placeholder

Pollution poses greater risk to all human life than tobacco, alcohol: report Air pollution reduces the average life span globally by 2.3 years, making it the “greatest external threat to human life expectancy,” according to the annual Air Quality Life Index report published Tuesday. Researchers from the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago found that the effects of merely inhaling unclean air were comparable to smoking, but caused over three times the damage of alcohol use or unsafe water and over 5 times that of car crash injuries. https://nypost.com/2023/08/29/pollution-poses-greater-risk-to-all-human-life-than-tobacco-alcohol-report/

Here's a link to an article that features a rather impressive video of a carpet python. https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2023/08/29/video-of-giant-carpet-python-slithering-across-australia-suburb-has-users-terrified/

I don't have much esteem for nuclear power plants. They do pose a real danger in case of a meltdown and other hazards. Disposing of radioactive waste that can last for thousands of years is a genuine problem. They also produce electricity that's very expensive. Were it not for government guarantees, the plants would be uninsurable. However, the radioactive substance that's being released is tritium which occurs naturally as well. It will be massively diluted. IAEA COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON THE SAFETY REVIEW OF THE ALPS-TREATED WATER AT THE FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI NUCLEAR POWER STATION Based on its comprehensive assessment, the IAEA has concluded that the approach to the discharge of ALPS treated water into the sea, and the associated activities by TEPCO, NRA, and the Government of Japan, are consistent with relevant international safety standards. The IAEA recognizes that the discharge of the ALPS treated water has raised societal, political and environmental concerns, associated with the radiological aspects. However, the IAEA has concluded, based on its comprehensive assessment, that the discharge of the ALPS treated water, as currently planned by TEPCO, will have a negligible radiological impact on people and the environment. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/iaea_comprehensive_alps_report.pdf

Given that in most free market countries governments are closely involved in regulation and rate setting of utilities, that ship has long since sailed.

Socialism at its heart is about the government owning the means of production. Mussolini never nationalized Italian industries. So how was he a socialist?

Be careful whom you call "stupid and shortsighted" Some might say "stupid and short sightet" could also apply to those who don't understand the consequences for the rest of the world should America's agricultural production severely decline.

Global warming has focused concern on land and sky as soaring temperatures intensify hurricanes, droughts and wildfires. But another climate crisis is unfolding, underfoot and out of view. Many of the aquifers that supply 90% of the nation’s water systems, and which have transformed vast stretches of America into some of the world’s most bountiful farmland, are being severely depleted. https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/america-is-using-up-its-groundwater-like-theres-no-tomorrow/?amp=1

Just in time for Hurricane Idalia.

Whats's clear is that when it's demonstrated that you haven't got a clue about the facts, you retreat to metaphysical gobbledygook instead. Let's review your history when it comes to dealing with reality. I had pointed out that about 1/3 of the atmosphere is composed of CO2 linked to the burning of fossil fuels. We know this because of the reduced percentage of carbon 14 in the atmosphere. Because fossil fuels have been sequestered for millions of years they contain virtually no carbon 14. So when the carbon in them is burned and turns to CO2, the percentage of Carbon 14 is reduced. Someone would have to be seriously in denial to ignore the basic nuclear physics of this. Someone like you. You claimed that only 10% of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the burning of fossil fuels. And to back up your claim, you posted a link to an article that you believed supported your claim but said nothing of the sort. Here's what you wrote on page 23 of this thread in rebuttal: It's clear you got it massively wrong "Clear your web browser from all the garbage it’s collected because it’s directing you to what you assume what is instead of what is. The mathematics of leaf decay - MIT News In fact, the natural decay of organic carbon contributes more than 90 percent of the yearly carbon dioxide released into Earth's atmosphere and oceans. https://news.mit.edu/2012/leaf-decay-1004" You repeatedly assert the importance of keeping an open mind. Yet, when faced with overwhelming evidence, you clung to your beliefs instead. So attached to those beliefs, that you invoked an irrelevant scientific study in the belief that it supported your claims.

It's another example of BIG GREEN against small oil, tiny gas, and miniscule coal. It's just not Fair!

This is from the article linked to your first link: "The plaintiff, Dane Wigington, runs a website called GeoEngineering Watch, which is dedicated to exposing “global climate engineering,” or using technologies to alter weather systems. Wigington made a conspiracy theory-filled documentary, called “The Dimming,” on the same topic. Among its claims is that condensation trails behind airplanes were actually dangerous chemicals being disbursed by the government to alleviate global warming." He's not a loon. No way. No how. As for the fate of that deranged lawsuit: "California Federal Court Dismissed Defamation Case Against Climate Scientist Fact Checker. The federal district court for the Eastern District of California granted a climate scientist’s motion to dismiss a defamation action brought by a plaintiff who published a documentary on YouTube and Facebook promoting his belief that there “has been an intentional effort to dim direct sunlight through aircraft-dispersed particles.” In a third-party fact checker’s review of the documentary, the defendant climate scientist referred to the documentary’s claims as “pure fantasy.” The court concluded it did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant, who was a senior research associate at Cornell University in New York. The court also granted the defendant’s special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law and awarded the defendant fees and costs." http://climatecasechart.com/case/wigington-v-macmartin/ As for the second link. here's how the court decided on Stossel's case: Stossel v. Meta Platforms, Inc. "Federal Court Dismissed Defamation Claim Arising from Fact-Checking of Climate Change Videos on Facebook. In a defamation lawsuit concerning labels placed on climate change-related videos on Facebook, the federal district court for the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice the plaintiff journalist’s defamation claim against both Meta Platforms, Inc. and a non-profit fact-checking organization... The court also granted the defendants’ motion to strike pursuant to California’s anti-Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation law, finding that the statements at issue qualified as protected activity under the law because they were made in a public forum and concerned a matter of public interest." https://climatecasechart.com/case/stossel-v-facebook-inc/ https://climatecasechart.com/case/stossel-v-facebook-inc/

And the eating of falafel in public should be banned.

Take it up with the mods.

Not everyone.. I've stated the reasons why I consider you an extreme right winger. And hyperbolic statements like the one you just made only serve to further convince me that I've categorized you correctly

Dictating to my mobile I didn't check. Hanaguma

My apologies. I'm on a mobile right now and it's not convenient to go back and check who said what. That said my objections to the article from that news source stand. That article claimed it was based on something from Forbes which was false. So I trust them?

What is this got to do with panagama's claim about the motives of the parents?

Well, for one thing that article claim to get its information from Forbes. And for another it has an established and long track record. Whereas the website you quoted seems to have very little to dowith the news and misrepresented the source of its information.

Baiting much?

you sure about that? Why the Wall Won’t Work https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-wall-wont-work THE WALL The real costs of a barrier between the United States and Mexico https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-wall-the-real-costs-of-a-barrier-between-the-united-states-and-mexico/

Before horses, people walked, I suspect that if you were alive back then you would have said the same thing about walking as you're saying now about oil. Maybe you think being sentimental about petroleum isn't word, but I sure do.

Lock them up!

This is not proof about what people believe their religion requires or how they interpret the Qur'an https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/beliefs/hijab_1.shtml#What The Qur'an Says About The Veil and Modesty

Except as repeatedly pointed out, there is no evidence that Joe Biden acquired his wealth crookedly and plenty of evidence that he didn't. And given that you ridiculous claim he has a net worth of 60 million dollars, why should anyone take your allegations seriously?

It's a good thing that religion is scientifically based and not based on beliefs and interpretation. If that were the case, your point would be unproveable.