U.N. Climate Change Conference Opens During Hottest Year on Record
It seems unlikely that activists' demands to "keep 1.5 alive" will be met.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) issued its latest state of the global climate report as part of the kickoff for the opening in Dubai of the 28th Conference of the Parties (COP28) to the United Nations' Framework Convention on Climate Change. Let's just say that according to the WMO, 2023 was really hot compared to the average global temperatures in the late 19th century. How hot?
The global mean near-surface temperature in 2023 (to October) was around 1.40 ± 0.12 °C above the 1850–1900 average. Based on the data to October, it is virtually certain that 2023 will be the warmest year in the 174-year observational record, surpassing the previous joint warmest years, 2016 at 1.29 ± 0.12 °C above the 1850–1900 average and 2020 at 1.27±0.13 °C. The past nine years, 2015–2023, will be the nine warmest years on record.

Correlatively, the WMO reports that the accumulation in the atmosphere of globe-warming greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide—also reached record levels this year. For example, carbon dioxide released chiefly through the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas rose in May from the atmospheric preindustrial level of about 280 to 424 parts per million—a more than 50 percent increase. As temperatures rise, the extent of sea ice declines, land glaciers and ice sheets lose mass, and sea levels rise.
The WMO report lists several extreme weather disasters from the current year, including floods, droughts, cyclones, and wildfires. And while certainly people are impacted by them, it is worth noting that the long-term trend is toward ever fewer deaths from natural disasters. This is largely because a wealthier world has been able to adapt to the impacts caused by natural hazards.

A 2023 preprint by European researchers analyzing global flood mortalities between 1975 and 2022 confirms this trend by finding that floods have become less deadly. "Despite population growth and increasing flood hazards, the average number of fatalities per event has declined over time," they report. In other words, people are, in general, adapting faster to whatever climate change is occurring than it can cause them harm.
Under the terms of the Paris Climate Change Agreement, signatories are supposed to undertake collective efforts to hold "the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels."
United Emirates' Sultan Al Jaber, who is the president-designate of COP28, said he's aiming for an "unprecedented outcome" at the conference which would keep alive the hope of achieving the 1.5 degrees Celsius goal of the Paris agreement.
A new analysis, however, calculates that in order to have a 50 percent chance of holding global average temperature below 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, global greenhouse gas emissions would have to be cut by 43 percent below their 2019 levels by 2030. Given current greenhouse gas emissions and concomitant global temperature trends, it seems unlikely that activists' demands to "keep 1.5 alive" will be met.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
And it opened in one of the hottest countries on the planet, with one of the highest per-capita carbon footprints in the world.
(And the delegates all arrived in solar and wind powered sailboats.
And didn't use any AC. And none of the lavishly catered food was cooked using gas.)
My, arent they such wonderful people whose only goal is saving the world.
Sorry. Had to vomit, can't even type that and keep my supper down.
The people who want to “save the world” are the most dangerous assholes of all.
The world doesn't need saving, it's the ultimate in arrogance to think mankind can have a serious, lasting effect on this planet.
Life. Um. Finds. A way.
The global warming iceberg.
Ummmm, we just switched from a La Nina weather pattern to El Nino, and the solar cycle is near its peak? What moron didn't take THAT into account?
World Meteorological Organization
After being told not to confuse weather and climate, at this point the only difference, AFAICT, between weather and climate is whether you completely ignore yesterday's incorrect prediction or if you correct them to agree with your next wrong prediction.
We had an abnormally cool/mild and wet summer on the northern plains. Not cold but cooler than normal. On the other hand we've had a fairly mild and warm fall (other than the last two weeks of October, in which temperatures were far below average). It's predicted to be above fifty next week. It isn't like seeing fifty isn't normal in December,but generally it's with a negative in front of it. Spring was also very cool this year. And last winter just continued to hang around much longer than normal. So, when I hear the hottest year on record, forgive me if I take that with a large grain of salt.
This is actually what's meant by "hottest year on record", though not what they want to imply: Balmy nights and mild winters. For reasons of fundamental physics, 'global warming' is mostly the lows becoming less extreme. Any increase in the highs is almost an afterthought.
After all, it's not like there's more energy coming into the system, it's just having a slightly harder time getting back out. That raises the lows more than the highs.
“Hottest year on record.” And those records date all the way to the 19th century. So that’s 200 years out 4.5 BILLION.
