Trump said the Ukraineian president is a dictator...this is literally Russian propaganda id love to see you cover this because I don't see any other logical conclusion other than trump is a Russian plant...since he is clearly going along with what YOU in the past have called Russian propaganda..... Wtf😒 even the majority of Ukraine is startled by these comments...Quite scared Sir 😔
Oh later Trump said "did I ever say that? I can't believe I said that". And then came the spat in the oval office. But he is not at all pro Russia. He seems to be rather naive about Putin that's all. And he has an antipathy to Zelensky. And believes many false things about Ukraine and has never visited the country since the war started and neither has Vance and both are very out of touch relative to how people see things in Europe.
They can't overturn free speech it's a constitutional right. All that would happen if that ruling they talk about is successfully overturned is thT journalists would be more at risk for defamation lawsuits, frivolous one's . Still bad, but it wouldn't be the end of free speech.
With the Comstock act, I will revert you to this video that explains how that may backfire on Republicans.
Okay this is an example of needing to take what a person's online says with a grain of salt, also a person speaking to paranoia and fear mongering okay, Trump's birth right citizenship EO is being challenged by the court and has been blocked by the courts.
Birthright citizenship and it is a constitutional right and that's not changing and we are not like Nazi Germany! NO one is going to death camps! The military would never follow an illegal order like that and the courts would never allow it.
I'm sorry of my answer came off as a little strong. I'm just so sick of people jumping the gun and acting like we're in a repeat of Weimar Germany when we are not.
But if you're worried about Trump's comment about "risking world War 3" don't believe it. As Robert has said many times we ate not heading towards world War 3.
For these two Executive Orders on the environment, can/will they be challenged in court before they can actually start making these changes? And is there a decent legal basis for blocking these EOs?
Mr. Walker, I’m curious about a more deep dive on cuts to Medicaid. I understand that the proposed cuts are $880 billion over the course of 10 years and that it will be done through reconciliation and the final product is probably a few months away. I am curious about how much you think these cuts may be tampered down in the senate. But even more curious about what you think may be done to Medicaid via executive order. I know legally his powers there are limited, but it seems we don’t care about what’s legal anymore. Vought terrifies me. What are your thoughts on all of this? My husband works for a managed care organization- he’s our breadwinner. I worry every day. Not to mention the folks that need these benefits to survive. Any insight is helpful.
So, it appears German Federal Intelligence Service has stated that Russia may be planning a genuine war with NATO. You have said multiple times that Russia would not want a war with NATO, but now I'm not so sure they won't if this is true.
In the hypothetical case, could NATO win? Would something like this pressure Russia to use nuclear weapons? Could Putin be kicked out?
TITLE: Any peace treaty will likely have precautions to prevent Russia / NATO build up near the border - enforced by sanctions - and NATO can deploy as fast as Russia to deter any action
QUOTE According to an assessment by the Lithuanian intelligence service VSD, the Kremlin currently lacks the capability to attack the entire Alliance. However, the Russians may "test NATO" with a small military operation against one or several bloc countries, thereby determining how seriously the Alliance takes its commitments.
QUOTE Once the war in Ukraine ends, Russian units could be quickly redeployed to the borders with the Baltic states. The report notes that "Russian losses are being replenished," and the country’s defense industry is producing more than what is needed for the current conflict.
However, there would be rules for a ceasefire / peace treaty and one of those rules would likely be precautions to prevent Russia deploying to exercises near the borders.
Yes, in principle Russian forces could be "quickly" deployed to the borders of the Baltic States. But not immediately.
Quickly here means on a timescale of weeks to months. Fighter jets can be redeployed in hours, but warships take longer, and large numbers of soldiers, tanks etc take far longer because they have to set up camp for them, even field hospitals.
NATO forces can be quickly deployed too. The Alliance Response Force is building up to 300,000 to deploy automatically - with the first 10,000 there in days for the first ones - as already tested without US support in the Steadfast Dart exercise.
So for instance if Russia sent 200,000 soldiers to the Baltic - taking several weeks to get them all there - it would be like the exercises just before the Ukrainian invasion but NATO would build up larger army on the Ukrainian side of the border better equipped than the Russian army.
