Different where I am (non-US); on a 20 min drive in my city I would see 2 or 3 Teslas six months back, now there's 15+, and a handful of other brand EVs too. And this is despite minimal charging infrastructure in my area.

Though of course, the nice thing about EVs is that you don't often need the infrastructure, not if you can charge regularly at home.

Try 50% more, 9.14 tonnes of CO2 per capita vs 6.12, and both have come down a lot. Let's not descend too far into hyperbole, shall we?

There are actually four drought types (meteorological, agricultural, ecological, and hydrological), and the evidence is that three of those are getting worse in that part of the world:

Shreds of proof: IPCC AR6 Working Group 1 (Physical Science Basis), Chapter 11.6: Droughts

Read and learn, "young'un", particularly 11.6.2.1 and Table 11.15 (or if you prefer pictures, Figure 11.7).

Indeed, there are reports of EVs "piling up at dealerships". And EV sales are also increasing; these things can both be true.

Keep in mind the elephant in the EV room, Tesla, which still has over half the US market - and no dealerships, so such reports do not include them. Tesla's sales are up 20%, despite their market share dropping, which implies other manufacturers are increasing their sales even more. Chinese brands like BYD are also seeing strong growth.

However this growth is not even. Take a look at the US breakdown by manufacturer. Total sales are growing fast, with Tesla and Sth Korean cars taking the majority - but GM, Ford, VW and others are much more variable. It's their cars that are "piling up" due to missed sales targets, though the numbers are relatively small. Consumers have shown less interest in their EV models for various reasons, but those reasons clearly do not apply across the board.

Biosphere 2 was highly successful (rather more than Biosphere 1, anyway):

They didn't solve every problem, but they solved many, and learned a great deal. The project was eventually shut down for financial reasons, not technical.

Side note: It was shut down by Steve Bannon (yes, that Steve Bannon), who was brought in to control costs, but instead fired the managers and defamed the researchers (who later won a $600k lawsuit over it) then dissolved the managing company.

If temperatures were increasing slowly, over tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago, I would agree with you.

It's not. The sheer rate of increase is far outstripping nature's ability to adapt, in a large majority of studied species.

It's also going to be extremely expensive for us humans to adapt. Sea level rise alone will ensure that, but there are many other contributing factors. It's all in the IPCC reports.

Are you voting for them? If not, then you're probably not making the issue much worse for everyone else, so you're welcome to continue with your own personal beliefs :-)

And those natural sources are all balanced by natural sinks, such as the ocean, which is why CO2 levels didn't normally change much.

Until humanity came along, and started digging up old carbon and burning it at such a huge rate that it simply overwhelmed all the natural sinks.

Which is why the CO2 levels in our atmosphere have been climbing so much faster in the last century. We can directly measure this, we can see it happening, and the rate squares nicely with estimates of how much we've been burning.

We know it's us doing it. It's way beyond reasonable doubt by now.

Do you have a source for that? I understand that the Russian war has caused a significant supply shortfall, particularly in the short term - but can that not be made up with imports from elsewhere instead? At least until alternatives can be developed, like e.g. replacing building furnaces with efficient heat pumps. I understood from my link above that any extra coal required in the last year or so was relatively minor.

This French source is unlikely to be developed at scale any time soon, so it could only help with longer term supply, not the current situation. And by then, one sincerely hopes Europe's gas demand will have dropped further, minimising or negating any need for additional supply sources. The last thing the planet needs is a glut of cheap gas tempting people to burn it.

If they don't flare it, what do they do with it? Selling it will also result in it getting burned. Coal and gas are both dropping fast in the EU, let's not counter that trend.

Using SCWG reformation to make more hydrogen still leaves you with a CO2 waste stream. Perhaps some of that CO2 could be captured, but far from all, and then what do you do with that?

We're already falling short of our climate goals, and the consequences are just beginning. The last thing we want to do is make it worse by digging up more carbon, not when we have zero-carbon alternatives that are so much cheaper.

Nobody's suggesting you agree blindly with anyone. But remember to also question yourself.

If you can recognise when others know more about a subject than you do, then you can question why your conclusions might be different to theirs. This often leads to a learning opportunity - what do they know that you don't? Perhaps you should find out, instead of assuming it must be them that's wrong.

Do you have something better?

And where do you see scientists saying we're doomed, beyond all hope? Right, nowhere.

How many reputable media outlets are saying that? Approximately none? Of course there are many saying how bad the problems are, focusing on the dramatic to sell more, but that's hardly new, or limited to climate reporting. And even there, none are saying we're all doomed.

TFA's paper says only "Earth is now well outside of the safe operating space for humanity", meaning we are now in "unsafe" territory. In no language does that equate to "doomed". CNN upgrades that to "danger" and "alarming", but even they clarify that this "does not mean the world has reached a disastrous tipping point", and also points out some "good news" that we've actually pulled back from one of the boundaries (ozone depletion).

So who exactly is claiming we're doomed? Is it only a handful of extremists? Some disillusioned laymen? Or maybe bad-faith straw men from people trying to excuse their inaction - or to actively derail action from others?

Why should these researchers give you the time of day? What possible incentive is there for them to devote any time to helping out someone who is not only clearly lacking the expertise to fully understand it, but has equally clearly been arguing in bad faith about it?

Most researchers are more than happy to share whatever data they can with peers who have demonstrated their expertise in the field. You really want to see it for yourself, then nobody's stopping you from first acquiring the knowledge and experience to actually understand it. But if you're not willing to do that, then there's no value in giving it to you. It's a waste of their time to make all their raw data accessible to the general public, especially when so-called "sceptical" laymen merely want to use it against them.

So you are aware then, that your problem with the paper is not peer review at all, or that the methods may or may not be flawed - but simply that you don't like its conclusion?

Are you also aware of how much that undermines any validity you think your opinions might have?

What exactly do you think the entire "green" industry is trying to do? How did you manage to miss virtually every country in the world installing low-carbon PV & wind as fast as they could build it (and yes, also some nuclear)? Did the recent bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act devoting over $100B to decarbonising the power grid and transport sectors, and the Inflation Reduction Act putting another $369B towards lowering industrial emissions also escape you completely?

Or if it's scientific papers about solutions that you're looking for, there are hundreds collected and carefully summarised in each IPCC report, in the Working Group III section about mitigation and adaption.

You literally just told me YOU are ignoring global warming as a problem, because you didn't like to keep hearing about it. The irony is staggering. Yes, we get it, you're tired of hearing about it, none of us want to hear more bad news - but complaining about the science results is not going to make them go away. So long as people like you keep pretending that nobody else is taking it seriously so you don't have to either, then the bad news is going to plague you even longer.

If you really can't handle the truth, then maybe avoid these articles in the future? Stop bitching about it on Slashdot, and at least get out of the way of the many who are actively trying to improve things.