And even that's a lie, and anyone can run the widely available weather station data themselves and see that it was utterly fucking average.
In fact, if you stick to rural stations, the last twenty years have been slightly colder than the previous twenty.
Are you saying having a weather station surrounded by asphalt could affect the temperature readings?
Gasp!
It must be all that asphalt over the 70% of the Earth's surface that is ocean that is causing the warming trends. I just know it is!
And most of the most extreme weather of the last century seems to have happened in the 30s.
We’re also not measuring temperature the same way we measured the temperature in 1850. Some might say there’s significant, unaccountable error built into the base assumptions.
Ah, the sociology major will tell you that the algorithm used by the smart people takes all that into account.
Mind you that assist failed into to math more than once.
Don't forget more weather stations in increasing urban areas, manipulation of past data, reading on digital thermometers read at a minute instead if mercury guesstimate to the nearest degree once an hour, changes to spreading heat from unmentioned regions from monitored ones....
Not even that far. The real comparable data goes back to the 1890s, and 2023 was not even in the top 10 hottest years. The "hottest year on record" is based on satellite modeling, going back only 50 years (1973).
The hottest year in your lifetime.
To chill out, hop a plane to COP-28: 71˚ F is the average temperature in Dubai in December.
I giveth not the rectum of a rodent.
Behold the field in which I grow my fucks. Lay thine eyes upon it and see that it has been adapted to yield crickets.
Snark like this is why I love this comment section.
Aye, behold my once blossoming field of fucks, now dead from the salty tears of ecomentalists. Alas I've no fucks to give.
Rectum of a racoon dog?
At what point do climate organizations that stoke fear among the populace, along with protests that end lives and damage to major cultural works, get labeled as terrorists and jailed as such?
For example, carbon dioxide released chiefly through the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas rose in May from the atmospheric preindustrial level of about 280 to 424 parts per million—a more than 50 percent increase.
The stolen base regarding CO2 emissions being ignored, one notes this is very much below the climate alarmists own figure of several thousand PPM of CO2 in the prehistoric record.
So, geologically speaking we're at a major low point of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. And we're not talking that long ago, either. How can it be we're at a tipping point for the end of the world when we know for a fact it's been several orders of magnitude greater in the not-so-recent past?
Who knows, certainly not climatology.
Why didn’t the third reich arrest brown shirts who attacked Jews?
Because they thought boys in uniforms were cute?
The Nazis were sex perverts, so, entirely possible.
Yeah, look up Ernst Röhm.
Shrike is a pedo. Story checks out.
OK, has anyone actually done a study and proved the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas releases more CO2 than all of earth's population exhaling day and night?
(and in the dark ages when I went to school, we called CO2 'plant food')
I can’t say what the entire population of earth exhales every day, but I can tell you that virtually all the worlds plants die off from CO2 starvation at somewhere around ~170PPM of CO2 and that Earth had a concentration of somewhere along the lines of ~4000PPM of CO2 just a few million years ago.
Since that was before mankind existed in our current form, clearly we need to ramp up CO2 generation by a hell of a lot to replenish the CO2 that’s mysteriously missing from the atmosphere today.
Oh, and CO2 isn’t lethal to humans until around 40,000PPM which we will never see as a species here on planet Earth.
Oh, and last point Ron's numbers are curious since I recall reading breathless articles a decade ago declaring atmospheric CO2 levels at around 400PPM. He's telling us CO2 declined in the atmosphere, or prior papers were abjectly wrong. You decide.
I can tell you that virtually all the worlds plants die off from CO2 starvation at somewhere around ~170PPM of CO2
C3 plants struggle (not die off) at low CO2 levels. They also however struggle even more at high temps and/or volatile groundwater conditions. So unlike what you want to assert, anthropogenic carbon is NOT some magic fertilizer. The higher temps and more frequent aridity is gonna kill those plants long before they get to the higher CO2 levels those plants 'prefer'.
C4 plants are hardier and more efficient at 'capturing' carbon. C2 plants also tolerate wider conditions. CAM plants do their carbon fixing at night so tend to be the real hot desert type plants. Which is why actual scientists (v politicized morons who play sciencytist on the interwebs) are trying to figure out the C2, C3, C4, CAM genes in order to modify those plants into using alternate forms of carbon fixation. AFAIK, none of them are building monuments to worship increasing CO2 levels.
