Bkk Brian

Donnie at it yet again, just can't keep his big mouth shut. Trump jabs at judge in election case, testing warning against ‘inflammatory’ statements Overnight, Trump called Chutkan ‘biased and unfair’ for comments during 2022 sentencing of Jan. 6 defendant. Donald Trump slammed the judge presiding over his newest criminal case early Monday, testing her three-day-old warning that he refrain from “inflammatory” attacks against those involved in his case. In a Truth Social post just before 1 a.m., Trump assailed U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan as “highly partisan” and “very biased and unfair,” citing as evidence a statement she made during the sentencing of a woman who participated in the mob that breached the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/14/trump-inflammatory-comments-judge-chutkan-00111041

The question of whether it was Hunters laptop is not really relevant, I think just about everyone knows it was including Hunter who is suing computer repair shop owner, alleging invasion of privacy in response to an ongoing defamation suit filed by the shop owner last year. The question is whether it was compromised and whether he had full control of the contents found on there because there is plenty of evidence that is not the case. Has Comers team carried out a full forensic analysis of the hard drive and have they published the results?

There's no reason why he could not have applied via the usual application process, that's what its there for and no country has been exempt. But then his word is about as credible as his statement that he had no intention of invading Ukraine, few days later, invasion.

Did you know Russia even tried to join NATO later, but were rejected? ???? There's a reason for that. He wanted special treatment. Putin wanted Russia to join Nato but did not want his country to have to go through the usual application process and stand in line “with a lot of countries that don’t matter”

The author does not have all the information but they do point out the inconsistencies in the forensics that even Marco Polo, headed by former Trump White House aide Garrett Ziegler published. At what point does it claim to be a product of the MAGA republicans?

4 weeks into the invasion: Zelensky: We won’t join NATO if that brings peace Now read up on Putin's Peter the Great Speech

Worth a read on the laptop analysis although its rather a deep dive: https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/07/18/wapo-is-suppressing-information-that-might-debunk-devlin-barretts-latest-spin/

I told you who you are, and yes wild threats. If Madonna or Kathy were posting on here I would probably respond to whoever they allegedly threatened.

"If the left want to avoid civil war they must get Garland and Wray out today and replace them with credible people" The resident Magadonian issuing his own wild threats. Read the article, its not talking about a civil war but lone acts by possibly mentally disturbed people or someone motivated by Trumps rhetoric.

The storming of the capitol was political persecution?

Its the highest levels of Carbon Dioxide for at least 2 million years not 10. There are a number of studies that have markers at 2 million years up, there are none that have it at 10 years up. Keep trolling

More than 1,000 people have been charged for federal crimes by the Department of Justice including 10 convictions for seditious conspiracy, so what was it then?

*Deleted post edited out* Is this guy funny as well, concentrations of Carbon dioxide are at the highest in at least 2 million years

There you go assuming I don't understand again. I understand what the facts tell us via evidence provided. I also understand that making predictions is variable as a direct result of policy actions taken in the future, solar activity is decreasing and the chart you referred to had the volcanic activity variables smoothed out. How Do We Know Climate Change Is Real? There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

I've already informed you why they are not exact because they are dependent on the outcomes of the policy makers.

Why? What's that got to do with policy makers decisions?

They do not control policy makers, this model is based predictions for the next 300 years based on what actions the policy makers put in place. The IPCC has no control over policy makers. That's the whole point of the report to give them the necessary information on what needs to be done and what will happen if they don't. IPCC report https://www.wri.org/insights/ipcc-climate-report

You give me one more chance? I'll ignore the idle remark and post the full graphic for you along with asking you, what do you find so strange, they have given different estimates based on how the world responds to climate change and what measures it puts in place. The SSP's differ due to policy decisions that will be taken by governments or not as the case may be.

Yes I read the link I just posted for you, that why I inserted in my post and he's correct the world is not going to end if it reaches an increase of 1.5%, your welcome. Regards the graph you posted earlier, its no longer in your post so its impossible to comment on it.

You can debate or troll, if you want to debate I'll be happy to do that, if you want to troll as above then carry on in your own little bubble

Of course he's optimistic, the main message from the IPCC report is to try and keep climate change below 1.5% increase with the policies its published. If the world can do that then its in a far better position to keep decreasing it but serious intervention is needed to achieve those targets and its impossible to say if all the worst polluting countries will contribute as they should. No one said the world would end. From the report: "Only with ambitious emissions cuts can the world keep global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C, the limit scientists say is necessary for preventing the worst climate impacts. Under a high-emissions scenario, the IPCC finds the world may warm by 4.4 degrees C by 2100 — with catastrophic results." Here's the English version of your link without paywall. https://www.dw.com/en/climate-change-do-not-overstate-15-degrees-threat/a-66386523 Still waiting for the link to your graphic by the way.

Article 4: FINANCIAL INVOLVEMENT IN DRUG AND PROSTITUTION I predict it'll go as far as MTG's impeachment filing a couple of months ago, that is, nowhere. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene introduces articles of impeachment against Biden You may also want to check up on: House Republicans are starting to realize that they don't have the votes to impeach Biden's Cabinet or even launch an official inquiry into the president.

Why the need for migration then? The UN International Organization for Migration has cited estimates of as many as 1 billion environmental migrants in the next 30 years, while more recent projections point to 1.2 billion by 2050, and 1.4 billion by 2060. Report on the Impact of Climate Change on Migration (October 2021)

So tell me, what is it I don't understand about science that makes you make such a false statement?

No please don't bother to explain it, just provide the link to that particular report or download pdf, the link I gave you is to the full report, that full report has hundreds of sub links, one of which you screen grabbed. While I wait here's a summary: