placeholder

I was expecting a link to that eminent climatologist, Sir Paul McCartney.

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.

Calling an investigation dormant is a way of saying nothing was going on with it under Shokin. It's possible that it could have been revived under Shokin but it never was. So once he was out of office it's not unfair or inaccurate to characterize it as defunct given his other actions while he was in office.

Antarctica was never a tropical rain. It was a rain forest. Back then, CO2 levels in the atmosphere were 1100 ppm. That would be about 4 times the pre-industrial level 200 years ago. Thanks for reinforcing the point about CO2's potency as a greenhouse gas. https://www.vox.com/22797395/antarctica-was-once-a-rainforest-could-it-be-again

Actually, Shokin inherited the investigation begun under Viktor Pshonka. I claimed that Shokin was not investigating Burisma. No evidence that Shokin pursued the investigation. His staff claimed Shokin was not investigating Burisma. Shokin. And the crucial fact is that Joe Biden did not intervene to fire Shokin to protect Burisma. In 2012, the Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Pshonka began investigating Ukrainian oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky, owner of the natural gas company Burisma Holdings, over allegations of money laundering, tax evasion, and corruption during 2010–2012.[41][42] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Shokin

The thing is, it's settled unless someone comes along with a theory backed by evidence to disprove it. So far none have come along that have withstood scientific challenges.. As I pointed out earlier, Newtonian physics may have been overthrown by Einstein but its predictive power is still good enough to have a spacecraft rendezvous with Pluto.

Believe it or not, this isn't the first time Musk tried rebranding a company's name to X. His bizarre fixation certainly didn't t didn't turn out well for him then. I guess this time he can't be fired. Elon Musk tried to rebrand PayPal as X.com. He was ousted as CEO. https://archive.ph/hl7te https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2023/07/25/elon-musk-paypal-twitter-x-rebrand/

Tipping points in the climate system "A climate tipping point is where a small amount of extra climate forcing, usually linked to global warming – for example, greenhouse gas forcing – triggers a qualitative change in part of the climate system. Change may already be underway in that sub-system, but it becomes abrupt and/or irreversible beyond the tipping point. This is because tipping points occur when reinforcing (positive) feedbacks within a system take over from stabilising (negative) feedbacks and propel change from one state to another." https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wea.4058

Practically speaking that's not the case given that there are currently only about 430 parts per million. "Is there a point at which adding more CO2 will not cause further warming? Climate change: evidence and causes No. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will cause surface temperatures to continue to increase. As the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 increase, the addition of extra CO2 becomes progressively less effective at trapping Earth’s energy, but surface temperature will still rise" https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-8/#:~:text=As the atmospheric concentrations of,surface temperature will still rise.

In other words, you've got nothing.

Frigid arctic air moving southwards. The polar vortex issue.

As I noted earlier, Thomas Kuhn said that a scientific revolution isn't complete until the previous generation of believers dies out. These people constitute a vanishingly small percentage of climatologists and at this point, none of them that I know about are still even doing science.

For someone who claims that science isn't settled, you seem to have a bizarre allergy to instances of research which support that claim.

This is typical of the ridiculous kind of character assassination that you offer as evidence. Back it up. The most prominent climatologists who seem incapable of confessing to error are some members of the old guard who keep on getting it wrong and keep on denying they've got it wrong. I remember when it was a popular claim among them that global warming had stopped in 1998. Now that year doesn't even number among the 10 warmest years recorded since then.

Nonsense. In the climatoligica community there is plenty of debate and various hypotheses are put forward and rebutted. For instance, there was a claim made that the wandering of the arctic climate due to lower latitudes was due to the loss of sea ice. That was rebutted. Another claim was that temperatures could rise as much as 8 degrees centigrade due to ACC. That also was thoroughly discounted. For someone who accuses others of limited reading, it's clear you know virtually nothing about current climatological research.

Nonsense. To prove it's limited you would have to offer literature outside of whatever bounds you claim I'm confined to. You've offer nothing. That's because you've got nothing except unproveable allegations..

And once again, you offer no evidence that would show the limitations of my reading.

First off, at this point there is virtually no dissent in the climatological community about global warming. Virtually all research around the world that either addresses the issue directly or bases its research on ACC supports the theory. So please, spare us the nonsense that it's just government making these claims. And you still haven't offered up any specifics about literature that questions ACC.

More fact-free claims from you. And it's not just the government's stance on climate change, it's virtually the entire climotological community. And I'm still waiting for you to produce evidence of valid scientific explanations that contradict anthropogenic climate change outside the bounds of my experience.

Please share with us some scientific literature outside the bounds of what I have viewed. People here have offered such stuff in the past but it always turns out to be either speculative or disproven. I await your production of such literature eagerly.

And the comparison to the Covid situation is an obvious ploy. Covid just appeared about 3 1/2 years ago. And there's really no doubt about the the scientific evaluation of covid or the efficacy of vaccines. Climatologists have been seriously studying the climate for more than 40 years.

There's plenty of settled science out there. Take Newtonian physics. Sure it isn't perfect. But it's good enough in it's predictive capacity to arrange for a spacecraft to rendezvous with Pluto. Climate science has been extraordinarily accurate in predicting that global warming would occur and what's more important, the rate at which it would occur. And until such time as someone comes up with a theory that predicts more accurately than the current one, it's settled science. It's significant that all the naysyayers from the 80's and 90's have repeatedly been proven wrong. And also that they tended to be from the older generation. As Thomas Kuhn noted, a scientific revolution isn't truly over until the previous generation of believers has died off.

Where did their news departments make this claim? And as has repeatedly been pointed out, Mueller said that if Trump weren't President he could be charged with obstructing justice. As in holding out the possibility of a pardon to parties such as Paul Manafort who did engage with Russian intelligence agents before the elections. Fortunately, it turned out that Trump would never engage in such an obviously corrupt practice. Or maybe he did. Trump pardons Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and Charles Kushner https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55433522

Oh, c'mon now. All Trump did was ask why prosecutors didn't seek a death sentence for Hunter Biden. So I really don't see...oh wait a minute.

It's a common practice on the internet to include related videos in an article. Most of us have the ability to distinguish between videos that are relevant and those that are not. Apparently, there are a few of us who don't.