Leftfield

You mean other than the eleventy billion things some of us have already posted? Or all the evidence online that you could dig up yourself if you actually were interested in reading anything or thinking outside of your own opinion?

You're right on this. Musk and Tesla actually made electric cars "cool" for a lot of people. That guy is such an enigma....part of me wonders if his sudden lurch toward conspiracy and some of the other things he's doing that appeal more to the MAGA base is a coordinated attempt to do exactly what you said - get the denialists on board. Granted, that's my own conspiracy theory....

I don't disagree. Those that advocate for action should be at the forefront of tailoring their own lifestyles for it. Some do, some don't. I will join you in criticizing those that don't. Their actions of course don't prevent you from changing anything, but let's not be disingenuous here...you don't and never will believe there's a problem. This argument is just a distraction. Controlling and influencing are two different things. We can obviously influence, but we haven't developed the ability to control. I believe we will at some point, but doubtfully in the next 50-100 years. The task right now is to remove our influence to a degree that the environment can adapt.

This has been pointed out many times before.....Putin didn't invade because Trump was doing his job (weakening NATO) for him. Putin was hoping to play the long game. When Trump wasn't re-elected, Putin had to act because Biden was repairing ties with our allies. Putin knew it was only a matter of time before Ukraine would be admitted as a NATO member, so he made his play when an automatic military response by NATO wasn't assured.

You think Hamas isn't negotiating because Biden is refusing to send weapons? First of all, Israel and Hamas have been going back and forth for months but could never agree on how many should be released from each side, so a deal was very unlikely to happen to begin with. Second, the main reason Hamas has backed off is because the fighting has now begun in Rafah, which Netanyahu has been saying for weeks they were going to go into. Netanyahu has said the operation would go forward with or without a deal, so what reason did Hamas have to really try? Biden isn't "blowing in the wind." Behind the scenes, the Biden administration has been telling Netanyahu for months that his tactics were going too far, and that pausing weapons shipments was being considered. Biden only came forward publicly with this because Netanyahu isn't changing anything in his push into Rafah.

Just because you see him that way doesn't mean they do. And just because a person actually gives a damn about the consequences of their actions, not just in this country but around the world, doesn't make them weak and incompetent. As Tex said, if you think Putin is afraid of Trump, you're fooling yourself. Xi isn't afraid of him, either. Trump was actively weakening NATO and pissing off all our allies, which is what both Xi and Putin want. Would be much easier for them to confront us with a crumbling NATO and allies that don't have much interest in helping.

I love the "they think he's a loose cannon" bit. That a person can think it's preferable to have a leader that's feared because they're a freaking lunatic just blows my mind.

There's also this: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/05/09/opinions/us-population-shrinking-immigration-census-gest I'm not for open borders, but if we want this country to avoid serious economic problems we need to build a strong system to allow a good number of people to immigrate into this country. Wouldn't be a horrible thing if the population declined very slowly, but a rapid decrease would cause serious problems.

One who doesn't even read the studies they post can hardly claim to be just pushing back.

What was given to address? All that was posted was their conjecture about how climate science supposedly operates (*laughably including peer review, as if that's somehow a bad thing). The statement says climate models have been wrong, and the tweet references a chart he supposedly gave to the EPA, but that chart is not included and no reference to the specific models or studies he cited are shown. You've also listed no studies that either of these people have done on the subject. All you've basically said is "hey, these guys have degrees and they disagree with you, so you're wrong." Do they have any reports they've authored to back up the assertions in their statement? *Oh.....https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science Also, in an email exchange with the fake business representative, Happer acknowledges that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal – the gold-standard process for quality scientific publication whereby work is assessed by anonymous expert reviewers. “I could submit the article to a peer-reviewed journal, but that might greatly delay publication and might require such major changes in response to referees and to the journal editor that the article would no longer make the case that CO2 is a benefit, not a pollutant, as strongly as I would like, and presumably as strongly as your client would also like,” he wrote.

Apparently you can also continue to delude yourself if you think I'm "butthurt." Not a surprise you relish posting what you do...ignorance is truly bilss.

Yes it is, but that's not what you said originally. This is the way you often operate....state something false, then when called on it you make another claim that's correct but has nothing to do with your original point and act like you were right all along.

Contents out of order vs planting evidence. That's not eye of the beholder. That's making s**t up. The only way you can confuse them is if you don't speak English.

"Prosecutors say despite the reordering, each box still contains precisely the same material it had in it when it was seized."

Example?

I said that the second paper you cited (bolded below)....... ....had already been posted. You posted it back on page 11 of the thread: https://setpublisher.com/index.php/jbas/article/view/2509/2267 That's the one that argued CO2 doesn't have enough increased enthalpy to affect global temperatures ,which, well, no s**t.