And it takes a 3 to 1 advantage to invade, far far more if the other side has control of the air as NATO would for any invasion attempt.
If Russia deployed a million solders then NATO would need 333,333 soldiers to defend - except that because of the technology advantage it would be able to defend with far fewer
But the Ukraine war would likely end with a peace deal and at some point the Europeans would drop their sanctions. There would surely be a mutual agreement of some sort not to have any large exercises near the border of Russia and NATO either in Ukraine or anywhere else. If Russia prepared to invade the Baltic States then all the sanctions surely snap back again bit by bit.
So - this is very implausible. It's likely just some exercise scenario - they have to make up something or other even if rather implausible and fanciful, as a basis for the scenario.
And - here "win" does not mean defeat Putin.
The article 5 is very much misunderstood.
Here "win" means to restore the border of NATO. Once that is done the situation is over.
So yes NATO would win. If Putin tried a small incursion it wouldn't be long before NATO has complete air control over the incursion, able to drop missiles, surround it with tanks / artillery / etc. And Putin would likely just withdraw at that point.
They wouldn't attack Moscow. Only places that are firing missiles at Lithuania.
And NATO is far more effective than Ukraine because of its modern technology.
And Ukraine could support with its own nearly a million soldiers.
my friend who lives by an air force base told me that they told her they need to start prepping for a war because we’ll be in one in under two years. should i believe this? ive been scared of wars happening here on us soil and im not too sure if i should really worry
No not at all. Sorry for delay in reply. This is my overall world war debunk, I also cover how a US president can't use nukes in peace time and about how Putin is actually a very risk averse person - won't take any risks for the continuing health of his regime:
BLOG: Why we do NOT risk a world war from: Ukraine, the Middle East, China, North Korea, or anywhere else in the world
— next to impossible
— and longer term are headed for a future without any war
May be because of those stories about booklets for emergencies?? Governments always have instructions on how to cope with emergencies and the new booklets mainly started off because of the COVID pandemic.
BLOG: EU Preparedness Union Strategy for emergencies is nothing to do with world war or nuclear war
Robert, I know it's been a while since this was posted, but it's one of the only places that I think I can have a good "rant" while also trying to ask some debunks.
So, there it goes:
For the last months, I've been having quite high amounts of anxiety in regards to climate change, especially considering the surge in warming we've had in 2023 and onwards. Some of my main worries are about the causes, whether it invalidates the central estimates by the Climate Action Tracker, IPBES, IEA that put 2100 warming at 2.4-2.9ºC above pre-industrials. There seems to be the beginning of a strong cloud feedback loop, also for the fact of the weak carbon sinks in both 2023 and 2024. Lowered albedo and higher warming due to aerosols, ocean acidification, poor harvests due to drought, Amazon dieback. Sure, there is the hypothesis of the El Niño taking the lid out from the triple-dip La Niña, but that theory only seems to be getting less plausible, as the paragraph you brought from CS3 in your January warmth post. What's to say that isn't an underestimate? 40% of the arctic is a GHG source, ice loss, sea level rise, CO2e atmospheric concentrations all seem to be following a path worse than the worst case. We had record-breaking temps in a La Niña of all times.
I worry about my future especially since I am quite young and live in the tropics. Even if the 2.4-3 range is correct, that of itself is just catastrophic, what about the declines in agriculture, water availability, loss of pollinators that very well could cause quite the ugly conflict. You had a post from 2019 that says we don't run out of food and water in any scenario explored in a report, but I just can't help the feeling that it's underestimating things, and since so much came in the last 2 years, I can't stop thinking of it being outdated science. Some say the IPCC is the gold standard while others say they are too conservative and underestimate warming and its effects. Some say we averted apocalypse from the tiny progress we've had, while others say we are heading towards doomsday. Some say society will endure and adapt while others say civilization will collapse. Some say (like you and the sources on one of your posts) that agriculture and water systems will endure, while others say it will collapse. It all seems so conflicting, like who should I trust?