They also however struggle even more at high temps
That is why all those hot, humid jungles have so few plants.
And we grow plants in hothouses.
And dinosaurs thrived on lots and lots of food and no polar ice with 4000-6000 ppm CO2.
JFree is a little too free with his "facts".
Higher temps don’t automatically equal drought/desert like conditions. In fact until you reach those conditions, warmer weather helps plants thrive, hence why crop yields go up in milder winter years.
Imagine a world where scientists project future crop yields/etc under the different local growing conditions that might be expected with climate change. That might be useful info for someone thinking of buying farmland wouldn't it.
Using science sounding terms and abbreviations doesn't mean you are actually being scientific. The Flat Earth Society uses a lot of scientific terms, but they are still full of shit.
No. They die.
No. They don’t.
First, plants have no idea where atmoapheric CO2 comes from.
Second, they can tolerate massive amounts of atmospheric CO2. In fact, life on this planet only has enough free oxygen to exist because of planet processing that CO2 and exhaling the O2,
According to you and yours, the higher temps will lead to melting icecaps and higher sea levels. NOT aridity. Higher aridity is a side effect of water being locked away as a solid.
Do you know anything about science? Is that you, Neil Degrasse Tyson?
If man made global warming is real, then we’re well and truly fucked.
Simply because this apparently started when industrialization was new, and the global population was under a billion.
Good luck trying to stop that with goofy net zero schemes.
I have no doubt that much more extreme and horrible schemes are being discussed in private.
Hell, they have been slipping up lately and saying the secret parts out loud. Some of these lunatics actually say we need socialism to solve the problem.
To paraphrase Reagan, If your answer is Socialism then it must have been a real stupid question.
It’s not socialism if you don’t call it that.
Apart from your parents disappointment , what makes you believe that accidental consequences cannot be remedied by design?
Was this your climate text book?
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2023/11/attack-of-user-friendly-anime-molecules.html
Oh geez, shady links to that 90s looking wackjob website again?
It's Weather Shrike's shitty parody of the wattsupwiththat site.
Why do all the craziest fucks here try and peddle their websites here constantly. Sqrlsy, Hank and now this retard.
I accidentally clicked on mtrueman's username once. *shudder*
Stuff your fake wed site up your ass, and then make the world a better place: Fuck off and die.
424 parts per 1,000,000. That means the rest of the atmosphere is 999,576 parts.
I'm amazed that the plants of this planet have enough CO2 to survive. They are getting by on less than 1% of the atmosphere. No wonder my garden is having problems. We need more CO2 to feed my tomato plants!
Commercial pot growers ADD CO2 in their greenhouses.
Over 1000ppm.
What?
By shaking up a TAB?
Get a better Gas Of Life playbook : labs use CO2 to euthanize rats.
Is a rat a plant?
It can be when employed by the FBI.
True. And you'd want to kill them in a way that seems like natural causes.
We used to use dry ice when it was cheep. Just set it in a basket hanging from the ceiling and keep the room closed up. The plants would explode in new growth.
In Minecraft I mean.
Umm... er... I knew that... for... um... reasons.. yeah... reasons.
You're confusing conditions for Earth in general with conditions for humans. Plenty of animals and plants were comfortable at 100% humidity and 2000ppm of atmospheric CO2, and there was no-one to bitch about higher sea levels. But none of these are tolerable for humans.
This seems to be a standard denialist zombie argument,
Well, good thing no one is predicting that, then.
People will adapt to whatever happens. And we are better equipped to adapt than ever. Or would be if we didn't spend so much on stupid bullshit that has little effect on climate and mostly serves to further enrich already entrenched interests.
Plus it's BS anyway given that 2000PPM is in no way lethal to humans, nor even particularly deleterious. Like i pointed out, 40,000PPM is the lethal point for CO2. Perhaps 30,000PPM might be uncomfortable, but 2000PPM would be functionally identical to humanity to the current day concentration.
I'm not the one being disingenuous here.
The standard watermelon argument is that we are ALL GONNA DIE, watermelon.
So, geologically speaking we’re at a major low point of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. And we’re not talking that long ago, either.
If millions of years ago isn't that long ago, then I suppose you're right. The evidence is that CO2 concentrations hadn't been higher than ~280-300 ppm for at least as long as the deepest ice core records, which go back about 800,000 years.
