placeholder

Thanks for the irrelvancies. We don't need to go back to the beginnings of the planet. I'll settle for how far back paleoclimatology can currently reach. Which. Which is way more than enough to tie climate change to the level of greenhouse gases.

There's also this: Myers et al., 2021[edit] 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=The survey found 97% agreed,scientific evidence" substantiates its occurrence.

Actually it was papers that either expresssed a view or depended on climate warming data for their research. Andl, that's because it only makes sense to use climatological research papers that are in some way connected to climate warming. Most papers in biology don't express views on the theory of evolution or cite evolutionary data.. Does that mean it's unreasonable to say that most biologists subscribe to the theory?

Tell that to the scientists who confirmed the existence of the Higgs Boson.

China's real youth unemployment rate could actually be close to 50% - more than double the official rate https://www.businessinsider.com/china-economy-real-youth-unemployment-rate-50-percent-lie-flat-2023-7#:~:text=China's real youth unemployment rate could actually be close to 50% - more than double the official rate Given China's top heavy population, given time these unemplooyed young people will probably be absorbed into the work force. But they won't be exercising the skills they learned during that interval. And there will be less and less workers to replace them. What's more, China has a negligible social services system. So there's going to be a huge burden on the younger generation to take care of their elders.

So you're claiming that this quote from the GOP committee members might be made up? Republicans said the transcript will be released but is not yet ready. “The transcript is going through the normal review process where the witness reviews it and makes any corrections needed,” the GOP majority tweeted Thursday night. “Once that process has been completed, we will release it." And yet somehow, they're not even addressing this alleged piece of fiction? You really want to run with that?

What's more, let's say it's true that cosmic rays are responsible for cooling and when they're blocked by increased solar activity, that causes warming. The thing is, that for the past several 11 year solar cycles, solar activity was actually diminishing. https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity/solar-cycle/historical-solar-cycles.html So there should have been a decline in global temperatures. But the opposite happened. Which means that if, in fact, cosmic rays do result in cooling, then there must be a countervailing force that overrode that effect. Before the average global temperature began its rapid rise, scientists did note a weak connection between solar activity and global temperature. But as CO2 levels began their rapid rise, that connection was disrupted.

Changing the goal posts? The original predictions about global warming, which got a Japanese scientist a Nobel Prize, are right on track. How is that changing the goal posts?

More unbacked nonsense from you. Try engaging with facts for a chlange: https://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/proxies/paleoclimate.html

In your reply to my claim that suspicions of bias were behind the investigation, you made that claim that bias played no part in it on the grounds that bias was not used when the basis of the Durham investigation was established. "You just used the word bias three times when it was not used in the order for the investigation. This is what it said: The Special Counsel is authorized to investigate whether any federal official, employee, or any other person or entity violated the law in connection with the intelligence, counter-intelligence, or law-enforcement activities directed at the 2016 presidential campaigns, individuals associated with those campaigns, and individuals associated with the administration of President Donald J. Trump, including but not limited to Crossfire Hurricane and the investigation of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III." I provided evidence from Barr himself that clearly it was suspicions of such that was the motive behind the FBI investigation.

I guess your way to support accusations of hysteria is to indulge in paranoiac rant.

As has been pointed out to you before, 2016 was the year of a major el nino. During those years, the Pacific releases vast amounts of heat. This is a well understood phenomenon. What keeps you from understanding that? In addition the last 2 years hosted a La Nina. Which has the opposite effect on global temperature average. This has also been pointed out to you. What keep you from understanding that? And the fact is, that even though those last 2 years were years with La Ninas, they were actually warmer on average than the years of the 1997-98 El Nino which was huge. Do you understand the concept of trends and regression analysis?

Well, the record shows that it's not a natural phenomone that occurs every few thousand years: https://news.arizona.edu/story/global-temperatures-over-last-24000-years-show-todays-warming-unprecedented

Maybe Chiang Mai is the world to you, or a statistically valid representative sample of it. Probably not so much to others who understand this it contains considerably less than a fraction of a percent of the entire land surface of the world.

