You paid for a closed-source service where you're at the mercy of the publisher's whims. What did you expect?

That's the Science process. People make mistakes, and their results can't be reproduced. New papers are written to point out the errors. A study finds out why the results could not be repeated, and new knowledge has been gained.

Instead of improving the process of error correction, your idea seems to be to not do Science at all, because if no peer-reviewed papers are produced, there are no peer-reviewed papers which can't be reproduced, right?

Practically zero, just like the thickness of the atmosphere relative to the size of Earth.

One of the key parts of ACME is that cert issuers are supposed to check the certificate from different points on the Internet, so that they have a good chance of seeing different answers if that kind of MitM attack happens. They won't necessarily know which is the true server response, but they will not issue a certificate if they see a mismatch.

He still can't prove his claims. No need to debunk him. And just because he was able to point out errors in some of the papers that tried to correct him, he wasn't proven right in any way. Errare humanum est, and you can be wrong in so many ways that most of them contradict each other. This does not make any of them more right than the others.

Of all I accused him, this is the only thing you noticed? And your argument boils down to "I can't be a racist. Some of my servants are black."

Trump is the dictator of the proletariat.

The white-collar bourgeoisie is not happy.

It's not turning out like Marx predicted.

You have a very naive way of looking at the world. First, Russia does not place its intercontinental rockets around Moscow. They are mainly around the Kola peninsula close to the Finish border, in the Ural mountains, on the peninsula Kamtchatka close to the Alaskian Shore and on the Kurilian Islands North of Japan. Second, the Stable Genius did not have any Strategic ideas. He just looked at a map, and in his imperial reflex, he saw places in North America, which werenât U.S. territory, which greatly bothered him. As annexing Mexico would mean 100 Million Mexicans suddenly becoming U.S. citizens, he dropped the idea of demanding Mexico, but Canada and Greenland? Oh yes!

Then we are lucky, that they actually donâ(TM)t, with the exception being the Democratic Republic Congo. Or as the late Hans Rosling put it: You canât do politics for the 2000s with the Information from 1970.

Sure, itâ(TM)s quite possible for two people to exchange offhand remarks about the local weather apropos of nothing, with no broader point in mind. It happens all the time, even, I suppose, right in the middle of a discussion of the impact of climate change on the very parameters they were discussing.

Oh come on.

We've been saying "Thanks, Biden!" for years as a joke, and you blue haired legbeards always got riled up with your "source????" and "citation needed???" cries.

(FWIW I don't support Trump and have never voted Republican).

An argument repeated at nauseam without ever being true, given the current president of the Ukraine is a Russian speaking jew.

The thing to understand is we're talking about sixth tenths of a degree warming since 1990, when averaged over *the entire globe* for the *entire year*. If the change were actually distributed that way -- evenly everywhere over the whole year -- nobody would notice any change whatsoever; there would be no natural system disruption. The temperature rise would be nearly impossible to detect against the natural background variation.

That's the thinking of people who point out that the weather outside their doors is unusually cool despite global warming. And if that was what climate change models actually predicted, they'd be right. But that's not what the models predict. They predict a patchwork of some places experiencing unusual heat while others experience unusual coolness, a patchwork that is constantly shifting over time. Only when you do the massive statistical work of averaging *everywhere, all the time* out over the course of the year does it manifest unambiguously as "warming".

In the short term -- over the course of the coming decade for example, -- it's less misleading to think of the troposphere becoming more *energetic*. When you consider six tenths of a degree increase across the roughly 10^18 kg of the troposphere, that is as vast, almost unthinkable amount of energy increase. Note that this also accompanied by a *cooling* of the stratosphere. Together these produce a a series of extreme weather events, both extreme heat *and* extreme cold, that aggregated into an average increase that's meaningless as a predictor of what any location experiences at any point in time.

The Hellenic Greeks (Alexander the Great and the Diadochs), the Romans and the Persians were famous for a) building really large empires and b) actually caring for the civilizations they conquered. After the Romans for instance conquered the last of the Greek Diadoch kingdoms, Greek became the language of choice for the Roman elite. Alexander the Great took over the Persian bureaucracy and even coopted the Persian court ceremonial for himself. Ptolemaios, despite being of Macedonian origin, became pharao of Egypt and started the longest lasting Egyptian dynasty of all, which existed for nearly 300 years. Persians took the cuneiform from the Assyrian and Babylonian cultures they conquered, and Babylon was the largest and most prosperous city of Ancient Persia.

So you are not exactly right with your assesment.

Perhaps you missed The Fine Headline ("In Last-Minute Move, Canada Rescinds Digital Services Tax, Restarts Negotiations", emphasis added) and the rest of TFS? I am sure you were not being intentionally off-topic....