Answer this question?
Why are the banning them.
Then address that.

Do you really think that would \have stopped Russia separatists?
It wouldn't have because they know the Ukraine wouldn't use them, or do you seriously believe the Ukraine would have used nukes on it's own soil?

If Russia threaten the Ukraine with nuclear force, then the US, and others, will step in.

Ukrainian nuclear disarmament is a red herring.

False.
Bans have worked well many times.

" as in some cases"
Any case not involving bad faith? no? I thought not.

The problem with that is most people don't realize that's what's going on.
Frankly, I think she should have forced a veto in order to get more attention to those dumb asses.

I'll have Scotty redirect the Tachyon emitter to my sarcasm detector mains.

Sadly, there are people who would post what you posted without sarcasm.

Here is the thing.
Every time series discussion starts to happen, certain politician derail, misdirect, or blatantly stop the discussion.
It doesn't fit their constituent theology and/or ideology.

Since disease means the world will become too polluted and warm for human civilization, most main stream 'cures' won't be worse.

they are deniers, not skeptics. Skeptics apply critical thinking and make an effort to understand the science.
Deniers don't do either.

What correct means in this case is 'control for known variables.'

As an example. Suppose you have a thermometer above a surface that will make the thermometer read 2 degrees warmer.
You control the variable(correct). and subtract 2 degree for the appropriate times.

That is just a simple example i an ideal world with no other factors. Don't take it to e anything more than that.

You are not a skeptic. Skeptics use critical thinking skills. You are a denier who thinks they are skeptical.

"The ground station temperature data has been quite thoroughly manipulated, always "adjusted" in the direction of confirming the theories of the researcher making the adjustment, Pardon my skepticism about that data."
False.

" But now there's this new satellite data that must be "processed" to be understood."
Like ALL satellite data.

You really don't know what you are talking about. Why don't you turn your so called skepticism on those very claims?

No we have not seen 'ice grow like crazy'. Not at all.
We have seen some more snow fall in some area, but the overall loss dwarfs that new snow fall.

Stop thinking surface, and start think mass.
Antarctica and Greenland are losing 450 billion tons of ice every year

Once again you don't talk about AGW science facts, only you misunderstanding of a high quality science report.

BTW AGW and Climate change are different things. If you can not understand even that basic fact, then you have no hope of understanding the basic facts of AGW.

coincidentally:
Nascar fans equal waste.

It's a phone. Why the hell are you taking calls with it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... :)