It isn't that long ago. The irony is the climate change is humanities fault crowd are the one's freaking out over glacial ice receeding and the vast majority of Earth's history had no glacial ice at all.
So, looking back a few million years is acceptable for these people to cite chicken little scenarios but somehow it's illegitimate for critique of their chicken little scenarios.
Absurd.
I didn't know this was a hockey game!
A hottest year on record thar basically shut down Big Bear and Lake Arrowhead last winter.
https://fox5sandiego.com/news/california-news/snow-season-arrives-early-at-big-bear-mountain/
That's why they call it climate change now, instead of global warming...
Considering how the climate catastrophe industry is built on lies, I fucking doubt it.
"...During Hottest Year on Record"
And nothing happened. End of story.
The “climate catastrophe” is like the cure for cancer, it’s always 20 years away.
It was the coolest and wettest year in over a decade in California.
That is what Ron Bailey keeps ignoring.
I mean, sure that does not contradict global warming. Global warming means that record cool, wet winters in California will happen less often in the next thirty years than the past thirty years.
It is when people like Bailey claim that this same year, the year which was a record cold and wet winter in California, with communities in the San Bernardino Mountains isolated due to snow for weeks, that claiming hOtTeSt YeAr EvEr is plainly a lie.
Funny, since the UAE, where Dubai is, has the highest carbon emissions per capita on earth.
Brown people are incapable of harming the environment.
And someone should have pointed out that if all the climate alarmism were actually true, Dubai would have been an uninhabitable hell hole by now, and buried several meters beneath the sea.
I support that proposal.
Has no one pointed out to you that the difference between"climate change" and "climate alarmism " and approximates the gap between "the Rhinoceros" and "the Unicorn" ?
Opposites are not contraries, because opposites exist mutually , and contraries exist not.
Unicorns hurt no one, but a world of hurt may await anyone who provokes a rhinoceros, even if they have an elephant gun in hand.
And if my cock was twelve inches long it would instead be a foot and I could walk while laying down.
This year, I never ran AC and started burning firewood a few weeks early. Perhaps I have over adapted.
It’s because you are so cool.
So very cool. Like Fonzie cool. Aye!
Popped collar cool? Nick’s jacket cool? Members Only jacket while wearing Aqua Velva cool?
Pastel polyester leisure suit cool.
... with white piping cool?
Leisure suit Larry?
I think I found what Chumly looks like:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/90/d0/c0/90d0c0cdd56dd1b9dd830afd70e71539.jpg
Stop trying to earn a concert invite.
There’s a Knight Rider tee underneath that Members Only jacket with Hasselhoff’s face.
Not just cool but frozen...
carbon dioxide...rose in May from the atmospheric preindustrial level of about 280 to 424 parts per million
At 280, we were getting perilously close to the level at which lack of CO2 would start significantly suppressing the growth of food crops. We might have dodged a bullet by burning coal and oil.
Now I see BYODB already covered this. Should have read before posting.
I read a science fiction novel by Niven, Barnes and Pournell called Fallen Angels. It was very critical of the ecofacists and postulated that the "Global Cooling" threat of the 70s was true and we were holding that at bay by throwing another log on the fire. The idea was if we did actually reduce our CO2 levels that the glaciers would start heading south. I think those three were on to something. If we take as a given the doomsday global warming predictions of the 90s were kind of right in CO2 causing warming and took the low level of neutrinos from the sun indication Global Cooling from the 70s it means we have been holding our own all along.
The book postulates a rise of an anti technology left that takes power and gets the CO2 emissions lowered by draconian measures. This results in Canada being covered by a glacier (no big loss) and losing our northern states to the ever creeping glacier.
Well worth a read. It holds up well with the rise of today's lunatic left.
We are in an interglacial period in an ongoing Ice Age. The glaciers will certainly return. Perhaps AGW has delayed that a little.
Wrong.
What they got right was that sulfate aerosols from coal burning contribute to albedo, so reducing coal use by switching to natural gas can add a half watt/M2 more solar radiative forcing than the change due to reduced CO2.
Sure buddy. Whatever you say.
It's still a good read.
The worst years to be alive were the years where the temperature was below average, such as 536AD, or 1816 (the year without a summer). Starvation and plague and the Dark Ages followed 536 (which may have also coincided with the end of King Arthur's reign after the battle of Camlann.)
