*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 (Edit: Might check how old and out of date that ipcc report is, btw.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,

If North America is to adopt the Amish lifestyle, how many acres of land can the entire continent support? The typical Amish family farm is something like 80 acres is it not? I believe adopting this nationwide as a 'solution' requires massive population downsizing...

If you want to look at the poorest conditions of people in the world and advocate that the poverty stricken regions with no access to fossil fuel industry are the path forward, I would ask how you anticipate selling that to the people of California as being in their best interests to adopt as their new standard of living...

You mention overpopulation as a problem, then invent the argument that I think we should just ignore that and make it worse. Instead I only pointed out that immediately abandoning fossil fuels overnight would impact that overpopulation problem as well. It's like you do agree on one level, then don't like the implications or something?

The massive productivity of modern agriculture is dependent on fossil fuel usage. Similarly, our global population is also dependent upon that agricultural output. I find it hard to believe those are not clearly both fact. Please do tell me if you disagree. One inescapable conclusion to those facts is that reducing fossil fuel usage needs to at least be done with sufficient caution that we don't break the global food supply chain, because hungry people do very, very bad things.

Then you least catastrophic events that ARE NOT supported by the science and un-ironically claim that it's me who is ignoring the science.

You even have the audacity to ask if I appreciate the impacts of massive global food shortages, after having earlier belittled my concern about exactly that!

The IPCC shows that even in an absolute worst case scenario of accelerating emissions for the next century an estimated maximum sea level rise of 3ft, yet you talk about loss of 'most' farmland to the oceans...

Here's where I stand. If we can move off gas powered cars to electric, and onto a power grid that is either nuclear, hydro or renewable based in the next 50 years, our emissions before 2100 will drop significantly from today's levels. I firmly believe we are already on a very good course to expect that to occur very organically, with superior electric cars, and cheaper nuclear power and battery storage enabling renewables as economical alternatives to fossil fuels.

That future places us onto the IPCC's better scenarios where emissions peak and then actually decrease steadily through the rest of the century.

I'm hardly advocating lets sit back and do nothing, I'm advocating let's build the technology to make the population we have move into a reduced emissions future. We are getting close on major points for it and think that's great.

What I think is very damaging to that idea, is panicky advice demanding that we must all make massive economic sacrifices as fast as possible, because I firmly believe trying to enact reductions that way, fast enough to make a difference over natural progress, guarantees catastrophic wars now. Thankfully, that is also why nobody in sane leadership will give an ounce of consideration to such stupidity either. You need a Stalin or Mao type in charge to drive that kind change.

"two with blood flow throughout the body"

This needs immediate attention. A person cannot live with this condition!

1) Everyone makes mistakes. When the error of their ways is exposed they may change or they may put a gun to their head. Only they can judge themselves.

2) Keep denouncing as long as you can. You will need to know how strong you were.

3) Nipping it in the bud every single time will be a waste of time. When the house is on fire and people are jumping, you need to be there to catch them just as they will be there to catch you.

4) No need to judge. Give as little or as much as you like without terms or conditions. They know better than you what they need.

Ever since I read that article in Mother Jones about working conditions in Amazon warehouses I feel kinda bad ordering stuff.
Although I do tend to order things that I can't find locally or is much cheaper online. But fucking Oreos? seriously? I still go to the store for things all the time, really it won't kill you (usually).

I have to agree, since they also claim NO other starving polar bears were seen in 2017, and that sea ice didn't break up early, but in fact it was measured at around 5000km3 in September 2017 and the mean volume since 1979 is around 12000km3 in September, and average ice thickness was the lowest ever recorded for most of the year in 2017....when these articles were published.

The truth is, that IS what climate change LOOKS like, very few articles actually attributed this particular bears condition to climate change. Only those wishing to intentionally misread in order to contradict their own intentional misunderstanding didn't understand that. Lies indeed.

It reminds me of my brother denouncing the numbers on mass school shootings because in some, only one person was killed (but multiple shot), claiming that "mass shooting" meant "mass murder" was his way of debunking the argument and then denying there is a problem.

Right wing debate strategy....Step one, misrepresent a claim. Step two, prove that misrepresentation wrong. Step three, claim that debunks the entire argument the claim was supporting.

Holy shit, I still have the mail order version of Doom in mint condition. I regret getting rid of a lot of my games, but I was broke and had to sell/trade one game to get another. I also never thought they would be collectible and worth something.

I think we both know that doubling the previous record would be impossible under the conditions the pros compete in. Plus the pros make their record on indoor tracks if I'm not mistaken.

I made my trip on the east coast as I wanted stay closer to home if something unexpected happened.

