placeholder

I don't think an attorney has to withdraw. And it's not cut-and-dried that a fellow defendant is necessarily an adversary. If that were the case, then it would never have been allowed in the first place.

It's very difficult to prove. But, obviously, anyone who accepts lawyers paid for by a fellow defendant should be prepared for the possibility that they might be sacrificed to protect that fellow defendant.

I don't think you actually read what you write: Can you name me a single instance in the modern age of science in which there was unanimous or near unanimous consensus of some established scientific fact or evidence which at some point in the future was overturned? Any such instance you can find would serve as a poster child example of why consensus, or agreement, no matter the degree of it, does not make something true. Or false. Only proof can do this. And even then it will always be open to the possibility that one day it may be disproved. The fact is that theories get overturned when better ones replace them. All you offer is nonsense about consensus but not better theories. The important agreement is not whether there is a consensus of people but that there is agreement among the results of scientific research. Some day the Theory of ACC may prove inadequate to explain rapid climate change. But claiming that someday this may happen is proof of nothing. It's an empty generality.

I wouldn't have remarked on it at all weren't for the cheap shot you took: "What else might you be wrong about? I shudder to think."

More nonsense from you. You, who claim to be so reasonable and rational, refuse to read my post. The fact is that there is no current hypothesis that matches the predictive power of the current Theory of ACC to explain climate change. There have been attempts by prominent denialists and they have failed utterly. Reality proved they were wrong. Get back to me when there's an actual hypothesis out there that at least matches the predictive power of the current theory.

And in related news from the guy who Trump wanted to make acting general: Indicted Ex-Trump Official's Weird 'Witches' Gripe Gets The Treatment Online “Today witches, spiritists, mediums, those with spirit animals, and Ukrainian NPCs resumed their attacks on me,” Clark wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Wednesday. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jeff-clark-witches-post_n_64de19c1e4b0ce7f01200d7c And there's this, too: Experts Mock Jeffrey Clark's Demands To Georgia Judge About His Arrest Politico reporter Kyle Cheney posted a link Tuesday on Twitter to a legal document from Clark’s attorney asking for an emergency stay on the charges because he wants to avoid “the choice of making rushed travel arrangements to fly into Atlanta or instead risking being labeled a fugitive.”... Clark demanded a response by 5 p.m. Tuesday, a request that is more common for a Justice Department attorney to make than a man accused of attempting to subvert the peaceful transfer of power... And he’s whining about making “rushed travel arrangements” even though he’s known about the reporting date since Aug. 14, when District Attorney Fani Willis announced the indictment." https://news.yahoo.com/experts-mock-jeffrey-clarks-demands-224817656.html

And its efforts at creating a new currency base will sink like a lead block.

As the articles I posted immediately above the previous post state, the Trump teams claim that the case is so complicated that it demands an almost 3 year interval before a trial can be held is ludicrous. Far more complicated cases take far less time to come to trial.

Well, if he's wrong, he's in good company. This is from The Times. You know, the company that had to retract its Climategate allegation and acknowledge it was false: https://archive.ph/HtZZw https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/frank-luntz-the-man-who-came-up-with-climate-change-and-regrets-it-6v6pp00pc And, of course, this issue has nothing to do with the science.

There's a big and obvious problem with your claim about earlier science being overturned.. Take physics. Newtonian physics until maybe a 125 years ago, used to considered a complete explanation of much of physics. But as evidence began to pour phenomenon that Newtonian physics couldn't explain, along came relativity theory and quantum theory. The thing is they could explain phenomena that Newtonian physics couldn't. But where are the hypotheses that could replace current theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change? Richard Lindzen, formerly of MIT came up with the IRIS hypothesis that would prove that greenhouse gasses weren't going to create warming. Something to do with the feedback thinning of stratospheric clouds that ordinarily reflected back heat. It failed. Then there was Valentina Zharkova. She came up with an hypothesis that irregularities in the earth's orbit were responsible for the current rapid rate of climate change. It turned out she forgot to account for the earth's gravity in her calculations. She failed, too. So far, no one has come up with an hypothesis that predicts as well as the Theory of ACC predicts the current bout of rapid climate change. Get back to me on this when someone comes up with a better predictive hypothesis than the current theory. To recur to relativity theory and quantum theory. No one doubts that they are the best we have so far. Also, no one doubts that the 2 currently haven't been reconciled. In certain spheres each one rules the other one out. But they're the best we have. Are you going to claim that because these 2 theories contradict each other that they don't have astonishing predictive power? And even Newtonian theory, which was superseded by relativity and quantum mechanics. is still amazingly accurate. So accurate, in fact, that it can set a course for a spaceship to rendezvous with Pluto. Is there some kind of scientific fraud at work because Relativity and Quantum Theory haven't yet been reconciled within a broader theory? That someday a new theory will reconcile them? You and those who share your beliefs who think that your stance is analogous to that of Copernicus, are actually on the side of Ptolemy. You think you're on the side of Darwin, but actually on the side of religious fundamentalists. In short, you're reactionaries. As Thomas Kuhn noted in the Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the old guards of science, whether they were physicists opposed to Relativity Theory, or those opposed to the Theory of ACC have to fully pass away before the revolution is complete. The current Theory of ACC is still a young science. And the revolution still isn't quite complete.

