Bkk Brian

So you know and yet ask me................. Be my guest, go ahead and list them all.

Not the fossil fuel industry, who do you think funds them?

The CO2 Coalition is a successor to the George C. Marshall Institute, a think tank focusing on defense and climate issues which closed in 2015 (The think tank received extensive financial support from the fossil fuel industry.[3]). William O'Keefe, a chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute and former CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, continued as CEO of the CO2 Coalition You obviously don't look at who funds them

Pure deflection and as pointed out numerous times that is the whole point of the IPCC reports for policy makers to introduce measures. Like you say "using virtually every day necessities" until those indispensable everyday things are replaced with climate friendly alternatives we have no choice. Its happening now, you may remember the ozone layer holes, well that's on its way to a remarkable success due to policies that were initiated: On track to full recovery The ozone layer is on track to recover within four decades, with the global phaseout of ozone-depleting chemicals already benefitting efforts to mitigate climate change. If current policies remain in place, the ozone layer is expected to recover to 1980 values (before the appearance of the ozone hole) by around 2066 over the Antarctic, by 2045 over the Arctic and by 2040 for the rest of the world. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/ozone-layer-recovery-track-helping-avoid-global-warming-05degc

It's still B.S no matter how you wrap up your hypocrisy.

A blog link that references a debunked claim from https://joannenova.com.au/ who self-published[8] the book The Skeptics Handbook, which rejects the scientific consensus on climate change and promotes various falsehoods about climate change.[11] The book argues that temperatures have not increased, and that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change.[11][5] The book promotes the myth that there is already so much CO2 in the atmosphere that adding more will not have an impact on temperatures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanne_Nova

I detect B.S.

I took that as pure projection from his part. Total nonsense

Well I'm not sure that was his point at all, so I'll wait for him to articulate it. Unlike you I don't have a crystal ball so can't predict whether it would take millions of years to get to that stage again, we do know that only around some 3 million years ago, sea levels were around 30 feet higher (but possibly much more). The Pliocene was a significantly warmer world, likely at some 5 degrees Fahrenheit (around 3 degrees Celsius) warmer than pre-Industrial temperatures of the late 1800s. Much of the Arctic, which today is largely clad in ice, had melted. Heat-trapping carbon dioxide levels, a major temperature lever, hovered around 400 parts per million, or ppm. Today, these levels are similar but relentlessly rising, at some 418 ppm. We also know that the IPCC wants to target a 1.5% increase only and that can only be achieved with rigorous intervention by policy makers. The IPCC also spells out what the world would be like if it warmed by 4 degrees Celsius, which is what scientists are nearly unanimously predicting will happen by the end of the century if no significant policy changes are undertaken. The current warming trend is much more rapid than any natural climate change that has occurred in the past. https://www.wri.org/insights/ipcc-climate-report

Yes perhaps do some further reading, ankle bracelets are often used to detect house arrest violations

542 million to 485.4 million years ago There were no humans to worry about then, what's your point?

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly 10 times faster than the average rate of warming after an ice age. Carbon dioxide from human activities is increasing about 250 times faster than it did from natural sources after the last Ice Age.3 https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

If there are people out there that believe the debunked anti climate studies out there which claim the current global warming is due to natural cycles then more fool you. They are funded mainly by ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Shell. Along with Conservative think tanks who often receive funding from fossil fuel companies. Rich donors with ties to the fossil fuel industry have also donated millions of dollars to climate denial groups. Including Koch brothers, Richard Mellon Scaife, and David H. Koch

Interesting. Trumps bond details to be discussed next week. Trump attorneys, Fulton County DA expected to meet next week: Sources Attorneys for former President Donald Trump are expected to meet early next week with the Fulton County district attorney's office in order to negotiate terms of the bond package for the former president following this indictment last Monday, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News. The meeting between Willis and Trump's attorneys is expected to occur prior to any surrender by Trump at the Fulton County Jail. A spokesperson for Trump did not respond to ABC News' request for comment. https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-attorneys-fulton-county-da-expected-meet-week/story?id=102369420

So why is CO2 increasing and solar activity decreasing? https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/

You need to do much better than that. Nobel Prize laureate Professor Ivar Giaever was an engineer, nothing to do with climate and he's since joined the The Heartland Institute. "an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific consensus on climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking. Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris throughout the 1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and lobby against smoking bans. Since the 2000s, the Heartland Institute has been a leading promoter of climate change denial." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute The website you link to Clintel: "CLINTEL, established in September of this year, was founded by Guus Berkhout, an engineer who has spent much of his career working in the oil and gas industry. Not only is he not a climate scientist, but he clearly has an interest in halting any laws dedicated to reducing emissions." https://www.smdailyjournal.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/clintel-s-bias/article_e82306ce-f52f-11e9-b6a9-73955f921ab5.html As to the actual pdf download, its a one page letter with zero substance and non credible claims. "The claims contradict or misrepresent the evidence uncovered by geoscientists, failing to provide support for its conclusions downplaying the threat of climate change. The letter claims, for example, that climate models ignore the benefits of increased CO2 on plant growth. This is false, as many climate models simulate the response of vegetation to increased CO2—and the climate change it causes. And while some outlets described the co-signers as experts in climate science, most are not. As noted in an analysis below, a significant portion of the co-signers are either engineers or professionals in non-technical fields. Only 10 identified themselves as climate scientists. Similar letters have sought to establish credibility with large numbers of co-signers in the past, but evidence is what counts in science." https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/letter-signed-by-500-scientists-relies-on-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science/

