2020 officially saw a record number of $1 billion weather and climate disasters.

Wow, solid evidence there.. you 'saw him do it in real time'

The Guardian (and not just them) knowingly lied, even in the opening paragraph.

"he world watched in shock and horror as Donald Trump supporters stormed the Capitol building in an attempt to stop Congress verifying the democratic election of Joe Biden – incited by the president himself"

From the Reutors article that you didn't bother to read:

"WASHINGTON, Aug 20 (Reuters) - The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.

Though federal officials have arrested more than 570 alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump, according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations".

It is the true mark of the uneducated neolib when they indulge in narratives that feeds off and exploits their confirmation bias, regardless of truth.

The Guardian dutifully reporting on 'key findings' by Pentagon back on 2004.

These are some of the key findings of the 2004 report commissioned by Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall.

· Future wars will be fought over the issue of survival rather than religion, ideology or national honour.

· By 2007 violent storms smash coastal barriers rendering large parts of the Netherlands uninhabitable. Cities like The Hague are abandoned. In California the delta island levees in the Sacramento river area are breached, disrupting the aqueduct system transporting water from north to south.

· Between 2010 and 2020 Europe is hardest hit by climatic change with an average annual temperature drop of 6F. Climate in Britain becomes colder and drier as weather patterns begin to resemble Siberia.

· Deaths from war and famine run into the millions until the planet’s population is reduced by such an extent the Earth can cope.

· Riots and internal conflict tear apart India, South Africa and Indonesia.

· Access to water becomes a major battleground. The Nile, Danube and Amazon are all mentioned as being high risk.

· A ‘significant drop’ in the planet’s ability to sustain its present population will become apparent over the next 20 years.

· Rich areas like the US and Europe would become ‘virtual fortresses’ to prevent millions of migrants from entering after being forced from land drowned by sea-level rise or no longer able to grow crops. Waves of boatpeople pose significant problems.

· Nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable. Japan, South Korea, and Germany develop nuclear-weapons capabilities, as do Iran, Egypt and North Korea. Israel, China, India and Pakistan also are poised to use the bomb.

· By 2010 the US and Europe will experience a third more days with peak temperatures above 90F. Climate becomes an ‘economic nuisance’ as storms, droughts and hot spells create havoc for farmers.

· More than 400m people in subtropical regions at grave risk.

· Europe will face huge internal struggles as it copes with massive numbers of migrants washing up on its shores. Immigrants from Scandinavia seek warmer climes to the south. Southern Europe is beleaguered by refugees from hard-hit countries in Africa.

· Mega-droughts affect the world’s major breadbaskets, including America’s Midwest, where strong winds bring soil loss.

· China’s huge population and food demand make it particularly vulnerable. Bangladesh becomes nearly uninhabitable because of a rising sea level, which contaminates the inland water supplies.

Key findings of the Pentagon | Environment | The Guardian

Yep

And the Guardian and mainstream media lied and you gobbled up every word. Just as you did with the whole 'Russiagate' bollox last year.

so you're pointless, I mean I already thought you didn't have any coherent points, but its nice to have it confirmed.

keep on digging.

I'm curious as to what your definition of Neoliberal actually is.

What is your point?

Oneiric was pointless. What is your point?

I think the point is fairly obvious. I highlighted the really outlandish parts of a report that was totally false but supported by high-level experts.

It's funny how you never ask Banana Republic what his point is when he just posts a link to The Conversation, without any comment.

The guardian reported on a report produced by the pentagon. It wasn’t the Guardian making ‘outlandish’ claims, they were reporting on the US defense report.

And the US defense report obviously approached the science from an extremely risk adverse POV given

1. their role is to be prepared to rapidly respond to crises
2. they are dealing with low probability high impact events
3. There are uncertainties in the science about what level of warming can trigger tipping points in nature
4. there are human and sociological tipping points that are even less certain
5. They we’re petitioning for more funding so they will present the worst possible scenario to maximize their potential budget increases

The US defense secret report to the president does not form a part of the scientific consensus on climate change, It was prepared in secret by people who are not likely to be fully trained experts in the relevant disciplines and there were obvious conflicts of interest

The professor having a temper tantrum after being asked to explain what he thinks a neoliberal is 🤣

As Oneiric outlined, they conveniently failed to mention any of the points that you listed now in your reply. That would have been responsible reporting and would have made them a step above the rest, but they didn't.

If the report was not in line with the consensus then why was it endorsed by experts from key climate research bodies? Surely that was an opportunity for these experts to pour cold water on it, but they chose the opposite.

Your point 5 is an interesting and pertinent one. Overstating the facts to maximise their funding. That's kind of the whole theme with much of the actual experts whose livelihoods similarly rely on funding and keeping themselve in a job.

What is a Harvard professor doing posting on an obscure Irish Weather forum anyway? Surely, with his great expertise, he must be in high demand within bigger and more important circles where he can quote those Gov/Corporate funded 'Conversation' articles left, right and centre?

It's curious, because 99% of his posts are linking to that particular for profit (and that is what it is) website, which makes me wonder is there some vested interest at play here. Now, I haven't read the rules of the forum, but I'm pretty sure 'spamming' would be considered a big no no.

'Scientists are heroes. Please consider donating'. That is the message that spammed my computer the very moment I clicked on of those Conversation links earlier on today, which triggered those alarm bells instantly.

dont Be ridiculous

the IPCC is full of probabilistic statements. Medium confidence, likely, very likely, virtually certain etc. Scientists have always been very open about what the uncertainties are.

the fact that we don’t know where these tipping points are means we should act prudently and keep warming to a minimum