I got yer mmgw proof of bs right here
-
There's no debate that it's happening, there's no debate that we're causing it to at least some degree. There should be debate about what we can do to stop it, followed by the adoption of policies putting those ideas in to plan as quickly as feasible. Chris
*********************************************************************************
Really? How about according to a Pew poll, only 40% say that we are causing mmgw.
How about 53% are sceptics. There is no debate about there being plenty of debate on the subject.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/26/poll-53-of-americans-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/
There's no debate that it's happening, there's no debate that we're causing it to at least some degree. There should be debate about what we can do to stop it, followed by the adoption of policies putting those ideas in to plan as quickly as feasible. Chris
*********************************************************************************
Really? How about according to a Pew poll, only 40% say that we are causing mmgw.
How about 53% are sceptics. There is no debate about there being plenty of debate on the subject.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/26/poll-53-of-americans-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/
53% of the ill-informed, media-driven public are sceptical (and that's more the number I was expecting than 1/4). Meanwhile, less than 3% of scientific papers are sceptical. We reached scientific consensus on this matter decades ago, and yet for some reason people are still claiming it's all up in the air.
What matters is what the overwhelming majority of science is saying, rather than what Donald Trump and the Daily Caller (or Huff Post, BBC or anything just to be clear) say.
-
I'm just saying you've changed the debate. The point, to me, is not whether or not global warming exists or whether or not man has an effect. I'm sure both are true. How much damage will it cause, how soon will it happen, how much is directly related to mankind and how to solve it have often been exaggerated.He's from Birmingham. I lived there for 4 years while at university - I used to love the place, but having moved to London, any time I go back there it seems to small.
To the point, yes, it's over the top journalism. But it does pretty much sum up how I feel about deniers, along with all those debates where it's represented as a 1-vs-1 opinion joust, where scientific views are split down the middle.
WSS
I'm just saying you've changed the debate. The point, to me, is not whether or not global warming exists or whether or not man has an effect. I'm sure both are true. How much damage will it cause, how soon will it happen, how much is directly related to mankind and how to solve it have often been exaggerated.
WSS
Over-exaggeration and over-sentimentalization in today's media and with the internet? I am sure that never happens
-
I'm just saying you've changed the debate. The point, to me, is not whether or not global warming exists or whether or not man has an effect. I'm sure both are true. How much damage will it cause, how soon will it happen, how much is directly related to mankind and how to solve it have often been exaggerated.
WSS
Over-exaggeration and over-sentimentalization in today's media and with the internet? I am sure that never happens
Over-exaggeration and over-sentimentalization in today's media and with the internet? I am sure that never happens
It happens all the time. I'm just telling the scientists that if they want the skeptics to buy in then they should be a little more, well, scientific.
If you are really worried about this you can't afford to cry wolf.
WSS
-
Over-exaggeration and over-sentimentalization in today's media and with the internet? I am sure that never happens
It happens all the time. I'm just telling the scientists that if they want the skeptics to buy in then they should be a little more, well, scientific.
If you are really worried about this you can't afford to cry wolf.
WSS
It happens all the time. I'm just telling the scientists that if they want the skeptics to buy in then they should be a little more, well, scientific.
If you are really worried about this you can't afford to cry wolf.
WSS
It's not the scientists that are proclaiming the end of the world, it's media outlets. They're annoying, but marginally less so than the opposite extreme because at least they're asking for things to be done
-
There's no debate that it's happening, there's no debate that we're causing it to at least some degree. There should be debate about what we can do to stop it, followed by the adoption of policies putting those ideas in to plan as quickly as feasible. Chris
*********************************************************************************
Really? How about according to a Pew poll, only 40% say that we are causing mmgw.
How about 53% are sceptics. There is no debate about there being plenty of debate on the subject.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/26/poll-53-of-americans-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/
53% of the ill-informed, media-driven public are sceptical (and that's more the number I was expecting than 1/4). Meanwhile, less than 3% of scientific papers are sceptical. We reached scientific consensus on this matter decades ago, and yet for some reason people are still claiming it's all up in the air.
