It's hard to know what is "best", but I think we can figure out what is "worst".

Building walls of sufficient height and strength isn't very practical, especially for countries like Bangladesh. To where would those people be relocated?

Those actions aren't really mitigation, they're adaptation - akin to going on supplemental oxygen instead of quitting smoking.

Much sea level rise came from the melting of the great ice sheets, more sea level rise is expected (and has been observed) due to the melting of Antarctica, Greenland, and other land ice (also observed).

That the former wasn't caused by us doesn't preclude the latter from being caused by us.

I see you're a big Broncos fan and so objective reason can't be applied to your opinions.

Thanks for them in any instance.

From what I've read of ticket and concession prices, many NFL teams are pricing attending their games out of the reach of many folks. Seems to me that with the average NFL team being valued in excess of one billion dollars, the team owners could afford to fund the facilities their teams require. Not all sports teams have gone to taxpayers to fund their needs, so it can be done. IIRC, the Pepsi Center was built without a special tax.

Parks aren't run on a for-profit basis, so the analogy isn't a good one.

There are many places that have a good "quality of life" that don't have sports teams or subsidized sports team facilities. There are many ways one can be entertained (which is what professional sports is at its core) and those entertainment dollars are highly transferable. Los Angeles doesn't have an NFL team (not coincidentally) and they certainly don't lack for entertainment options.

I'm not a sports fan particularly, so the existence or not of professional sports is of no import to me, but I do not think it's a good use of taxpayer dollars to subsidize multibillion-dollar businesses, which is what the NFL, MLB, and NBA are.

All citizens are free to use parks, the same cannot be said for professional sports facilities. Add in the agreements that almost always give nearly all revenue from these facilities to the respective team owners, and it's pretty clear to me that these subsidies aren't fair or reasonable. The other issue is that for the NFL and NBA specifically, colleges and universities serve as developmental leagues for them, which isn't really what they're for. MLB has its own farm system for potential players, so there's no intrinsic reason the NFL and NBA couldn't do the same.

I've read extensively on the issue of taxpayer subsidy of professional sports teams via the construction of facilities, and nothing I've read provides evidence that such things are financially wise.

Do you have references or other evidence for the appropriateness of what amounts to little more than corporate welfare?

Thanks.

Your statements don't match well with what I've read of taxpayer subsidization of sports stadiums and arenas.

I recommend watching John Oliver on this subject. He does a good job explaining the issue.

Perhaps an analogy might suffice.

Weather prediction is like predicting what a football team does on its next play by observing how the offensive players are lining up at the line of scrimmage. Sure, you can note the current score, which has some influence on the play selection, but for the upcoming play, it was a limited influence.

What this article is discussing is something like predicting the 2nd half of an entire game at halftime, in which the current score is more important. If one team is far behind, it makes it likely that they'll pass much more than the team which is ahead, which will likely run much more. That doesn't mean every play from the behind team will be a pass.

What you claim is really "unsettled" science is more like predicting an entire season of games and the final standings. Specific plays and specific scores at various points aren't that important, what matters is player skill, coaching, player mental and physical preparedness, the qualities of each opponent, and so on. What happens during a single play, single quarter, or even an entire game has some small influence on how one predicts how a team does, but not that much.

Do you get what I mean? One can have some uncertain predictions of how this coming winter will play out in Boulder county in terms of heavy snow events, but that doesn't mean that somehow that uncertainty means manmade climate change is equally uncertain.

Getting the score of a single football game wrong (or right) doesn't mean that the prediction that the team that overall is better has a better chance of winning the Super Bowl is wrong too. The factors one considers are related, but different, in each case.

Does that make sense?

That's typically how predictions are phrased. Why is that worthy of comment?