placeholder

Another reply devoid of reasoning or engagement with the facts.

Can you name them?

You began by denying that CO2 is responsible for warming and now you're claiming that generating large quantity og it is only a privilege for the elite. Why should that matter, if, as you claimed, (contrary to the scientific fact that was established in the 19th century), that CO2 is not a very potent greenhouse gas and not overwhelmingly responsible for global warming? Confused much?

A pint means 20 ounces in in the UK and 16 ounces in the United States. Does that mean pint is a generic term? By the same token, the criteria for what constitutes a recession may vary from country to country, but they are specific. So no, not generic

What has any of this got to do with the fact that the greenhouse gas potency of CO2 has been an established scientific fact for almost 200 years? You've got nothing.

Where was it implied? And even if it was implied, what is the fact the Joe Biden's son is Hunter Biden got to do with impeachment?

As both the Inspector General of the Justice Dept and even John Durham acknowledged, the Steele report was not the basis for the investigation of Trump.

As was noted in this thread, the potency of CO2 as a greenhouse grass was established by the great Irish physicist, John Tyndall, in the 19th century. No one has even thought of disputing its properties which have been measured with great exactitude until the anthropogenic climate change denialists came along. Or do you believe that Tyndall was part of some globalist conspiracy? As for the thawing of the last ice age...what don't you understand about the significance of rates? If a bank offered you 2 kinds of savings accounts, one with an interest yield of 1% and the other with 10%, would you believe that the difference in rates doesn't matter?

So, does Trump have any major properties that have not been pledged as collateral?

The first link is to something published in 1998. Nostalgic much? The second to some organization that calls itself the NIPCC. A cheap trick to confuse its name with the IPCC. Just a lot of quotes taken out of context. What sources lead you to cr#p like this?

Cheerleading much? You should find some pompom emoji to go with your comment.

As is typical of you, when you've got nothing you make it personal.

That's your solution? You think industries that pollute are going to care about Bill Gates setting an example? You've got nothing.

Given that the scientific research from thousands of articles supports anthrogenic climate change, how to explain that except in one of two ways: 1) anthropogenic climate change is a real phenomenon 2) the scientific community is conspiring to suppress evidence that disproves existence of anthropogenic climate change

I guess the same to be said restricting pollution of the air and water. Fond of dirty air and dirty water much?

How is this different from other taxes? Is all taxation enacted in furtherance of some conspiracy?

Wow! So unexpected! Offering a conspiracy theory and providing no evidence that such a conspiracy exists. You should publish this in The Journal of Because I Said So.

Your opposition to Sunak will certainly make some voters think twice... about voting for the opposition.

I read the definitive rebuttal to this. it is in the esteemed scientific journal known as The Daily Mail. It states quite conclusively that Mark Zuckerberg has recently bought more beachfront property in Hawaii. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2792238/mark-zuckerberg-buys-700-acres-hawaii-island-100m.html

Yes, we must do everything we can to protect Little Oil against Big Green. It's a fight worth choking for.

I'm all for giving her credit for her contribution to the issue. But I used Tyndall because I wanted a rebuttal based on airtight evidence.

Whiletechnically the UK is in recession, unemployment is very low. Inflation has declined sharply. For most people those two issues are far more important than GDP growth.

As opposed to the equitable way that fossil fuel companies distribute their profits now? Or how the rulers of various oil producing states lavish those funds on their citizens and stint on themselves? At least that must be the case in the alternative universe that you clearly inhabit.

Another irrelevant deflection about celebrities and such that has nothing at all to do with the science.

Another person who confuses science with celebrity. First off, why is it hypocrisy? Again, even if they lose the property, will that affect their standard of living? What's more, do you know how high Obama's property is above sea level? Do you know whqt rate the sea level is rising there? As for why it's called Greenland? The story goes that Erik the Red named it Greenland to attract settlers. But no one really knows why. Including you. Which is not to say that Greenland was never green. "Greenland was once truly green, according to new research which shows that the southern highlands of the country used to be home to a lush boreal forest... The scientists reached their conclusion after analysing ancient DNA from the base of an ice core taken at the Dye 3 site in southern Greenland... The samples were dated back to between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, making them the oldest authenticated DNA obtained so far." https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/28003-greenland-once-truly-green-scientists-reveal