If you're watching what is happening, economically, in Germany, you should recognize two things:

0) The German economy is shrinking, due in part to previous administrations 'green' policies. Not that it matters greatly why the economy is shrinking, and there are other causes...

1) The last two times Germany fell into economic distress, war broke out in Europe. Leading us to...

2) We cannot discount the possibility that hot war in Europe could break out due to economic distress among EU states; consider the Russia-Ukraine war, possibly different causes, but similar goals.

As Germany retracts their welfare state, real violent revolution (and I use that term with some imprecision) could break out as migrant populations in Germany literally fight back.

This is not my view of what can or will happen in America. More likely, in the US the dislocation of entry-level white collar jobs will be minimized or solved by young 'recent' college graduates either redirecting their efforts to taking what work is available, or learning not-white-collar skills, either as needed to survive. Or, perhaps, they will revolt. Imagine an alliance between this disaffected people group being bypassed at their entry to the workforce and the people groups denied any access to work. You should know who they are.

Ugly, violent? I think there are other possibilities, new and unimagined technology work for instance, but that's only a hope. We need to scrape out the H1B holders.

There are two things missing, in order from governments to cut there Microsoft habit. (1) Stop the hookers-and-blow lobbying, whereby clueless bureaucrats are basically bribed to stay with Microsoft products. And (2) replacing or retraining the huge pile of sys-admins who know nothing but Microsoft products.

Trump "supporter" here, although I no longer live there. Trump's purpose is to be a bull in a china shop. The existing political structure in the US is moribund and, worse, completely corrupt.

Will Trump ultimately shake things up in a good way? Or perhaps the reactions to his chaos will improve things. No idea. But, honestly, he cannot make them any worse, so it's worth a try.

No, Amazon, "buy" does not imply that you can take it away again. That would be "license" or maybe "lease". Of course, the software world does the same thing, but at least you often see something like "buy a license".

Russia has always been dependent on other for much of their technology. However, they have immense mineral wealth that - with clever leadership - could be leveraged to make them wealthy and to build up their industry and technology.

Unfortunately, the past 15 years or so, it has become apparent that there is some inner clique of geezers who dream of the glory days of the USSR. Rather than investing their wealth, they are trying to retake the territories that used to be part of the USSR. The attack on the Ukraine was completely, absolutely idiotic. They have wasted a generation and impoverished themselves. Sure, "quantity has a quality all its own", so they will eventually "win" with a Pyrrhic victory. In doing so, they will have set Russia back by decades.

The absolutely fascinating question will come in a few years: Russia's next obvious targets are the Baltic countries. They are tiny, and geographically easy to attack. They are also full NATO members. Will Russia attack? Will NATO really defend?

I didn't claim there is a conspiracy. I don't trust many of those claiming a global climate change disaster is coming due to human activity. I distrust much of the temperature data, having studied it and much if what is claimed a reporting is in fact modeling, and the details of adjustments and changes to observational data worry me. And that's an old problem, well discussed.

Really, after decades of false claims of impending doom I don't listen to them. That most of them weren't qualified to make such predictions no longer matters to me, the movement jumped on board, and it's still suspect to me.

Do I oppose common sense changes that would address the movement's issues? No! Cleaner air and water are good, period. Telling me what to eat, where to live? Not so much. But using land for solar power is as senseless as growing good for fuel (ethanol, beyond pollution abatement needs*). Nuclear power is the best solution to electrical generation, bar none. Solar cannot satisfy the demand increase of charging electric vehicles at scale without consuming land unsupportably. Wind power is a worse loser than anything besides dirty coal, and worse things. Hydro should be looked at carefully, it's impact on habitat is worse that solar, and that's saying a lot.

Yes, if solar were deployed more creatively w could have a different discussion. But it's not. Yet.

As I wrote, we disagree. You couch your disagreement as exposing my fallacies. Good for you.