Basically, most of my anxiety comes from the fact that I'm in my early 20s, live in a developing nation and I don't want to have civilization as in the current global form of it collapse in my lifetime, if I am to live to be 90+ years old like my greatgrandparents. I sure as hell want kids, but I don't want to put a life at a world that could go bonkers due to the climate. Food and water shortages, scorching heat and heavy flooding, unlivable areas. I quite like the world we have, where we managed to lift billions out of poverty and hunger in just 250 years. You get my gist. So, the central thing I am asking you to do on a future post is: an updated statement that collapse of global civilization, agriculture is unlikely due to climate change based on 2023- scientific findings. I don't know if you'll see this, but if you do, you have no idea how much that would help me.
Oh those things are all false. First this is my most recent global warming post. Those estimates from the IPCC predate the net zero pledges of COP26. Those rapidly reduced the estimated warming by about 1 C to below 2 C. They are not conservative they just do a summary of all the best science at their time but that science has a cut-off date. All the AR6 reports had a cut off before COP26 with a fair bit of it with a cut-off of 2020.
For the latest estimates by far the best is the IEA far more thorough than Carbon action Tracker or UNEP.
This is what is used by the COPs. The COP28 pledged to triple renewables and double efficiency by 2030 and this will be a major part of the COP30 pledges in Brazil this year. That is now our objective and the IEA is monitoring it.
See my:
BLOG: 1.5°C still feasible with COP28 agreement to triple renewables by 2030
— NOT yet committed to 1.6°C or 1.7 C
— though helping weaker economies and protecting nature is as important as -0.2°C reduction
Are you basing this on Hansen by any chance? It sounds like things he says. You can tell they are not high quality science because they would be headline news in Nature if true. Instead he can only get his work published in low quality not very peer reviewed journals that nobody has heard of.
So my debunk of what he says is here, it's in the wiki not my substack:
BLOG: Hansen et al's paper on warming effects of stopping shipping exhausts is an implausible outlier
That is a good general test. If you see something that would be world news if true and it is in an obscure journal nobody has heard of it's likely low quality and mistaken.
This is about how the IPCC does a systematic review of all the good science - anything even if it isn't very convincing but if it follows the scientific method they will cover it.
BLOG: No the IPCC does not err on the side of least drama, just follows scientific method
It just bugs me because I get the loop in my mind saying "what if Hansen is right?". Like it or not, for better or worse, he is among the largest authorities in climatic sciences in the world. There is also the gang of others like Leon Simmons, Sabine Hossenfelder etc who just seem to fall into the same mind as them. I know Hansen is very criticized as it is, but the surge in warming from 2023 and the loss of albedo still can't be fully explained. Even more moderate voices like Gavin Schmidt and Zeke Hausfather say that while 23/24 temps were in line with the SSP2-4.5 ensemble for CMIP6, the models could not necessarily keep up with the change. It's much more of a psychological thing that is mixed with scientific findings. There is quite the amount of papers being published even in Nature, so that doesn't add that much to my ongoing anxiety. I for sure don't want to go doomer, that would go against most of what I believe, but it sure is hard not to fall into some sort of spiral.
I don't know how to fully manifest my thoughts in English as it is not my native language, if you need any more clarification on my thoughts, just ask!
It is likely to go all the way up to the Supreme Court. On the face of it it seems unlikely to succeed because in the 1980 case of Stone v. Graham, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against an almost identical Kentucky law. Normally it wouldn't even get to the Supreme Court with such clear precedent.
However, Stone depends on a decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman from 1971. But in 2022, the Supreme Court overruled Lemon in a case Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist.
This opens the opportunity for the Supreme Court to potentially re-examine decisions that depended on Lemon such as Stone. It is unusual to do that but not impossible.
I can't find much detailed discussion; this is the best I can find.
If it does get there, it might possibly be upheld on the basis that it is a historical display rather than religious and because the states do have considerable discretion on what they can mandate.
As an example, states can mandate displays of e.g., state flags or the American flag. Texas requires every school to have a display somewhere of the American motto "In God We Trust" in a conspicuous place in every building https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/education-code/educ-sect-1-004/
It's also quite common for states to require daily ceremonies before starting the school day to pledge allegiance to the U.S. flag, although participation is voluntary.