What matters is what the overwhelming majority of science is saying, rather than what Donald Trump and the Daily Caller (or Huff Post, BBC or anything just to be clear) say.
53% of the ill-informed, media-driven public are sceptical (and that's more the number I was expecting than 1/4). Meanwhile, less than 3% of scientific papers are sceptical. We reached scientific consensus on this matter decades ago, and yet for some reason people are still claiming it's all up in the air.
What matters is what the overwhelming majority of science is saying, rather than what Donald Trump and the Daily Caller (or Huff Post, BBC or anything just to be clear) say.
If you're referring to that 97%...that myth was busted a long time ago by more sources than this one...
The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey
We’ve all been subjected to the incessant “97% of scientists agree …global warming…blah blah” meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by John Cook and his collection of “anything for the cause” zealots. As has been previously pointed out on WUWT, when you look at the methodology used to reach that number, the veracity of the result falls apart, badly. You see, it turns out that Cook simply employed his band of “Skeptical Science” (SkS) eco-zealots to rate papers, rather than letting all authors of the papers rate their own work (Note: many authors weren’t even contacted and their papers wrongly rated, see here). The result was that the “97% consensus” was a survey of the SkS raters beliefs and interpretations, rather than a survey of the authors opinions of their own science abstracts. Essentially it was pal-review by an activist group with a strong bias towards a particular outcome as demonstrated by the name “the consensus project”.
In short, it was a lie of omission enabled by a “pea and thimble” switch Steve McIntyre so often points out about climate science.
Most people who read the headlines touted by the unquestioning press had no idea that this was a collection of Skeptical Science raters opinions rather than the authors assessment of their own work. Readers of news stories had no idea they’d been lied to by John Cook et al².
So, while we’ll be fighting this lie for years, one very important bit of truth has emerged that will help put it into its proper place of propaganda, rather than science. A recent real survey conducted of American Meteorological Society members has blown Cook’s propaganda paper right out of the water.
The survey is titled:
Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members¹
Abstract
Meteorologists and other atmospheric science experts are playing important roles in helping society respond to climate change. However, members of this professional community are not unanimous in their views of climate change, and there has been tension among members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) who hold different views on the topic. In response, AMS created the Committee to Improve Climate Change Communication to explore and, to the extent possible, resolve these tensions. To support this committee, in January 2012 we surveyed all AMS members with known email addresses, achieving a 26.3% response rate (n=1,854). In this paper we tested four hypotheses: (1) perceived conflict about global warming will be negatively associated–and (2) climate expertise, (3) liberal political ideology, and (4) perceived scientific consensus will be positively associated–with (a) higher personal certainty that global warming is happening, (
viewing the global warming observed over the past 150 years as mostly human-caused, and 
perception of global warming as harmful. All four hypotheses were confirmed. Expertise, ideology, perceived consensus and perceived conflict were all independently related to respondents’ views on climate, with perceived consensus and political ideology being most strongly related. We suggest that AMS should: attempt to convey the widespread scientific agreement about climate change; acknowledge and explore the uncomfortable fact that political ideology influences the climate change views of meteorology professionals; refute the idea that those who do hold non-majority views just need to be “educated” about climate change; continue to deal with the conflict among members of the meteorology community.From the abstract, it is clear the authors didn’t expect to find this result, as they were likely expecting something close to the fabled 97%. They give this away when they advise in the abstract steps that can be taken to “correct” the low number reported.
The introduction says:
Research conducted to date with meteorologists and other atmospheric scientists has shown that they are not unanimous in their views of climate change. In a survey of earth scientists, Doran and Zimmerman (2009) found that while a majority of meteorologists surveyed are convinced humans have contributed to global warming (64%), this was a substantially smaller majority than that found among all earth scientists (82%). Another survey, by Farnsworth and Lichter (2009), found that 83% of meteorologists surveyed were convinced human-induced climate change is occurring, again a smaller majority than among experts in related areas such as ocean sciences (91%) and geophysics (88%).
So clearly, none of the work to date matches Cook’s pal reviewed activist effort.
The most important question in the AMS survey was done in two parts:
“Is global warming happening? If so, what is its cause?”
