nauseus

Why not print the whole link?

I was adding in from the link is all.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/jun/08/legitimacy-jan-6-committee-explained/ From the GOP side, the main problem seems to be that Pelosi flat rejected Jordan and Banks as being "too closely tied to Trump" to help carry out a credible investigation". How can anyone expect to get any bipartisan cooperation when elected representatives are discounted like that? What about the rest of the proposed committee that have long histories of being overly anti Trump? What's wrong with having some balance? This partisan (Pelosi) action and the reasoning for it, revealed that this whole sham is about a virtual third Trump impeachment, more than anything to do with stopping future similar riots.

However, McCarthy differs from the committee in believing the coup attempt was never “plausible” and that “the system did work” in preventing the election being overturned, comments of which you can watch below.

Just look the "hearing" prime time viewing numbers.

Which is more than most of America seems to be doing. ????

And behold - both are happening.

I haven't excused anything. Just asked a question. Do you have the answer to it?

This story shows that there were plenty of warning signs before J6, even Cheyney said that. The mock gallows and at least one pipe bomb assembly was found near the Capitol a day before (J5). It's no surprise that Trump is highlighted by this committee but other aspects need to be considered too, if a repeat of this event is to be avoided. In particular one important question should be asked as: given existing intelligence and the associated pre-warnings, why was the National Guard or other extra security not organized and present at the Capitol on January 6th to support and assist the police in case of crowd violence? I'd like to know the real truth of that, whatever the answer is.

Where did you hear that then?

Truly bipartisan hearings can and normally do include cross-examinations. But this one is not at all bipartisan or normal.

But apparently even more heinous in the eyes of some attendees is that Crenshaw rejected former President Donald Trump's claims that the 2020 election was stolen. One man wearing a red "Make America Great Again" hat can be seen yelling in an online video, "Dan Crenshaw is a traitor!" and "He needs to be hung for treason!"" Apparently.....some attendees....one man.

Oopsy! https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61859881

The former chief of U.S. Capitol Police says security officials at the House and Senate rebuffed his early requests to call in the National Guard ahead of a demonstration in support of President Trump that turned into a deadly attack on Congress. Not rebuffed from the White House though.

There are already technologies like carbon capture but they are rather limited in capacity and success right now.

So few samples for an internet-based survey and if 66% of the samples were not following the hearings closely, how can they have a considered opinion?

First unreadable, second about WHO and third a book review. Thanks for trying anyway.

Facts? ????

The issue that I was referring to is that the earth's climate has been changing throughout its 4.5Ga history, sometimes with far higher maxima and minima than seen recently. To put things into perspective, bear in mind that the last ice age only ended only about 12,000 years ago - an almost invisible division of the geological clock. From reading all these posts it seems that there is regular confusion made between the phenomena of climate change and temperature variation. Temperature is just one aspect of climate, with large variations evident throughout earth history. But these questions should be asked: Can climate and climate change be affected by temperature variation? Yes. Can climate change and temperature variation be affected by CO2? Yes. Do greenhouse gases affect global temperatures? Yes. Is CO2 the most populous greenhouse gas in the atmosphere? No. That's water vapour. Are CO2 levels the highest ever? No. Would reforestation lower CO2 levels? Yes, a lot. Is carbon recycled naturally? Yes but very slowly - millions of years. Are there any other factors that cause both climate change and temperature variation? Yes, such as as but not limited to changes in: solar absorption, reflectivity, earth orbit and rotation, solar activity, volcanic processes and over a very long timescale, even tectonic effects on the carbon cycle. Back to topic: Have CO2 levels risen at the fastest rate in recent earth history (late Holocence)? Yes and the rapid rise in the last 200 years is indeed coincident with not only the Industrial Revolution and its resultant emissions but also large rises in the human (and other animal) populations, deforestation and construction. The last question is critical to this topic and as it is evident that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are responsible for at least part of today's climatic extremes (although I think the Carbon the sink factor is just as important), then they need to be reduced. That said, this world has never had to deal with so many of us making a mess of it. Mother earth will be OK but I'm not sure about us.

Climate change is not all about CO2.

Not enough absolute data for that but, yes, mother earth's climate has been changing since she was a baby.

That is a good question.

Can you add some completely unbiased links to your claims of failed negotiations please?

I'll look out for that! ????

You can nominate your own 'facts' but don't expect anyone to just accept them as such.