placeholder

Here's his comment. It's located all the back in the distant past: 37 minutes ago and on the same page as your comment.

You know that someone has nothing when they try to make it personal with such comments as "I'm sorry it's upsetting..." Still, no specific rebuttal to the obvious flaw in your interpretation of that article. And the reason is that there can't be one. The gist of the article is that the CO2 is recycled. Sucked up in spring and returned ultimately after death. No net addition to the atmosphere. And you still have no rebuttal for the powerful evidence based on nuclear physics.

You must be desperate for allies if you call someone perceptive who clearly got it massively wrong about what a research paper said.

. I showed exactly why your interpretation of the article is wrong and you come back with empty generalities. If you can't even decpher a simple and accessible research paper accurately, why should anyone believe your general claims at all. In other words, you've got nothing.

Your post is a masterpiece of irony. If you truly had an open mind, you couldn't possibly have come with the conclusion that you from that MIT article titled "The Mathematics of Leaf Decay" If ever there was an example of closed and obsessive thinking, your interpretation of that article fits the bill perfectly.

You clearly didn't understand the article. It notes that it's a cycle. Leaves soak up CO2 and when they die their little corpses eventually release that CO2 back into the atmosphere. In other words, the CO2 is being recycled. So, ultimately the leaves aren't adding any CO2. For your benefit I have put the relevant portions into boldface. "The colorful leaves piling up in your backyard this fall can be thought of as natural stores of carbon. In the springtime, leaves soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, converting the gas into organic carbon compounds. Come autumn, trees shed their leaves, leaving them to decompose in the soil as they are eaten by microbes. Over time, decaying leaves release carbon back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. And I see that you have no answer for the proof based on nuclear physics that the source of approximately 1/3 of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from fossil fuels. I could cite other reasons as to why your contention that leaves are responsible for the increase in CO2, but I'll leave it there unless you insist on further pursuing this nonsense.

You think the US should have spent a ton of money when there was a perfectly good service already available? You think a taxi service needs cutting edge technology?

You don't just have a disagreement with me but you got one with nuclear physics as well. In brief, the carbon that comes from fossil fuels contains virtually no carbon 14. So it's a simple matter to measure how the ration of carbon 14 to carbon 12 and carbon 13 in the atmosphere has declined. That's about as ironclad as a proof can be. Here's a far more thorough and better explanation of how this works: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-do-we-know-build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans

I'll deal with more of your nonsense later but your take on the so-called Climategate scandal shows how perjured the sources you draw on are: Newspapers Retract 'Climategate' Claims, but Damage Still Done A lie can get halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on, as Mark Twain said (or "before the truth gets a chance to put its pants on," in Winston Churchill's version), and nowhere has that been more true than in "climategate." In that highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal, e-mails hacked from computers at the University of East Anglia's climate-research group were spread around the Web by activists who deny that human activity is altering the world's climate in a dangerous way, and spun so as to suggest that the scientists had been lying, cheating, and generally cooking the books. But not only did British investigators clear the East Anglia scientist at the center of it all, Phil Jones, of scientific impropriety and dishonesty in April, an investigation at Penn State cleared PSU climatologist Michael Mann of "falsifying or suppressing data, intending to delete or conceal e-mails and information, and misusing privileged or confidential information" in February. In perhaps the biggest backpedaling, The Sunday Times of London, which led the media pack in charging that IPCC reports were full of egregious (and probably intentional) errors, retracted its central claim—namely, that the IPCC statement that up to 40 percent of the Amazonian rainforest could be vulnerable to climate change was "unsubstantiated." The Times also admitted that it had totally twisted the remarks of one forest expert to make it sound as if he agreed that the IPCC had screwed up, when he said no such thing. https://www.newsweek.com/newspapers-retract-climategate-claims-damage-still-done-214472

You mean like the Tories?

Forget about the evidence. Tapper specifically said in the article that he doesn't know if Joe Biden lied or just didn't know about the payments from Chinese parties. Despite which, SunnyinBangrak claims that Tapper knows Biden is lying. He even had the cluelessness to ask others to read the article again in order to see for themselves.

Given the public record about Trump, if he hasn't been destroyed in the minds of his supporters by now, what could any of these candidates say that could possibly make a difference? Abracadabra?

This is coming from a person who claimed that the Guardian is a communist publication.

So you keep on contributing essentially to tell us you don't care/ And thanks for sharing with us the true mark of a climate troll: the gratuitous mention of Greta Thunberg. You've got less than nothing.

What don't you understand about this? "About Biden’s denial, he added, "I don’t know that he was lying about it. He might not have been told by Hunter, but this blind spot is a problem." Are you now claiming to be a mind reader?

As I have pointed out to you before, Tony Bobulinski claimed he had hard information on his mobile phones that would incriminate Joe Biden. The Wall St. Journal's investigative reporters look at his phones and found nothing. As for the Archer testimony. It nowhere says that Joe Biden was intentionally talking to his son to support the brand. Just the Biden called his son and his son put him on speaker. Archer noted that Joe Biden called his son daily. Republicans repeatedly tried to get Archer to say that Biden was complicit in Hunter's machinations and Archer repeatedly denied that he knew anything about that. And where's that acknowledgement of your that a previous claim of yours is false? You know, when you wrote that Jake Tapper said Biden was lying, not just wrong, about Hunter Biden's payments from China?

Once again: Judge Kaplan noted that the jurors are not bound by NY State's criminal law's definition of rape. It could mean penetration by anything such as fingers.

Another characteristic of the deniers is their use of extreme caricatures in addressing the issue of climate change. People who have real facts and evidence to support their claims don't need to resort to such falsehoods.

You've got your tense wrong. It shows how scientists disagreed. Back then, at the dawn of climatological science. there was some disagreement. But as research kept on accumulating, the doubts disappeared until today, when virtually no research disputes that human caused climate change is a real thing. That's how science works. The only climatologists who still deny it keep on predicting wrongly.

A lie is an intentional falsehood. You got any evidence to share with us that Joe Biden knew about any payments to his son from Chinese private interests?

No one is disputing that there is evidence against Hunter Biden. The issuie here is Joe Biden. Are there any documents that tie Joe Biden to Hunter Biden's businesses? The Republicans tried their best to use Devon Archer to testify that Joe Biden was influenced by his son. He emphatically denied that. As far as Joe Biden is concerned, you've got nothing.

"the laptop which has been forensically analysed by Marco Polo showing over 400 crimes which nobody is disputing," If nobody is denying what Garrett Ziegler AKA "Marco Polo" says it's because nobody with intact critical faculties pays any attention to what he says.. https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/garrett-ziegler-jan-6-committee-rant-b2128313.html

Anyway, Tapper explicitly said in the article that he didn't know if Trump was lying. So, case closed.

" I agree. A reread might be in order. Especially for both of you. From the article: "About Biden’s denial, he added, "I don’t know that he was lying about it. He might not have been told by Hunter, but this blind spot is a problem." Did either of you actually read the entire article? Or do you believe that because Fox buried this towards the end of the article, it doesn't count?

Everyone knows that the moon is a fellow neo-Nazi.