placeholder

We can judge the moral quality of people by their choices. Thanks for sharing one of yours with us.

Climate change supercharges threat from forest-eating bug https://phys.org/news/2022-12-climate-supercharges-threat-forest-eating-bug.html#:~:text=The beetles kill the trees,brace the trees against storms. Survey of U.S. forests ties tree-killing insects to climate change https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/survey-u-s-forests-ties-tree-killing-insects-climate-change-ncna1042221 Wake-Up Call: Climate Change Threatens Rice Farming https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wake-up-call-climate-change-threatens-rice-farming/#:~:text=One study found that each,lying farmland with salt water. California’s desert trees can’t take the heat: study https://thehill.com/policy/equilibrium-sustainability/3922578-californias-desert-trees-cant-take-the-heat-study/

Get back to me with some peer reviewed science. It should be easy to find something to back your belief. After all, only 99.9% of peer-reviewed papers say otherwise. And there is this huge falsehood told by Lindzen in 2018: “Warming of any significance ceased about 20 years ago,” Lindzen claimed in a lecture at the Global Warming Policy Foundation. http://web.archive.org/web/20181018164016/https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6259555/Climate-scientist-says-climate-claims-nonsense-coral-reefs-not-danger.html What purveyors of falsehoods like Lindzen do, is look for anomalies and make them their baseline. So, to go back 20 years from 2018 would bring us back to 1998, That year featured an El Nino that was one of the most powerful ever recorded. This phenomenon raises global temperatures. This El Nino, being a huge one, raised temperatures a lot. Despite which in 2005, the average global temperature was higher than in 1998, And so was another in 2010., In fact the last 8 years have all had higher average temperatures than any previous yearly global average. And that includes years in which powerful La Ninas appeared. La Ninas have an effect opposite to that of El Ninos. They actually depress global temperatures. That 1998 record setter does not even make the top 10 anymore. Here's a link to more info: https://skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-2-lindzen-vs-hansen-1980s.html

Even if your version of the how long there was a warming trend in England was correct (it isn't), clearly you believe that England constitutes most of the world.

Can you please share with us a link to your study? Did you publish in The Journal of Because I Said So.?

Definitely. After all, next to Trump, Jesus is probably the most innocent man who ever lived.

You don't understand. He's using Trump based math in which "fewer voters" means a majority. And the fewer you have, the greater the majority. Provided they're Trump voters. When considered that way, that 38% means Trump has a virtual lock on the Presidency come the next elections.

Actually, that was the whole point of the negotiations. Kim would get rid of all those nuclear weapons in return for lots of economic aid and trade.

You should definitely stick to what if propositions. That way, there's no nasty fact-checking to face.

Typical left-wing censorship. If only someone like Elon Musk was in charge at Twitter!

Can you share with us a link to the agreement you claim is embodied in certain papers? I can't find evidence of that. The only signing I know of is the Singapore Agreement which was empty of any concrete significance. And Kim and Trump did sign that.

The Founding Director of the Claremont Institutes's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence is, get this, John Eastman. He also pushed the fake elector scheme and advised the President the Mike Pence had the authority to disqualify electors and and delegate choosing electors back to states where it just happened the Republicans had majorities in the legislature. Not even Trump's own White House Counsel thought this could fly. And he also believes that even though the 14 Amendment specifies persons born in the United States as being citizens, he decided that's not really what it means.

Where did I say they should find an alternative? Who's doing the distracting now? I did say they should be doint a lot more to clean up the messes that they are responsible for. And I noticed that you completely ignored that point.

Well, in countries which strongly encourage their citizens to use less energy, the per capita rate is far lower than in countries which don't. Europeans consume far less energy per capita than do Americans. Of course, they have far better public transport systems than does the United States. And there's this: Can nudges help to cut household energy consumption? Closer to home, a 2011 UK-based study by Paul Dolan of the London School of Economics and Robert Metcalfe of the University of Oxford tested how the impact of social norms, with and without information on energy-saving behaviour affected gas usage. The study found that households provided with both the norm and the information reduced consumption by 9%, an effect almost twice as big as when they were given the social norm alone. The reduction in energy usage was also longer lasting among those households that received the norms and information combination. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/behaviour-change-energy-consumption

Stop engaging in distraction from the real issues. Devote a lot more money to cleaning up the pollution they're causing. Capping leaking methane gas wells, but those that are abandoned and currently in use would be a great start. And again, more ridiculous extreme statements.

From their point of view, every little bit helps. And as is your usual wont, you indulge in rampant exaggeration.

Because they're distracting from the main issue that the primary goal should be to replace fossil fuels. Instead they focus on using them more efficiently. But as the world economy grows, even if use is merely more efficient, net emissions will be a lot higher than if fossil fuels were replaced.

That's referring to the first decade of the 21st century.

Sure people can do something. But the point is the oil companies are trying to point responsibility away from the fact the burning fossil fuels is bad for the environment, both due to pollution and of course climate change. So they talk about their net zero targets which only means that in the production of fossil fuels their aim is not to produce net CO2, methane, etc. But the fuel will still get burnt. And, as satellites have shown us recently, their contribution to adding methane to the atmosphere has been badly underestimated. So their net zero targets are very suspect.

If they've got something to offer. But you don't give someone like Kim an audience with the POTUS in exchange for nothing. That's what subordinates are for. Just another empty, grandiose negotiating failure.

Not if Kim has as little to offer to Biden as he did to Trump. I will say this for Trump though. Unlike in his business history, he only lost a little in the negotiations with Kim.

The reason twitter has so few ads is because Musk doesn't want them?

If by facing the issue head on you mean giving Kim the attention and respect he craved, then yes.

As the latest elections showed, running on a fake elections platform was not exactly a sterling idea. Now you want to yoke together 2 candidates who are obsessive about the Issue? I hope Trump follows your plan.

Climate change: trees grow for extra month as planet warms - study https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65037659