placeholder

Because you are claiming that reporting and opinion that contradicts the official Israeli narrative is supporting terrorism.

So criticizing Israel's conduct of the war, and reporting news that contradicts their official line, makes someone a supporter of Hamas? Simplistic thinking much?

Once again, the same kind of thing was said about student demonstrators against the war in Vietnam. Back when that was an unpopular point of view. Who turned out to have a better understanding of the situation there? And what about the Iraq War? Students Cut Class To Protest War High school and college students around the country walked out of class Wednesday to protest a war with Iraq, holding a series of rallies organizers predicted would be the biggest campus demonstrations since the Vietnam War. The "Books not Bombs" strike was being coordinated by the National Youth and Student Peace Coalition, formed following the Sept. 11 attacks. "The Bush administration is intent on plunging America into an illegitimate and pre-emptive war in Iraq that will only increase danger for Americans and the world," the coalition says on its Web site. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/students-cut-class-to-protest-war/

As I pointed out, these states routinely label as terrorists anyone who they feel poses a threat to their interests. Saudi Arabia just sentenced a woman's rights activist to 11 years in prison for terrorism.

Why is the simplest explanation of campus protests so hard to accept? Young people were sympathetic to Palestinians even before the war began. Why is that ignored? Variations on this idea that young people have been snookered into opposing Israel’s handling of the war in Gaza have been rampant in recent weeks. It’s a subset of a much longer-standing belief, particularly on the right, that young people arrive at their beliefs as a function of being brainwashed by various actors or technologies. https://archive.ph/BtgXX

A practice they share with the Saudi, Bahraini, and Egyptian government to whatever or whomever opposes them.

Not surprising that any news that contradicts the official Israeli narrative you would characterize as "terrorist propaganda". Attaching "terrorist" to whatever information displeases you.

Same sort of nonsense was said about student demonstrators against the war in Vietnam.

Even if those accusations were true, and "connections" is such a nice vague word, ya think that's why those countries banned Al Jazeera? Remember that it was Saudi Arabia along with the UAE that invented a provocation in order to justify a rupture with Qatar.

Let me see. I cited research from some of the most prestigious scientific journals. And that is what you call unproven academic research? I cite a couple of examples of companies that are actually manufacturing batteries and you dismiss that as theoretical. As for insights...was your claim that nobody knows what percentage of CO2 comes from fossil fuels one of those "insights"? What you call insights a rational observer would call "making things up" or maybe science fiction.

Actually, they didn't fail to respond. Rather they dismissed research from one of the most prestigious, maybe the most prestigious, scientific journal in the world.

Truly bizarre comment from oppositeworld. In the past, before Oct 7 it would have been considered a badge of honor to be banned by such repressive and brutal regimes like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain. Now, apparently, it's a mark of shame.

Well, this is an El Nino year was was last summer. Now that a La Nina is on the way, temperatures should be lower next year. But they're still most likely going to be hotter, on average, than they were, say 10 years ago. There's not much anyone can do to stop this rise of temperature. Even if the world were to achieve net zero tomorrow, average temperatures would still go up for a while before the rise was stopped. And, of course, by itself, Thailand can't make a significant difference to the rate of global warming.

The heat produced by humanity is utterly irrelevant to the issue of global warming. It has never been part of the scientific discussion What is relevant is the effect of greenhouse gases on certain bandwidths of solar radiation after they come into contact with various portions of planet earth.

Exactly.

It may not be new, but in fact it certainly doesn't support your claims about the steady increase in temperature rise. And instead of offering valid evidence to contradict it, all you offer is empty words.

If anyone should be embarrassed it's you basing your case on the widely dismissed work of Dr. Roy Spencer.

I can't believe you are basing your assertions on the graph of Dr. Roy Spencer who can't get his work published in respectable journals and accuses the scientific world of conspiracy. This is definitely not a graph that the climatological research community bases its work on. On the other hand, the graph below reflects the consensus of the climatological community. I have taken the liberty of highlighting the year of 1998 in the graph below the first one just to make clear how tendentious your claim is. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24021772

I quote an article from Nature, possibly the most prestigious scientific journal in the world, that contradicts your claim, and you call it a nothing post. It's you who've got nothing.

And as for nobody respecting him, did you read the curriculum vitae I posted. That's your idea of nobody?

Once again, here's that article from Nature which casts a lot of doubt on that assertion of yours: Robust acceleration of Earth system heating observed over the past six decades In this study, we demonstrate that since 1960, the warming of the world ocean has accelerated at a relatively consistent pace of 0.15 ± 0.05 (W/m2)/decade, while the land, cryosphere, and atmosphere have exhibited an accelerated pace of 0.013 ± 0.003 (W/m2)/decade. This has led to a substantial increase in ocean warming, with a magnitude of 0.91 ± 0.80 W/m2 between the decades 1960–1970 and 2010–2020, which overlies substantial decadal-scale variability in ocean warming of up to 0.6 W/m2. Our findings withstand a wide range of sensitivity analyses and are consistent across different observation-based datasets. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-49353-1

This is the same James Taylor who claimed that 2015 was not the hottest year on record but rather that 1998 was. James Taylor wrote an article in Forbes claiming that 2015 was not the hottest year on record:49a7 And given his long record of propagating falsehoods, I'm very dubious about his veracity. https://www.desmog.com/james-taylor/ Whereas John Cook is

Tax dodges? What are you on about?

Once again you have provided no evidence. Just empty claims.

Really? John Cook is a Senior Research Fellow at the Melbourne Centre for Behaviour Change at the University of Melbourne. He is also affiliated with the Center for Climate Change Communication as adjunct faculty. In 2007, he founded Skeptical Science, a website which won the 2011 Australian Museum Eureka Prize for the Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge and 2016 Friend of the Planet Award from the National Center for Science Education. John co-authored the college textbooks Climate Change: Examining the Facts with Weber State University professor Daniel Bedford. He was also a coauthor of the textbook Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis and the book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand. In 2013, he published a paper analysing the scientific consensus on climate change that has been highlighted by President Obama and UK Prime Minister David Cameron. In 2015, he developed a Massive Open Online Course at the University of Queensland on climate science denial, that has received over 25,000 enrollments. https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/all/team_member/john-cook/ John earned his PhD in Cognitive Science at the University of Western Australia in 2016. Got some evidence that he's a known alarmist. Got any evidence to show that he was exposed as a fraud?