Hillary's inauguration would also be a cause for despair.
What on earth are you basing that on? I have seen a lot of innuendo on her, but never anything more substantial than possibly a poor choice of email server.
I took the TGV from Paris to Rennes. It is only "grand vitesses" for a few miles between the cities, most of the time it is plodding through cities & suburbs.
I've taken the same train, and what you say is simply not true. Yes, it takes about 20 minutes to get out of Paris, but that is a small fraction of the total travel time.
Nah, we're compassionate, we just smile superiorly at such ignorance.
And do you know that asbestos causes cancer?
Whining that others may try to disprove your conclusions is decidedly unscientific.
Complaining that people will use the data for crackpot theories that will take months to refute may not be scientific, but we scientists are only human, and we prefer to do useful things rather than argue with idiots. Especially if these idiots categorically and proudly refuse to understand scientific arguments. I'm working in a field that attracts few crackpots, but I don't envy the people that again, again, again, and again have to refute the nutty theories about climate change, thermodynamical laws, evolution, and other fields that attract the loons.
And of course it's not possible to suppress every bit, although the fact that the last 20 years there hasn't been any significant global warming isn't well known is proof of a good attempt at it.
The claim that there has been any significant global warning got plenty of press, but the claim has been convincingly refuted as cherry picking of the available data, so it is not surprising that the mainstream press does not make this claim. That's not suppression, that's journalistic integrity.
Again, if there was any scientific research that would solidly prove your `fact', it would be available online. As you say yourself, this supposed suppression of the facts can in practice not be perfect, so surely somebody would publish it?
The emails are the raw data now? WTF?
You are really arguing that it is impossible to get funding from counter-AGW research? Even assuming that it is completely impossible to get money from mainstream research sources, surely not all those deniers are completely broke? Just crowd-fund it, you bunch of whiners. Start with Mr. Lamar Smith himself, he must have a few dimes to spare.
And do you really think that if some solid research would topple mainstream climate science, it would be possible to suppress is, even if people would try?
Try to come up with some decent counter-arguments, and not just this lame conspiracy theory again, ok?
"the Russians hacked a couple of people at the Democratic Party (maybe) and embarrassed the hell out of them"
And even this has not been substantiated to the public by the US intelligence agencies.
Totally agree, I haven't seen any evidence that the Russians found anything really embarrassing.
What are you trying to say, that what was in the emails were lies? That the collusion between the DNC, MSM, and Clinton campaign were manufactured scandals that caused people to resign and lose their jobs?
Have you actually read those emails? Can you come up with some actual quotes from the emails that prove what you are claiming? What I am saying is that so far I have not seen any actual quotes that are in any way damning.
I am confused. So far the DNC and Clinton has acted like that what was in the emails were true. Is there any reason to believe that what is in the emails are manufactured?
Well, I have seen reports that according to the DNC some of the emails were altered in some crucial ways, but they wisely decided that that would not convince anybody because that doesn't fit in a Twitter message.
Obama already gave them free reign to fuck around with Europe. Have you not been paying attention?
As a European I have been paying attention, and the above is utter nonsense. It may be that you don't notice any political manoeuvring more subtle than thermonuclear war, but that doesn't mean nothing has happened.
No corporation has as much power as those running a socialist economy, not even the worst historic monopolies were even close.
Ever heard of Banana Republics? Colonization?
The first time, it's a KLUDGE! The second, a trick. Later, it's a well-established technique! -- Mike Broido, Intermetrics