Done. ng, ng.

Well said TallMike. History of science is riddled with nonsense as you have pointed out but in this case the science is settled. The only reason some would say it is not is because of propaganda put forth by those who would benefit by that propaganda. That propaganda is what is causing the skepticism. That was my inartfully put point.

done

Go

Done

start yesterdays easy

ding

At the end of the day TallMike, even if the climate change skeptics are correct and I certainly wouldn't be betting my money on them, if we all started doing the right thing by our planet and for our children, it can only be good. And potentially if the majority of the climate scientists are correct, we might save thousands of lives and certainly millions of livelihoods for island peoples and those scraping to survive on barren earthlings around the globe. And what do we lose? A few thousand jobs in the coal industry. They can and should be retrained, yet governments leave them to their own devices by and large and are reluctant to offer incentives to new industries in those affected areas.

Makes no sense to me. Fortunately the world and many states in the US are seeing common sense and banning polluting vehicles and making it more expensive for polluting industries. As long as we can keep Trumps finger off the nuclear missile button when someone upsets his sensibilities, we might just survive his presidency, short as it no doubt will be.

start todays easy

ding

Done

done

Slowed a little in the middle, otherwise a fast clicker all the way through. 12.

There's another angle to fighting climate change which is rarely mentioned: what is the upper limit to the total amount of money the world can afford to spend on it? My guess is that many people will say the question is ridiculous because we must spend whatever it takes. But there is a problem with that. The world is also facing other dangers, some with far more serious potential consequences than climate change. So how should we divide our budget for saving the world between the different threats?

One very real danger is impact between Earth and a large asteroid or comet such as the one which caused the Chicxulub crater and destroyed around three quarters of all the plant and animal species existing at that time, a result that was maybe a million times worse than than any possible predicted outcome from climate change. It already happened once and so it obviously could happen again. Wouldn't it therefore be preferable to switch our efforts, including our spending, away from climate change and towards the prevention of another mass extinction event by celestial impact?

But wait - there are other potential disaster scenarios which are also far more serious than climate change. Suppose a single super volcano becomes active, or maybe two at the same time. Or another world war develops. Or the sun bombards us with radiation which renders all electronic equipment useless. Or a mutation of an existing disease decimates the entire human population. Should we perhaps defend ourselves only against the scenario with the worst possible outcome, or only the one that is most likely to occur, or one that is already happening?

Thankfully, there is an easy way to resolve all these questions instantly and go back to the important things in life: just remember that "experts" have told us that climate change disaster is currently the biggest threat to the global economy.

Oh no, I just tried it and it doesn't seem to work. What a mess I made of this. Sorry.