So - by Stone the case should just be rejected, but because of the Kennedy case that overturned Lemon, it may go all the way to the Supreme Court and if it does they may decide that it is permitted, probably focusing on it as a historical rather than a religious requirement.
So I can't say for sure that the Supreme Court will reject it after looking into this in detail.
It does NOT mean that students will be forced to obey the Ten Commandments or say they believe in God; anything like that is very illegal.
First reaction - the Supreme Court is not likely to overturn a case that has been established law without controversy since 1964 by the principle of Stare Decisis.
I know they overturned Roe v. Wade but that was because of special considerations that only applied to abortion and because it has been controversial since it was decided.
Probably that decision is why they even consider trying to overthrow a case from over a half a century ago but it seems implausible they would change.
BLOG: With Roe v. Wade overturned, abortion is now an election issue for the mid terms
— and the Supreme Court are saying “get out and vote for what you want”
— also make it clear it doesn’t cast doubt on any other issues except abortion
BLOG: Supreme court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade does NOT mean the US supreme court will overturn gay marriage, right for contraception, or interracial marriage
— and leaves decisions about abortion to the American voters
https://www.yahoo.com/news/oops-scientists-may-miscalculated-global-135500189.html
Robert could you read this and give a response?
BLOG: Scientists have NOT miscalculated our global warming timeline
— study is just about extending the timeline further back in time
— but other scientists find it implausible that we warmed by 0.9 °C between the eighteenth and nineteenth century
READ HERE: https://doomsdaydebunked.miraheze.org/wiki/Scientists_have_NOT_miscalculated_our_global_warming_timeline_-_study_is_just_about_extending_the_timeline_further_back_in_time_-_but_other_scientists_find_it_implausible_that_we_warmed_by_0.9_%C2%B0C_between_the_eighteenth_and_nineteenth_century
Thank you Robert.
Trump said the Ukraineian president is a dictator...this is literally Russian propaganda id love to see you cover this because I don't see any other logical conclusion other than trump is a Russian plant...since he is clearly going along with what YOU in the past have called Russian propaganda..... Wtf😒 even the majority of Ukraine is startled by these comments...Quite scared Sir 😔
Oh later Trump said "did I ever say that? I can't believe I said that". And then came the spat in the oval office. But he is not at all pro Russia. He seems to be rather naive about Putin that's all. And he has an antipathy to Zelensky. And believes many false things about Ukraine and has never visited the country since the war started and neither has Vance and both are very out of touch relative to how people see things in Europe.
They can't overturn free speech it's a constitutional right. All that would happen if that ruling they talk about is successfully overturned is thT journalists would be more at risk for defamation lawsuits, frivolous one's . Still bad, but it wouldn't be the end of free speech.
With the Comstock act, I will revert you to this video that explains how that may backfire on Republicans.
https://youtu.be/g9UKnU3dRDM?si=em3gq_mYcFBBrDpe
Okay this is an example of needing to take what a person's online says with a grain of salt, also a person speaking to paranoia and fear mongering okay, Trump's birth right citizenship EO is being challenged by the court and has been blocked by the courts.
Birthright citizenship and it is a constitutional right and that's not changing and we are not like Nazi Germany! NO one is going to death camps! The military would never follow an illegal order like that and the courts would never allow it.
I'm sorry of my answer came off as a little strong. I'm just so sick of people jumping the gun and acting like we're in a repeat of Weimar Germany when we are not.
But if you're worried about Trump's comment about "risking world War 3" don't believe it. As Robert has said many times we ate not heading towards world War 3.
Yeah I've read about it. Europe will have to step up in supplying Ukraine with weapons just in case.
Anything on this? Second try: https://open.substack.com/pub/criticalresistance/p/banking-collapse-update-the-fdic?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=3bj0hr
For these two Executive Orders on the environment, can/will they be challenged in court before they can actually start making these changes? And is there a decent legal basis for blocking these EOs?