Both of those years followed major volcanic eruptions which darkened the skies worldwide.
More testing needed!
Starting off with lies in the headline, Bailey?
Why does Reason allow you to spew your religious crap here, anyway?
I guess if you repeat a story often enough, people start to believe it. It’s not “the hottest year on record.” That claim came from analyzing and modeling satellite temperature data going back only to 1973. Even the scientist who invented the method rebuked the claim, saying if you compare actual surface temperatures at similar US locations, it’s only the 15th hottest year since the 1890s, and several of those years were before 1973.
And it shouldn't really need explaining, but 50 years is not exactly a big chunk of human history, and even less of the history of the Earth. Even going back 150 years (with surface temps) doesn't cover much time.
1. Change in how the temperature was measured keeps being ignored by Bailey here.
2. Discontinued weather stations are still 'active' and their 'measurements' are 'estimated - also ignored by Bailey.
It wasn't even the hottest year *this decade*.
You shouldn’t speak heresy against the the climate narrative.
Or worse the Trump narrative.
Lol, wut?
He is mad that his leftist narratives regarding trump are easily refuted.
Cite?
Note to foreign readers: The reference calls Trumpanzee attention to the Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid line "RULES?! In a knife fight?" Today's version would be "Facts?! In an ordure-flinging match?"
I can't believe anyone with a functioning brain ever takes even the slightest amount of this nonsense seriously. Everybody wants a healthy, clean, flourishing environment - but anyone who buys this "the skies will burn, the oceans will boil" garbage needs their head examined.
Environmental Activism (like any other Frankfurt School mentality, including DEI, CRT/anti-racism, LGBTP Activism, and most recently pro-Hamas) is 50% Inquisition, 50% Scarlet Letter, and 100% Hypocrisy. Anything you say contrary to them is automatically regarded as heresy, and you need to be severely punished and branded for life (cancel culture) for even thinking it even once at any point in your life.
Their goal is to get you to agree and support social destruction and extinctionism. Your very existence is an gross affront to them.
Easier to show readers how to access realclimatescience.com and click the links to Alterations, Tampering and Fraud.
I went to that website, out of curiosity. It has, near the top of the page on the right, part of a quote from Richard Feynman.
Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.
I found the source of that quote. It was during an address to a meeting of the National Science Teachers Association in 1966. The whole thing is worth reading. The real climate science site adds in "the" when it is not in the source I found. But more importantly, it misses the full context of what Feynman was trying to say to those science teachers.
We have many studies in teaching, for example, in which people make observations, make lists, do statistics, and so on, but these do not thereby become established science, established knowledge. They are merely an imitative form of science analogous to the South Sea Islanders’ airfields–radio towers, etc., made out of wood. The islanders expect a great airplane to arrive. They even build wooden airplanes of the same shape as they see in the foreigners’ airfields around them, but strangely enough, their wood planes do not fly. The result of this pseudoscientific imitation is to produce experts, which many of you are. [But] you teachers, who are really teaching children at the bottom of the heap, can maybe doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
When someone says ‘science teaches such and such’, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach it; experience teaches it. If they say to you, “Science has shown such and such,” you might ask, “How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?”
Science is doing. It is not something that exists in textbooks, research journals, graphs or tables of data. It is each person trying to understand something. Experts can summarize what they or other people in the past have done as they tried to understand something and the conclusions they reached. That is how knowledge is passed on. But some of the knowledge and wisdom and understanding that is being passed on will be wrong. I think that the "ignorance of experts" that Feynman was talking about was how experts are going to be ignorant of any errors they have made. Thus, each person has to "do science" over again in order to gain their own understanding and have any confidence that it is correct.
A person is free to choose to just accept or reject what the experts are saying without making any effort to gain their own understanding in the manner of science. They may feel that they don't have the time, they may trust or distrust the experts for reasons that have little or nothing to do with the facts of that particular problem, or they may want to rely on their own intuition or beliefs. They should just be clear that their ignorance is then even greater than the experts if they choose in this way.
To make this more concrete, I'll refer to a post yesterday at the Real Climate Science blog. The title is "Global Sea Ice Area" and starts with this sentence:
There was a sharp decline in December 1 global sea ice area from 2015 to 2016, but over the past seven years it has been increasing.