Respondent options were:
- Yes: Mostly human
- Yes: Equally human and natural
- Yes: Mostly natural
- Yes: Insufficient evidence [to determine cause]
- Yes: Don’t know cause
- Don’t know if global warming is happening
- Global warming is not happening
Here’s the kicker:
Just 52 percent of survey respondents answered Yes: Mostly human.
The other 48 percent either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause.
Here is table 1 from the paper which shows the entire population of respondents (click to enlarge):
Table 1. Meteorologists’ assessment of human-caused global warming by area and level of expertise. Figures are percentages rounded to the nearest whole number. Numbers in the bottom four rows represent percentage of respondents giving each possible response to the follow-up email question, including non-response to the email (labeled “insufficient evidence – unknown”). These responses together add to the same number as displayed in the insufficient evidence (total) row; some differences occur due to rounding. Similarly, columns total to 100% if all numbers except those in the bottom four rows are added, and differences from 100 are due to rounding. Although 1854 people completed some portion of the survey, this table only displays the results for 1821 respondents, since 33 (less than 2% of the sample) did not answer one or more of the questions on expertise and global warming causation.
Note the difference between those who cite some climate publications and those who don’t. People are often most convinced of their own work, while others looking in from the outside, not so much. As we know, the number of “climate scientists” versus others tends to be a smaller clique.
Dr.. Judith Curry writes:
Look at the views in column 1, then look at the % in the rightmost column: 52% state the the warming since 1850 is mostly anthropogenic. One common categorization would categorize the other 48% as ‘deniers’.So, the inconvenient truth here is that about half of the world’s largest organization of meteorological and climate professionals don’t think humans are “mostly” the cause of Anthropogenic Global Warming the rest will probably get smeared as “deniers”
That’s a long way from Cook’s “97% consensus” lie.
References:
[1] Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1 http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1
[2] Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
-
It happens all the time. I'm just telling the scientists that if they want the skeptics to buy in then they should be a little more, well, scientific.
If you are really worried about this you can't afford to cry wolf.
WSS
It's not the scientists that are proclaiming the end of the world, it's media outlets. They're annoying, but marginally less so than the opposite extreme because at least they're asking for things to be done
It's not the scientists that are proclaiming the end of the world, it's media outlets. They're annoying, but marginally less so than the opposite extreme because at least they're asking for things to be done
And some politicians..
-
OK first, there's no need to copy and paste articles, people are perfectly capable of clicking a link. It just clogs up the thread and people skip over it. Post key points if you like, but by posting the whole thing you're just going to get people ignoring it.
On to the report itself, this is basically an opinion poll of a group of american scientists. And guess what, I just joined it! Not actually, I'm not going to pay their dues, but I could easily join, even though I listed some random street I made up with the zip code 90210, and listed some bogus university. Not saying any or all of the members did that, but it's open to wide abuse - if I wanted, I could arrange for thousands of people to flood that group, arrange for a new survey and skew the results in my favour.
As for the 'fabled' 97%, it isn't an opinion poll, like your 'myth buster' above. It comes from examining the conclusions of all papers published over a twenty year period - that's about 12,000 papers* whose specific focus is global warming/climate change etc. - and determining whether they conclude that mankind has an impact.
Feel free to look it up yourself on the link I provided, but I'l give you the key numbers. About one third (33.6%) of papers took a stance on whether humans impacted global warming, the rest were just examining the effects. Of the whole group, 32.6% concluded that humans have had an impact, while 0.7% rejected the idea, and 0.3% proclaimed there is not enough information.
So that is, of all papers* who took a stance on whether global warming has been caused by mankind, 97% agreed that it was, 2% said it was not, and 1% thinks we can't be sure.
Myth buster? Myth buster busted.
-
And some politicians..
Unfortunately it does matter what they think. It shouldn't, though, they should be listening to the science.
-
It happens all the time. I'm just telling the scientists that if they want the skeptics to buy in then they should be a little more, well, scientific.
If you are really worried about this you can't afford to cry wolf.
