placeholder

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?

I would say "nice try" but given that the link in no way supports your claim about the sun causing stratospheric cooling, I'd say it was a complete failure. From the report you linked to: "Cooling of the stratosphere isn't just the result of ozone destruction but is also caused by the release of carbon dioxide in the troposphere. Therefore, global warming in the troposphere and stratospheric cooling due to ozone loss are parallel effects. As cooling increases, development of the ozone layer can be affected because a cold stratosphere is necessary for ozone depletion." https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/Sources/Stratospheric-cooling/stratospheric-cooling-ESPHERE-encyclopedia.pdf Nothing at all about the sun. Nothing. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

Well, Jakarta is sinking more because of excess water extraction from the soil. Indonesia's giant capital city is sinking. Can the government's plan save it? "Jakarta is now sinking at a truly alarming rate—a rate that varies around the city but is up to 11 inches a year in the northern areas. About 40 percent of Jakarta is below sea level. By comparison, climate change is raising sea level by only a fraction of an inch a year... Massive groundwater extraction is one of the main drivers of land subsidence in Jakarta, a sprawling concrete labyrinth that’s not supported by a reliable water supply network." https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/indonesias-giant-capital-city-is-sinking-can-the-governments-plan-save-it#:~:text=Massive groundwater extraction is one,quarter of the city's total.

So it was the actions of the "most militant" that was responsible for her death?

Why would the stratosphere be cooling because of the sun? Why would it be cooling while the troposphere is warming?

I think his position can be summarized as I'm not saying she was asking for it but she was asking for it.

Once again, you advertise your double standards. According to you, Trump shouldn't be criticized for the economic disaster on his watch because of Covid. But Biden is somehow absolutely responsible for the economic problems that arose during and after covid. If inflation was solely or mainly a U.S. problem you would have a point. But is that the case? Was Biden responsible for inflation among the G7 nations? Or the fact that their inflation problem is mostly worse (except for Japan which subsidizes consumer items) You expect that prices should actually come down to what they were before? When has that ever been the case after a bout of inflation? The only way that's going to happen is if demand falls. I diagnose a serious case of economic illiteracy. That's not the way it works. It's the rate of inflation that's significant. And it's coming down far faster in the US than in any of the other G7 nations. As for prices coming down. There is a nation where prices are falling. It's called China and that's a sign it's in big economic trouble. Deflation is not a good thing.