I Present to you...the Quick Guide(still in development) to places that are warming faster than the Global Average. List courtesy @FamedCelebrity wmbriggs.com/post/43453/ (References Linked) @tan123 @ClimateDepot @DawnTJ90

There has been some criticism online of using scenario mentions as a measure of scenario emphasis in a field. On its face, this seems fair--scenario mentions are certainly a quick and dirty way to measure emphasis. However, I have papers looking at both mentions in impacts research overall (left figure below) and uses (manually hand coded from reading papers in a comprehensive review) in an impacts subfield (fisheries and conservation; right figure below) that I have no reason to believe is unrepresentative. The scenario use patterns are very similar. So, the fact remains that RCP8.5/SSP5-8.5 has been heavily emphasized in impacts research (something I doubt critics of counting mentions would deny, if pressed). That's not "scientific misconduct" (nor have I or other academic scenario critics, as far as I know, ever said it was), but it is something that is fair to scrutinize and a good thing for the field to correct going forward. It's also fair to scrutinize how that emphasis has translated into media and policy emphasis. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with studies using implausibly hot scenarios to, e.g., see where tipping points occur, as long as that's clearly communicated (i.e. don't say it's "business as usual"). (Again, I have said this in papers, as have other academic scenario critics.) One of the things that strikes me about the academic discourse on scenarios--especially when something inflames it like absurdly intemperate POTUS tweets--is how much agreement there is, and how relatively small the substantive points of disagreements are, in contrast to how heated the rhetoric gets. (@Revkin's recent podcast was a good illustration of the broad agreements.)

Gilles, je vais démonter ta prémisse de départ, parce que tout le reste de ton argument s'effondre avec elle. Tu pars du principe qu'il faut une « sensibilité de gauche » pour ne pas laisser créver les gens de faim. C'est l'inverse total de ce que dit l'histoire économique des 50 dernières années. Les chiffres bruts. 1990 : 2,3 milliards de personnes en pauvreté extrême. 38% de l'humanité. 2025 : 831 millions. Environ 10%. 1,5 milliard d'êtres humains sortis de la misère absolue en 35 ans. La plus grande réduction de souffrance humaine de toute l'histoire de l'espèce. Qui a fait ça ? Pas l'aide internationale. Pas les ONG. Pas les programmes de redistribution. Pas la « sensibilité de gauche ». Le marché. L'ouverture commerciale. La Chine de Deng en 1978 qui abandonne le maoisme. L'Inde en 1991 qui libéralise. Le Vietnam, l'Indonésie, le Bangladesh qui s'ouvrent au capitalisme. Les seuls endroits où l'extrême pauvreté a EXPLOSÉ sur la même période ? Le Vénézuela socialiste : de 27% de pauvres en 2008 à plus de 80% en 2018, avec une inflation de 130 000% et un Vénézuélien moyen qui a perdu 11 kilos par dénutrition. La Corée du Nord. Cuba. Le Zimbabwe de Mugabe. La gauche ne nourrit pas les pauvres. Elle les fabrique. Le capitalisme produit tellement de richesse que même ses « perdants » américains vivent mieux que la classe moyenne soviétique. Un pauvre US a un frigo, une voiture, un téléphone, l'air conditionné, internet. Un pauvre cubain attend du riz. Ton argument selon lequel « le social aux USA est un désastre » repète une légende française. La réalité : le PIB par habitant américain est de 80 000$. Français : 45 000$. Un Mississippien — l'État US le plus pauvre — a un revenu médian supérieur au Français moyen. La vérité que la gauche française refuse de regarder : dans un système libéral, il y a plus de richesse créée, plus largement distribuée, et beaucoup moins de pauvres. Partout. Sans exception. Sur toutes les périodes mesurées. ÊTRE de gauche en 2026 face à ces données, ce n'est pas avoir de la « sensibilité ». C'est ignorer 35 ans de preuves accablantes. C'est préférer la posture morale au résultat. La compassion sans résultats, ça s'appelle de la vanité.

This just in from the mental retardation files.

Happy Friday! Weather forecast 12hrs before the winter storm was for a total of 1-3" ...... 😅

Balance is returning to The Force

Everything is a fucking lie. The world is run by pedos. The media always lie. Influencers are liars. Everything is fake and retarded People will do anything for fame and money, they will give up on everything they pretended to hold dear,.religion, family, morals, everything! End crash out.