WSS
It's not the scientists that are proclaiming the end of the world, it's media outlets. They're annoying, but marginally less so than the opposite extreme because at least they're asking for things to be done
It's not the scientists that are proclaiming the end of the world, it's media outlets. They're annoying, but marginally less so than the opposite extreme because at least they're asking for things to be done
But things are being done, Chris. Everyday we are searching for new and better ways to produce energy and that endeavor is coming along.
And the alarmists have to get their information from somewhere, no? There are certainly scientists you think the situation is dire. And that's what the media likes to report on, a crisis! So which of the scientists are more likely to get airtime and attention the people who fund these things? I would guess it would be the guys on the fringe. The crisis guys.
But if the current level of co2 is destructive then it stands to reason we have to reduce that. incrementally slowing the growth in emissions isn't an option, right?
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
It's not the scientists that are proclaiming the end of the world, it's media outlets. They're annoying, but marginally less so than the opposite extreme because at least they're asking for things to be done
But things are being done, Chris. Everyday we are searching for new and better ways to produce energy and that endeavor is coming along.
And the alarmists have to get their information from somewhere, no? There are certainly scientists you think the situation is dire. And that's what the media likes to report on, a crisis! So which of the scientists are more likely to get airtime and attention the people who fund these things? I would guess it would be the guys on the fringe. The crisis guys.
But if the current level of co2 is destructive then it stands to reason we have to reduce that. incrementally slowing the growth in emissions isn't an option, right?
WSS
But things are being done, Chris. Everyday we are searching for new and better ways to produce energy and that endeavor is coming along.
And the alarmists have to get their information from somewhere, no? There are certainly scientists you think the situation is dire. And that's what the media likes to report on, a crisis! So which of the scientists are more likely to get airtime and attention the people who fund these things? I would guess it would be the guys on the fringe. The crisis guys.
But if the current level of co2 is destructive then it stands to reason we have to reduce that. incrementally slowing the growth in emissions isn't an option, right?
WSS
Slowing the growth of emissions with aims to reduce it is possible - immediately reducing it is not.
-
First of all, people are stupid. The public's opinion should really have no bearing on a scientific issue. Why should we treat the opinion of Bubba, who never graduated high school, the same as an established scientist. Or hell, what about someone with an engineering degree or hard science degree vs a women's study major or some other humanities. I'm not talking about issues that can fall to people's opinions. Economic issues, foreign policy, etc could fit there. I'm talking about issues completely based around science and have scientific solutions. The publics opinion should not matter in determining the issues legitimacy (though it would in his solutions are implemented).
I definitely think this is a major flaw in democracy. Giving everyone an equal vote when they necessarily don't have an equal understanding. To be clear, I'm not saying I'd have 100% understanding on everything either. I'd want someone that does to be weighted higher than myself. This all goes back to my desire for a test to weight everyone's votes.
Also, meteorologists study weather, not the climate. Your local weatherman is no where near as reputable as a published climatologist when comes to climate change.
Not to mention your study had 6 times as many responses from those who specialize in "science" vs those that specialize in climate. Also, the largest group in that study are the "science" guys that are unpublished. Both of these figures greatly contribute to the final number of 52%
-
It's not the scientists that are proclaiming the end of the world, it's media outlets. They're annoying, but marginally less so than the opposite extreme because at least they're asking for things to be done
But things are being done, Chris. Everyday we are searching for new and better ways to produce energy and that endeavor is coming along.
And the alarmists have to get their information from somewhere, no? There are certainly scientists you think the situation is dire. And that's what the media likes to report on, a crisis! So which of the scientists are more likely to get airtime and attention the people who fund these things? I would guess it would be the guys on the fringe. The crisis guys.
But if the current level of co2 is destructive then it stands to reason we have to reduce that. incrementally slowing the growth in emissions isn't an option, right?
WSS
But things are being done, Chris. Everyday we are searching for new and better ways to produce energy and that endeavor is coming along.
And the alarmists have to get their information from somewhere, no? There are certainly scientists you think the situation is dire. And that's what the media likes to report on, a crisis! So which of the scientists are more likely to get airtime and attention the people who fund these things? I would guess it would be the guys on the fringe. The crisis guys.
But if the current level of co2 is destructive then it stands to reason we have to reduce that. incrementally slowing the growth in emissions isn't an option, right?