How would you know that earth's climate has been changing "with greater variables than what humans have observed"? Well, if humans haven't observed it, then did aliens inform you of this? Were they the ones who dismissed the field of paleoclimatology as a fake? You've got nothing.

You're the one who made that claim that suspicions of bias played no role in investigating the Trump-Russia investigation. Barr clearly showed that not to be the casese. You believed that bias would have been mentioned in the grounds for Durham's investigation. if it were. But there is no such crime as bias in matters like this. Bias is a motive, not a crime. Which is why only potential crimes committed were listed..

Yes, you can believe whatever you want about anything at all. But as long as you're going to make nonsensical claims about climate change, you're going to keep on getting hammered. As for that link....inconsistent much? First you claim that the temperature measures are wrong. And now you cite a 20 year old paper that claims that the rise in temperature is due to the increasing activity of the sun. So now you accept global temperatures are on an upward trend? You sure do change your mind quickly.

It's an allegation. A she said she said situation. Mix-up or misconduct? Lawyers in Hunter Biden case spar over last-minute filing by GOP lawmaker '"The judge then asked Clark to explain what happened or possibly face sanctions. Late Tuesday, the staff member filed an affidavit with the court explaining that the mix-up was in the clerk’s office and provided details of what she said, her notes and the call records. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/misconduct-lawyers-hunter-biden-republican-house-rcna96348 The person who made the call is not even a practicing attorney.

Scientific consensus on climate change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

Actually, a while back a very eminent physicist name Richard Mueller, a prominent climate change sceptic, challenged climatologists on exactly those grounds. That they hadn't compensated for the heating effect of asphalt and concrete and the whole urban island heating effect problem. Climatologists claimed they had made such adjustments. His objections drew the interest of denialists and they funded him to assemble a team of scientists from various disciplines to prove climatologists wrong. Guess what his team found? That climatologists had gotten it exactly right. No matter which way he sliced it, the temperature readings showed global warming was a real thing. One way they sliced it was just to take data from rural monitoring systems where there would be no such heating effect. They showed the same warming effect as did the entire data base. The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic "We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions." https://archive.ph/CNkxr https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html About Berkeley Earth Berkeley Earth was conceived by Richard and Elizabeth Muller in early 2010 when they found merit in some of the concerns of climate skeptics. They organized a group of scientists to reanalyze the Earth’s surface temperature record, and published their initial findings in 2012... We released our analysis, programs and established an open database with all the raw data used in our studies. https://berkeleyearth.org/about/#:~:text=OUR HISTORY,their initial findings in 2012.

The entire planet? Or just a small portion of it?

Even now, you don't acknowledge that it's about rate of change. Instead you deflect by offering the blatantly false assertion that there's no proof etc.. The overwhelming consensus of climatologists is that your claim is nonsense. So why is it that you can't see the difference between change and rate of change?

What don't you understand about the fact that the average temperature for the 48 contiguous states has been on a steady upwards trend that aligns with the global upwards trend?

How about calling this Bidenomics? Low-Wage Jobs Are Becoming Middle-Class Jobs Millions of low-income families are experiencing less financial stress and even a modicum of comfort. "The yawning gaps between different groups of American workers—Black and white, young and old, those without a college degree and those with one—have stopped widening and started narrowing. Measures of poverty and income inequality are dropping." https://archive.ph/aJSqo https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/03/wage-growth-income-inequality-labor-market/673277/

If, in fact, Archer testifies , the article in the NY Post said that, according to Archer, Biden only spoke in generalities and platitudes. Did not address the business issues at all. And you keep on harping on about the threats to the life of various witnesses. So, with all the resources that Joe Biden commands, how many of these potential witnesses have the intelligence services managed to kill?