It worked, huh. You clicked. Good job. Thanks. We'll have another one for you tomorrow.

We use too much energy? What's the correct amount, boss? Please run us through the procedure to figure out the correct amount of energy to use. How exactly does too much energy use catch up with us again? Do we get pulled over by the energy police at some point?

Wow. Since the steam engine, very relevant. Meanwhile, we know life was abundant when CO2 ppm was e.g., 10x what it is today. And that CO2 ppm and global average temperature have spent vast amounts of time moving in opposite directions many times in the past, without any human activity.

Earth's temperature was correct on January 1st of 1850. Not sure where or at what time.

I'm sorry that Australia is burning, but it's a non-sequitur. Australia has always had fires, some of them huge. Fires can't be prevented, but they can be managed. I guess they didn't do that.

Weather events are not becoming more frequent, or extreme, or damaging, or dangerous. "Aggregate mortality attributed to all extreme weather events globally has declined by more than 90% since the 1920s, in spite of a four-fold rise in population and much more complete reporting of such events. The aggregate mortality rate declined by 98% ..." https://reason.org/wp-content/... The real danger we are facing is from an epidemic of LYING. Virtually all major media outlets have become unabashed peddlers of fear pornography. There are virtually no feedback mechanisms to hold them to account. They have learned they can say anything, and there is a fear arms race going on.

People don't like to hear that things today are the best they've ever been, and that things are still getting better. People don't like to acknowledge that even many poor people live better than kings and emperors of the past. No amount of rigorous statistics of improving human well-being will convince them. They want to believe in doom, and they'll get very angry if you suggest that maybe the end isn't nigh.

The scientists made their claim. The news outlets will run with it and get their clicks, essentially getting paid to amplify fear. Time will pass, and the predictions will not come true. Hardly anyone will notice, but some people will take note on their obscure blogs about yet another failed doomsday prediction, and they'll be derided as "deniers", basically climate infidels. How do we know it'll be like this? Because we've already been doing it like this for decades.

Reality is very rich and wide and deep. Kids need to be working with their hands, talking, planning, getting dirty, building things, failing, regrouping and retrying, learning how to think. It's really bad if kids are trying to drink information about reality through the stir-straw of a glowing rectangle. I say all this as a 20+ year veteran of programming and a person formerly obsessed with computers and programming... throwing tablets at children is simply an attempt to educate via immersion in money, and it's a lazy cop-out. Pencil and paper IS high tech. Put dry erase boards on every wall and buy a billion pens, that's money better spent. Kids who have learned to run to the board and draw their ideas out to explain them to others will benefit from that ability throughout their lives. Technology can also be hugely distracting. If I ran a school, it'd be strictly low-tech except perhaps for computer labs for actual computer courses, like programming. What, you think kids aren't going to get enough screen time? Absurd. Real books, real pens and pencils, real pads of paper, real drawing boards with markers or even real chalkboards and chalk, all of that is good stuff that will not get hacked and will not need to be updated and will not need power, etc. Don't just throw money at kids. There's no substitute for actually caring and spending huge amounts of time and effort on them teaching them how to think.

Skeptical Science is run by John Cook, the guy behind the papers that supposedly demonstrate 97% agreement among scientists, that actually do no such thing.

"find the algorithm is racist" how, if it does not consider race? Do you mean "find that the algorithm discovers differences between different groups"?

The algorithms do not currently consider sex or race. Are you suggesting they should? To make them NOT sexist and racist??

You're putting words in my mouth. The person I responded to seemed to be claiming that CO2 emissions were solely responsible for recent climate change. I suggested an alternate culprit, the most obvious possible one.

I know the answers (at least, I have seen evidence). They are: yes, the climate changed. Yes, CO2 was much higher at various times, over ten times as high as today, for periods of hundreds of millions of years. Yes, global average temperature has been higher in the past. No, humans had nothing whatsoever to do with any of it. Life was abundant the whole time. Additionally: over such long time periods, CO2 and global average temperature do not track together, i.e., they have no clear relationship.

Are you serious? We live in a complex system. How can you possibly make a claim that there is a sole cause? Nothing is ever the sole cause of anything. Everything is interdependent.

Does nothing else occur to you? What about the sun? Consider the time period starting a billion years ago up to one million years ago. Did the climate change? Was CO2 ever higher than now during that time? Were temperatures ever higher than now during that time? Did humans have anything to do with any of that? I can't believe you're modded insightful, it's a disgrace.