WSS
Again, who are the "alarmists"? Like I asked earlier in the thread, can you find a legitimate scientific study you think is alarmist?
-
But things are being done, Chris. Everyday we are searching for new and better ways to produce energy and that endeavor is coming along.
And the alarmists have to get their information from somewhere, no? There are certainly scientists you think the situation is dire. And that's what the media likes to report on, a crisis! So which of the scientists are more likely to get airtime and attention the people who fund these things? I would guess it would be the guys on the fringe. The crisis guys.
But if the current level of co2 is destructive then it stands to reason we have to reduce that. incrementally slowing the growth in emissions isn't an option, right?
WSS
Again, who are the "alarmists"? Like I asked earlier in the thread, can you find a legitimate scientific study you think is alarmist?
All the folks who wrote the studies that Heck posted when he was here claiming that with in a time frame as short as possibly 6 years devastating effects would occur with no way to stop them.Again, who are the "alarmists"? Like I asked earlier in the thread, can you find a legitimate scientific study you think is alarmist?
If you have no fear of worldwide disaster then fine.
If you believe that we are currently doing enough research into more viable means of energy fine.
If you believe that we need do nothing more than reduce the growth of co2 emissions fine.
Still if you believe, as Chris seems to, that reducing the amount is probably a pipe dream then let me ask you this. What are the ramifications on a scale of one to ten? 0 meaning no change whatsoever and 10 metaphysical disaster.
WSS
-
All the folks who wrote the studies that Heck posted when he was here claiming that with in a time frame as short as possibly 6 years devastating effects would occur with no way to stop them.Again, who are the "alarmists"? Like I asked earlier in the thread, can you find a legitimate scientific study you think is alarmist?
If you have no fear of worldwide disaster then fine.
If you believe that we are currently doing enough research into more viable means of energy fine.
If you believe that we need do nothing more than reduce the growth of co2 emissions fine.
Still if you believe, as Chris seems to, that reducing the amount is probably a pipe dream then let me ask you this. What are the ramifications on a scale of one to ten? 0 meaning no change whatsoever and 10 metaphysical disaster.
WSS
All the folks who wrote the studies that Heck posted when he was here claiming that with in a time frame as short as possibly 6 years devastating effects would occur with no way to stop them.
If you have no fear of worldwide disaster then fine.
If you believe that we are currently doing enough research into more viable means of energy fine.
If you believe that we need do nothing more then reduce the growth of co2 emissions fine.
Still if you believe, as Chris seems too, that reducing the amount is probably a pipe dream then let me ask you this. What are the ramifications on a scale of one to ten? 0 meaning no change whatsoever and 10 metaphysical disaster.
WSS
Pipe dream? No. Stuff is being done. If you reduce the increase by a steady amount each year you eventually reduce the amount itself. In technical terms you're looking at the second order derivative, ensuring that it's negative, and if that's the case, then assuming it's sufficiently large negative, then we're on track.
I don't know if it is, I'm not a climatologist...
-
Well great Chris. Are we in big trouble or not?
WSS
-
PS we aren't talking about reducing the amount. We are talking about reducing the amount of growth.
Kinda like the American political version of cutting programs. We don't actually cut the programs we cut the projected growth and those who want the programs say they are being slashed. Yet the expenditure continues to rise. If we are only cutting the growth of dangerous emissions by a few percent... Well you understand.
WSS
-
PS we aren't talking about reducing the amount. We are talking about reducing the amount of growth.
Kinda like the American political version of cutting programs. We don't actually cut the programs we cut the projected growth and those who want the programs say they are being slashed. Yet the expenditure continues to rise. If we are only cutting the growth of dangerous emissions by a few percent... Well you understand.
WSS
PS we aren't talking about reducing the amount. We are talking about reducing the amount of growth.
Kinda like the American political version of cutting programs. We don't actually cut the programs we cut the projected growth why if you want and those who want the programs say they are being slashed. If we are only cutting the growth of dangerous emissions by a few percent... Well you understand.
WSS
I know exactly what we're talking about.
