placeholder

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.

I'm not sure what you think is funny about that statistic. These are people who work for the extractive industries including oil, gas and coal. It's in their self-interest to believe otherwise. Despite which, an overwhelming majority believe that greenhouse gasses are causing rapid climate change.

Once again you make an assertion but offer nothing in the way of evidence or reasoning to back it up.

And even an economic geology I think the number was 84%.

What a ridiculous question. Why is this information any more pertinent than asking where scientists working in other fields get their money from? To believe that such funding affects their findings, you would also have to believe that there is huge and wide ranging conspiracy among scientific journals to coordinate false reports in a way that they don't contradict each other. Got any evidence to support that?

Outliers? The vast majority of Democrates in the House and Senate pushing the Obama adminstration to increase support for Ukraine are outliers? Do you know what outlier means? outlier a person, thing, or fact that is very different from other people, things, or facts, so that it cannot be used to draw general conclusions https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/outlier

What major scientific prediction haven't come close to materializing? And what don't you understand about the fact the even if the level of CO being pumped into the atmosphere hasn't risen, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere continues to increase? The fact is that the IPCC said back when that there was a carbon budget of 500 gigatonnes that could be pumpeded into the atmosphere. Any more than that and the global average temperature would rise over 1.5% centigrade. Back then the IPCC said emission had to be reduced progressively by 7% if exceeding that carbon budget was to be avoided. Now that percentage is higher.

They get to be called a climatologists by getting their original research about the climate published in scientific journals. And do you really need to be told what the definition of a climatologist is? Does the name not give you a hint as to what it is these scientists study? Once again, as elsewhere, you trot out the use of "seem" as in "In any event, 10% is not an insignificant number, and it seems to be growing." Will you provide any evidence to support that skepticism in the scientific community is growing? Krista Myers led a paper which surveyed 2780 Earth scientists. Depending on expertise, between 91% (all scientists) to 100% (climate scientists with high levels of expertise, 20+ papers published) agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among the total group of climate scientists, 98.7% agreed. The agreement was lowest among scientists who chose Economic Geology as one of their fields of research (84%).[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change#:~:text=Myers et al.%2C 2021,-Krista Myers led&text=Depending on expertise%2C between 91,climate scientists%2C 98.7% agreed. And here's a link to an abstract of the article https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774 You'll also note in the wikipidia entry links to lots more studies. And you'll note that the trend shows that consensus has grown over time.

Of course, it doesn't support your position. Apparently you've either forgotten or don't understand even basic political facts.. Here it is again: "It seems like the left did not give a whit about Ukraine until they needed a distraction." How would politicians of the same party criticizing their political leader divert attention in a way that's politically advantageous? How does that not undermine a President? If you decide to refute this, can you please provide the evidence you claimed you had to prove "the left did not give a whit about Ukraine until they needed a distraction"?

Typical wise-alec comment. I don't understand what kind of weird and sad satisfaction you get out of making such empty comments. You've got nothing. And to show you just how much nothing you've got here's a thing called evidence, something you rarely betray any familiarity with. It shows Democrats pushing against a Democratic president. So much for your nonsense that "It seems like the left did not give a whit about Ukraine until they needed a distraction." Democrats Are Now Pushing Obama to Give Guns to Ukraine Hawkish Republicans have leaned on President Obama for the better part of a year to give weapons to Ukraine as it battles Russian-backed separatists. Now it’s members of Obama’s own party—both within Congress and from members of his own administration—that are calling on the president to arm the Ukrainians, before they lose even more territory to the Kremlin’s proxies. On Capitol Hill there is a renewed sense of urgency: The top-ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, Adam Smith, will join with his Republican counterpart Mac Thornberry on Tuesday to present a bill that would further pressure the president to give the Ukrainian government weaponry, although legislators have yet to spell out the specifics of the bill. https://www.thedailybeast.com/democrats-are-now-pushing-obama-to-give-guns-to-ukraine Bipartisan group of senators push Obama to help arm Ukraine A bipartisan group of senators is putting increasing pressure on the Obama administration to further sanction Russian President Vladimir Putin and provide Ukraine weapons to take on Russian-backed rebels. https://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/senators-more-putin-sanctions-arm-ukraine-115370 US House urges Obama to send weapons to Ukraine The US House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a resolution on Monday urging President Barack Obama to send weapons to Ukraine to help its fight against Russian-backed rebels. The US has so far provided only non-lethal aid. https://www.france24.com/en/20150324-us-house-pass-resolution-urging-obama-send-arms-ukraine-war-russia Unified Congress Says Obama Must Send Arms to Ukraine Congress has already given President Obama the authority to send lethal military aid to Ukraine, and they say it's time for him to act. https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/02/05/unified-congress-says-obama-must-send-arms-to-ukraine Senate Unanimously Passes Corker Legislation to Support Ukraine, Expand Sanctions Against Russia https://www.foreign.senate.gov/press/dem/release/senate-unanimously-passes-corker-legislation-to-support-ukraine-expand-sanctions-against-russia

"It seems like the left did not give a whit about Ukraine until they needed a distraction. " What does that actually signify? That it's not your impression that the left cared about Ukraine before they used it against Trump? Is your impression connected to any facts? LIke how the left felt about Ukraine, before Trump?

