placeholder

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.

Actual, since you're the one who made the claim about collusion, it should be up to you to prove it.. However, I read the article and there was no reference to collusion at all. If you can find a reference to collusion in there, let me know. Maybe it's in invisible ink? In a way, you're right about me having nothing. Because there's nothin in the article about colllusion. My evidence is the entire article you mischaracterized. Since we're only allowed to quote 3 sentences and the title, here's my link to the evidence. https://www.rawstory.com/trump-backlash-putin/

Not only a name but wrongheaded. The comment referenced by yellowtail said nothing about collusion

I wasn't even aware that novakova was famous for being a plagiarist. Where has his play drawers work been published apart from here?

In not acknowledging the the source of this material was not written by you (plagiarism), you failed to reveal that this research dates from 1979. Accelerated global warming had barely gotten underway. There is a contribution from ozone layer destroying gases but their presence in the stratosphere has actually declined sharply over time.

I agree. Most of the CO2 is a natural phenomenon. About 2/3. 280 ppm that it was at the dawn of the Industrial revolution. How do we know that the rest isn't. Very simple actually. It's about carbon 14. Gamma rays bombard the atmosphere and create carbon 14 which gets distributed throughout the environment. Carbon 14 has a half life of about 5700 years. So after 50,000 not much remains. After millions of years virtually none. Yet the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is below what it should be but conforms to what would be expected if 1/3 of that came from burning fossil fuel. There's a far better and far more complete explanation at the link below: How do we know the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by humans? https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-do-we-know-build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans

This is like saying someone's prediction that they are going to win the lottery may be true. The odds may be a billion to one against, but such a prediction is somehow realistic? Statistics are what run modern science as well as business. Even the hardest of sciences, nuclear physics, depends deeply on statistical analysis. Given how consistently wrong the denialists have been in their predictions, you'd think by now, people would have stopped paying them much attention. But in the case of ACC, ideology trumps critical thinking.