placeholder

Poor Jonathan Turley. He's the same guy who, unlike the big majority of legal experts, including conservative ones, thought that Barr and Durham had developed 2 strong cases in its FBI investigations. Both ended in ignominious failure. He repeatedly tried to cast suspicion on James Biden's payments to Joe Biden even after it was shown that these were just repayments of loans. He gave credence to reports of Burisma corruption on Joe Biden's part even though there was no hard evidence and the vague incriminating evidence that was referenced was finally exploded as fake. So, in this case, he's trying to cast suspicion on Joe Biden because of the way the case against his son was prosecuted. He has no real evidence to offer so he just indulges in casting suspicion. Turley's got nothing.

Musk's legal team also lost the court case in Delaware.

I got a suggestion for you: try reading the articles before you comment on them. The first three articles were about three separate incidents. The 4th was about a baseless defamation lawsuit that musk launched. In a way that last one is the worst since it's using the legal system to suppress criticism by making it unaffordable for those at targets.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2024/01/09/elon-musk-silencing-his-critics-as-journalists-are-suspended-by-x/ https://apnews.com/article/elon-musk-technology-business-dac21de7abb6167bb604f5317aeda10a https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/04/elon-musk-twitter-still-banning-journalists https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2023/08/elon-musk-silence-critics-twitter

Because the merits of the case don't count when it comes to Team Elon!

Is this the same legal team that tried to extricate Musk from his deal to buy Twitter?

Only if they're competitors. And there a huge and obvious difference between selling and buying.

If they were competitors of Twitter, it would be illegal. But they're not. And, of course, at this juncture, it's kind of absurd to claim that Twitter is a free speech site when Musk has repeatedly silenced his critics and those whose political opinions he disagrees with.

Or maybe Iran already has retaliated? Just not the expected target. Several U.S. personnel injured in suspected rocket attack at Al Asad air base: officials The attack comes as Iran vows to attack Israel https://www.foxnews.com/world/several-u-s-personnel-injured-suspected-rocket-attack-al-asad-air-base-officials

You cite no facts backed by links even to a non-credible source, much less a credible one. However, I do agree with your characterization of " the idea that we can stop it changing if only we all drive an EV or pay more taxes, or kill all the ruminants on the planet and eat bugs instead," is nonsense. Of course, it's nonsense of your own invention. Climatologist do no claim that any one of these actions by itself can solve the problem. That is your own invention. You compound the nonsense by asserting that it's irrelevant whether climate "is changing faster than before." If you were offered 2 investment options, equally secure, but one that offers a rate of return 1% and another that offers a rate of 10%, you would judge that difference to be irrelevant, too?

Here is a link to an excellent explanation of why certain gases exert a greenhouse effect and why there are differing degrees of potency: https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/what-makes-methane-more-potent-greenhouse-gas-carbon-dioxide

The calculations of methane's potency as a greenhouse gas depend on how long into the future that potency is projected. Because methane decays much more rapidly than CO2, the longer the projected timespan, the lower that methane/CO2 ratio is. Over 20 years it's 80 times as potent; over 100 years, 28 times as potent. This links to an excellent article about how this works and why different lengths of time were chosen in the first place https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-do-we-compare-methane-carbon-dioxide-over-100-year-timeframe-are-we-underrating

The only plans I have hear about are those that call for Arab nations like the UAE to send their troops to maintain law and order and suppress military activity in Gaza. It would take a remarkable degree of naivete to believe that other arab nations would want to be seen as Israel's enforcer. And why would a guerilla force be easy to destroy when leaderless? Why is a highly structured hierarchy necessary to a guerilla war? As for ordinary citizens turning on Hamas, any evidence that's happened yet?

Sure. After all, how could a guerilla movement thrive given that Israel doesn't want to occupy Gaza. Clearly, with no stable authority installed, Hamas is just going to disappear. Because that's happened never before in these kind of wars but the 100th time is the charm.

And the best thing about that is, once he's dead, the problem is solved. No one will be there to replace him. And the guerilla war, which is what the situation is now, will evaporate. Yippee.

So what's your point? What does it mean to say "But we won't know until it happens." What won't we know?

Well, on the one hand there's an unsupported opinion by an anonymous member of aseannow..com, and on the other, the conclusions of climatologists associated with NASA. It's a tough choice to make, but I'll go with the climatologists.

You seem bizarrely resistant to the fact that the potency of greenhouse gasses is not a matter for legitimate debate. It's been measured in laboratories. The knowledge of their potency goes all the way back to the 19th century. And their exact potency was determined long before anthropogenic climate change became an issue.

More gobbledygook. There have been many polarity flips. Not much evidence for disasters.

But who exactly is expecting what impact? This are reading that show a net energy imbalance and all you've got is this? Some kind of vague generalization?

The total number of people employed keeps rising. But as I pointed out above, when there's strong demand for workers, those who previously were categorized as discouraged workers, start to look again for work. That can raise the percentage of the unemployed even though more people are working.

Still very low by historical standards. And the fact is that the economy is still packing on jobs. This means that lots of those now looking for work were previously categorized as discouraged workers so not counted as looking for work encouraged by the strong labor market.

I guess you missed the chanting about real GDP growth, pay gains in real dollars particularly for those at the lower end of the payscale, and the huge number of people being added to payrolls. I also noted the bizarre chanting over the past year coming from the right about how the economy was in disastrous shape.

The earth's magnetic field has flipped many times. No, We're Not All Doomed by Earth's Magnetic Field Flip https://archive.ph/ebYp4#selection-4587.0-4587.55

Warren Buffet has made no secret of the fact that he thinks stock valuations are too high. Not the same thing as believing that the economy is due for a crash.