And the thing is, by listing himself as an expert reviewer, people are naturally misled about his actual qualifications. That's the kind of thing a con artist would do.

From what I can see of his record, it doesn't look like Gregory Whitestone has ever published any research. On his website he notes that he is listed as an expert reviewer for AR6. That would be the IPCC's 6th report. Sounds impressive, doesn't it? Here's what it takes to become an expert reviewer: HOW DO EXPERTS BECOME REVIEWERS OF IPCC REPORTS? Experts are invited to register for the review through the website of the IPCC Working Group or Task Force responsible for the report. Because the aim of the expert review is to get the widest possible participation and broadest possible expertise, those who register are accepted unless they fail to demonstrate any relevant qualification. https://www.ipcc.ch/2020/12/04/what-is-an-expert-reviewer-of-ipcc-reports/ Given that he has an M.S. in geology, I guess that qualifies him to be called on expert reviewer. I doubt the IPCC drafted him.

Richard Lindzen predicted that temperatures would fall. Not only didn't they fall but they rose sharply. Why is that scraping the bottom of the barrel? His theoretical framework failed big time.

You know when someone cites Al Gore or, for that matter, Greta Thunberg, they are trying to deflect. As far as I know, neither Al Gore not Greta Thunberg are climatologists. So what do you think you're proving by quoting them? And what is your definition of believers? Because if you mean climatologists, then their most important predictions have come true. Or do you dispute that? As for your comment about evidence, the fact is, once again, that climatologists' predictions have come true. Global temperatures are rising at a far greater rate than has been established for thousands years. . The worlds glaciers on balance are losing vast quantities of water. The Arctic and the Antarctic temperatures are increasing faster than elsewhere. And the kick in the teeth is that while the troposphere is getting warmer, the stratosphere is getting colder. There's no need to explain to you what that means. Or is there?

Wow! A graph from someone named Gregory Wrightstone. And we should take his word for this why?

Richarad Lindzen, huh? Gambling on Global Warming Goes Mainstream News By Ker Than published April 13, 2007 An MIT meteorologist said three years ago that he would bet money that global average temperatures would cool back down in 20 years. The quote triggered a flurry of Internet dialogues and prompted scientists to challenge each other to make bets on climate-change issues. One scientist took the wagering meteorologist, Richard Lindzen, up on his bet, but the deal fell apart over a disagreement about odds. https://www.livescience.com/1414-gambling-global-warming-mainstream.html Here's another article that references Lindzer's offer. But I chose instead of quoting the section that refers to him, to feature this bet. The 2 climate skeptics bet that a decrease in sunspots would also mean a decrease in average temperature. And the sunspots did decrease, In fact solar activity has been extremely low for the past several cycles. Just picking up lately. And climatologists had detected a weak correlation between sunspot activity and average global temperature. That is, until the level of greenhouse gases started to rise sharply. Then that signal was drowned. So despite the pronounced decrease in solar activity, global temperatures have continued to rise. Climate sceptics place bets on world cooling down But Annan's search ended with Mashnich and Bashkirtsev, who are based at the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics in Irkutsk, Russia. They say that global surface air temperatures closely correlate with the size and number of sunspots. Sunspot levels follow regular patterns and the Sun is expected to be in a less active phase over the next few decades, leading Mashnich and Bashkirtsev to predict a drop in temperature. https://www.nature.com/articles/436897a

I guess it depends on how strictly his confinement is enforced. If he's confined to a small area, with limited visitation right and no access to communications, he could be stymied. Of course, there would have to be someone there to enforce the restrictions at all times. I doubt that Secret Service agent would play the role of prison guard. Not in their remit.

Here's something about David Bellamy: ."A letter he published on 16 April 2005 in New Scientist asserted that a large proportion (555 of 625) of the glaciers being observed by the World Glacier Monitoring Service were advancing, not retreating.[24] George Monbiot of The Guardian tracked down Bellamy's original source for this information and found that it was from discredited data originally published by Fred Singer, who claimed to have obtained these figures from a 1989 article in the journal Science; however, Monbiot proved that this article had never existed.[25] Bellamy subsequently accepted that his figures on glaciers were wrong, and announced in a letter to The Sunday Times in 2005 that he had "decided to draw back from the debate on global warming",[26] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bellamy As for Piers Corbyn Piers Richard Corbyn (born 10 March 1947)[1] is a British weather forecaster, businessman, climate change denier, anti-vaccine activist, and conspiracy theorist.[n 1].. He has claimed that the media, Met Office and "corrupt scientists" are brainwashing the public as part of a Qatar-run conspiracy to keep oil prices high.[43]... In a 2012 article in Wired titled "The Fraudulent Business of Earthquake and Eruption Prediction",[30] Erik Klemetti, an assistant professor of Geosciences at Ohio's Denison University accused Corbyn of "cherry-picking" and said people who claimed to be able to forecast earthquakes were "faith healers of the geologic community and should be seen as such."... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn You had your chance to put your so-called monetary expertise to the test and you failed utterly. As for monetary digitalization, was there anybody serious out there denying it was going to play an increasing economic role? And not just in the West.

Given the complications due to the presence of the Secret Service, house arrest is a more specific option and a more likely one, too.