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/trump-emergency-move-aims-cut-approval-times-energy-projects-28-days-2025-04-24/
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/17042025/trump-administration-endangered-species-protections-harm-definition/
This is pretty bad. I've not seen you debunk anything around the banking/crypto schemes of the Trump admin yet: https://open.substack.com/pub/criticalresistance/p/banking-collapse-update-the-fdic?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=3bj0hr
Mr. Walker, I’m curious about a more deep dive on cuts to Medicaid. I understand that the proposed cuts are $880 billion over the course of 10 years and that it will be done through reconciliation and the final product is probably a few months away. I am curious about how much you think these cuts may be tampered down in the senate. But even more curious about what you think may be done to Medicaid via executive order. I know legally his powers there are limited, but it seems we don’t care about what’s legal anymore. Vought terrifies me. What are your thoughts on all of this? My husband works for a managed care organization- he’s our breadwinner. I worry every day. Not to mention the folks that need these benefits to survive. Any insight is helpful.
Bumping again I hopes I might you get your attention. Thanks again.
Bump
So, it appears German Federal Intelligence Service has stated that Russia may be planning a genuine war with NATO. You have said multiple times that Russia would not want a war with NATO, but now I'm not so sure they won't if this is true.
In the hypothetical case, could NATO win? Would something like this pressure Russia to use nuclear weapons? Could Putin be kicked out?
TITLE: Any peace treaty will likely have precautions to prevent Russia / NATO build up near the border - enforced by sanctions - and NATO can deploy as fast as Russia to deter any action
TO DEBUNK: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/putin-prepares-for-war-with-nato-german-intelligence-reveals-possible-timeline/ar-AA1BRjjw Putin prepares for war with NATO [REPORT SAYS HE DOESN'T CURRENTLY HAVE THE CAPABILITY], German intelligence reveals possible timeline [ONLY IF NATO ESSENTIALLY FALLS APART, BY END OF DECADE]
QUOTE According to an assessment by the Lithuanian intelligence service VSD, the Kremlin currently lacks the capability to attack the entire Alliance. However, the Russians may "test NATO" with a small military operation against one or several bloc countries, thereby determining how seriously the Alliance takes its commitments.
QUOTE Once the war in Ukraine ends, Russian units could be quickly redeployed to the borders with the Baltic states. The report notes that "Russian losses are being replenished," and the country’s defense industry is producing more than what is needed for the current conflict.
However, there would be rules for a ceasefire / peace treaty and one of those rules would likely be precautions to prevent Russia deploying to exercises near the borders.
Yes, in principle Russian forces could be "quickly" deployed to the borders of the Baltic States. But not immediately.
Quickly here means on a timescale of weeks to months. Fighter jets can be redeployed in hours, but warships take longer, and large numbers of soldiers, tanks etc take far longer because they have to set up camp for them, even field hospitals.
NATO forces can be quickly deployed too. The Alliance Response Force is building up to 300,000 to deploy automatically - with the first 10,000 there in days for the first ones - as already tested without US support in the Steadfast Dart exercise.
So for instance if Russia sent 200,000 soldiers to the Baltic - taking several weeks to get them all there - it would be like the exercises just before the Ukrainian invasion but NATO would build up larger army on the Ukrainian side of the border better equipped than the Russian army.
And it takes a 3 to 1 advantage to invade, far far more if the other side has control of the air as NATO would for any invasion attempt.
If Russia deployed a million solders then NATO would need 333,333 soldiers to defend - except that because of the technology advantage it would be able to defend with far fewer
But the Ukraine war would likely end with a peace deal and at some point the Europeans would drop their sanctions. There would surely be a mutual agreement of some sort not to have any large exercises near the border of Russia and NATO either in Ukraine or anywhere else. If Russia prepared to invade the Baltic States then all the sanctions surely snap back again bit by bit.
So - this is very implausible. It's likely just some exercise scenario - they have to make up something or other even if rather implausible and fanciful, as a basis for the scenario.
And - here "win" does not mean defeat Putin.
The article 5 is very much misunderstood.
Here "win" means to restore the border of NATO. Once that is done the situation is over.
So yes NATO would win. If Putin tried a small incursion it wouldn't be long before NATO has complete air control over the incursion, able to drop missiles, surround it with tanks / artillery / etc. And Putin would likely just withdraw at that point.
They wouldn't attack Moscow. Only places that are firing missiles at Lithuania.
And NATO is far more effective than Ukraine because of its modern technology.
And Ukraine could support with its own nearly a million soldiers.
