Failure is indeed possible, though it does look like activism moved the estimates of how hot it’s likely to end up by 2100

I tried it. It produces reasonably accurate results a meaningful fraction of the time. The problem is that when it’s wrong, it still uses authoritative language, and you can’t tell the difference without underlying knowledge.

That’s still not into the realm where I trust it; the underlying model is a language model. What you’re describing is a recipe for ending up with paltering a significant fraction of the time.

The bots are mostly langauge models, not knowledge models. I don’t regard them as sufficiently reliable to do any kind of fact checking.

There’s a fair bit of evidence that it works. That’s why people keep on doing it.

Basically, the total cost of ownership went up, so the set of potential buyers shrank, and the overall value went down, so the right amount to charge people for taxes is lower.

That’s fairly uncommon; what’s been happening instead is large-scale non-renewal of insurance policies.

Written by Gavin Schmidt whose career has been defined by heading one of the long-term temperature measurement projects

Edit: auto-correct gave me something other than “measurement” so fixed it.

It’s probably some years off; there’s something of a roadmap on how to do it, but crossbreeding it in takes quite a few years, and something like CRISPR usually means a lot of testing of the engineered variety.

It’s better to make that clear before people build houses, and conditions can change so that places which were previously not too high a risk are now high-risk.

They’re probably more afraid that Trump will burn the company down.

Yes, it’s just some colors. If you can’t handle a picture with some colors, you’ve got a problem.

That and bitcoin mining

There are two different parts to that:

1. What was the ignition source, which is currently unknown
2. What caused it to go from a tiny fire to a huge fire very quickly, which is the result of having a couple of fairly wet years, followed by a very dry year, combined with hot dry winds. A warming world is in part responsible for those conditions.

It’s within the range where a lot of people understand it. The goal when interacting with a straight-up denier is not usually to convince them — it’s to give space for the people watching the conversation to reject them.

They’ve been running left-of-center op-eds on a regular basis for years. The op-ed pages aren’t the top problem. It’s the rest of the ecosystem around them, which means that:

• most people don’t access trustworthy news in the first place
• equal consideration is given to meaningful content like this and utter lies
• important stories about right-wing malfeasance don’t get repeated again and again and again until they sink in

You’re thinking of SO2 emissions from before the new low-sulfur fuel standard went into effect a few years back. Shipping is only a few percent of greenhouse gas emissions.

Actual emissions by sector:

Remember here: shipping is only part of transportation

I usually send them this

There’s a blog post from Meta saying that they’re going to limit distribution of “poltical” content on threads

Their ads policy considers any discussion of climate to be political, so I’d expect the same elsewhere

More, but not enough so. There are fossil fuel industry shills who are also Labor MPs