Not the first time and won't be the last that ricin is sent, thankfully there are good security procedures in place to detect any suspicious substances in the mail to the White House including a facility that samples the air for suspicious substances. In 2013, a Mississippi man sent letters containing ricin to President Barack Obama a year later, Shannon Richardson, an actress, was sentenced to 18 years in federal prison for mailing letters laced with ricin in May 2013 to multiple people, including Mr. Obama

Of course he's a coward, through and through. Just after that announcement he followed up with a post saying he was definitely not going to attend the primaries. Referencing his High Intelligence....lol He's also not happy with FOX news with some of the photos they publish of him, "especially the big ‘orange’ one with my chin pulled way back" Trump knocks ‘Fox & Friends’ as debate decision looms “Why doesn’t Fox and Friends show all of the Polls where I am beating Biden, by a lot. They just won’t do it,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social website. The former president also took issue with the way the network was portraying him physically. “They purposely show the absolutely worst pictures of me, especially the big ‘orange’ one with my chin pulled way back. They think they are getting away with something, they’re not,” he said. “Just like 2016 all over again…And then they want me to debate!” https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4156612-trump-knocks-fox-friends-debate-decision-looms/

There's going to be a simple reply to this from the judge.....................NO Trump's legal team seeks to delay federal election interference trial until 2026 WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump, the front-runner in polls for the 2024 Republican nomination, is seeking to delay his federal trial on charges related to his efforts to stop the peaceful transfer of power and retain the White House following his 2020 election loss. In a court filing Thursday, Trump's attorneys recommended starting the trial in April 2026, more than two years after prosecutors are seeking to get the trial underway. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-lawyers-seeks-delay-federal-election-trial-2026-rcna100062

What report? He's already called it off....lol I suspect his attorneys told him they didn't want their case aired for all to see. https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110907680862750579

Yet Wiess and Hunter Biden’s attorneys also clashed over whether the agreement would protect the president’s son from additional charges in the future. At one point, Weiss said the investigation into Hunter Biden was ongoing, but he would not share details on the inquiry. It was not just the judge but also a dispute with the prosecutors and Hunters attorneys.

I have an account with ChatGPT with the latest version, that was not the point of my post. I'm also aware there are hundreds of versions of AI assisted software that have been programmed for specific tasks. As I said, in my limited experience, for up to date results on news and other matters the web connected portals are far better. ChatGPT is not internet connected.

One thing to remember here is that Chatgpt is not connected to the internet. The version used on this forum is also old data and does not give the full responses. In my limited research into AI there are far better alternatives such as the Bing inbuilt version or Google's Bard, both those have up to date results and give far more information. For example here is the question I asked Bing and the returned reply that also comes with links although those are not formatted in my copy and paste below. "the case against climate change" The case against climate change is a controversial topic that has been debated by scientists, politicians, and activists for decades. There are different arguments and evidence that are used to support or refute the idea that human activities are causing global warming and its consequences. Here are some of the main points from both sides of the debate, based on the web search results I found: -For climate change: There is a conclusive body of evidence to support the existence of manmade climate change, based on observations, measurements, and computer models. The main arguments are: -The Earth’s temperature has risen rapidly and unprecedentedly in the past few decades, especially since the industrial revolution123. -he increase in temperature is correlated with the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide and methane, from human activities such as burning fossil fuels123. -The chemical signature of the gases in the atmosphere shows that they are not all natural, but partly due to human influence12. -The natural factors that affect the climate, such as solar radiation and volcanic eruptions, cannot explain the observed warming without taking into account the human-induced greenhouse gases123. -The climate models that include both natural and anthropogenic factors fit well with the observed data, while those that exclude human influence do not123. -The impacts of climate change are already visible and harmful, such as melting ice caps, rising sea levels, extreme weather events, biodiversity loss, and human health risks123. Against climate change: There is no conclusive evidence to support the existence of manmade climate change, and the claims are based on exaggerated or flawed data and models. The main arguments are: -The Earth’s temperature has always fluctuated naturally over long periods of time, and the current warming is not unusual or unprecedented4. -The increase in greenhouse gas emissions is not the main cause of the warming, but rather a result of natural variations in the climate system4. -The chemical signature of the gases in the atmosphere is not reliable or accurate, and there are other sources of greenhouse gases besides human activities4. -The natural factors that affect the climate, such as solar radiation and volcanic eruptions, have a larger and more complex influence than human-induced greenhouse gases4. -The climate models that include human influence are biased or inaccurate, and do not account for all the uncertainties and feedbacks in the climate system4. -The impacts of climate change are not as severe or certain as claimed, and there are also benefits or opportunities from a warmer climate4. -As you can see, there are different perspectives and interpretations of the same data and phenomena. I hope this summary helps you understand some of the main arguments for and against climate change. If you want to learn more, you can check out the web search results I used to create this response. ????

No need for a trial if he breaks the conditions of his release. That's what this topic is about.