fauxlaw

And yet, the planet is experienced with damage of much higher frequency and severity in its 4B years history, and has survived them all, to date. Survival by ancient mammals with the same anatomical/biological systems man has today, and yet they survived, as I said. "ClimateChange" is nothing but a money grab from those having it and willing to buy into the nonsense sold by theorists of a "science" that has been around for less than 200 years, combating science of thousands of years of physics, geology, physiology, mathematics, astronomy, and so on. I believe the latter guys. The former are still in school, dealing with their theories and little fact.

I ask, again [still]: "... what’s a standard temperature of the Earth, as if it had a single climate to measure it?" And do we even measure around the world with the same tools, measurement techniques, and demands of accuracy, to achieve reliable results. The answer, I know by personal observation and experience with measurement tools and their applications [and I've been in 30 countries around the world to do this over 20-odd years] is NO. Standardization of measurement is the greatest flaw/thorm in the side of climate change theory. The "science" simply lacks experience. Time passing, they should acquire it, but, in the meantime... let's keep a level head on our shoulders and stop denying that other sciences have better, more complete, and accurate knowledge. One cardinal fact out of those sciences: climate changes; always has, always will, regardless of us. Full stop.

Yeah, available data from media-sponsored polls. I'm not surprised that's their conclusion, but I have significant data that suggests their "data" is jaded by inaccurate, engineered questions, which kills statistical reliability. I am a professional on statistical sampling and interpretation of data. Theirs is highly questionable.

I'm not very conversant with the case, but I wonder if there is consideration in the case addressing merely threatening to apply tarrifs as opposed to charging them outright. Guess I'll have to read the syllabus.

While I enjoy reading "The Fountainhead," a nd also "Atlas Shrugged," I don't agree with some aspects of her philosophy; in particular, that altruism/self-interest comparison. I see holes on the argument, such as self-interest being a hindrance to being sociable and charitable on a personal basis. If I am committed to self-interest more than altruism, I would tend to ignore the opportunities I have to help other people on a personal basis; not merely contributing money to charity, which I also do, but the latter takes away the person-to-person advantage of helping satisfy need. There are aspects of "Atlas Shrugged" that do not concur with her self-interest argument.

Yes, China produces the most print versions, and curiously - and one reason why I think China talks communism, but they think capitalism, is because 1/3 of their Bible production is for Chinese consumption. However, digital versions exceed the number of print versions annually since 2024, and most production comes out of Brazil.

 with 2025 ranking among the hottest years on record

From an argument I made in a fiction novel I wrote recently [located on France, and with French characters], but my fiction contains a lot of truth, just to keep readers on their toes. The timing within the novel on the last quote is in 2021:

"I delayed telling Toulon that the Earth could not sustain a singular, ideal climate within a range of 1.5° C worldwide where it would never rain until after sundown, July and August could not be too hot, and there was a legal limit to the snow in his imagined Camelot. I did tell Mado, and she, again, gave me stern warning to never tell it to Toulon."

and:

"... what’s a standard temperature of the Earth, as if it had a single climate to measure it, and we are back to Camelot?"

and

" [Toulon said] "We are losing cash just as the real climate crisis is expanding. Last year was among the ten highest global average temperatures of all time.” Toulon was near panic.

“You mean on record,” I challenged. “A record that is… how long since these records by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the U.S. have been kept?”

“Uh…”

“Since 1970,” I answered for him. “Fifty-one years, Jean-Loup. That’s just a blink in geologic time. Less. And your top ten? A shorter blink. I’ve seen the same data from NOAA from 1997, just released in last summer’s annual report, a 23-year record. The top ten are not even consecutive, as, by all the talk, I would expect as evidence of a trend of rising temperatures. The total spread of the top 10 hottest years on record are actually from 1998 to now, and miss a total of 11 years of that total 23 years that are not in the top 10. When we miss 50% of a total of 23 years that do not count in the top 10 highest temperature years; that is not called a trend; that’s normal variation. To establish a trend, statistical data analysis needs to establish at least 90% of the data at high temperature, and reach a data confidence level of 95% - meaning 20.9 of 23 must be higher temperature years.” The NOAA data has only 12 of 23 at high temperature."

OK, off the soap box, but the data I present in this series of quotes from my novel is real data from NOAA, and I footnoted the sources. This "crisis" is non-existent, and not even totally man's fault. We have had climates of worse ranges of temperature than we have now, and the planet survived. We happen to currently be in an ice age, but all ice ages of Earth [most last about 100,000 years] have had warming trends in them, just like now, and virtually all past ice ages occurred before man was on Earth. Oops.