This is true, according to the graph shown directly below that statement. Estimating from the graph, the global sea ice area was about 2.58 x 10^7 sq km in 2015 and 2.26 x 10^7 sq km in 2016. It then rebounded to about 2.44 x 10^7 sq km in 2017 and so on. The truth of that statement depended on choosing 2016 as the starting point, however. He could have just as truthfully have said that the global sea ice area has been decreasing over the past eight years. (Using 2015 as the starting point instead of 2016)
This is a classic example of cherry-picking. If a conclusion can change sign completely just by moving your data point back or forward one year in a yearly time series, then any trend you argue would certainly not be statistically significant. This is something that people doing science professionally understand quite well if they wish to keep their jobs. People doing science for their own curiosity or knowledge should also understand that well if they want to draw reliable conclusions. That is what we all need to do in regards to climate science. We can work to do the science ourselves, while doing our best to do it correctly, or we can admit our ignorance and accept or reject what the experts say based on our own prejudices.
In another of Feynman's addresses, he talks about how to avoid the appearance of doing science while actually doing pseudoscience. He again used that history of the South Pacific islanders and their "cargo cults" in a commencement speech to CalTech graduates a decade after the address at the NSTA meeting I linked. He told the graduates that they had to be very careful not to fool themselves. You are the easiest person for you to fool, he was saying. If you are careful not to fool yourself, then it becomes trivial not to fool other people (by being honest), and it will be much harder for other people to fool you. That last part is especially important to keep in mind. Anyone trying to fool you will almost certainly do so by trying to convince you that what you are already inclined to believe is true. That way, they don't need to work very hard or be especially clever to fool you. They just get you to fool yourself.
LOOK AT THAT!!!!!! By far the worst climate change has been from the EXACT time the "climate hoax" was born (~1980).
Try running WWII planes 24/7 without any emission protections (1939-1945 the biggest drop) or just any CO2 dumping gasoline engines before the "climate hoax" was born (1850 pre-Industrial to 1980).
That day politics gets so stupid that up is down and down is up.
Hello everyone, Jevoxit IT Solution Services is a top digital marketing, website design, and development company that specializes in creating engaging websites at a reasonable cost. Visit http://www.jevoxit.com.
The terror of... climate zones moving 30 miles further from the equator per decade.
30 miles per decade of Mason-Dixon line drift would have shifted Biden's Senate seat from Delaware to New York
Dramatic cuts in fossil fuel energy use will cause significant slowing of global warming: possible;
Global warming will cause apocalyptic humanitarian crisis: doubtful;
Climate change as part of a million year long cycle of glacial and inter-glacial periods will lead to continued global warming towards previous inter-glacial maxima regardless of fossil fuel policies: absolutely;
Draconian government-imposed cuts in fossil fuel energy use will cause apocalyptic economic crisis for humanity: certain!
Waiting for some sceptical CEO of an insurance company to go into the reinsurance business - if they're right, they'll corner the market for reinsurance and drive the existing reinsurers out of business.
Because of what?
Because of how reinsurers work.
You ARE a stupid pile of shit.
Insurance claims are rising because the values of the properties are rising, not because of weather-related issues. Wildfires are increasing since the state is now (not) managing the forests.
Get back to me when the H'wood watermelons short their Malibu homes, asshole.
The chart labeled CO2 is actually showing the increase in the illiterate population brought about by superstitious laws bullying women into involuntary reproduction. China has recognized this as a golden opportunity to use Congresssional stupidity as a suicide weapon of unilateral renunciation of competence. Ask any econazi what are the dimensions of units of energy and the answer invariably confirms this.
And... decided I'm not donating to Reason again this year. Admittedly, I wasn't really on the fence, but Liz had me on at least the first rail, but her
centristshift is approximately off set by Bailey's shift from "End Of Doom" to "Get tested, get the jab, the globe is warming and we need to fix it".ENB and Shackford's continued dance in support of "state funding for educating pre-teen girls and boys into the sex trade, whether as boys or girls doesn't matter as long as the abortions and transitions are covered" social policy, Fiona's continued support of the Koch Immigrant Enslavement policy, and Emma Camp's general "Sorry I'm late, I was born yesterday. What were we talking about?" libertarian take on pretty much everything doesn't help.
If I could donate to Liz specifically or by some share, Substack-style, I would. But I'm pretty sure the Kochs want to keep a tighter control on their investment than that and, in that case, I'm not buying what they're selling.
Need moar testing, Ron.