-
All the folks who wrote the studies that Heck posted when he was here claiming that with in a time frame as short as possibly 6 years devastating effects would occur with no way to stop them.
If you have no fear of worldwide disaster then fine.
If you believe that we are currently doing enough research into more viable means of energy fine.
If you believe that we need do nothing more then reduce the growth of co2 emissions fine.
Still if you believe, as Chris seems too, that reducing the amount is probably a pipe dream then let me ask you this. What are the ramifications on a scale of one to ten? 0 meaning no change whatsoever and 10 metaphysical disaster.
WSS
Pipe dream? No. Stuff is being done. If you reduce the increase by a steady amount each year you eventually reduce the amount itself. In technical terms you're looking at the second order derivative, ensuring that it's negative, and if that's the case, then assuming it's sufficiently large negative, then we're on track.
I don't know if it is, I'm not a climatologist...
Pipe dream? No. Stuff is being done. If you reduce the increase by a steady amount each year you eventually reduce the amount itself. In technical terms you're looking at the second order derivative, ensuring that it's negative, and if that's the case, then assuming it's sufficiently large negative, then we're on track.
I don't know if it is, I'm not a climatologist...
Second order derivative? Awesome. I'm down to talk math. Math is my shit, lol.
-
Pipe dream? No. Stuff is being done. If you reduce the increase by a steady amount each year you eventually reduce the amount itself. In technical terms you're looking at the second order derivative, ensuring that it's negative, and if that's the case, then assuming it's sufficiently large negative, then we're on track.
I don't know if it is, I'm not a climatologist...
Second order derivative? Awesome. I'm down to talk math. Math is my shit, lol.
Second order derivative? Awesome. I'm down to talk math. Math is my shit, lol.
You're an engineer. In order of 'dirtiness' of field, you're up there with biologists.
-
OK first, there's no need to copy and paste articles, people are perfectly capable of clicking a link. It just clogs up the thread and people skip over it. Post key points if you like, but by posting the whole thing you're just going to get people ignoring it. Chris
**********************************************
You are almost correct - but the problem is, links to the contrary are ignored so the mmgw bitcher can'
simply reinterate blather.
The "97 percent" is nonsense. Thousands and thousands of scientists have petitioned that their names
be deleted from the IPCC report....that was CHANGED after they signed it. That is dishonest manipulation of the
facts. You simply take out the parts that show common sense explanations and tentative questions to be answered,
and voila ! you have a declaration that we are all going to die on a fried planet if we don't allow ourselves
to be taxed out our wazoos, vote for liberals, and let them control every freakin thing we ever decide or do,
how we live, everything.
That's bullcrap. Chris - I've already posted about 37,000 scientists who petitioned that their names
be DELETED from that report that was censored enough to be alarmist after all those groups signed on to it.
It's a scandal, just like the fraud studies - Tree Ring, and the bs graph, Hockey Stick. And the email scandal
that clearly showed dishonesty and bias over mmgw controversy.
The next time I post that link, I'll just also post the entire article, because apparently, in lib land, it's all too
easy to avoid clicking the link on purpose, when you know it's not going fit your lib agenda.
You can take that bs 97 percent and shove it. It's a lie.
It's political theater. Otherwise, the scientists would at least once, would talk about the destruction
of our world's virgin rainforests, and even over-development of our forests and green spaces in general
around the world.
What stupidass "scientist" would claim that CO2 is a poison that kills plants?
Not one, I think. Not an honest one.
Is a rising rate of CO2 concerning? sure. But going after cows farting, and suv's, and gloating that
it's a democrat liberal cause etc...
is bogus. CO2 is rising, and we have been cooling. Liberal scientists are dumbfounded? I doubt it.
I'm sure they understand that plant life on this planet uses CO2 in the photosynthesis process.
But too many have been happy to go bs science to manipulate data and studies to show that
liberal politicians should have more power to tax more ,fine more, and control more of everything
because they are....liberal, too.
Just once, Chris, leave liberal land and admit that the correlation of sun spot activity and global temps
is a very serious, pertinent, interesting study. I've posted those graphs in the past. Perhaps you quickly refused to click the link
explaining them again.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login