That's why I have maintained since Democrats started complaining about Trump tariffs nearly a year ago [last Feb they started howling] because it was not tariffs, but merely the threat of tarrifs in most cases, but they still tore their hair out because they did not perceive the distinction between doing it and merely threatening to do it. There is a difference, but I think many Democrats don't read all words. Too busy tearing out hair, I guess. It sure isn't because of intelligence, or lack of same, because blue states allegedly educate better than red [ignoring that all blue states have been red states in the past. Yes, all red states have also been blue in the past - so that whole argument of superior blue state eduction is a Democrat myth]

as Democrats see more victories because of their policy

What policy? Seems they're only viable "policy" of late is defeating Trump. I saw nothing of value out of Oba'a, Biden, and certainly less than nothing from Harris by way of doable "policy." Hate is not a policy, it's a useless emotion. And policies such as Mamdani's NYC "policies" are just socialist bunk that will further drive the NYCers who pay the most taxes out of NYC. What, then?

I will grant that occurs, and because it is mostly successful [ok, wealthy] contractors who build homes - and who else could? - that's no reason to reduce either their numbers or the wealth, else we result in severely reducing the market, or in making the market recklessly by less skilled contractors.

I'll be more convinced of Trumps success when I hear of more than a 'framework of a deal in Greenland.

Agreed

So if someone threatens to beat the living shit out of you,

So, when did Trump first threaten to beat the living shit out of Greenland, take Greenland against Denmark's will and then say "let's negotiate peacefully if you don't want that," pray tell? Unless it happened, your accusation is more hole than substance.

Words never were, and never will be substance. That's the distinction, in court, between oral testimony and tangible substance, like a gun with fingerprints, and a the same prints on the shell casing matching the accused. Yes, both are "evidence," but there is a distinction. One is subjective, the other is objective.

fallible is to be erroneous

Completely? No, the word does not necessarily imply total error, but does allow partial error to still be erroneous.

Einstein, for example:

1. The Cosmological Constant (1929/1931): To keep the universe from expanding (a concept he originally believed), he added a constant to his equations. After Edwin Hubble proved the universe is expanding, Einstein discarded this term, calling it his greatest mistake.
2. Gravitational Waves (1936/1937): Einstein initially submitted a paper arguing that gravitational waves did not exist. After the Physical Review peer reviewers (specifically Howard P. Robertson, though Einstein did not know it at the time) pointed out errors in his mathematics, Einstein corrected his work and later agreed they were a valid prediction of his theory.
3. Light Bending Calculation (1911-1915): In his early work on general relativity, he calculated that starlight would bend by a certain amount, but later realized he had missed a factor of two. He corrected this before the famous 1919 eclipse expedition.
4. Quantum Mechanics (throughout his life): While not a formal "admission of error," he was often in the minority regarding his discomfort with the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics,, particularly in his debates with Niels Bohr, and he was ultimately proven wrong on his belief that it was an incomplete theory. 
5. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-einstein-got-wrong/#:~:text=Einstein%20had%20demonstrated%20that%20matter,done%20in%20the%20new%20world.

From Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead", Ellsworth Toohey, a scheming newspaper hack who hates everything about Howard Roark, a progressive architect, meet in the street at night. I may not be quoting exactly, but the sense of what is said is clear;

Toohey: Roark, what do you really think of me?

Roark: I don't think of you.

Take a hint. I don't choose to hear from you, since all you choose to do is belittle me, That's a loser argument that does nothing but _________________ [fill on the blank. I'm sure you can.]

The Latin version is a translation of the original Bible.

Wrong. There never was an "original Bible" in antiquity, There were just separate scrolls, never considered to be combined together in a single volume. And these translations were not from original scrolls - we don't know of anything "original" than those of the Dead Sea, which were not yet discovered in the 4th century, but inl the 1940s. What was translated originally were from Hebrew and Greek scrolls written, at earliest, in 300-400 BCE. "Bible" is a 14th century invention of language from Greek βιβλος [biblos - the original Greek meaning of the word referred to the inside rind of the papyrus plant [Cyperus papyrus] used for making paper by the ancient Egyptians from whom the Greeks learned. C. papyrus was not native to China, so they used other plant material in antiquity for the same purpose. The mention in Revelation [John] of a curse if anything were added to or taken from his "book" [another translated meaning of "scroll"] [Rev. 22: 18-19] referred only to Revelation, and not to the entire Bible [which is a common error made by many today], of which John would have been entirely unaware, since its creation was only centuries later. Less would he ever conceive that his "Revelation" would happen to be the last "book" of a "Bible," the latter of which of which he was totally unaware. The Latin Vulgate is, apparently, the first "Bible" to exist as a single volume of Old and New Testaments [but included more "books" than is typical of at least English translations of the Bible] from the late 4th century, some. decades after the conclave of the Nicaea Council in 325 CE. Other translations of single scrolls ["Books"] preceded the Latin Vulgate.

