Daniel1960

If you think that comparing the political slants of those outlets is the same as equivalency, then so be it. Personally, I think it is a stretch, but people tend believe stretches in their favor, and disregard those against. Just like Johnu think that papers supporting his viewpoint are mainstream. Readers of the aforementioned papers probably feel the same. People like to think they are mainstream, rather than wingers.

So you think the mere mention of the two in the same sentences translates into equating them to one another? That certainly explains a lot.

Yeah, well johnu seems to have high respect for Breitbart. The rest of us tend to disregard its stories.

Other sources rate FOX news as just as right-biased as the Times and Post are left-biased. https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444 The other way to look at them is how the political sides view each source. The Times and Post are trusted by the left, but distrusted by the right. Conversely, Fox News is trusted by the right, but distrusted by the left. Interestingly, those in the middle trust all three. Breitbart, the Blade, and The Drudge Report are less trusted by the middle, as are the Huffington Post, Mother Jones and Politico. http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/pj_14-10-21_mediapolarization-01/ I do not know how you can utter high regard and Breitbart in the same sentence. Maybe it is just another of your crazy ideas. Perhaps you have just as high regard as Politico.

Just because they are standards, does not mean they are not left wing. The Wall St Journal is a standard also, but that does not make it moderate or centrist. Is your quote self-reflective.

Typical left fringe nonsense; think left wing sites are mainstream.

So true. The largest death tolls recently were the Indonesian earthquake/tsunami and the Haiti earthquake. The largest death tolls in natural disasters have been recorded in China and India, which is more a reflection of the dense population. Also, death tolls from heat waves in the developing world have been much lower than in the U.S. and Europe. Whether this is greater tolerance to the heat or less temperature variability is hard to say.

Which is probably the main reason that people should not believe propaganda, especially articles appearing in the Guardian, on FOX News, NPR, Breitbart, The Times, Post, Blaze, etc. False claims like, "Heat already kills more Americans than floods, hurricanes or other ecological disasters" can be easily checked against reliable data. https://www.statista.com/statistics/236509/number-of-fatalities-from-natural-disasters-in-the-us/ Globally, heat-related deaths are even less than in the U.S., largely due to earthquakes, tropical activity and flooding. https://reliefweb.int/report/world/annual-disaster-statistical-review-2016-numbers-and-trends

I do not know where you get your crazy ideas. Will the temperatures measured during heat waves and corresponding deaths are related, one is not a direct measure of the other. This is another reason why should stick to the science, and ignore propaganda.

Yet, these scientists point to global warming as barely a footnote in species extinctions, right up there with the potential for nuclear war. Solving global warming will have a negligible effect on species extinctions. That is why the scientists are so worried. When it comes down to science vs propaganda, I prefer the science side. You would do well to follow suit.

Those scientists proclaiming the start of a sixth mass extinction are pointing to habitat destruction, overhunting and fishing, and pollution as the main causes (in that order). Climate change is just a minor footnote in the potential causes. The recent loss of sea ice has not caused polar bears to starve. You need to stop watching propaganda clips. Expanding sea ice was a larger detriment, as it closed feeding waters in the spring, when mother bears needed to find food for their young cubs. Polar bear populations have been relatively stable in recent years following increasing numbers after the 1973 hunting agreement. Of course any changes will not benefit all life. This has been true throughout history. However, warmer temperatures, and the resulting higher rainfall and reduced freezes will be generally beneficial to life in general. Additionally, higher atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations will generate greater plant growth and allow expansion into higher altitudes.

Yes, insects, like all animals, are expecting to flourish.

Of course. That is why it was called the little ice age! Perhaps you should compare to data from warmer periods, such as the medieval warm period, Roman warm period, or climatic optimum. You will then see similarities.

You do realize that scenario C is where emissions are eliminated altogether, and warming ceases? Hansen stated that this is what is necessary to avoid future problems. Do you believe we have achieved this?

Are you seriously saying that the summertime cooling (daytime highs only) is enough to compensate for the increasing temperatures during the other seasons (especially winter lows)? I do not know where you come up with these ideas?