placeholder

Whats's clear is that when it's demonstrated that you haven't got a clue about the facts, you retreat to metaphysical gobbledygook instead. Let's review your history when it comes to dealing with reality. I had pointed out that about 1/3 of the atmosphere is composed of CO2 linked to the burning of fossil fuels. We know this because of the reduced percentage of carbon 14 in the atmosphere. Because fossil fuels have been sequestered for millions of years they contain virtually no carbon 14. So when the carbon in them is burned and turns to CO2, the percentage of Carbon 14 is reduced. Someone would have to be seriously in denial to ignore the basic nuclear physics of this. Someone like you. You claimed that only 10% of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the burning of fossil fuels. And to back up your claim, you posted a link to an article that you believed supported your claim but said nothing of the sort. Here's what you wrote on page 23 of this thread in rebuttal: It's clear you got it massively wrong "Clear your web browser from all the garbage it’s collected because it’s directing you to what you assume what is instead of what is. The mathematics of leaf decay - MIT News In fact, the natural decay of organic carbon contributes more than 90 percent of the yearly carbon dioxide released into Earth's atmosphere and oceans. https://news.mit.edu/2012/leaf-decay-1004" You repeatedly assert the importance of keeping an open mind. Yet, when faced with overwhelming evidence, you clung to your beliefs instead. So attached to those beliefs, that you invoked an irrelevant scientific study in the belief that it supported your claims.

It's another example of BIG GREEN against small oil, tiny gas, and miniscule coal. It's just not Fair!

This is from the article linked to your first link: "The plaintiff, Dane Wigington, runs a website called GeoEngineering Watch, which is dedicated to exposing “global climate engineering,” or using technologies to alter weather systems. Wigington made a conspiracy theory-filled documentary, called “The Dimming,” on the same topic. Among its claims is that condensation trails behind airplanes were actually dangerous chemicals being disbursed by the government to alleviate global warming." He's not a loon. No way. No how. As for the fate of that deranged lawsuit: "California Federal Court Dismissed Defamation Case Against Climate Scientist Fact Checker. The federal district court for the Eastern District of California granted a climate scientist’s motion to dismiss a defamation action brought by a plaintiff who published a documentary on YouTube and Facebook promoting his belief that there “has been an intentional effort to dim direct sunlight through aircraft-dispersed particles.” In a third-party fact checker’s review of the documentary, the defendant climate scientist referred to the documentary’s claims as “pure fantasy.” The court concluded it did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant, who was a senior research associate at Cornell University in New York. The court also granted the defendant’s special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law and awarded the defendant fees and costs." http://climatecasechart.com/case/wigington-v-macmartin/ As for the second link. here's how the court decided on Stossel's case: Stossel v. Meta Platforms, Inc. "Federal Court Dismissed Defamation Claim Arising from Fact-Checking of Climate Change Videos on Facebook. In a defamation lawsuit concerning labels placed on climate change-related videos on Facebook, the federal district court for the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice the plaintiff journalist’s defamation claim against both Meta Platforms, Inc. and a non-profit fact-checking organization... The court also granted the defendants’ motion to strike pursuant to California’s anti-Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation law, finding that the statements at issue qualified as protected activity under the law because they were made in a public forum and concerned a matter of public interest." https://climatecasechart.com/case/stossel-v-facebook-inc/ https://climatecasechart.com/case/stossel-v-facebook-inc/

And the eating of falafel in public should be banned.

Take it up with the mods.

Not everyone.. I've stated the reasons why I consider you an extreme right winger. And hyperbolic statements like the one you just made only serve to further convince me that I've categorized you correctly

Dictating to my mobile I didn't check. Hanaguma

My apologies. I'm on a mobile right now and it's not convenient to go back and check who said what. That said my objections to the article from that news source stand. That article claimed it was based on something from Forbes which was false. So I trust them?

What is this got to do with panagama's claim about the motives of the parents?

Well, for one thing that article claim to get its information from Forbes. And for another it has an established and long track record. Whereas the website you quoted seems to have very little to dowith the news and misrepresented the source of its information.

Baiting much?

you sure about that? Why the Wall Won’t Work https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-wall-wont-work THE WALL The real costs of a barrier between the United States and Mexico https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-wall-the-real-costs-of-a-barrier-between-the-united-states-and-mexico/

Before horses, people walked, I suspect that if you were alive back then you would have said the same thing about walking as you're saying now about oil. Maybe you think being sentimental about petroleum isn't word, but I sure do.

Lock them up!

This is not proof about what people believe their religion requires or how they interpret the Qur'an https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/beliefs/hijab_1.shtml#What The Qur'an Says About The Veil and Modesty

Except as repeatedly pointed out, there is no evidence that Joe Biden acquired his wealth crookedly and plenty of evidence that he didn't. And given that you ridiculous claim he has a net worth of 60 million dollars, why should anyone take your allegations seriously?

It's a good thing that religion is scientifically based and not based on beliefs and interpretation. If that were the case, your point would be unproveable.

He didn't claim that the narrative was false. In fact, in his testimony he said that he didn't know if it was true or not. Because he had no personal knowledge of it. Neither the CEO or Shokin spoke to him about that. But what you didn't note is that the Republicans repeatedly tried to get Archer to say it was Hunter Biden who told him that, In fact, it was other members of the company.

Our postings probably crossed in the mail, but as I noted, another article from Forbes pegs Joe & Jill Bidens' net worth at 8 million not 60.

It's clear you're completely unacquainted with the facts. As the article in Forbes explained, you know the article that the fake one you cited listed as its source, most of Biden's money was earned after he left the vice-presidency. Here's the link again: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2020/10/22/how-the-bidens-earned-167-million-after-leaving-the-white-house/?sh=1c14eda81e42 Maybe you should try reading it? Or is it that you prefer to persist in ignorance. And where did you come up with that $60 million figure? Here’s How Much Joe Biden Was Worth In 2021 Joe Biden earned $17.3 million over the four years he was out of office, but his net worth is only an estimated $8 million. Why isn’t he richer? https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2021/06/10/heres-how-much-joe-biden-is-worth/?sh=10c0bd05461b

Thanks, Imam, for your learned discourse on what Islam does and does not require. A good thing that there's unanimity on this issue in the Muslim community. Otherwise I might doubt what you say. And what does this have to do with the fact that you were required to wear a uniform to school?

Thanks for the utterly irrelevant comment.

Their political animus for start puts their statement into doubt. Lack of corroboration from others not involved with the Gold Star group is another.

This has nothing to do with the aspersion you cast that the parents who are using "their clildren to signal their politics/religion are reprehensible." You are baselessly ascribing unworthy motives to those parents. Unless, of course, you're a mind reader. In that case, I take it back.

Get back to us when there is actually evidence that Biden has hidden funds. Do you understand that the FD1023 is about unconfirmed hearsay? And that it was looked into already and dismissed? What shell companies are financially tied to Joe Biden? As far as I know, he's never been tied to any. You got different info you'd like to share? As for Hunter Biden complaining about expenses. He said that's been going on for the past 30 years. Which would have made him 19 or maybe 20k when this started. You don't think the far more likely explanation is that it's just a kid complaining about his dad. Or was Biden hiding his son's contributions for those 30 years? Why is it so difficult for right wingers to understand that Biden was carrying out US policy in getting Shokin fired? What makes your suspicions even more ridiculous is that in his testimony to the House Committe, Devon Archer said he was told by people in his company that Shokin was under the control of Burisma's CEO and his firing was actually bad for the company.