Danderman123

Nothing significant will happen. These guys are mercenaries, not crusaders for justice.

Was Trump lying when he said that Obama's birth certificate was fake? Or was Trump lying when he said Obama was born in the USA? I could play this all day.

You could provide an adult response, which would be to provide data that disproves the Global Warming hypothesis.

You still can't come to grips with Trump's campaign manager handing the Russians polling data so the Russians could micro-target US voters. That's Collusion 101.

The truth of the scientific consensus is based on its underlying proof. In the case of Global Warming, you have provided zero evidence that the underlying proof is false, which is an implied endorsement of the scientific consensus based on that proof.

Biden and Trump will be offstage one way or another within 5 years or so, which means you will have to think up a new conspiracy theory.

If he is, he will never be seen again. So, he is off the world stage permanently.

People who don't have access to a power grid can't get power from oil or coal. It's a pretty simple concept.

Frank Luntz is the person who put the term "climate change" into wide circulation.

The point is that oil and coal power plants may not work for the poor in Africa who are currently living off-grid. Solar may be their only viable option.

Wine grapes are more tolerant of climate changes than table grapes, if only for the reason that a bad bunch gets assimilated by all the good grapes in the vat, whereas a bad bunch of table grapes can't be hidden. So, table grapes must basically be perfect to be commercially viable, and climate change can ruin an entire industry in a region. I don't have any personal experience on the impact of climate change on wine grapes.

Ummm... #believeallwomen was about rape victims, not a call to believe all women about all things.

From what I gather, she is a nut job who should be institutionalized. But she is a clever nut job, and will instead spend the rest of her life in jail.

China has pledged to stop funding oil and coal power plants abroad. The plan is to use photovoltaics instead, which are better suited for people who don't have access to power grids anyway.

My personal experience. I own a table grape vineyard in SoCal. Interestingly, during the time of Cesar Chavez (50 years ago), the harvest started in late June and ended in July. Now it ends by Memorial Day (end of May). Climate change has had a big impact on the industry.

What green taxes am I paying?

Climate change is a term coined by Republican pollster Frank Luntz while working for John McCain's presidential campaign. It has worked its way into scientific papers and common usage. I am sorry this confuses you.

Yeah, no more "scientific consensus", it's "the best explanation for the current global warming".

Global warming is devastating the southern California table grape industry, as warmer winters cause grapes to lose their sweetness. As a result, farmers are forced to either exit the business, or tear out their old grapes and replace them with different vareties of grape that don't require cold winters.

Do you have anything to comment about this topic, which is about Global Warming?

I've got it! I will take a cue from the movie Ragnarok, where the Grandmaster got bent out of shape whenever someone called his captives "slaves". So they were called "people who work for free", and he was okay with that. No more "scientific consensus" about Global Warming. Instead, we will just say "the best explanation for the current global warming". I would be thrilled if someone were to claim that the Global Warming hypothesis/theory is not the best explanation (or that there isn't any warming). Remember - no more talk of consensus, it triggers some posters here. It's "the best explanation for the current global warming". TBECGW is the acronym.

Google is your friend: "Global warming is the current rise in temperature of the air and oceans. It is happening mainly because humans burn coal, oil, and natural gas; and cut down forests."

Nope. Until and unless someone disproves the scientific consensus, a reasonable person should assume the consensus is the best explanation available. Just ranting about a consensus being bad WITH ZERO EVIDENCE is just demonstrating a psychological issue. Attacking the consensus on the basis that the data is faulty is okay - if you can prove the data is faulty. Attacking the consensus because you don't like the idea of a consensus is just a symptom of a deeper problem. You have made many posts - zero disproving the data underlying the scientific consensus. That's pathological. I don't even recall you specifically stating that the consensus about Global Warming is wrong, only that you don't believe in the idea of a scientific consensus. is there a scientific consensus in another field you abject to?

Eleftheros says "that the earth has warmed since 1850 and that human activity can change the climate". Do you disagree?

You are right. Your main challenge is the data that proves that Global Warming is real. You have nothing to disprove that, so you go on and on about random things as a distraction. It's pretty obvious to everyone that your lack of knowledge of basic science forces you to engage in diversions rather than substantial discourse on science.