This map shows my round trip route from Cape Canaveral to High Point NC and back. The blue was created with my GPS tracker which caused some lost data due to battery drain and poor signal. I flipped the image so the text was easier to read.

https://imgur.com/a/GhrmEkA

I met a lot of nice people. If you like to travel you might like this sight.

https://www.couchsurfing.com/

I was able to stay with people who invited me into their homes on 5 different occasions and never actually had to sleep on a couch.



EDIT: Someone else brought up the possible invasive species point so I'm on the fence with that. I don't want to be blamed for the next BIG earthquake that gives birth to the new Godzilla. Although, it's California. He could probably get a SAG card.

If the record is 99.9% due to the equipment, give it to the engineer, not the ballast. ;-)
Eric Barone hit 141 on his own with some downhill, but no tow, no draft. That's more impressive to me, but still largely a function of his equipment.
I've never topped 40 without a draft or hill, and I used to ride 25-30 miles a day.

The fastest unassisted human powered bicycle speed is 89.5 mph. That record I can accept without an asterisk.

Edit: using that full faring recumbent bike and the dragster tow in/draft the dragster would always be the limiting factor, not the bike rider. The tow has to do with making it possible, wind resistance is the limiting factor on bicycles, but even without any getting up to that speed using human power is not possible. She needed fresh legs to keep up for under one minute under optimal conditions.
I think pro riders don't go for this record because they don't see it as a legitimate riding record, just a dangerous equipment test.

Wow! I'm nervous to send up my drone in a strong breeze. I can't imagine the conditions close to this tornado. It handled it pretty well, though.

Because I know you won't read the actual law posted above, I'll summarize....

The conditions are he receives a written request from the committee chair for a closed door session review. Period.
There is no, zero, nada, none, nothing, not a single exception or condition to the law. He shall produce them.
He is in violation today and should already be removed from office awaiting trial, as the law prescribes.

"the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request"

Not
One
Condition.

The insane whining "but...it's being done politically" is just so asinine....it's political law and politics, there's no exemption because the chair person is a different political party. Imagine Obama....better yet, Clinton stopping her people from following the law because McConnell is a mean republican who doesn't like her so that invalidates anything McConnell does no matter what the law clearly says.

Jebus, the right has been completely labotomized by Trump.

8 minutes of nothing.

What is not mentioned is what law give those asking for his returns and under what conditions he must turn them over.

Only the penalty is discussed.

The witch hunt continues.

noun: litmus

a dye obtained from certain lichens that is red under Republican conditions and blue under Democratic conditions.

Bob.
Stop being stupidly catty. Many investigators are Republicans including Mueller.
<1/6 of the Clinton investigation over a legal real estate deal, which found zero, amounted to zero, and you want to reopen it and investigate a private citizen with another special council with no target or budget limits...but this investigation was over treason and a felon filled administration that's committed uncountable (and been convicted of uncountable) felonies since Trump was elected, run by Trump appointees he only called Democrats when they wouldn't illegally do his bidding, then ended by two Trump sycophants that said it should be quashed before being appointed.

And you still whine like a little bitch. WTF, man, grow up. Your children are more adult. I bet they don't whine and pout when they get what they want.

Trump underhandedly won a single legal round, out of how many? He's almost as exonerated as Jussie is, which is barely at all legally and only that because of special treatment, and not a bit factually.
The report said they found no proof of illegal "collusion" with Russia and Trump directly over the election interference his friend Putin undertook for Trump's sole benifit, but also said he committed obstruction, but Mueller was instructed he could not indict Trump himself, and his bosses who told him that they must be the one's to indict blatantly prejudged the investigation publicly long long ago, it's why they were chosen for the positions, so there never was jeopardy, yet Trump fought tooth and nail against it making it take 4 times longer, wasting far more than necessary because he simply can't ever testify without perjuring himself dozens of times, not even to clear himself. He simply cannot tell the truth, or even avoid lying for an entire sentence, so we had to investigate his actions, and will again.
Sad, very sad.

Now he's tossing another promise and going after pre-existing condition protections like he repeatedly specifically promised to never do....and you love it I'm sure. So very very sad.

Yes, widespread poverty, largely because of insane wealth inequality. (I'll elaborate if you wish) The rich had plenty to eat, and as the dismissive "let them eat cake" implied, had no concern for those who didn't. It was that disparity paired with the dismissal of the peasants plight by the ruling class that tipped a bad situation into civil war/revolt, imo.

Yes, poor are going hungry in the United States, maybe not starving to death often, but suffering to death from ailments caused by the only diets they can afford, which barely qualify as food. No, it's not to the extent of 1700 France, but we wouldn't tolerate anywhere near those conditions today, so that argument is ludicrous.

The real poor in America don't have roofs or electricity, where are these TV'S they're parked in front of exactly? The homeless problem is growing exponentially...those are the real poor surfs in this analogy, not just people like me who can live fine on $15k a year.