placeholder

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.

Wow, for someone who spills reams and reams of words on this topic, all you've got to say is BS? You've got nothing.

It's a silly loaded and irrelevant question. If, by consensus, you mean human opinion, then it does not. But if by consensus you mean agreement in the results of scientific research, then yes it does..

You still continue to spread a falsehood trying to equate Biden's possession of unauthorized documents with Trump's. The difference is clear: Biden violated the rules but Trump violated the law. The rules say that to be in possession of these documents they have to cleared with the National Archives. The law says that if you are in willful possession of those documents then you are violating the law. It is also a violation of the law to refuse to return said documents. And lying about continued possession constitutes obstruction of justice.

Really? I think that Taiwan shows that an ethnic Chinese country can succeed very well with a democracy. And while after Deng there was a letup in suppression of the free market. under Xi that has been reimposed. And the Chinese economy faces many threats and seems to be doing it's best to ignore them. Its days of rapid growth are clearly over as long as Xi remains in charge.

Your first sentence shows that you don't understand the difference between climate and weather. Increased solar activity is about sunspots. It's true that when the activity of sunspots is at its peak, solar radiation of the earth increases by 0.1%. And there has been observed a very small positive correlation between solar activity and climate. But the thing his, for the last several solar cycles, solar activity had been unusually low. Despite which, the rate of temperature change accelerated. So, increased solar activity now, may slightly raise the average global temperature. But its contribution is insignificant when compared to the effect of greenhouse gasses.

Well, here's my reply to your logorrhea It if were just a case of arguing from authority, you might have a point. If this was a discussion of history, religion or literature where opinions necessarily play a part, your claims would be valid. But this is not about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or the role of irony in Jane's Austen novels, or how much did familial ties contribute to the decline of the Roman Empire. This is science, and it's not the authority of an individual per se that's being invoked, but the weight of their research. What's more, the major dissenters to this research have repeatedly failed in their predictions and have even resorted to blatantly misleading evidence to support their case. I have spent a lot of time here, showing how misleading or misled ACC denialists are. Given the overwhelming weight of the results of research, the odds that current basic understanding of major contribution of increased emissions of CO2, methane, nitrous oxide etc. is false, are clearly statistically insignificant. Of course, if someone is a conspiracy theorist and an ACC denialist, then they will claim that the scientific results are being faked, or that there's a worldwide conspiracy to keep contrary findings suppressed., or some other unproveable claim. Since arguing with conspiracy theorists is futile, that's a course I don't intend to follow.

More of your nonsense. I read the introduction and the conclusion and there's nothing in there linking the sun in one way or another to stratospheric cooling. If you can't cite a specific passage to support your claim, that means you're just trolling again. You've got nothing.

In fact about as stupid as "Maybe people can start being a bit more considerate of others with different views to themselves. I know it's not a trait of the left but maybe they could at least consider others for once."

Hey, college students shout people those they disagree with down, right wingers shoot those they disagree with. Same, same.

So, given that you claimed the sun was responsible for the cooling of the stratosphere, how exactly is the sun responsible? What's the mechanism or the process?

Revisionism much.? Here for your delectation is your claim that only 10% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is human linked. You simply ignored the evidence I produced that we know fossil fuels account for about 1/3 of the CO2 in the atmosphere because fossil fuels contain virtually no Carbon 14. I even posted a link with an excellent explanation of why this is so and what it means. You just ignored it. What's left of your comments (it looks like the mods expunged at least a few) supports my claim. Instead you believed that because 90% of CO2 released into the atmosphere comes from decaying leaves, that proved you were correct. But as I pointed out, the article also said that it's a cycle. The leaves absorb CO2 when they''re growing and release it after they fall to the ground. No net gain claimed or even implied. I even quoted that passage and put in boldface the crucial portion of the text. Instead of acknowledging your error or even address the specifics, you just launched into generalities and unsupported characterizations.

Legal experts warn Trump’s “ludicrous” proposed 2026 trial date request could blow up in his face Former President Donald Trump's bid to push his D.C. federal trial to 2026 could backfire, two former federal prosecutors warned in an op-ed at the conservative outlet The Bulwark. Trump's proposed April 2026 trial date threatens his legal team's credibility before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan as pre-trial proceedings begin, wrote former federal prosecutors Frederick Baron and Dennis Aftergut. "Trump's past pattern is that his lawyers lose credibility by kowtowing to his absurd, uninformed demands. https://news.yahoo.com/legal-experts-warn-trump-ludicrous-164437484.html Trump Shoots Himself in the Foot with Demand for Trial Date in 2026 ON THURSDAY, DONALD TRUMP FIRED his first shot in Judge Tanya Chutkan’s courtroom—straight into his own foot. His lawyers proposed to the district court judge that his federal trial on conspiracy and obstruction charges related to the aftermath of the 2020 election and the events of January 6th should not occur until April 2026... Trump’s proposal on the all-important trial date sends an unintended message: that Trump is pressing his lawyers to take legal positions so extreme that they will be entirely disregarded. https://plus.thebulwark.com/p/trump-shoots-himself-in-foot-trial-date-2026

I wish I had said that.

If it was an unnecessary risk that would mean that accounting for the possibility in advance would be rational. Whereas accounting for it being destroyed by a meteorite would not be.

So it was a rational expectation that she might be injured but not killed?

Ah, the truth about the source of your nonsense comes out at last. "I know it's not a trait of the left but maybe they could at least consider others for once." So, all those folks plastering their cars with confederate flags are leftists?

Because it was a rational expectation that she would wind up being killed? You've got 20-20 hindsight.

Actually there's some question about whether it's been cooling very gradually or warming very gradually over the past few thousand years.. But the last 40 years of a steep rise no one rational is questioning. And oddly enough, the rise agrees with the predictions of even most of the early climatological models. I'm guessing you'll put that down to coincidence?

So not her fault but the fault of LGBTQ militants? Anyone but the shooter and the anti LGBQT movement?