive food shortage isn't catastrophic?
Loss of most farm land and hundreds of major cities to the sea isn't catastrophic?
Loss of corals, where >25% of ocean species live, and other miniscule organisms that are the base of the ocean food web isn't catastrophic?
Loss of well over 1/2 the producers of O2, and organisms that capture carbon, isn't catastrophic?
Eventual clouds of hydrogen sulfide from the ocean covering the land, poisoning 99%+ of all life isn't catastrophic?
Runaway greenhouse cycles making the planet uninhabitable for thousands if not hundreds of thousands or even millions of years isn't catastrophic?
Loss of access to water for billions of people isn't catastrophic?
I think you aren't paying attention to the outcomes here, and may be thinking only of the scenarios estimated for 2030-2050 which themselves are pretty scary, not the unavoidable planetary disaster that comes after the feedback loops are all fully in play. Try looking more long term....and note that every estimate of how fast the cycles collapse/reverse has been vastly under estimated....as two out of hundreds of examples, Greenland is melting faster than it was estimated to melt in 2075....far worse, frozen methane too.

You can reject the science, that doesn't make it wrong. It only makes you the ass who knowingly gambles with the planet's ability to support humans or other higher life forms based on nothing more than denial.

Edit: We are at approximately 1C rise from pre industrial records today, expected to be 1.5C in as little as 11 years. Even the IPCC (typically extremely conservative in their estimates) states that a 2C rise will trigger feedbacks that could exceed 12C. Many are already in full effect, like glacial melting, methane hydrate melting, peat burning, diatom collapse, coral collapse, forest fires, etc. It takes an average of 25 years for what we emit today to be absorbed (assuming the historical absorption cycles remain intact, which they aren't). That means we are likely well past the tipping point where natural cycles take over no matter what we do, and what we're doing is increasing emissions.

1. Even though I definitively know the world is beyond fucked at this point, I still think the scientists are not doing themselves any favours by making these "probably" scenarios rather than almost definite ones. As said, even though in some ways I'm looking forward to when the shit starts hitting the fan, I've lost faith in knowing when it'll actually start happening. It seems like every other week I'm told that "soon it'll really start to go all to shit". And it never really does, especially for 1st world countries.

2. Great Filter, Humanity. Humanity, Great Filter. Nice to meet you.

3. I'm beginning to want to start a pot of which terrible thing will happen first to 1st world countries (sadly, the beginning will be poor countries getting fucked and 1st world countries complaining that it now costs $30 for a single banana). Super bugs and catastrophic pandemics (maybe measles!)? Climate change? Nuclear war? Massive migrations of refugees who can't live where they are due to climate change or war? Water shortages? Wealth inequality that will implode on itself? There are so many terrible things on the precipice of happening that I don't even know what I'd bet on, honestly.

He was explaining why, when peaceful law abiding Muslim refugees are violently attacked by right wing terrorists, unprovoked, it's the Muslims' fault.

That's paraphrasing his other speeches, I don't think he finished this one, making it hard to quote him....and I hope he never finishes another.

From his official Twitter post-: “As always, left-wing politicians and the media will rush to claim that the causes of today’s shootings lie with gun laws or those who hold nationalist views but this is all cliched nonsense.
The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets today is the immigration programme which allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place.
Let's be clear, while Muslims were the victims today, usually they are the perpetrators."

I'm actually pleased at how difficult it has proven to find his hate speech quoted. It's nice that news outlets have finally understood that, by repeating it ad nauseam, they are spreading it.

So....now you believe in evolution.

My question to deniers like yourself, what difference does it make if it's man made, it's happening, and we have the ability to at least mitigate it, but you and yours would just say "nope, ain't real" as your home in Florida goes underwater. Why not take control?

Since it's not real, can we have your children's names to deny space in refugee camps? They can stand outside and laugh at the dry folks, secure in the knowledge that dad said it's natural.

You need them, they could help you learn English so you would look less like a Russian troll.
You could also use help with American history, a subject 100% of immigrant citizens know better than you, they had to pass a civics test as part of citizenship, a test you would fail miserably....almost like you aren't even from America, comrade.

Don't ever....EVER...use "we" to describe American sentiment, you do not reflect us. Plenty of Americans do want to help desperate refugees, just not the party that drapes themselves in the flag and cross while denouncing all that those symbols stand for.

Trump is the one wasting our government dollars on photo opps at the border with no legitimate use....by which I mean the blatant ploy to "deploy" thousands of troops at the border a week before the election to intercept the rampaging brown invasion that he's convinced morons is coming.....maybe.....in a few months. What do you think it costs to deploy thousands of troops for nothing for 8+ weeks? Probably more than fully supporting every person in the caravan for years.
One single Trump trip to Maralago or another of his golf courses costs taxpayers at least as much (some costs are classified, so not included in the >$3 million average cost) as yearly resettlement costs for >2000 refugees, including their background checks, housing assistance, etc. He's taken 159 golf trips so far, you do the math and gasp.

*facepalm

Side note: it did not go unnoticed that your reply had nothing whatsoever to do with my comments, and didn't address a single point contained therein.

