placeholder

I get it. When satellite data confirms about greening your beliefs it's valid. When satellite data about global warming contradicts your beliefs, it doesn't count. As for your comments about renewables effect on the environment...you got any hard numbers to show what percentage of destruction is due to renewables compared to other factors? Or are you just going to continue to rant?

So is the right to believe that elves and fairies have manipulated the elections? But the fact is, those challenges were virtually unanimously shot down by the courts. Mostly based on a little thing called lack of evidence. Despite which, a majority of right wingers still believe that the election was stolen.

Elon Musk? Really? The guy who has admitted he massively overpaid for Twitter and has saddled himself with some very expensive debt to repay? What's more,Twitter is still in danger of going bankrupt. And the balance of your post is not just equally foolish, but also entirely irrelevant. What has the alleged improvement in Twitter's editorial quality got to do with Musk's financial acumen? Moreover, contrary to your belief, the First Amendment prohibits government censorship. Nothing to do with the editorial decisions of privately owned venues such as Twitter. On top of which, as is his right, Musk has exercised some pretty flagrant censorship of his own at Twitter.

Well, that diagnosis would certainly explain his purchase of Twitter.

Did you and Ted Galen Carpenter somehow overlook this poll? One Year Later, Americans Still Stand by Ukraine Most Americans support Ukraine’s effort, even in prolonged conflict 39% say U.S. doing right amount to aid Ukraine, 28% too much, 30% not enough Republicans are more likely than others to say the U.S. is doing too much https://news.gallup.com/poll/469328/one-year-later-americans-stand-ukraine.aspx

How about this one? One Year Later, Americans Still Stand by Ukraine What you didn't note about the poll is this: This shift in opinion is mostly attributable to the growing share of Republicans who say the U.S. is providing too much support to Ukraine. Today, 40% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents hold this view, up from 32% in the fall and much higher than the 9% who held this view in March of last year. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2023/01/31/as-russian-invasion-nears-one-year-mark-partisans-grow-further-apart-on-u-s-support-for-ukraine/

[Update] No, Mr. Trump — ‘windmills’ are not going to ‘destroy the bird population.’ Here’s what will Within the uncertainties of the data used, the estimate means that wind farms killed approximately 20,000 birds in the United States in 2009 but nuclear plants killed about 330,000 and fossil fueled power plants more than 14 million. The paper concludes that further study is needed, but also that fossil fueled power stations appear to pose a much greater threat to birds and avian wildlife than wind farms and nuclear power plants. While part of the discrepancy is due to fossil fuels’ greater usage, the study also concluded that wind is responsible for 0.3-0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour, while fossil fuels are responsible for 5.2 per gigawatt-hour — about 15 times as much per unit energy. https://electrek.co/2020/10/29/birds-wind-turbines-trump/#:~:text=While part of the discrepancy,as much per unit energy. The US Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that cats are responsible for the deaths of 2.4 billion birds each year. After that, collisions with building glass and vehicles are to blame for about another 800 million deaths. By comparison, about 230,000 birds are killed after colliding with a wind turbine every year. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/10/23/21530123/trump-presidential-debate-windmills-kill-birds

Before Dodd-Frank was weakened under the Trump Administration. Dodd Frank stipulated that any bank with more than 50 billion in assets had to undergo stringent stress tests. After the law was weakened that number was changed to 250 billion. SVB had about 180 billion in assets when it collapsed.

I see that I misunderstood the situation. Thanks for the correction.

What makes you think that free speech and criticism of speech are incompatible?

Actually, it's not Gary Lineker who is liable for this misrepresentation, but the BBC. Gary Lineker obviously couldn't claim on his tax returns that he's employed by the BBC. He is not legally their employee. It's not incumbent upon him to battle the BBC's misrepresentation of his status. Now if the govt were to go after this ruse by the BBC and force it to hire Lineker as an employee, that would be a different matter. But, in fact, the Tories would never go after this since it allows businesses to deny ordinary workers the rights and perquisites they would enjoy as employees.

Now, you're distorting the truth. What you claimed was that because Ash Sarkar was a communist and a columnist for the Guardian, therefore the Guardian was communist. Even though she was one columnist among many and had long since stopped writing for the Guardian.

Actually, the Russian hypersonic missiles are being launched from aircraft. That's a lot of launch sites.

And your nonsense that the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is too small to make a difference is just nuts. Following up on Tyndall's work, the Swedish physicist Arrhenius precisely measured the power of CO2's heat trapping ability. This research dates back to 1896! Stop making things up.

And you still haven't a clue about what trends mean except when it suits your purpose. You claim that the planet is getting greener. Are all areas of the planet getting greener? Are no areas of the planet getting less green? Applying your logic to this question, unless the planet is gettering greener everywhere, your claim is invalid. Doublethink much?

Next you'll be telling me that just because Lineker is rich, that doesn't mean he can't have genuine concerns for the less fortunate. And not that the only people the rich can feel sorry for is themselves. That's just crazy talk!

Thank you for your highly relevant comments which in no way constitute an inane rant.

Jeremy Clarkson had a history of making right wing comments while he was at the BBC. That didn't get him fired. Maybe they're using a reverse double standard in order to conceal their prejudices?

Unfortunately that comment is behind a paywall. I did get glimpses and what I saw seems to be empty rhetoric. He blames Biden for the lack of strong gun control laws in the US. He accuses the US of racism in regards to China. So, as far as I can tell, it's mostly frothing. Not that there aren't legitimate and powerful reason to condemn various aspects of US foreign policy. But the points I spotted certainly aren't among them.

Confused much? You conclude with this: "The BBC loves diversity, except of course diversity of opinion." It's clearly not about the BBC's prejudices. If that were the case, then the "left wing Labour voters at the BBC wouldn't have penalized Linaker in the first place.

I think China's claim that the South China Sea is essentially Chinese property and the actions it has taken to lay claims to islands close to Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Philippines establish pretty clearly who the aggressor is. Also the attacks it has launched on India in the Himalayas.

Just because the Biden administration gave approval, and even if the project passes other legal hurdles, that doesn't mean it will actually get done. At the insistence of investors who believe electrification is going to slash the need for more oil, oil companies have been cutting back on investing in the development of new oil fields. Alaskan oil is not cheap to produce: “For the North Slope, the average cost to produce a barrel of oil before we pay any tax, whether it’s to the federal government or to the state government, is about $52 a barrel,” said Kara Moriarty, president and CEO of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, an industry trade group." https://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/21/cheap-oil-creates-a-new-frontier-in-alaska-making-ends-meet.html#:~:text=“For the North Slope%2C the,Association%2C an industry trade group.

SVB was a major lender to the Trump family, particularly to Jared Kushner. At the same time, Ivanka Trump was selected to be an independent member of the Bank's board. So the management does seem to be ethically challenged.

The point you were making is invalid. Apparently you don't understand the concept of trends. Somehow, you believe that unless there's absolutely no exceptions, then the change is not "coherent". This is obviously nonsense. Even most denialists don't take that as a basis for their opposition to ACC. They claim that the data gathered is wrong and/or predict (falsely) the the climate will cool. You're pretty much out there on your own. Feeling lonely much? As for your assertion that because there have been climate disasters in the past, therefore it can't get any worse, that's also bizarre. As is your implicit rejection of the work of John Tindall, the 19th century Irish physicist, and Eunice gifted amateur physicist Foote, the discoverers of the greenhouse effect.

Me too. But then we aren't residents of Opposite World.