placeholder

20+ phone calls over how many years? I noticed how you shade the claim from Biden didn't know about Hunter Biden's business to he didn't know about Hunter Biden's "business dealings." It's been a matter of public record that Biden knew his son was employed by Burisma. In fact it ws reported that Biden said to his son "I hope you know what you're doing>" That doesn't mean he knows what his did for Burisma. Or, for that matter, what he was doing in his other businesses. And whether or not Biden knew his sons partners were sketchy, as Archer testifed, he kept whatever he said superficial and light. Nothing that showed he had any knowledge of what his son was actually up to.

You think that you are the first person these questions have occurred to? Go ahead and look up the answers to your questions and report your findings back to us.

True. But scientists have learned through experimentation how to adjust for old records. And the fact is that the last 40 some odd years show a sharp increase in temperature. "Independent analyses conclude the impact of station temperature data adjustments is not very large. Upward adjustments of global temperature readings before 1950 have, in total, slightly reduced century-scale global temperature trends. Since 1950, however, adjustments to input data have slightly increased the rate of global warming recorded by the temperature record by less than 0.1 degree Celsius (less than 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit)." https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3071/the-raw-truth-on-global-temperature-records/#:~:text=Independent analyses conclude the impact,century-scale global temperature trends.

This is not to say that early temperature readings didn't have to be adjusted in a systematic way. https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3071/the-raw-truth-on-global-temperature-records/

Weather stations.

It's because the science is all against them. So they cite celebrities who have taken a position supporting climate change science and urging people to consume less but they themselves overconsume one way or another or in many ways. And these denialists try to use this hypocrisy as somehow being relevant to the scientific questions. Apparently, according to their way of thinking, science is evaluated by ad hominem attacks. on those who have houses on beaches

Please. Link to some evidence to a credible source that Thunberg is being handled. I put "It is no secret" into the same category as "everyone knows that". When people resort to such usage, it almost invariably means they've got nothing.

You think that they didn't have accurate thermometers back then? Back then being 1923.

So, this comment of yours: I have just spent some time in mid north South Australia. Mornings got down to near records of 1 degree. "Global warming? Bring it on.????????" doesn't cast doubt on the reality of global warming? You didn't cite a local temperature as some sort of evidence? And doesn't indicate that global warming is a desirable thing?

Your argument about Thunberg being handled or having been made depends on unproven conspiratorial assumptions. And she is irrelevant, anyway. My statements about people using emotion goes to those who when confronted with the science, go with emotionalism instead. Or conjure up motives which is a kind of mindreading claim that, by its nature, can't be disproven. And it can't be proven either.

"and doubling down on calling it defunct is deceitful at best." At best? What is it at worst? Am I looking at serious hard time? Should I get a lawyer? 2 lawyers?

When all else fails, Greta Thunberg is the irrelevant gift that keeps on giving. Whatever the truth is about Greta Thunberg even having handlers or her stance on capitalism, is she a climate scientist? Was she enlisted by the IPCC to contribute to one of its reports?

Turn off those voices and start reading instead what most climatologists are saying.

It's significant that you claim that DeSmog is somehow left wing. Can you point to something that is leftist about it? Where does it get the science wrong? More pertinently, what claims about Lindzen did it get wrong? And more name calling via "alarmism". Why should I pay any attention to the vaporings of Allysia Finley? She also called the temperature record "tenuous". Is she a climatologist? Or even a psychologist? I guess when the facts are against you, make it emotional instead.

Someone else who doesn't understand the difference between climate and weather. https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/state-of-the-climate/previous/state-of-the-climate-2018/australias-changing-climate

As I noted above, in 2004 offered to bet that global temperate average in 20 years would be lower than it was in 2004. When someone offered to take him up on that bet he punked out by demanding a 50 to 1 payout. I guess it's lucky for him he did punk out. The odds of him winning had he taken that bet don't look good. In other words, Lindzen was dead wrong about global warming.

Whether Lindzen speaking skills or knowledge or both are superior to Gorie's is irrelevant. Public speaking isn't the way science works.

https://www.desmog.com/2015/03/06/denial-hire-richard-lindzen-cites-debunked-science-defend-willie-soon-wsj/

It's you against paleoclimatologists. So far, you've got nothing.

Utterly irrelevant to the underlying science.

Please, accurate daily temperatures are not necessary to detect trends. What's more different proxies are compared to each to make sure that they are statistically valid.

It says a lot about your character that you would misleadingly quote me. Here's my comment in full: "Got any evidence so support that fast a change over the last few million years? Occasionally there have been catastrophes like asteroids striking the earth. But no valid scientific explanation for the current rapid rise in temperature apart from the effects of greenhouse gasses exists. It's quite a coinicidence that the theory has been right on target in predicting the speed of global warming."

Yes you did. But you caught yourself. And there's also sedimentation that allows further lookbacks. https://phys.org/news/2016-04-ancient-marine-sediments-clues-future.html

Deceitful towards what end?

Now if Trump was heavily invested in the hotel and resort business, then he, along with everyone else, would have taken a tremendous hit from a worldwide pandemic. Oh wait a minute... What is truly odd is that Trump stopped travel between Europe and the USA 40 days after he did the same for China. Except, oddly enough, the UK and Ireland. where, unlike the rest of Europe, he has some resorts. He waited another 4 days to do that. Hmmm...