No, these headlines are not consensus of large group of scientists. He interprets IPCC reports whatever he sees fit for headlines and dramatizes science to the point of perversion.

Dramatic and factually false headlines have clear psychological side effects on people with unknown long term consequences. I regularly see people on this sub citing climate as *main* reason they do not have kids or do not plan for future.

Thanks to headlines like this. Thanks to people like him. And to people like you who see nothing special in his lies, because "the cause is just".

Another one of those:

>The UN secretary general, António Guterres, said [some doomsday crap]

He's not a climate scientist, he's politician and diplomat. All this guy does for the last 5 years is giving out dramatic headlines and final warnings to the press.

• We're on a 'highway to climate hell,' UN chief Guterres says (Nov 7, 2022)
• World headed for climate catastrophe without urgent action: UN Secretary-General (Oct 27, 2022)
• UN chief says the world is in ‘life-or-death struggle’ for survival (Oct 3, 2022)
• Guterres at Stockholm+50: “End the suicidal war against nature” (Jun 2, 2022)
• Climate crisis is a code red for humanity: UN chief (Oct 27, 2021)
• ‘Climate change is battle of my life’ and we’re losing, warns UN chief Antonio Guterres (Dec 11, 2020)
• UN secretary general urges all countries to declare climate emergencies (Dec 12, 2020)
• António Guterres: Climate Change Is Biggest Threat to Global Economy (Jan 25, 2019)
• U.N. Secretary-General issues a grave warning about climate apocalypse (Dec 2, 2019)
• UN chief warns of ‘point of no return’ on climate change (Dec 1, 2019)
• Climate change: Failure to tackle warming 'suicidal' (Dec 13, 2018)

No wonder many people are afraid of having kids or even too depressed to live today. Want to relax? Emergency! Catastrophe! Point of no return! Want to live? Suicidal! Grave warning! Want to have hope? "We are losing!".

Doomers' crap

You showed that OP with his stupid motivator nice.

He made a mistake posting it.

^(/s)

>things happening that could not be explained without extra mass or energy

Of course there are ways to explain observations without extra exotic mass or energy, there are several of them including as simple ones as "we've just miscalculated the actual mass of the gas in the universe" to differences in constants through time and/or space. Possibility of different explanations is the whole point of this thread.

Sure, extra mass from exotic particles was the easiest knee-jerk explanation to additional gravitational pull, but it does not make it the right explanation, and decades later we still have no idea if that exotic matter/energy is even there, yet the name continues to confusingly assume it is, and articles that say "dark matter is real" are inherently confusing because they can mean "exotic unknown matter is real" or "observations discrepancies we labeled 'dark matter' are real". And authors know it but still do it for clicks.

San-Diego council voted on finally allowing more high and mid rises, which will be cheaper and will allow hispanic and black community to also buy them. Which is great news.

I wish titles spent more time informing about more important parts (new cheap housing in needed areas) rather than playing the racial virtue card to score some IRL karma-points.

It's actually not. Talk to specialist.

Again, happiness is a choice. If on one hand you want it, but on the other you can't seem to make yourself choose to view the world so it wold happen, consider talking to specialist, I'm not trying to be offensive.

No probs bud, you won't see me again.

That's false. I can imagine that electrons are little conscious demons with mass of electron and charge of electron. It will explain things right, but it will contain unnecessary and unproven assumptions.

That doesn't mean any scientific model is correct. I can make a model with gravitons to explain gravity, it doesn't mean they exist. Same with dark matter.

I don't know why you put so much stress on it, I was not in any way arguing or diminishing inconsistencies, I realize how they are very important.

I was arguing dark matter and dark energy are confusing and ultimately manipulative terms. Claiming inconsistency exists is one thing, claiming dark matter* exists is another. It would be like naming it "dark overlords" and claiming dark overlords now exist, without repeating all the time that there are no actual overlords, it's just a label.

Of course it is manipulative. Just like Tesla's "Full Self Driving" which is not fully self driving is manipulative. Words have meanings and contexts of their own, which was defined way before me, or the guy who coined Dark Matter, which is neither dark nor matter. Inventing context where black means white and claiming it's not confusing (and ultimately manipulative) is ridiculous.

