He didn't say "contextomy" but "context". Here's the two definitions of that word:

noun

• the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
  
• the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.

Try again.

Ah, let's not forget

• In November, a Trump supporter "punched and attempted to choke" a protester at a rally in Birmingham, Alabama (according to the Washington Post); Trump said afterward that "maybe he deserved to get roughed up."
• On March 3, two protesters at a Kentucky rally were assaulted by members of a white supremacist group.
• On March 9, John McGraw, who is white, punched Rakeem Jones, who is black, in the face while cops pulled Jones from a rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Trump told the crowd that "in the good old days this didn’t use to happen, because they used to treat them very rough."
• On March 19, Air Force service member Tony Pettway, who is black, punched and kicked protester Bryan Sanders, who is white, at a rally in Tucson, Arizona.

And Trump offering to pay their legal fees.

Chicago was instigated by Trumpsters. Costa Mesa where a few stones at motorists and police were thrown. New Mexico was some property damage but no attacks on people. San Diego reports also claim rally goers wanted to fight and went out of their way to accomplish that but I'll give you that one, that protesters actually attacked rally goers.

Meanwhile, violence was condemned by Clinton.

So, Trumpsters started it, did it more often and we're encouraged by the orangutan.

I'm glad the hecklers were thrown out and mistreated as all censors need to be. — NOS4A2

Yes, we know you're no fan of civil rights unless it's guns.

Ah, yes let's pretend I need to be taken literally. Trumpsters repeatedly attacked protesters at Trump rallies and I can only find one example of protesters attacking Trump rally goers in June 2016, after protesters had been attacked at rallies several times and Trump goaded them to do so. Clearer?

That has happened but then Trumpsters did too and more often and Trump called for it several times as well.

Have you heard of "just dig it"? https://justdiggit.org/

Are there any chemists in the house?

What do you think of this (methanisation of CO2): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212982023000938?via%3Dihub

And what about industrial photosynthesis: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acssuschemeng.1c06390

They look very energy intensive but I think in some areas and at certain times (over production of solar or wind) this could be interesting. Instead of carbon capturing it, we recycle CO2.

If two idiots agree, that doesn't mean they're right.

Republicans favourite news channel works that way: "some people say [insert claim accusing people]"



Some people say Trump sucked Giulani's cock.

It's a presumption in court only. We can think whatever we want.

I wonder if they truly believe it or that they just hate their own lives and Democrats so much. As we say in Dutch "a cornered cat makes weird jumps".

What does a typical hero look like in the US? Dirty Harry, any spy movie with lots of collateral damage and breaking of rules, etc. Fits right in popular fiction.

That's because he's a troll. When you've beaten one point to a pulp, he won't engage and simply come up with the next.

That was totally not a leading question, then?

Because this certainly was...

David Shafer, former chairman of the Georgia Republican Party and one of the 19 defendants in the Georgia election interference case, claimed in a court filing that he and the other Republican electors who tried to falsely certify Donald Trump as the winner in Georgia were acting at the former president's behest.

This is very selective reading of the entire court submission, which can be found here: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.310324/gov.uscourts.gand.310324.2669.0.pdf

@Hanover @Ciceronianus Are you familiar with the 1960 Hawaii case and how this differs from the current situation?

EDIT: Never mind. I googled: https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/big-differences-between-1960-hawaii-electors-2020-ga-trump-electors

No, this is correct.

My point exactly except I don't think Maga will be all that much admired.

Years from now in the American lexicon you'll have a word Maga as we have caesar but probably with slightly less flattering connotations.

But not as good a thing as getting rid of the cattle. — unenlightened

That sounds too much like a final solution. :scream:

Seems like a pittance. SBF had 250 million.

sometimes you have to wring out every word as from a heavy wet towel. — Vera Mont

But that's easy. A heavy wet towel is full of water. It's the ones you've already twisted in a pretzel that won't give up any more.

I'm not a hydrogen booster. Namibia is planning a hydrogen production facility driven by wind and solar. If steel and lime can be made with electricity, then use that instead of making a fuel with electricity first. I don't see H being a major form of energy. — BC

Yes, the white hydrogen seems very feasible as part of a larger energy mixture. The green hydrogen they're pursuing in the Netherlands doesn't look too good to me. I was working at the Ministry of Finance when they were discussing it and challenged subsidising it. Over the years, I've learned a lot from my dad who was engineer and manager at Shell his entire career. It fell on deaf ears (because what would a lawyer know about economics and chemistry, right?) but I see much of the worries I had voiced again in the media nowadays but the ship seems to have already sailed.

I would expect that the developments of batteries still have lots of potential that make it inefficient to store potential in hydrogen as well. There's sand batteries in Finland and Toyota claiming a recent breakthrough in solid state batteries halving costs, that are just two recent examples I've heard of that sound promising.

Of course, there might be an industrial need for H2 to make ammonia and fertiliser if we stop making H2 from CH4 but I'm not sure we would want to have a large hydrolysis plant compete with our regular need for energy, basically increasing prices. Because I'm pretty certain once the plant is there and they "discover" it's not viable to only run it when there's overcapacity that the government will allow them to buy electricity in the market even when there's undercapacity, causing prices to explode for regular people.