The 3 Horsethings of the Apocalypse

Really makes you wonder... 🤔

"BE USEFUL" RIP @ScottAdamsSays 🙏♥️ Thank You for your immense and meaningful contributions to Humanity. Your legacy will continue to grow. If you now find yourself outside the simulation, give us a wink every now and then.

This is so preposterous.

📢 Climate Scientists Say.... 💥Arctic Ice-Free Summers By: 🎯 2008 🎯 2013 🎯 2016 🎯 2020 🎯 2029 🎯 2030 🎯 2035 🎯 2040 🎯 2050 🎯 2105 😵‍💫

Why is it impossible to submit feedback or feature suggestions on this App? Lol I searched it, groked it, etc literally all dead ends but they act like you can do it. I swear I have great ideas 🤣🤣 @engineering @Support @elonmusk

I mean.... sounds like the only logical explanation to me 🤡

Reuters oof 🤦🏻‍♂️ 2013: Tylenol during pregnancy could affect development 2025: Not backed by science

Charlie Kirk’s Death Exposed the Biggest Scam in History. Video by: Chase Hughes (@NCIUniversity)

If you believe free speech is for you but not your political opponents, you're illiberal. If no contrary evidence could change your beliefs, you're a fundamentalist. If you believe the state should punish those with contrary views, you're a totalitarian. If you believe political opponents should be punished with violence or death, you're a terrorist.

The Democrat Party needs to be dismantled and rebuilt. I want a strong two-party system, not one party plus a criminal enterprise. All the leaders need to go. We will no longer tolerate the “Hitlerization” of politics, the gross corruption, the hoaxes, and the incompetence.

New study: In 2020 95% of tide gauges reliably contributing to estimates of global sea level rise show no statistical acceleration. The 5% that do are not due to climate. Global sea level rise is only 1.5 mm/yr; the IPCC projects it should be 3.5 mm/yr. mdpi.com/2077-1312/13/9/1641

Here's the short list of everything they got wrong during Covid: • Origin of the disease—wrong • Transmission—wrong • Asymptomatic spread—wrong • PCR testing—wrong • Fatality rate—wrong • Lockdowns—wrong • Community triggers—wrong • Business closures—wrong • School closures—wrong • Quarantining the healthy—wrong • Impact on youth—wrong • Hospital overload—wrong • Plexiglass barriers—wrong • Social distancing—wrong • Outdoor spread—wrong • Masks—wrong • Variant impact—wrong • Natural immunity—wrong • Vaccine efficacy—wrong • Vaccine injury—wrong

My pinned post is evidently too complex for some people to grasp. So, I’ll make my position on climate even more simple. 1️⃣ The planet has been getting warmer since 1850 (actually since long before then, but I digress). 2️⃣ The carbon dioxide (CO₂) level in the atmosphere has increased by 51% since 1850, and that is mostly due to our fossil fuel combustion for energy. 3️⃣ At least some of that warming (mostly since 1950) is likely due to CO₂, although it can’t actually be proven. The only “evidence” is modeling output (which isn’t actual evidence) that is artificially tuned to show that CO₂ is the only thing that can cause the climate to change. What’s more, the Earth energy imbalance that is (presumably) caused by CO₂ is nearly six times smaller than the margin of error to which the CERES satellite instrumentation can reliably measure the natural energy flows in and out of the climate system. Clouds have about an order of magnitude more influence on the climate than CO₂, and until we can accurately model them and exactly how they change in response to warming (they are a feedback), the science is far from being “settled.” 4️⃣ There isn’t a “fingerprint” of human influence on extreme weather or weather-related events other than flash floods (increased urban sprawl = less absorbent surfaces) and wildfires (poor forest / brush management, increased ignitions, and failure to de-energize power lines during high-wind events). If there is a meteorological trend (heavy rainfall in some regions), that might be “consistent with” anthropogenic climate warming. But, it would also be consistent with natural warming or some mix of both natural and man-made causes. Regardless, we are more susceptible to extreme weather events because of the fact that we continue to build stuff in high-risk regions. Better urban planning and investment in resilient infrastructure will go a long way in mitigating impacts. 5️⃣ Climate change aside, I think we SHOULD be exploring alternative sources of energy. That’s innovation. I personally don’t care where our energy comes from so long as it is sustainable for base load, reliable (not weather-dependent, which is allegedly going to get worse due to warming), and affordable. But, any transition should be based on free-market decisions, not government-coerced. Energy shouldn’t be subsidized either (fossil fuels included) and nuclear needs to be less strictly regulated. Our government doesn’t do anything efficiently, and dipping their fingers into energy isn’t an exception. Hope that makes it crystal clear.