I find articles talking about dark matter/energy to be manipulative, here is why.

If you read the article itself you'll find that those names were invented as merely labels for the inconsistencies in how Universe behaved. So yes dark energy "exists" because inconsistency exists, and dark energy is merely a label name for that inconsistency, but nothing more. It's not given nor claimed by scientists that it is proven to actually exist as energy.

The manipulative part is that the words used in those labels bear their own meaning. "Matter" means something objectively detectable made of physical particles which you're able to interact with. But we don't actually know if that's the case.

What is more concerning is statements like this:

>Perhaps dark matter will never be detected, apart from its gravitational effects. Even so, that would not be an argument against its existence

Saying that if we cannot detect something does not mean that something does not exist its basically Russell's teapot claim. It is very concerning to see that in an article that claims to be scientific.

• "New hospital, cool right, but when you remember that healthcare is cripplingly expensive it's depressing"
• "New school cool right, but when you remember that teachers are underpaid it's depressing"
• "New houses cool right, but when you remember few young people can afford houses it's depressing"
• "New festival cool right, but when you remember how many people go without enough food it's depressing."

If you want to find depressing element in anything, you will. I am trying my best, but one has to choose to be happy, to actually be happy.

>What’s it going to be in another 50 years?

In 1894 the Times predicted that “in 50 years, every street in London will be buried under nine feet of manure.”

It can be 5% worse or 15% better, or both, because life is not actually one-dimensional, so even when you write "everything is getting worse" it's not actually true, I just don't want to argue every word.

Sure. The point is: find local newspaper and read it daily. You would not believe how great it feels to find out that everything is not actually bad and getting worse, and how satisfying it is to learn news about things you know, pass on daily basis and actually care about.

People were learnt to think global since WW2 but this pendulum has swung too far.

50 years ago people knew what happens in their vicinity in details, in their country in general and in the world superficially.

Today people know what happens in every corner of the world on a daily basis.

Paired with natural proclivity for paying more attention to bad news, people now have convenient endless stream of bad news from all around the world. Something somewhere is always bad: something is flooding, burning, breaking, failing, dying.

No wonder that despite things are overall maybe 10% worse, people perceive them to be 120% worse.

No I don't, I am pretty mild to myself

Wow some actually get pulled over. Sweet.

Is it, though?

There are 21% of people under 18 in NJ which amounts to 1.85 million students.

Average tax bill is almost 10k, 2 households pay $20k per year on average. Take away police and fire and roads, and schools are getting around $15k per year from 2 households.

$15k/year is enough for an entry-level private school. 2 households should basically be providing enough through taxes for a single student private school per year.

There are 3.3 million households in NJ, the state as a whole should be collecting enough to pay entry-level private-school education for ~1.6 million students, or 85% of all students in NJ.

Do 85% of NJ public school students get entry-level private-school education? And if not, is it really worth every penny?

That's a pretty novel idea. I don't think anyone ever tried doing that in New Jersey

>I’ll have to sound like a broken record, but rights derive from reason.

Does not really sound like an explanation, because everything a person does is derived from reason (rational or irrational), rights included, which is pretty obvious to anyone who spent a minute thinking about it.

What the whole fuss is about is what right are "real" rights, and no amount of "reasoning" will resolve it, because there is no 'right' of 'wrong' rights.

Rights in society emerge from many people trying to impose those universal rules they believe in on others.

>Just because you do not consent to our criminal law regime doesn’t give one the right to commit crimes.

That's not how it is though. People casually disagree and change criminal law through disobeying it.

Say outlawing being a gay, and demanding "not to break the law" will not fly with people. They will definitely see it as a right to break it.

I am not an article author, all I said was that two things are not the same, but article argument does make sense to me, since even an executable file on a computer cannot be reduced to the states of bits on hard drive despite hard drive encapsulating it entirely.

>Can we reduce the wave to a single, immutable part? No

I'm glad we ended on the same page.

>The whole being the sum of its parts does not mean that the whole has features that are ... inexplicable in parts.

It can have features that are inexplicable in parts. Subatomic particles are a great example of that.