A spark of inspiration that is either the start of a story or the outline of one and then I just write. It's best that I write as much as possible before proof reading or even reading it back. If I do that I run the risk of disrupting the flow and then it can take a very long while before I get back into it. Poetry is more building it around whatever idea or feeling I decided to convey. It's much more cerebral for me than a story.

Various technologies (like hydrogen) would be far less polluting than even natural gas, but we are a long ways from having the infrastructure to produce, distribute, and use enough H to make a difference, Again, think 40 years. — BC

I don't think hydrogen is a feasible technology though. It depends on overcapacity and over investing in energy generators doesn't make economic sense and building a hydrolysis plant that only runs during very windy or very sunny days (in NL) means it will be only a few days a year, doesn't make any sense either.

What am I missing?



Maybe quote the next sentence too and watch the video?

Once upon a time, all tar came from pine trees. — frank

Yeah dude, let's pretend you weren't trying to correct unen suggesting tar isn't a product of fossilised plants. :roll:

think it's more that under pressure, fossilized organic material produces oil and coal. — frank

No, this is again wrong. Pressure and heat cause the fossilisation of plant matter. It's not that plants fossilise and then under pressure turn into coal.

Tar comes from pine trees. — frank

Also wrong. Natural tar is crude oil coming to the surface of which the lighter part evaporates leaving tar or asphalt.

He didn't call fossilised plants fossils, now did he? Fossil fuels are fossilised plants (and some animal remnants).

Well, I did love not having planes fly over my head every minute during the high season so I'm game!

There's a structure to it that I figured out in 2 minutes following your link and I'm not even a native speaker. But yes, I'm sure you're "smart enough" to challenge climate science but "too dumb" to read. I call a big pile of stinking bullshit.

It is great that you have looked on the internet and found the webpage on statewide time-series. — Agree to Disagree

You were lying here when pretending you weren't aware this data was on the website you used for your min-max temperatures, which is what I was referring to. The min-max temps are not highlighted or front and centre, the data I shared is, so you purposefully picked other data for a reason. Considering the thread you mostly post in, it's not hard to guess why.

When dealing with record maximum temperatures and record minimum temperatures there are only 2 datapoints per year per state. 2 datapoints is all that is needed. If you don't understand that then you need to do a mathematics or statistics course. — Agree to Disagree

It's called cherry-picking.

It is great that you have looked on the internet and found the webpage on statewide time-series. I haven't had time to look at it yet but I will try to look at it in the next day or two. — Agree to Disagree

It's the same website as yours. Please stop lying here or we'll take that as trolling. Stop pretending surprise, or lack of time - while ordering 26,000 datapoints across 216 countries - except... checks notes... there are only 195 countries in the world recognised by every other country, or, indeed, pretending you didn't know the data was there on the NOAA website or that there was an ice age scare in the 70s (there wasn't).

You don't understand the claims made by the IPCC and introduce irrelevant data and then become disingenuous with your "innocent" questions. You're reinforcing my earlier suspicion you're not here in good faith.

You're pretending to be a statician and then come up with 2 datapoint per year per state that only relate a maximum and minimum temperature? :rofl:

From the website you used, here's the page you should be using: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/statewide/time-series

trends in fahrenheit:
Alabama: +0.2
Alaska: +3.3
Arizona: +2.0
California: +2.3

Well you get the picture...

I'm surprised people want to know this sort of stuff.

Ah, yes, let's ignore the context of your previous posts and pretend you didn't mean what I thought you meant. Don't insult my intelligence.

Global warming isn't about extremes (but could be possible consequence in certain local situations) but global averages. So that data means zilch. Use this instead: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

As to your earlier comment about fears of an ice age. Here's a nice read: https://longreads.com/2017/04/13/in-1975-newsweek-predicted-a-new-ice-age-were-still-living-with-the-consequences/

I distinctly get the impression you're not arguing in good faith.

Can I just say I almost never read your posts because the point you're trying to make is almost never clear and just consists of possibly random links. It would be great if you'd flesh your posts out a bit more. Now it's like an RSS-feed I don't know the settings for.

It's a bit of a spectacle and distraction from actual policy affecting people's lives. Trumpism isn't going to be defeated in court anyways.

Definitely.

:rofl:

I'm talking about your outrage towards Biden not me. And once again, I don't need to show another definition of fascism when yours doesn't conform with any of the definitions I already shared earlier. To summarise:

"you cherry-picked your definition"
"no I didn't"
"proceeds to give a list of 10+ other definitions none of which conform to the original"
"you must give a definition"
"I just gave 10+"
"you cannot criticize mine without picking one"

:up:

I haven't submitted a definition of "fascism" so you're falsely attributing a position to me I haven't taken. I just think your kindergarten outrage to qualify what Biden has done as fascist pathetic and false. You can perfectly destroy his abhorrent policy choices without resorting to distortions like this.

Oh sorry, let me rephrase, they all include elements that are conveniently excluded from your definition.