EyeSawYou

Maybe YOU should read the report, I just think it's funny how fools tell others to read what they never read themselves lol.

EyeSawYou

So a rapist like you accusing Trump of being a rapist? LOLOLOL

EyeSawYou

LOL you just proved you are a liar and nothing else, NO collusion and NO obstruction.

Angmo

He should read page 64

National Park

Maybe a simple sprain is destined for you: obstruction of justice is itself a crime even if what is being investigated turns out to not be a crime. If the person being investigated can obstruct the investigation the whole criminal justice system falls apart. Apparently you don’t believe that law enforcement should have the power to conduct investigations to determine whether crimes have occurred. Sad. And would you please answer one simple question: if this investigation had been about Obama instead of Trump, what would you be saying right now?

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

You are aware Mueller disagrees with you?

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

Rachel read it for him.

National Park

Mueller does not disagree. Obstruction of justice is a basic legal concept. Read this: https://legaldictionary.net/obstruction-of-justice/

Note that there is no requirement that the investigation being obstructed results in prosecution of a crime. If I attempt to stop an investigation from proceeding, or provide false information, or attempt to have others provide false information, I have committed the crime if obstruction of justice. Doesn’t matter if I was otherwise innocent of any wrongdoing. Ask yourself what your view would be if Obama had done what Trump did.

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

Keep dancing.

National Park

Sunce you have nothing better to say you apparently agree. Just keep asking yourself, “if Obama had done this what would I be saying?”

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

Don’t go hating on me because you made a false claim.

National Park

If Obama had done this what would You be saying?

Angmo

Mueller said no more indictments. And buh bye.

hondo812 Loc: Massachusetts

You can spend some time to look it up. Pretty sure it's Cook. NASA site has a link. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024


"Abstract


We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic g****l w*****g (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global c*****e c****e' or 'g****l w*****g'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of g****l w*****g. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing g****l w*****g. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."

This is what can only be called cooking the numbers. Bottom line reality is that 32.6% of scientists supported AGW (Anthropogenic G****l W*****g) and not 97%.

The main fallacy to all of this is to ignore time. Scientists are using "global" temperature data dating back to about 1880. That's less that 150 years and that assumes the data is all collected the same way, using the same caliber of instruments, and the same locations. Today it's digital instruments and even satellite data. No such thing as satellites or digital instruments in 1880 through about 1950. Couple this with the number of agencies involved (4 or 5) that measure this value all the time. They can't agree on what the temperature was year to year. You'd think if they are measuring the same thing the same way they'd come to the same answer right? If they can't get this right how are they ever going to make an accurate prediction?

http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/GlobalAverage_2018-1024x582.png

Like I said earlier, Time is important here. Planet weather is a function of geology. Four (4) Volcanoes erupted (large eruptions) across a 50 years period in the 1300's. This was enough to usher in a 500 year mini-Ice Age that basically ended when these guys started their temperature measurements. Prior to that, about 2000 years ago, the planet was warmer than it is now. Basing predictions on only 150 years of data (cherry picking) has lead to false assumptions.

What else do we know?

13,000 years ago (before the age of f****l f**ls) the Sahara was a lush green oasis from coast to coast. The desertification of the Sahara was in full force about 8-9 thousand years ago and continues today. The world population at the time is estimated at 5 million total. Surely 5 million people with no f****l f**ls caused such a dramatic change in climate!

2000 years ago there was a forest of trees where the Mendenhall Glacier is today.

Nearly all the energy keeping the surface of our planet warm comes from the Sun. The Sun goes through cycles and is currently in a down cycle (less energy).

The Milankovitch cycles
http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm

These can have an enormous impact on climate and seem to be the likely culprits to the 100,000 year Ice Age cycles. The next one is on its way. 1000 years, 2000 years? Sooner or later it will get here.

What we should be doing.

Alternate energy. There's 150-200 years worth of oil left. What are people going to do then? It's not going to impact anyone alive today but the sooner we get that taken care of the better.

Solar and Wind are in their infancy. Solar panels are toxic as all get out and not very efficient. If you dig deep you may find that the amount of energy expelled to make one is greater than the amount it will return over it's lifetime.

They are just starting to couple geothermal with distilling hydrogen from water. Could be something to look at. The other prize would be cold fusion.

Okay, I see that I am rambling here so I'll stop....

Angmo

There’s evidence of galactic cycles too. Our solar system exposed as it bounces up and down within our arm of the galaxy.