placeholder

A moon landing disbeliever. I thought that they were the stuff of fiction.

There were six lunar landings in all. All of the astronauts on those missions returned safely. So, it doeslook like "incredibly lucky" is way over the top as far as depicting the odds goes.

There is little doubt that the Milankovic cycles account for much if not most of the ice age temperature fluctuations. However, nothing in the record of these cycles has been found to match the abruptness and rapidity of the current situation. In addition, theories ascribing the current sharp rise in temperature to Malenkovic cycles or solar cycles fail to account for the fact that while the lower atmosphere, the troposphere, is heating rapidly, the stratosphere is actually cooling. If the Malenkovic cycles or solar cycles were responsible for global warming, then the stratosphere should be warming too. But, in fact ,the rise in CO2 and other greenhouse in the lower atmosphere is delaying infrared radiation from reaching the stratosphere. This is why the stratosphere is getting cooler while the troposphere gets warmer.

For those members going on and about about the prophesiers of "doom and gloom" here is a link to the IPCC page that addresses the issue of how to adapt to climate change, Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/ And here is a link to what's called the Executive Summary: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/

Just to be precise: all the signatories were no longer employees of the government when they signed.

Share with me how the increased rate of melting of the ice sheets is about the behavior of those who prophesy doom and gloom. As for doom and gloom, get back to me when you acquaint yourself with the IPCC's report on remediation and adaptation. You've got nothing.

How would their hypocrisy be relevant to the science. As for the rest of what you wrote, once again when someone has nothing germane to answer with, they try to make it personal. This topic about the scientific evidence that Greennalands and Antarctica's sheets are melting. Not about details of my home life. You've got nothing.

Could you share with us a link to your claim about the Bdien campaign and an ex CIA director threatening the banning and suspending of a a newspaper?

Ex-CIA. Not the CIA. And the Biden campaign. Not the government. And far more threatening would be an actual government official using disinformation to support a political candidate. Good thing that never happens. Oh...wait a minute... Thirty-five days before the November 2020 election, Ratcliffe declassifed 2016 Russian disinformation that asserted Hillary Clinton had personally approved a scheme to associate Trump with Vladimir Putin and Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee. Ratcliffe provided the disinformation to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, who publicly released it. The allegation had been previously rejected as baseless by the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ratcliffe_(American_politician)

Stop evading the issue. The Forum's rules are very clear about the obligation of an aseannow member to back up their assertions. Here it is just for your benefit: Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source.

Got evidence that the FBI knew that? As for Acting DNI Ratcliffe, not exactly a trustworthy person. And you know why Ratcliffe was only acting DNI and not DNI? Trump ultimately withdrew his nomination for Ratcliffe to be DNI because he couldn't get enough backing from the Republican controlled Senate. "Ratcliffe has little experience in national security or national intelligence and is reported to have demonstrated little engagement on the matters as a congressman.[5][6][62] Trump's intent to nominate Ratcliffe became controversial when he was found to have misrepresented his role in prosecuting terrorism and immigration cases.[5][63][64]" And there's this: Thirty-five days before the November 2020 election, Ratcliffe declassifed 2016 Russian disinformation that asserted Hillary Clinton had personally approved a scheme to associate Trump with Vladimir Putin and Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ratcliffe_(American_politician) This information has been characterized as baseless by a Republican Senate committee. Ratcliffe subsequently acknowledged that he couldn't vouch for its truthfulness. Now that is genuine abuse by Ratcliffe of Intelligence. He was an official of the US government when he released that information. And you persist in blaming what you call "the intelligence community". As already pointed out, the signatories were ex-employees of intelligence agencies.

No, I don't see it as a failing. It's necessary if the rich and powerful are to be held to any account at all. Apparently, you think it's better that they can exercise an effective veto over being scrutinized thanks to their wealth and power.

Well, in the US, there's a thing called the First Amendment that protects speech, particularly in the case of public figures. But let's look at the alternative in the UK. Where the wealthy and the powerful routinely stifle investigations and criticism thanks to the UK's strict libel laws. The case of Robert Maxwell comes to mind. Investigative journalists were reluctant to publish informatoin that he was robbing pension funds to support his extravagant way of living. Thousands of workers owe their impoverishment to him. On balance, the US system can hold the wealthy and powerful to account in a way that the UK and other nations with similar laws can't.

Even if your comment about your friends is true, who cares? This is about the science. Not about the behavior of your alleged friends or the behavior of world leaders. Comments like yours have nothing to do with the overwhelming evidence of the increasing pace of the melting of the ice sheets on Greenland and the Antarctic.

You have evidence that they knew that the laptop had genuine information on it? As has been repeatedly pointed out to you to no avail, the NY Post published this info without doing any investigative research on it at all. The reporter originally assigned to write it up refused because of the lack of investigation. Moreover, those who held the data, refused to share the metadata that would have helped determine its authenticity. I guess what I'm saying here is: You've got nothing.

More crystal ball predictions from the party who got it wrong in 2020 and 2022.

Clearly, you don't understand the meaning of the word "hoax". You have evidence of intent? hoax noun a humorous or malicious deception. "they recognized the plan as a hoax" https://www.google.com/search?q=hoax&oq=hoax&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i65.854j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

There's no evidence that the company Hunter Biden was doing business with was acting as an agent for the Chinese govt. In fact, the boss of the company is in detention on corruption charges unrelated to any business his company might have had with Hunter Biden.

How did you come up with the notion that mining waste is dirt?

climatologist noun [ C ] a scientist who studies climate (= general or long-term weather conditions) https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/climatologist

Well, it's certainly not about irrelevance which is what characterizes your comment here.

What defamation case, or far that matter any legal case in dispute, is there in which "if this or that" doesn't play a key role?

Get back to me when economics is a science. And no they're not experts. There's no reason to expect that they even have any serious acquaintance with the scientific literature. What's more, the source you cited lied about their qualifications. It claimed they were climate scientists. And you trust such a source?

What can I say to that but FALSE! First definition of false: not according with truth or fact; incorrect. https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+false&oq=definition+of+false&aqs=chrome..69i57.2502j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Nothing to do with intent. And for public figures the standard is either malice or reckless disregard for the truth.

Your reasoning looks weak to me. And if the DNA confirms a sexual encounter with Trump? Which he has vehemently and repeatedly denied. Of course, he still denies that anything happened between him and Stormy Daniels.