Also, wouldn't it be likely if this were the case that we could wind up in a World War III?
my friend who lives by an air force base told me that they told her they need to start prepping for a war because we’ll be in one in under two years. should i believe this? ive been scared of wars happening here on us soil and im not too sure if i should really worry
No not at all. Sorry for delay in reply. This is my overall world war debunk, I also cover how a US president can't use nukes in peace time and about how Putin is actually a very risk averse person - won't take any risks for the continuing health of his regime:
BLOG: Why we do NOT risk a world war from: Ukraine, the Middle East, China, North Korea, or anywhere else in the world
— next to impossible
— and longer term are headed for a future without any war
READ HERE: https://robertinventor.substack.com/p/why-we-do-not-risk-a-world-war-from .
May be because of those stories about booklets for emergencies?? Governments always have instructions on how to cope with emergencies and the new booklets mainly started off because of the COVID pandemic.
BLOG: EU Preparedness Union Strategy for emergencies is nothing to do with world war or nuclear war
READ HERE: https://doomsdaydebunked.miraheze.org/wiki/EU_Preparedness_Union_Strategy_for_emergencies_is_nothing_to_do_with_world_war_or_nuclear_war
A german military officer has said that this summer could very well be the last summer of peace, it really freaks me out.
https://newsyou.info/en/2025/03/ostannye-mirne-lito-v-yevropi-nimeckij-istorik-zrobiv-trivozhnij-prognoz-bild
Robert, I know it's been a while since this was posted, but it's one of the only places that I think I can have a good "rant" while also trying to ask some debunks.
So, there it goes:
For the last months, I've been having quite high amounts of anxiety in regards to climate change, especially considering the surge in warming we've had in 2023 and onwards. Some of my main worries are about the causes, whether it invalidates the central estimates by the Climate Action Tracker, IPBES, IEA that put 2100 warming at 2.4-2.9ºC above pre-industrials. There seems to be the beginning of a strong cloud feedback loop, also for the fact of the weak carbon sinks in both 2023 and 2024. Lowered albedo and higher warming due to aerosols, ocean acidification, poor harvests due to drought, Amazon dieback. Sure, there is the hypothesis of the El Niño taking the lid out from the triple-dip La Niña, but that theory only seems to be getting less plausible, as the paragraph you brought from CS3 in your January warmth post. What's to say that isn't an underestimate? 40% of the arctic is a GHG source, ice loss, sea level rise, CO2e atmospheric concentrations all seem to be following a path worse than the worst case. We had record-breaking temps in a La Niña of all times.
I worry about my future especially since I am quite young and live in the tropics. Even if the 2.4-3 range is correct, that of itself is just catastrophic, what about the declines in agriculture, water availability, loss of pollinators that very well could cause quite the ugly conflict. You had a post from 2019 that says we don't run out of food and water in any scenario explored in a report, but I just can't help the feeling that it's underestimating things, and since so much came in the last 2 years, I can't stop thinking of it being outdated science. Some say the IPCC is the gold standard while others say they are too conservative and underestimate warming and its effects. Some say we averted apocalypse from the tiny progress we've had, while others say we are heading towards doomsday. Some say society will endure and adapt while others say civilization will collapse. Some say (like you and the sources on one of your posts) that agriculture and water systems will endure, while others say it will collapse. It all seems so conflicting, like who should I trust?
Basically, most of my anxiety comes from the fact that I'm in my early 20s, live in a developing nation and I don't want to have civilization as in the current global form of it collapse in my lifetime, if I am to live to be 90+ years old like my greatgrandparents. I sure as hell want kids, but I don't want to put a life at a world that could go bonkers due to the climate. Food and water shortages, scorching heat and heavy flooding, unlivable areas. I quite like the world we have, where we managed to lift billions out of poverty and hunger in just 250 years. You get my gist. So, the central thing I am asking you to do on a future post is: an updated statement that collapse of global civilization, agriculture is unlikely due to climate change based on 2023- scientific findings. I don't know if you'll see this, but if you do, you have no idea how much that would help me.