Before Tippaporn gloats over another semantic issue, at this point in time, it's graduated to be called the Theory of Global Warming.

I will admit that I am using consensus wrongly but only because I haven't been able to come up with a single word or phrase to show that the results of scientific research overwhelmingly agree about ACC. And that agreement is what is relevant. Of course, climatologists, being familiar with the results of said research, would naturally share an opinion about the reality of ACC. But that is not dispositive. The results of the research are.

Cherry picking much? What do the climatologists project in the latest IPCC report? What have climatologists projected in previous IPCC reports that turns out to be incorrect? Were they wrong about the rate of the climate warming? The massive net loss of water in glaciers? The lowering of the PH in the seas? The more rapid warming of the polls? The decline of sea ice in the arctic? The rising of the seas? The warming of the seas?

Just be careful in conversing with these people to make it clear it's about the consensus of research results, not about the opinions of individuals.

I don't know why you are bringing Ukraine into this. Ukraine is a sovereign nation. There was no agreement not to build bases in Ukraine. As for Cuba, that's ancient history now, isn't it? And where is the evidence that the US is planning to build a naval base on Taiwan?

Its about the results of research, not about opinions.

As I've pointed out, this isn't about a consensus of opinion. It's about a consensus in the results of research. At this juncture, there is virtually no research that supports denialist claims. Their predictions have repeatedly come croppers. Whereas the big predictions of climatological research continue to come true. You don't seem to understand that modern science depends heavily on statistics and probability. Even nuclear physics, which is generally considered to be the hardest of sciences. You seem to want to set a standard of absolute 100%. 99.9999% isn't good enough for you. So even though the research overwhelmingly confirms ACC over and over again, you won't accept that.

If a war occurs, I don't think it's going to be about red lines, whatever they are, but rather as a distraction from the poor state of the economy and China's future prospects. Xi may launch an attack on Taiwan. He has already launched one on the Chinese economy.

Now that you've mentioned "Al Gore" can we expect a torrent of Pavlovian responses from climate denialists?

The point is,, that this was in the very early days of climatology. Questions that were legitimately asked back then have since been answered, thanks in large part to the huge advances in both computing power and in the ability of instruments to gather data.

How many times do I have to address this issue? I'm pretty sure that somewhere in this thread I posted some research that showed even back then, when climatology was in its infancy, more scientific papers supported warming than cooling. And as more evidence from research accumulated, the results of research showed that it is the case that continued warming was to be expected. It's bizarre that you think comments from almost 50 years ago have any current evidentiary value.

I've noticed an tendency among right-wingers not to provide links to their sources. So tell us, what is the date this photo was taken?

It's dubious that as long as the present form of Chinese governance continues, that an alternative currency backed by the Chinese govt has anything except the remotest of chances of succeeding. Not only do the Chinese not allow their currency to float freely, but would anyone trust the Chinese not to restrict capital outflows were some sort of economic crisis to occur?

Is that all you've got? As for the style and content being worlds apart, of course they would be if Biden was cribbing them. And I've read his memo. What exactly is in there that you think could only come from someone with inside information?

Your new reply is utterly irrelevant. I guess because I've exploded your consensus nonsense. What you fail to understand is that there's a difference between polling scientists and polling their research. There have been studies of both kinds. And it's the polling of the scientific research that is ultimately dispositive.