placeholder

So we both got it wrong. You ignored the fact that his question is tied to the concept of 15 minute cities. And, of course, what you don't note that it's actually a question based on a dishonest premise. No one is proposing to limit driving to a 15 minute range. People in those cities can drive as far as they want to. They can access neighboring areas. They just will be fined if they take the shortest route by distance and that route involves directly crossing from on district to another.

In other words, you've got nothing. I personally have no doubt that Hunter Biden got a lot of business due to his Joe Biden being father. We also know that Hunter Biden is not the most honorable person. Who knows what he told business associates about his ties to his father and what, if any, relation it bore to the truth?

There is nothing so lame as offering as a rebuttal events which haven't yet occurred. Anyway, are you still wiping the egg off of your face because of the outcome of the 2020 election? Anyway, I promise you that in the unlikely event that your prediction comes true, I won't be claiming fraud or malfeasance to explain away my error. Can you say the same?

Obviously not. Will you be denting your fender if you drive into a neighboring district in a 15 minute city? Can emergency vehicles, delivery vehicles, and public transport vehicles drive through a fence unscathed?

False. Here's the topic as Connda wrote it: "Do you support "15 minute cities" in order to save the planet from man-made global warming?"

It's a 15 minute maximum. Not a uniform 15 minutes. How would that even be possible?

I'll recast my question: You do any driving in Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas? Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas An area that meets the requirements to qualify as an MSA and also has a population of one million or more becomes a CMSA if component parts of the area are recognized as PMSAs. https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/GARM/Ch13GARM.pdf If you care to know what a PMSA is, it's in the link.

Your analysis takes no account of how congestion and gridlock affect driving times and the effect they have on people living in those neighborhoods. In America lots of drivers are using something called WAZE. It directs them to routes that avoid the worst congestion. What this has led to is local streets being inundated with traffic. In some cases locals have actually illegally blockaded their streets to keep out this WAZE generated traffic. Why should the rights of drivers be paramount? Even relatively new cities the expanded greatly after the advent of automobiles suffer the ill effects of traffic congestion. Even more so older cities that weren't created with any notion of the automobile. I noticed that in Bangok, nearly 200000 people were hospitalized due to pollution recently. Part of that pollution came from automobiles. But it's not automobile drivers who are paying the medical costs. In effect, others are paying for it. It's what's called an implicit subsidy.

I should have written So they won't be stopped from getting to where they want to go; they won't be prisoners; they just won't be able to go through adjoining neighborhoods unless they pay a fine.

As for delay, delay, delay, hasn't that been the M.O. of Trump's legal team?

Please share with us your evidence that Biden has his hand in the cookie jar? Are you claiming that he committed tax fraud? His statements are a matter of public record. Or, as per usual, are you just making things up?

Well, to be more accurate, it doesn't really matter if the attorney actually conspires or not.. All that matters is that there is strong evidence of a crime. So whether Trump misled his attorney or conspired with his attorney, the likelihood of an underlying crime is strong. I suppose it's even possible that Corcoran drafted the document without Trump's input. But for obvious reasons, that seems overwhelmingly unlikely. And even then, that would be an underlying crime.

Well, climate change is all about trends. Droughts have always happened and always will. The question is are they getting more frequent and more severe. The latest IPCC report has this breakdown by regions to show the effect of human caused climate change on droughts. https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-what-the-new-ipcc-report-says-about-extreme-weather-and-climate-change/

The thing is, that's been mostly the case in those countries for a long time. The difference is that In the case of Uganda, it's actually regressing.

To mostly quote what I previously wrote: "If you take 140 (not 100) years as the amount of time, you're correct. The problem is, that you don't take into account the accelerated rate of rise over the last 40 years. "Earth’s temperature has risen by an average of 0.14° Fahrenheit (0.08° Celsius) per decade since 1880, or about 2° F in total. The rate of warming since 1981 is more than twice as fast: 0.32° F (0.18° C) per decade. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

So they won't be stopped from getting to where they want to go; they won't be prisoners; they just won't be able to go through adjoining neighborhoods. This is in the interest of curbing congestion. In fact congestion pricing has long been a feature of many cities long before the 15 minute city idea.

You got any actual evidence to back this up?

More nonsense about someone trying to put a fence around you. Please share with us examples of where this is either the case or is being proposed.

Actually the explanation was provided by the great Irish physicist, John Tyndall, who discovered the greenhouse effect of various gases. Then the Nobel Prize winning Swedish physicist, Arrhenius, actually quantified the effects. But if you think that the low percentage of CO in the atmosphere somehow justifies your point, then consider that chlorofluorocarbons compose a percentage of the ozone layer that is only one tenth that of Carbon dioxide. Yet the reduction of the percentage thanks to the banning of chlorofluorocarbons has resulted in the ongoing recovery of ozone levels in the upper atmosphere.

Praise the Lord that we have you to be the measurer of all things! Rate of sea level rise around New Zealand doubles in past 60 years https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/16/rate-of-sea-level-rise-around-new-zealand-doubles-in-past-60-years 30 years of satellite data show that global sea levels are rising in absolute terms.. But local factors either magnify or diminish that effect. In some parts of the world, the land is sinking due to such factors as extraction of ground water as you noted.. In other parts it's rising due to such phenomena as the rebound effect. Land in some parts of the world is actually rising as it still recovers from the weight of the glaciers during the latest period of near global glaciation. But, again, in absolute terms, sea levels are rising and rising at an increasing rate.

Your theory, huh? You really want to dignify your evidence-free speculation as a theory? More like a notion, actually. There's a thing called Milankovitch cycles that do play a crucial role in climate change. But they operate over thousands of years. What's more if the solar theory was true then the entire atmosphere should be warming. But that's not the case. While the tropsphere were humans live has been getting warmer, the stratosphere has actually been getting cooler. This is mostly due to the fact that greenhouse gases delay the ascent of infrared radiation into the stratosphere, There was another theory floated that sunspots might affect the climate. And indeed there was a very weak connection noted until the mid 70's. At which point it was swamped by other factors. What's more that correlaton assumes that sunspots actually contribute to cooling, not warming. But the fact is that for previous solar cycles in the 20th and 21st century, sunspot activity has become progressively low. So, despite that, global warming has actually been faster over the last 40 years.

*Deleted post edited out* Because fossil fuel companies have been so benevolent? In fact, fossil fuel revenues have supported massive corruption and poor governance in developing nations.

Nuclear energy is hugely expensive. Even more expensive than projected because of huge cost overruns that plague their construction. And as we're seeing now in France, not nearly so reliable as its cracked up to be. And if the fossil fuel industry is so powerful, why is it that new power plant construction is predominantly wind and solar powered?

Well, at least #4 should be mitigated by the increasing reliance on solar and wind. As for the negative growth assertion, the EU has greatly decreased emissions, but its economy continues to grow. There is no necessary connection between fossil fuel use and economic growth.

If you take 120 (not 100) years as the amount of time, you're correct. The problem is, that you don't take into account the accelerated rate of rise over the last 40 years. T "Earth’s temperature has risen by an average of 0.14° Fahrenheit (0.08° Celsius) per decade since 1880, or about 2° F in total. The rate of warming since 1981 is more than twice as fast: 0.32° F (0.18° C) per decade. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature