Is The World Getting Better Or Worse?

Here's the source page for the first 28 on the list, seems to be mostly media reports of scientific statements.The others are individually linked from the Breitbart page.Such as this link for #29 from a mining publication.Looks to me like a pretty good job was done with collecting the evidence. But I'm nave, right, sweetheart?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Breitbart is not a source. It is an alt-reich conspiracy rag known to lie through its teeth.Your list contains many shoot from the hip exaggerated pontifications by those unqualified to make them.This is a list of borderline not-really-science predictions exaggerated upon and formulated to be an embarrassment to climate science presented for those too weak-minded to know science from political rhetoric. Like you. Breitbart is preaching BS to its own anti-science choir using smoke, mirrors, lies and exaggeration just to inflame their alt-reich political crowd.Your list in particular, and Breitbart in general, is rejected as a source for anything political let alone anything science. Might as well use the KKK as a source on race relations.

I'd say pretty much the same about CNN, MSNBC, the NY Times and so on.But be that as it may please refer me to the prediction YOU consider to be valid. How about Ocasio-Cortez's dozen years? You said the information has been out for decades, can you please point me to the sources of it you consider to be trustworthy.PLEASE DO NOT DROWN ME IN TONS OF VERBIAGE.Thank you.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Real science from the actual world-wide real science consensus.
UN IPCC Reports
NASATrusted news sources.
ScienceAlert - Environment
LiveScience
InsideClimateTypical American. This topic cannot be boiled down to some 30 second sound bites.That is the simple-minded purview of deniers like the alt-reich.Consider yourself drowned in verbiage. If you want to learn then LEARN.

I must protest and complain that this is an internet forum. not a university, and posters are supposed to avoid bare links and quote a portion of the reference, which may be all we end up discussing,.HOWEVER, I'm going to try to read most of that stuff.

The last couple minutes are sponsor ads, as one can expect from YouTube, but the rest of this presentation might be helpful for you because, while it leaves out a whole lot of the details of the connections between greenhouse gasses and warming, it gives an American level of extended sound bite with accurate information.

That was great, thanks. REAL SCIENCE is always interesting and I want to watch it again. Wait till we get back to the predictions and the statistics though, I suspect the science will get shaky.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I know that Faith isn't a worthy audience for anything. But others might be.Saying that the source is worthless maybe true but that doesn't for sure say anything about the points put forward.It's obvious to anyone who isn't utterly ignorant that cherry picking crap doesn't mean much but to some a better answer is needed.It might be fun for some people here to take each of the points and discuss them one at a time. Not, of course, for someone who can't read but for others.

Then have at it, Ned

WOH! You're a moderator here? Ever read the rule about arguing the topic not the person?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The point Faith is that the list is NOT predictions made by Scientist.

Global warming is one issue, but changing climate could be minor(aside from the acid problem that would kill most life in the oceans WHICH I WILL IGNORE IN THIS POST) if people accepted migration rights. Just move to the place where the NEW climate allows for good farming and living. It would require open borders. It would be disruptive, and there would be a temporary economic hit. But quick mobility abilities (open borders required!) among the masses would bring economic activity and size back up quickly.Look at this story. What If There Were 42 Million at the Border? The article raises questions, and does not offer answers. But it has some interesting data presented.430 million Latin Americans (not all Hispanic mind you, but all were from our hemisphere and SOUTH of Texas and California) were polled.120 million said they wanted to cross to another country.42 million said they wanted to move to the United States.(5 million said they wanted to in the next year)The article asks what USA citizens would think.

quote:

---

THE CHAIRMAN'S BLOG
FEBRUARY 8, 2019
What If There Were 42 Million at the Border?
BY JIM CLIFTON

​

Here's a good question about caravans: How many more are coming?

​

Gallup asked the whole population of Latin America. There are 33 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. Roughly 450 million adults live in the region. Gallup asked them, "Would you like to move to another country permanently if you could?"

​

A whopping 27% said "yes."

​

So this means roughly 120 million would like to migrate somewhere.

​

The next question Gallup asked was, "Where would you like to move?"

​

Of those who want to leave their Latin American country permanently, 35% said they want to go to the United States.

---

The question is always what the United States Americans will think and do about it.The answer tells me a lot about the world.(They question is never asked how many of us USA citizens here would like to leave for another country in our hemisphere. That could bring the net USA population increase number down to perhaps 10-35 million as opposed to the 42 million number)(There are 330 million residents presently, so - at most - just a 10% increase in population would result, and that is a long term number that would surely be over a decade, so perhaps 1% a year increase due to hemispheric open borders - a blip)Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Liberal friend wanted me to watch Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth" so I'm watching it. First part agrees with this video but then he mentions that leaf decay puts CO2 back into the atmosphere. That startled me because I was hoping that the fact plants breathe out oxygen could help mitigate the increase in CO2. The video starts out talking about the great input of oxygen by the Amazon rain forest which is being lost by its burning for instance. So I looked it up and MIT says the leaf decay accounts for, YIKES! 98% of the CO2 in the atmosphere!My eyes started hurting so I couldn't read more for now, but doesn't this raise the question why so much is being made of Big Carbon if leaf decay alone accounts for that much of the carbon in the atmosphere?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

We have little or no control of contributions from termites or leaf decay and so the prudent po0licy is to address those areas where we do have the possibility of some controlThe BIG and IMPORTANT part is that the more contributions from processes where we have no control simply means that we must reduce the contribution from those processes we can control even more.

Excuse me but if our contribution is less than 2% of the problem, the loss to the wellbeing of society hardly seems worth such an exertion of control. Control of Nothing it seems to me. The carbon is going to go on increasing so warming will go on increasing. Destroying civilization for our small part, no. And besides, point the finger at China for a change. Or the burning oil fields in Saudi Arabia. We're doing our part already.AbE and if leaf decay accounts for 98% and termite methane accounts for more than all the cows (anad methane has something to do with te carbon level too), and China's pollution and Saudi oil account for more than our share, you want us to destroy our own oil production for the sake of our part which must be some small percentage of 1% when you get it all calculated out? COME ON!Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.