There's been no discussion on your part. Clearly you're not trying to hold a technical conversation because you're not even bothering to read what you're posting. 59 pointed out why the enthalpy argument is irrelevant, and I pointed out why the saturation argument was both wrong and irrelevant. This latest paper is just gibberish. There are unsupported assertions, contradictions, lack of citations, opinion and conjecture. Hell, there are misspellings in most of the charts. Anyone putting it forward should be embarrassed. Why do you even pretend to have an open mind about this? You're obviously not going to believe anything aside from what you want to believe, because everything you post is rebutted and debunked, yet you still keep posting more of it. And you accuse me of refusing to believe anything else, yet of the two of us I'm the only one taking the time to read what you're posting.

As @Aufan59said, the second paper is the same you posted earlier in the thread. As for the first.....there's no possible way you read that. If you did, and you think that is a legitimate, peer reviewed paper, or hell even just a paper that a minimally competent researcher wrote, then you're even more hopeless than I thought. You've screwed yourself either way, because if you didn't read it, you've proven you don't care what or how legitimate the evidence is, you'll just post it because it seems to support your position. If you did read it, then you have no business trying to hold a technical conversation with a ferret, much less another human being.

Appears so. At first I thought he'd been banned - I had a notification that he'd replied, but when I clicked on it it just took me to the top of the page. Figured he'd said something that a mod found as a no-no. Apparently he deleted it all because he still posted over on the main political board. I will say, he's not wrong about TigerDroppings. I don't visit often, but I cringe when I read a lot of posts there because I know a lot of the people I grew up with (north of Baton Rouge) are probably just like that today.

Lol....apparently you should have stayed on the other board if you think you're being clever with the Mickey Mouse horses**t about correlation and causation. You're going to tell us that after your lengthy diatribe about gay people becoming accepted in society, then pointing out no society in history thrived after that, that you don't believe that's the reason the same will happen to us? Oh, sure, why wouldn't we believe that? As to your question, not that it deserves an answer, no I can't. Apologies, I'm not versed in the sexual habits and the timing of acceptance of homosexual behavior in ancient societies - had the flu the week they covered that in high school (before governments starting making laws so we couldn't talk about them). Conversely, can you tell me what societies did fall due to the emergence of said behavior?

Wouldn't it have been easier to just say "gay people are going to cause the fall of our society?" Or maybe you thought that might sound ridiculous?

Eh...maybe, but at least people know I'll actually care if they drop dead in front of me. Snappy comeback by the way. The ol' Cracker Barrel's really firing on all cylinders I see. Take some extra Ginseng this afternoon?

Calling a spade a spade. You continually dismiss the casualties from Covid, as you did in this debate. You also have no problem letting the next generation dealing with the full brunt of the current problem instead of making substantive efforts to help. And it doesn't make me "feel better" when a human being shows blatant disregard for human life. Don't pretend like you're a person who really cares about others in the world, when it's pretty obvious you don't, and then whine about virtue signaling.

I saw it, and it doesn't tell the whole story. For one thing, it doesn't address the fact that CO2 increases also affect the emission of radiation to space. Even If the amount of radiation being absorbed is not significantly increasing, it doesn't matter if the amount being emitted is decreasing. That extra energy will still be trapped and lead to increased temperatures. Second, even though absorption somewhat plateaus at certain concentrations, it isn't saturated: https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/Sources/CO2-saturation/more/Zhong-Haigh-2013.pdf I also question the reason scattering processes were ignored in the link you posted. Seems to me those would be a significant factor, though I have not looked for evidence of that. The common logical fallacy....everything has been fine to this point, so it must be that it always will be. Are you saying there's no possible problem that we could pass on to the next generation that they can't solve? And that we have no moral obligation to try to help them address it? I already told you I agreed with you on the sensationalistic spin that some media and front men use. We agree on this - it's a detriment to the actual desired response. Once again, you're ignoring the important part of it. In fact, you regularly ridicule *the science*. Caring about millions of people dying is "virtue signaling?" Get over myself? What a complete jackass you are. I'm sure you'd feel the exact same if someone in your family died from it, right? Yes, we developed a vaccine - after the disease had already spread. What if we could have predicted what was going to happen and developed a vaccine in advance to drastically reduce those deaths? Same attitude toward that? Wouldn't matter - that's just part of life. Well, since it wouldn't affect you, anyway, right? Yep - screw it all. You're comfortable, so everyone else can deal with it however they want and it doesn't matter what happens to them. You're pathetic.