Thank you for the work you do
Oh those things are all false. First this is my most recent global warming post. Those estimates from the IPCC predate the net zero pledges of COP26. Those rapidly reduced the estimated warming by about 1 C to below 2 C. They are not conservative they just do a summary of all the best science at their time but that science has a cut-off date. All the AR6 reports had a cut off before COP26 with a fair bit of it with a cut-off of 2020.
For the latest estimates by far the best is the IEA far more thorough than Carbon action Tracker or UNEP.
This is what is used by the COPs. The COP28 pledged to triple renewables and double efficiency by 2030 and this will be a major part of the COP30 pledges in Brazil this year. That is now our objective and the IEA is monitoring it.
See my:
BLOG: 1.5°C still feasible with COP28 agreement to triple renewables by 2030
— NOT yet committed to 1.6°C or 1.7 C
— though helping weaker economies and protecting nature is as important as -0.2°C reduction
READ HERE: https://robertinventor.substack.com/p/paris-agreement-15-c-is-still-alive
We know there can't be sudden warming from many different sources including studying ancient warming in the past.
If there is a cloud feedback it can only happen at well above 5 C or we'd notice from past climate.
BLOG: Earth can’t warm suddenly
— no temperature tipping point
— radiates so much extra heat with each extra 1°C of warming
— it can't trap or absorb it all
— even with all possible feedbacks at their max
— (virtually certain
— IPCC AR6 / WG1 Chapter 7)
READ HERE: https://debunkingdoomsday.quora.com/Earth-can-t-warm-suddenly-no-temperature-tipping-point-radiates-so-much-extra-heat-with-each-extra-1-C-of-warming
Are you basing this on Hansen by any chance? It sounds like things he says. You can tell they are not high quality science because they would be headline news in Nature if true. Instead he can only get his work published in low quality not very peer reviewed journals that nobody has heard of.
So my debunk of what he says is here, it's in the wiki not my substack:
BLOG: Hansen et al's paper on warming effects of stopping shipping exhausts is an implausible outlier
READ HERE: https://doomsdaydebunked.miraheze.org/wiki/Hansen_et_al%27s_paper_on_warming_effects_of_stopping_shipping_exhausts_is_an_implausible_outlier
That is a good general test. If you see something that would be world news if true and it is in an obscure journal nobody has heard of it's likely low quality and mistaken.
This is about how the IPCC does a systematic review of all the good science - anything even if it isn't very convincing but if it follows the scientific method they will cover it.
BLOG: No the IPCC does not err on the side of least drama, just follows scientific method
READ HERE: https://debunkingdoomsday.quora.com/No-the-IPCC-does-not-err-on-the-side-of-least-drama-just-follows-scientific-method
If something isn't covered by the IPCC and is dramatic then it's junk science or they would include it even as low confidence and very unlikely.
It just bugs me because I get the loop in my mind saying "what if Hansen is right?". Like it or not, for better or worse, he is among the largest authorities in climatic sciences in the world. There is also the gang of others like Leon Simmons, Sabine Hossenfelder etc who just seem to fall into the same mind as them. I know Hansen is very criticized as it is, but the surge in warming from 2023 and the loss of albedo still can't be fully explained. Even more moderate voices like Gavin Schmidt and Zeke Hausfather say that while 23/24 temps were in line with the SSP2-4.5 ensemble for CMIP6, the models could not necessarily keep up with the change. It's much more of a psychological thing that is mixed with scientific findings. There is quite the amount of papers being published even in Nature, so that doesn't add that much to my ongoing anxiety. I for sure don't want to go doomer, that would go against most of what I believe, but it sure is hard not to fall into some sort of spiral.
I don't know how to fully manifest my thoughts in English as it is not my native language, if you need any more clarification on my thoughts, just ask!
Whenever I have climate anxiety I think about the progress we've made versus what it was like when the Paris agreement was signed.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/11/most-people-dont-realize-how-much-progress-weve-made-on-climate-change/
This article is reassuring. Yes true 2024 is the hottest year on record, but we cannot let that discourage us.
It is likely to go all the way up to the Supreme Court. On the face of it it seems unlikely to succeed because in the 1980 case of Stone v. Graham, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against an almost identical Kentucky law. Normally it wouldn't even get to the Supreme Court with such clear precedent.
