placeholder

You make an excellent point. I, for one, will now support the impeachment of Hunter Biden.

Someone else who wants to substitute semantics for science. What is it about so many of you denialists that you don't seem to understand the significance of the rate of change?

The previous high temperature heat record 38.6 °C (101.5 °F), set in Warnsveld in 1944, was broken on 24 July in Eindhoven (North Brabant) where the temperature reached 39.3 °C (102.7 °F).[69] The following day, 40.7 °C (105.3 °F) was measured in Gilze-Rijen (also North Brabant).[44][70][71] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_European_heat_waves

What Journal was it published in?

https://www.britannica.com/science/paleoclimatology

The science of climatology got its start in the 70s when computers became barely powerful enough to start crunching the necessary data. So who cares what people said before that? They simply didn't have the tools necessary to investigate.. Or maybe you believe that science is like fine wine: the older it is, the better.

Remember that he publicly blasted the Justice Dept for the same reason when he was President.

How about something called a carbon tax? This was actually a plan created by political conservatives as a way to use market forces to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, that plan was created by conservatives adopted an attitude that has been technically described as "Science, shmience."

More likely they'll say something like "it's summer, it's supposed to be hot." Because, you know, that's how science and scientists work. They don't deal with actual temperatures. Hot, warm, medium, cool, and cold are sufficient for them.

You mean no matter how much they slash and mutilate these programs, no matter how much the Tories expand private care, as long as these programs exist, the govt. is left wing? You really want to go with that?

You clearly don't understand the concept trends. If you start your baseline with an anomalous year, then sure, it's going to show cooling for a while. But as I pointed out,, and apparently to no avail, a similar event occurred in 1997-98, And denialists were claiming that it showed global warming wasn't a real thing. Now, that year, hot as it was, does not even rank in the top 10. Did global warming stop in 1998? No, but thanks to natural variability, volcanic eruptions, and relatively low solar activity, the rate of average global surface warming from 1998-2012 was slower than it had been for two to three decades leading up to it. How much slower depends on the fine print: which global temperature dataset you look at, whether it includes the Arctic, and the exact time periods you compare. Regardless, the big picture of long-term global warming remained unchanged. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/did-global-warming-stop-1998 Why 2023 is shaping up to be the hottest year on record Spiking temperatures in the world’s oceans and the arrival of El Niño weather conditions in the Pacific mean that 2023 is shaping up to be the hottest year on record, with researchers saying the planet is entering “uncharted territory”. The previous hottest year on record was 2016, which is also when the world was last in a warming El Niño weather pattern (although some agencies say 2020 also tied for the top spot). Now, temperature records this month suggest 2023 could be tracking close to 2016. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2378692-why-2023-is-shaping-up-to-be-the-hottest-year-on-record/

What the graph actually shows is that 2016 was the year of a major El nNno. Just like this year is shaping up to be. In major El Nino years, temperatures rise sharply. The same thing was said by denialists in the wake of the 1997-98 El Nino. That surface temperatures weren't as high as they were for that year therefore the climate was cooling. Now that anomalous year doesn't even rank in the top ten for average highest temperature. In fact, we've had La Ninas over the past 9 years, in which the average temperature tends to be cooler, and they all had a higher average temperature than that El Nino year.

Exxon actually did fund research in the 70s about the effects of greenhouse gases on climate. When their scientists concluded that the consequence of increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would be global warming, Exxon did the honorable thing and suppressed their research.

What kind of funding do you think is needs? This isn't lab work. Nor is it fieldwork.This is purely computational.

No, virtually no climatologists believe that the Milankovitch cycle or any other planetary cycle is responsible for the current episode of rapid warming. The last person to try something like that one on was a person named Valentina Zharkova who posited that some sort of orbital cycle was responsible for warming. Her paper got retracted after a major basic error was discovered in her work. Apparently, she failed to account for the fact that Planet Earth also exerts a gravitational field. https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/03/paper-that-claimed-the-sun-caused-global-warming-gets-retracted/ If so much debate is raging in the scientific community about a planetary cycle's effect on climate change, where are the research papers in support of such a theory?

Please share me me a source that says an FD-1023 is other than what the FBI says it is. It is actually their form, is it not? You're seriously claiming that the FBI is lying about the definition of their form? Whatever is behind the formulation of your believe, it sure ain't critical thinking.

I've provided strong independently verifiable evidence of what an FD-1023 is. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, provide it. I'm not going to hold my breath.

And it would certainly count as a credible source. Unfortunately, it's not exactly an indication of critical thinking or a love for truth to ignore exactly what the FD-1023 is and what it is not.

You clearly don't understand what an FD 1023 document is. "As many of you know, the FD-1023 is the form our special agents use to record raw, unverified reporting from confidential human sources (CHSs). FD-1023s merely document that information; they do not reflect the conclusions of investigators based on a fuller context or understanding. Recording this information does not validate it, establish its credibility, or weigh it against other information known or developed by the FBI in our investigations. https://socxfbi.org/SFSA/SFSA/Featured-Articles/Message-from-the-FBI-on-the-FD-1023-Request-from-Congress.aspx Do you understand what "unverified" means?

Say what you will about America's recent wars, at least they were far from our borders so massive and prolonged blowback was impossible for its opponents to accomplish. Can you imagine what the retaliation of enemies who share a very long border would look like? You think American citizens will cheer this incursion even if it means they'll be getting blown up in return? And for what? How can anyone be so fatuous like Ramaswamy as to believe that drugs are a supply side problem? Any drug. But fentanyl most of all, given how much power it packs into such a very small package. This idea is nuts. Anyone who believes otherwise has learned nothing from the past 50 years about what wars can and cannot accomplish.

Thanks for your enlightening comment. So much hard evidence there to think over.

Once again, no need to apologize. It was easy to understand. If someone has a problem understanding what you wrote it says a lot about them and nothing about you. Basically, their criticism is a form of snobbism. I think of you as being the Jack Kerouac of aseannow.com.

What's really bizarre about your comments is that the researchers for that piece, as is the rule in scholarly work, laid out the methodology in detail: "However, given that an opinion survey does not capture the full state of the science of the time, we conducted a rigorous literature review of the American Meteorological Society's electronic archives as well as those of Nature and the scholarly journal archive Journal Storage (JSTOR). To capture the relevant topics, we used global temperature, global warming, and global cooling, as well as a variety of other less directly relevant search terms. Additionally, in order to make the survey more complete, even at the expense of no longer being fully reproducible by electronic search techniques, many references mentioned in the papers located by these searches were evaluated, as were references mentioned in various history-of-science documents. Because the time period attributed to the global cooling consen- sus is typically described as the 1970s, the literature search was limited to the period from 1965 through 1979." https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/89/9/2008bams2370_1.xml?tab_body=pdf It is also peer-reviewed. Whereas the Steven Goddard website offers no methodology at all. How do you know those articles weren't cherry-picked and that Goddard ignored articles that reported on scientists predicting global warming? And as is typical of those who have no good evidence to offer in rebuttal, you end up by resorting to personal comments. You've got nothing.

As I noted, this is a piece of peer reviewed research that cites journals of that period. Journals that existed before there was an internet. Hard physical copies of these journals exist. Are you claiming that these researchers destroyed or altered these journals? You have any evidence? And are you seriously claiming that there hasn't proliferated a huge number of denialist websites? Don't the people who operate those also have access to the research of the day? Why haven't they refuted it? You've got nothing except empty conspiratorial allegations to offer.

You don't think having served on the Supreme Court isn't a golden ticket on anyone's resume? And why is being able to defend their decisions a compelling reason?