Nor did I argue that the the post was incorrect, I just acknowledged it was AI-esque, so no further critical thinking, common or not, necessary.

I agree with all of your first paragraph [post #8] as to the conditions in the western hemisphere compared to the demise of earlier cultures and empires, but have some disagreement with the 2nd ¶. I do not think it is in the scheme of things that China/Russia axis [far more likely that Japan/India] to rise to dominance of the world before the Second Coming of Christ, who will then establish himself as the world government.

Being Canadian, are you amused, disgusted, quizzical, or non-committal about American politics, in general? What Province is home?

Personally, I've been all except non-committal. And I now live outside Park City, UT [very liberal as UT generally goes, but they even elected Johnson in 1964 [kennedy's VP; the only Democrat UT ever elected, I think], at 7500 feet in a forest.

The 25A was ratified 61 years ago [1965] and, a good read of the text will reveal that Congress gave itself an opportunity to be one of the options to launch the 25A [other than the President, himself, the VP, or a majority of the Cabinet, all of whom do have that authority by the. 25A], but in the ensuing 61 years, Congress has never bothered to do so. They must pass legislation, or amend the 25A, to give themselves the authority to engage to 25A; they do not have that authority today, and I wonder what they have been waiting for all these years. When didn't Congress want to enhance its authority? Well, this time,

Good assessment. Yeah, Can you imagine that although disruptive himself, Oba'a would not fit into Trump's suit [i.e., his ways and means of negotiation that includes hit-back-harder] I don't think Oba'a was ever a boxer, and I'm not sure about Trump, but he has the moves - and I don't mean his fist-dancing.

Al Gore, offering a lecture at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, was a patent bust, beginning with the above phrase while marching to the poorly-tuned drum of climate change ever since "An Inconvenient Truth," released 40 years ago and which was full of lies.

New York City is not yet under water, as claimed.

There is no AlGoreGooeyJuice to replace oil.

Al Gore uses a private jet for everything from chasing moonbeams to lecturing an empty auditorium.

Even some Democrats ask "Who is AlGore?"

I'sn't it time, yet, for AlGore's brevity? Borrowed time, boys and girls.

I support this ban. If a corp wants a home, let them finance a residence of their funded construction. Reducing the availability of single-famly homes by corporate greed is stupid when home ownership is as strained as it is now. I owned a home in San Francisco from new purchase in 1978 and moved out of it in 1992, by which time I owned the deed, but held it as a rental until a year ago, when I sold to the renter who lived in it for a few years before he wanted to buy it. I sold it for 18x my purchase price. But it never occurred to me that contributing to the housing market was such a necessary thing.

Better a child than wanna-be-relevant Biden or Harris.

Substance; Biden in 2019: [multiple instances of the following Biden quote] "I'm running for US Senate."

Substance: Harris [from 1/20/2021 [probably before, but did not hold office then] to last week]] innumerable word salads, and cackles

I thought both issues of these two surveys amount to deplorable conduct and was mostly severe in my assessment of committing both actions on this site

I tire of Double_R's relentless personal attacks as if I was his personal whipping post. I see no redeeming value to that approach simply since our politics disagree. So bloody what??? He is blocked until further notice. Double's hatred of Trump is beyond reason, and I truly wonder what he will have to bitch about when Trump's term is finished.

lacks a single thought worthy of utilizing any brain power to contemplate.

And just by that little hit job, disproved your own claim:

The difference between you and I is that my insults are attached to actual substance.

Show me your substance supporting your post #15] lacks a single thought worthy of utilizing any brain power to contemplate. I see no substance whatsoever.

The US is truly the only remaining superpower. China? They're just confirmed communists [never a good thing] acting like they're capitalists, but they cheat incessantly on the value of their currency, which is also not a good idea.

According to your data

Nope. The data I collected says nothing about the frequency of human death by either hunting or target practice. My suspicion is that hunting has a higher death rate [accidental] than target shooting. the data I reported is just numbers of people who own guns tied to those activities, and not that all of them may have human deaths among them. I'm counting numbers of people who own guns and use them for the various activities to explain the the 2A is not a viable target for reversal.

I disagree. Most Democrats are not happy about anything. Nothing, Zip. pffft.

I don't dispute Trump's "democrat" was Kennedy-esque, not today's progressive/socialist.

Did I say your post was the longest in the thread? No, just agreeing ir was long.