Yellowtail

That nuclear is not gaining significantly more traction amazes me. EVs could actually make environmental sense were we getting the bulk of our electricity from nuclear.

You (apparently) claim that oil company involvement on university campuses proved they are working to "...undermine the danger of climate-change...", yet oil companies, automotive companies, engineering companies, aerospace companies and any number of other companies have been involved on university campuses for quite a long time. Companies need competent graduates, where else would they get them?

\ Who is they? Why is it the fossil fuel industry's responsibility to find an alternative? The are selling a product that virtually every county on the planet wants to buy, and there is no sign od this changing anytime soon, and it's not because of "...the propaganda the oil industry is continuously sending out to undermine the danger of climate-change...".

One of "examples" you provided of "...the propaganda the oil industry is continuously sending out to undermine the danger of climate-change..." was an oil company showing what the were doing to reduce their carbon footprint and develop renewable energies. How does imply fossil fuels are not bad for the environment? Yes, burning fossil fuel is bad for the environment, and most people, including the fossil fuel industry acknowledge that.

Why assume you would be the only individual doing something? But everone on the planet eats, and fossil fuel an petroleum products are in large part responsible for feeding them. That's not true. The landlord pays the for the electricity and resells it to the tenant. Any installed solar panel output would be money in their pocket. Unfortunately, because wind and solar do not provide power continuously, fossil fuel will still be required for at least another fifty years.

I just checked the table of contents again, I did not see policy recommendations, what page are you on?

I know what they do, and I've said as much several times. Someone else linked to the report implying the IPCC was telling countries how to achieve emission goals, not me. And again, it makes little sense for climate scientists to decide how best to achieve emission goals, these policies are political, not scientific. Realistically, it should be economists drafting the policies.

Have you quit using air conditioning? As I understand it, many of the "greedy rich capitalist pig dog landlords" sell the electricity to their tenants? If you live in a multi-floor condo building, there is not enough roof area to power more than a couple units anyway.

I do not doubt there are a lot of scientists involved in the research, nor do I doubt the results of the research, but again, it appears to be a report on the status and current projections related to climate change, not a prioritized list of policy changed that should be implemented. Do you think positions read the report and based on the data, decided to disallow the use of natural gas stoves, while doing nothing about new coal-fired generators being built?

Of course, you should not have to alter your lifestyle at all. If solar panels are so cheap and effective, why do the rich capitalist pig dogs who own the apartment blocks and their own houses install solar panels? Do the greedy pigs care more about destroying the planet than they care about all the money they could save?

Is the IPCC not a political organization. In any event, this seems to be (as one would expect) just a report on the status and current projections related to climate change. From the report you linked to, it Looks like we've made a lot of progress so far:

What ways do "the climate scientists" recommend for reducing our carbon footprint? Why would "the climate scientists" be involved in these recommendations anyway? Clearly it is not their area of expertise. Policys for reducing our carbon output are political, not scientific. As such they are generated by politicians, not scientists. Making natural gas stoves illegal while continuing to build coal-fired generators makes little sense to me.

So the people burning the fuel bear no responsibility, it is all the fault of the fuel provider? Are the mid 2000s not thirty years away? What looks like a PR ad about being a responsible corporate citizen proves "The oil industry continuously sends out propaganda material to undermine the danger of climate change." It is clear that oil money has take over the universities, just look the large percentage of peer reviewed publications that undermine the dangers of climate change. What is it you think the oil industries should do anyway? Without them countless people would starve and freeze to death. How many people moaning about the oil companies are sitting in air-conditioned spaces, refrigerate and cook their food and utilize vehicular transportation?

And you can maintain the coverage after you retire. My premium is B432/month Make sure that if you are working and paying SS that you are enrolled and get a card. You're already paying for it.

Does everyone working legally not have health insurance though the Thai social program?

The mileage is not very indicative of the wear on the engine.

It is pretty hard for me to believe that if Apple, or Meta or any one of a thousand companies wanted to do this that there would be significant push-back from the state of California, or that they would not be able to find a developer. Assuming the people in the 15-minute cities own cars for when they leave the 15-minute city, would they not each have a parking spot? If the city is designed for walking, why would there be a need for fast moving traffic? Would there not just be an entrance and exit to the city for people coming and going? Are you saying that big city governments are typically controlled by private developers? Maybe in Texas and Florida, but surely not in California and New York. To be clear, I would absolutely support these cities as long as they were privately funded and did not have to use eminent domain to displace existing residents. Who would be against them? Who loses?

You draw money twice a day?

A dull ache is muscle pain. Your liver has no pain receptors.

Yes, I've been through the same thing, that's why I provided a link to the doctor that saved my life. But that does mean your thread does not sound like a wind-up, and please feel free to ignore me.

I assume your post is a windup, but you will not get on a transplant list in Thailand.

Only secular people fear death, that's why they obsess on it.

You should have been an English teacher.

Yes