Much of the 'other data' is intended to demonstrate or prove the warming terms. As I understand it, atmospheric CO2 levels are assumed to cause warming, and so temperature measurements that indicate warming terms are coherent to CO2 measurements. And liberating CO2 via ice melt, forestry, and combustion, all these are assumed to increase CO2 levels, more temperature increases, more ice melt, population growth increasing other sources of liberated CO2, the cycle continues.

Yet I still question the temperature reporting. You must be aware of the dissenting data, showing high and low temp reporting to not match the news reporting of 'unprecedented heat waves', which seem to be equally episodic, with trends not matching the rhetoric.

Most of my sources are discredited by the majority scientific community, yet the questions raised aren't answered.

Ultimately, if your addition is that I either reject the confirming data without foundation, or that I ignore it so satisfy my beliefs, we are not going to come to consensus. Having been alerted to this in the 70s, I can recall numerous earnings of impending doom, all now failed to occur. And I pay closer attention to the movement and its language. 'Global Warming' is out. 'Climate Change' is in. Eliminating fossil fuel use isn't as important as general resource consumption.

I see a connection between socialist thought and climate alarmism. That draws my attention and I ponder it.

First, I question the temperature measurements for several reasons. One, measurement stations may be impacted by changes in their local environment. I haven't seen this being addressed. Second, the global temperature 'models' seem to require significant adjustments, which I question.

Bring that of course are root questions: are these changes exclusively or predominantly man-made? If not, we're taking at windmills. If so, second question, can we reverse the trend? And ancillary to that, if there is an underlying warming trend, should we submit to alter it, and can we influence it in a measurable way. But I question the temperature data most.

If you're buying retail licenses, then take your Windows 10 license, put it on your new hardware in accordance with the license terms, and upgrade it for free to Windows 11. Still not seeing how this is a cash grab on Microsoft's part.

First, I'll bet a lot of "resolved" issues are people just giving up. That's only "resolved" in the sense that the company doesn't have to deal with it.

Second, anyone who has spent any time in Germany ought to know about dialects. Only a tiny part of Germany speaks "pure" Hannover-style German. Someone from Bavaria is nearly incomprehensible to someone from near the Dutch border. Sure, many people can speak tone down their dialect, but many won't, and others (for example, elderly) cannot.

The AI bots are certainly not trained on all those dialects, whereas a human has probably - over time - been exposed to most of them. I really cannot see how this is going to work...

'real headway on reducing the root issue.'

Since you reference reducing the root issue ( prefer resolving, but hey), I assume you subscribe to the The Adams Law of Slow Moving Disasters... (now most often named slow-onset disasters).

Good for you. I suspect however that this is not helpful to the climate grifters who intend to profit from all this.

You left out the people who reject the theories of climate disaster (ought we term it 'anthropomorphic climate degradation' and agree we just don't like the change much, yet?) for whatever reasons. The impact being the same, the motivation doesn't seem the salient feature.

I personally don't trust the data, because I don't trust the proponents. But I don't need to subscribe to the theory to recognize climate changes. As in, our climate is not static over longer time frames. The most impactful problem is changes that come more quickly than we can (humans) adapt. And of course our reliance on a status quo to pursue our goals with a minimum of difficulty.

Our planet's climate will change. We have dealt with this. We will again. Watch.

"underestimated the role of melting ice sheets"

Antarctica is gaining ice, Greenland is gaining ice. Floating ice sheets are completely irrelevant to sea level (anyway, the Arctic is melting far more slowly than expected).

So...which ice sheets do they mean?

My personal experience with charts for long sets of data: Excel starts going slow after I cross the magic 16K lines threshold - LO Calc basically becomes unusable when I cross the magic 10K lines threshold. Delete few hundred lines - and performance is back. Put them back - and the slowness (Excel)/the unusableness (LO Calc) is back.

You Pseudolibs keep forgetting that Martin Luther King wasn't a Democrat and George Wallace wasn't a Republican.

(Me, I hate both parties... but the Fake Compassion Party keeps trying to make the Genuine Sociopathic Party look good - and that's saying something.)