placeholder

I have asked you repeatedly why getting an abortion is not an example of someone taking responsibility. Your answer is simply to assert that people must take responsibility for their actions without explaining why getting an abortion isn't taking responsibility. So, once again, why is getting an abortion not taking responsibility for one's actions?

Which is why I wrote the phrase that's now in boldface: If one bank offers you interest at 1 percent and another at 10 percent, then on the basis of that alone, would you claim it doesn't matter since both interest rates are positive? Because I figured that someone would attempt a deflection such as the one you just made. And deflection is necessary because the point is so obvious, there isn't a rational rejoinder. And once again, what does the behavior of VIPs taking flights have to do with the science? The fact that 99.99% of climatological research that addresses Anthropogenic Climate Change supports its existence.

What you don't seem to get is that it's not just about change in climate, but the rate of change. The average global temperature is rising faster than it has been in at least the last 125000 years. So glaciers are melting at an increasingly rapid pace. It's the rate of change that counts. If one bank offers you interest at 1 percent and another at 10 percent, then on the basis of that alone, would you claim it doesn't matter since both interest rates are positive?

And she is not a scientist. What ultimately counts is the science. And the fact that 99.99% of climatological research supports Anthropogenic Climate Change is what counts.

So disappointing. I was convinced that you had accepted the value of scientific research and thinking. At the very least I had hoped for a rational response to what I posted instead of nonsense invoking the MSM. I wasn't aware that the MSM consisted in part of scientifically based research.

You're welcome. And I am 100% confident that you will no longer be posting such nonsense on aseannow.com. Go and sin no more.

I think if Thomas is incapable of understanding such simple and basic laws about the financial reporting, then he clearly doesn't have the ability to sensibly interpret the Constitution..

That's because when it comes down to the actual science, JonnyF and fellow travelers have got nothing.

Apart from the fact that 99.99 percent of climate research on the issue supports Anthropogenic Climate Change, you've made some great points.

What is so hard to understand about the fact that the atmosphere frequently purges itself of water vapor when a saturation point is reached? This phenomenon is known as precipitation. Have you heard of rain, sleet, snow, and hail? And when the day comes that it starts to precipitate dry ice because the atmosphere is saturated with CO2, you'll have a point. Until then, not so much.

The exact calibrated warming effects of CO2 were established at the end of the 19th century. This is 100% settled science. You've got nothing.

Well, to judge from her past form, maybe the problem is that he's' not white?

Ali was outed for real misdeeds, with irrefutable evidence. Not alleged, imaginary ones based on repeatedly debunked evidence.

The Republicans have been threatening not to raise the debt ceiling until the debt issue is addressed. In other words, they are threatening to damage the U.S. economy. How do the Republicans think voters are going to react to this threat considering that most voters don't care that much about the issue? Once again, Republicans are impersonating lemmings.

And the US fared badly, too.

Well, the UK did have a very foolish PM who seemed to go out of his way to get infected. That didn't send a great message.

Thanks for the cliched thinking. Has it been revealed that any of the other justices have committed similar lapses?

I get it. It's me who hasn't stopped. Not you.

Didn't you enthusiastically approve of Trump's choices for Supreme Court Justices? How do you reconcile that with supporting Bernie?

According to the rules I can quote you so long as I don't misquote you or edit your comments in such a way as to misrepresent their intent. No rules against quoting fellow members of aseannow.com. And here are the members of the OECD. Quite an economically disparate lot as the list i've linked to shows https://www.oecd.org/about/document/ratification-oecd-convention.htm

So what? Spain is not included in the G7 for a very good reason. It's not one of the world's 7 leading economies. So more dissimilar to UK economically than the other 6 members of the G7 are. So comparisons are less valid. And as I already have pointed out, without the dismal performance in 2020, the rebound in 2021 and 2022 wouldn't have looked so strong. And it remains a fact that the UK to date hasn't managed once to top its economic performance in 2019. The only G7 nation not to have managed that.

Actually, 2020 is integral to your claim about the high growth rate in 2021 and 2022. If 2020's growth rate hadn't shrunk so much, the 2021 and 2022's growth rate wouldn't have been so high. This is basic math. If you start with a low baseline, then it's easier to score a higher percentage. But in absolute terms, the other G7 nations managed to exceed their 2019 results in 2021. Not the UK.

I"m not the one who cherry picked anything. You did. You chose those years. And you still haven't told me what in the Telegraph article I linked to contradicts what I wrote. You made a claim, now please back it up.

I'm not sure what the point is you're trying to make here, but October, November, and December are more or less 1/4 of the year.

Spain is not a member of the G7