However, Stone depends on a decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman from 1971. But in 2022, the Supreme Court overruled Lemon in a case Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist.
This opens the opportunity for the Supreme Court to potentially re-examine decisions that depended on Lemon such as Stone. It is unusual to do that but not impossible.
I can't find much detailed discussion; this is the best I can find.
https://verdict.justia.com/2024/11/18/louisiana-ten-commandments-case-and-much-more-could-be-headed-to-scotus
If it does get there, it might possibly be upheld on the basis that it is a historical display rather than religious and because the states do have considerable discretion on what they can mandate.
As an example, states can mandate displays of e.g., state flags or the American flag. Texas requires every school to have a display somewhere of the American motto "In God We Trust" in a conspicuous place in every building https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/education-code/educ-sect-1-004/
It's also quite common for states to require daily ceremonies before starting the school day to pledge allegiance to the U.S. flag, although participation is voluntary.
This is the law for California:
https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-education-code/title-2-elementary-and-secondary-education/division-4-instruction-and-services/part-28-general-instructional-programs/chapter-11-miscellaneous/article-2-patriotic-exercises-and-instruction/section-52720-pledge-of-allegiance-to-the-flag-of-the-united-states-of-america
So - by Stone the case should just be rejected, but because of the Kennedy case that overturned Lemon, it may go all the way to the Supreme Court and if it does they may decide that it is permitted, probably focusing on it as a historical rather than a religious requirement.
So I can't say for sure that the Supreme Court will reject it after looking into this in detail.
It does NOT mean that students will be forced to obey the Ten Commandments or say they believe in God; anything like that is very illegal.
Written up as blog post:
BLOG: Louisiana law is only about display of Ten Commandments
— students can't be required to follow them
— Supreme Court ruled against such state laws in 1980
— but there is some potential they may change that decision after overruling a 1971 precedent
READ HERE: https://doomsdaydebunked.miraheze.org/wiki/Louisiana_law_is_only_about_display_of_Ten_Commandments_-_students_can%27t_be_required_to_follow_them_-_Supreme_Court_ruled_against_such_state_laws_in_1980_-_but_there_is_some_potential_they_may_change_that_decision_after_overruling_a_1971_precedent
The whole Sarah Adams CIA person saying there will be a terrorist attack on US homeland...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/donald-trump-gave-vladimir-putin-go-ahead-to-attack-london-paris-or-brussels-warns-expert/ar-AA1zcGmf
I thought there was a TRO blocking treasury access, now they are getting around it by going to the IRS? https://www.yahoo.com/news/elon-musks-doge-asks-access-012800722.html
Are we heading towards World War III?
No.
BLOG: Why we do NOT risk a world war from: Ukraine, the Middle East, China, North Korea, or anywhere else in the world
— next to impossible
— and longer term are headed for a future without any war
READ HERE: https://robertinventor.substack.com/p/why-we-do-not-risk-a-world-war-from .
I'm scared of the SAVE act, could it really prevent married women from voting
It will never pass. They don't have 60 votes for it.
First reaction - the Supreme Court is not likely to overturn a case that has been established law without controversy since 1964 by the principle of Stare Decisis.
I know they overturned Roe v. Wade but that was because of special considerations that only applied to abortion and because it has been controversial since it was decided.
Probably that decision is why they even consider trying to overthrow a case from over a half a century ago but it seems implausible they would change.
BLOG: With Roe v. Wade overturned, abortion is now an election issue for the mid terms
— and the Supreme Court are saying “get out and vote for what you want”
— also make it clear it doesn’t cast doubt on any other issues except abortion
READ HERE: https://debunkingdoomsday.quora.com/With-Roe-v-Wade-overturned-abortion-is-now-an-election-issue-for-the-mid-terms-and-the-Supreme-Court-are-saying-get
BLOG: Supreme court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade does NOT mean the US supreme court will overturn gay marriage, right for contraception, or interracial marriage
— and leaves decisions about abortion to the American voters
READ HERE: https://debunkingdoomsday.quora.com/The-Roe-decision-does-NOT-mean-the-US-supreme-court-will-overturn-gay-marriage-right-for-contraception-or-decisions-ag