ozimoron

We? Why don't you criticize Trump for being divisive? Before him, hate speech was kept largely out of the public discourse. White supremacist militia groups exploded after Obama became president and rose further when Trump won. And the right wing have the hypocrisy to complain about divisiveness.

So these aliens only built stuff in two countries where civilization was most advanced and nowhere in the last 2,000 years? Didn't they like China? Are these aliens in the room with us now?

The country is divided because Trump gave voice to racists. Nothing more than that. He still calls Obama "obuma". Is that not divisive? Should an ex president have more decorum?

And yet the impeachmnet of Trump was a witch hunt. Unbelievable hypocrisy.

Hunter's laptop disk image has passed through many hands. Still waiting for the indictments. The best witness MAGA had was is a fugitive felon. That seems not to sway the far right one iota.

Horse vs car. How pointless this debate is.

You just made my ignore list. I'm done with time wasting trolls.

Nobody ever said the natural world would end although many species would be wiped out alongside humans. A very graphic chart was shown to you illustrating that the level of CO2 has near doubled in 200 years, mostly in the past 50 years but you still cling to the notion that you can put words into other people's mouths and not be called out for trolling. You absolutely refuse to address the science presented to you and continue to make arguments in bad faith.

I think Biden should be impeached for adopting a pound dog and teaching it to bite security staffers he doesn't like.

Total BS. Sorry, but you are so deluded about how Dems think it's actually concerning. Consider this ad for Trump. 'Most alarming political ad': Pro-Trump activists release disturbing campaign message https://www.rawstory.com/if-i-was-the-deep-state-pro-trump-activists-release-disturbing-campaign-ad-2662374482/

Of course I do. Once regarded as a healthy drink, recent research indicates that that regular consumption of fruit juice may increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes Fruit juice has some benefits, however the benefits are generally outweighed by the disadvantage of the sugar content. https://www.diabetes.co.uk/food/juice-and-diabetes.html

What you're missing is that some countries benefited greatly by burning cheap fossil fuels since the industrial revolution and they created a problem in that mitigating the effects of burning that fuel was never factored into the equation or even considered. Now that has to be paid for because that carbon must be reduced or we are finished as a species. That process isn't going to be free.

You don't believe this is the single biggest problem facing the GOP's election prospects?

The juxtaposition of using taxpayer money to raid women’s health care while the country faces a raging opioid and fentanyl crisis does not exactly scream 'tough on crime.'" What's more, Corley believes that following this road will inevitably lead Republicans to conclude that women who take abortion pills should be jailed for terminating their own pregnancies, which he said would simply be disastrous politics. "Even a year ago, the idea that a woman would be sent to prison over abortion care would have been brushed off as sensationalist," he writes. https://www.rawstory.com/republicans-abortion-2662334507/

You might not. Most economists do. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-tax-favored-by-most-economists/

surprised?

Think of burning fossil fuels as borrowing from future generations which must now be paid back. Preferably before it's too late. The cost of carbon dioxide reduction is rising as carbon dioxide levels rise.

You haven';t established or even hinted at the existence of another reason for climate change. Nobody's saying we need to reduce the carbon dioxide level by "a few percentage points". It's more like 40%. The level of Co2 in the atmosphere is now higher than at any time in the last billion or so years, give or take a millennia or two. https://www.co2levels.org/

Prove the math. Other than methane gas which is mainly produced by livestock, what other factor is making even an iota of difference?

The reasons are meant to live in scientific research papers and nowhere else. That's what alarmists believe.

At a rate even 1,000 th of the rate it's changing now? Barring major volcanic eruptions. Were those climatic changes caused by humans. Do you think think natural cycles are playing any part now? If so, which mechanisms are in play?

What about the average of any given hundred consecutive days each summer?

There's nothing scientific about that article at all.

That's true. Is it a reason to ignore or, in your case, deflect from climate change?

You detest alarmists for reasons that live entirely in your own head and aren't representative of what motivates alarmists at all. It's actually climate change.