How could anyone possibly connect Dumb Donald's continuing public accusations against numerous prominent Jews that they are paying refugees (rapists and murderers), gang members (murderers), and Islamic terrorists (murderers) to "invade America" with the right wing terrorist, Bowers, who authored a social media post before the shooting accusing the organization HIAS, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, of bringing "invaders in that kill our people."
There's clearly no connection at all. Just because right wing terrorists are attacking the exact targets Trump continues to designate as the enemy (like calling CNN "the enemy of the people" between when the second and third bomb addressed to them was discovered), and are using his arguments and tweets in their manifestos and internet ramblings doesn't mean they've ever even heard of Trump, no connection.
*facepalm

The US did turn away a ship under those conditions Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt was president at the time..

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-government-turned-away-thousands-jewish-refugees-fearing-they-were-nazi-spies-180957324/

No Bob, it has not.

A few cases a year of forcibly separating children from their family for cause or temporarily holding unaccompanied minors is in no way the same as jailing every refugee, legal or not, and separating thousands of children a month.

And real Republicans (not you) have finally found the Rubicon they won't cross, and are starting to become Democrats in large numbers with some long respected Republicans leading them in an effort to slow the Trumpian destruction they went along with for too long....i just hope enough of them to counteract the know nothing tribalistic morons that are replacing intelligent people in your party.

You are such a careless and sad liar...if you're going to lie, come up with better, harder to disprove lies, or face a lambasting for your stupidity and gullibility in believing Russian propaganda once again (after falling into that pit so many times I can't count) without ever making the tiniest bit of effort to see if what you wish is true and have been told by oan Jones RT or faux is true actually is true (hint, it never is).


You just love spreading obvious, easily debunked, idiotic lies....
But Jesus, Bob, even for you, this is pathetic, and that's saying a lot.

Fuck any person going on a humanitarian trip to see terrified displaced separated refugee children while wearing a message saying "I don't care". They are either too heartless or brainless to deserve a whit of respect, there's no middle ground.
Fuck anyone willing to tear apart thousands of families as a form of political blackmail , fuck them in the ass with a billy club if they have no plan on how to reverse their family separations when their bullying tactic fails.
Fuck anyone standing with and defending those indefensible actions of human garbage.

So the privately run "family detention centers" like the one set up in Dilley, Texas, by the Obama administration were acceptable, but this is a step too far?

This shit didn't magically appear out of thin air. You can trace it throughout the entire history of the US: the separation of children from their parents during slavery, the forceful removal of children from reservations and their placement into "Indian schools", the mass incarceration of primarily minority youths for the crime of being poor, and physical removal of parents in foreign nations by incinerating them in drone strikes, etc.

This shit is despicable, but it's not a deviation from previous actions -- it's just the next step. And for Maddow to "break down" over this... There are Syrian refugees living in the apartment building across the street from me. How many Syrian, Libyan, Somali, Pakistani, Afghani and Yemeni children have been separated from their parents by US bombs and missiles? Never stopped Maddow from warmongering.

Obama talked there about holding UNACCOMPANIED children, not separating families except in a very few instances with cause, certainly not as a bargaining chip in a political fight.
Odd, they think indefinite incarceration is better than the infinitesimal chance they might release a child to an abusive family member....why doesn't that also go for kids in CPS who are being relocated then? We don't care about American children being abused?

They pretend this is an Obama policy (but slip up and admit it's 6 weeks old) and pretend this is only about illegals who've been caught (but it's being done to families requesting asylum legally too, despite Trump's claim) they specifically claim it isn't being done to legal asylum applicants (hoping you won't notice that only goes for those few entering legally at an international port but not those who surrender legally at border crossings).
The policy is a pure white house creation, one they disingenuously shirk all responsibility for. It's an obvious political ploy to blackmail Democrats into agreeing to Draconian Republican immigration reform to stop this outrageous abuse of refugees.
Wow, @bobknight33, pretty awful even from your team of deplorables.

Also full of outright *lies

Edit: To prove himself a liar, Trump has just ended this policy in the same way he created it, by executive order. No word on what happens to those already separated yet, but the practice of unilateral separation should end.

So then you DON'T think people trying to stop murder are OK if it means making someone brown your neighbor, only when it means you get to force your quite suspect, legally and scientifically invalid 'values' on someone else with no consequences for yourself.

Many of those countries have taken in more asylum seekers than America, and most have more refugees per capita. Even evil Iran took in more total.....and 4 times as many per capita.

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/largest-refugee-populations-country-destination

Often America doesn't make the top ten list....
https://www.immigroup.com/news/refugees-where-do-they-go-top-refugee-destinations

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

We are incredibly far from the world's asylum when even China takes in more refugees. We won't even save our international neighbors from certain death.

https://thinkprogress.org/juan-coronilla-guerrero-deportation-92742bd26e01/
Even if they're police.....
https://thinkprogress.org/constantino-morales-warned-he-could-be-killed-if-he-was-deported-then-he-was-edd8ba590298/

Yet you still believe (with zero attempt to verify) we take in more than any other nation, and far more than our share, enough so that we should deny any more even if death is certain, let someone else save them (or not).
You're listening to too much Alex Jones again and believing the insane raving bullshit without question.

Worth noting that the US spends half a trillion a year on bombs, Halliburton lunch packs and torture centers. A few hundred million to get a profitable company off the ground dosn't really show up.

Also, the Oil companies and their political cover have caused damage costing somewhere in the region of 10,000 x US GDP by trashing the environment which will kill a billion and cause 2 billion refugees in 200-400 years. One of the reasons Elon wants a few humans elsewhere when the shit hits the fan..