placeholder

But you can trust Twitter not to use your personal data?

While carrying out work to check the risk of firedamp pockets in the abandoned mines of the Lorraine region in May, La Française d’Énergie (FDE) discovered a large deposit of natural hydrogen, igniting hopes that it could be a game changer in Europe’s energy transition. For years, researchers and businesses in the private sector have been looking for rare natural hydrogen, otherwise known as native or white hydrogen, due to its potential as a clean and renewable energy source. “If confirmed, this would be the largest potential natural hydrogen discovered to date in Europe,” Philippe de Donato, co-director of research at the GeoRessouces laboratory at the University of Lorraine, told France 3 Grand-Est at the end of May. https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/excitement-grows-about-natural-hydrogen-as-huge-reserves-found-in-france/

Nonsense. You got any evidence for this? Common sense should tell you that sources like the Wall St. Journal, The NY Times, and The Washington Post are being watched like hawks by right wingers looking to pounce on their every mistake. They're very infrequently called out. The NY Times actually has a webpage where retractions and corrections are posted. Corrections "The Times recognizes an ethical responsibility to promptly correct all factual errors, large and small. We encourage you to contact us if you think you see a mistake. Messages about news coverage can be sent to [email protected]; comments about the opinion section should go to [email protected]. Learn more about how we handle corrections here..For other questions, including subscription issues, visit our help center." https://www.nytimes.com/international/section/corrections

There's a difference between getting it wrong and lying.

The harsh reality is that natural gas plants, even relatively modern ones, are proving to have the worst failure rate when faced with extreme weather compared with other generation methods. During last year’s Arctic Blast, gas units accounted for 63% of the failures while representing just 44% of the total installed capacity. The country’s vast network of gas plants and pipelines--the largest in the world--and the regulations that govern them simply were never designed or built without the realities of extreme weather in mind. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Why-The-US-Has-Become-The-Blackout-Capital-Of-The-Developed-World.html

"Screwed the pooch" is a very mild way of putting it. Fox News knowingly fostered and supported slanderous lies.

And the reason for that was that the evidence was overwhelmingly against them.

Roberts makes this claimed based on an extremely innovative broadening of the major questions doctrine. Very odd for a conservative justice who stresses the importance of textualism when it suits him. There are major arguments against it: "These include arguments that the major questions doctrine is a symptom of "judicial self-aggrandizement," that it is inconsistent with both textualism and originalism, and that it is at odds with normal tools of statutory interpretation.[4][5][6] In an article for the Harvard Law Review summarizing this transformation in the major questions case law, Professor Mila Sohoni wrote that the "first crucial thing to understand about the major questions [doctrine] is what it did to administrative law."[7] She continued, "[w]hile ostensibly applying existing major questions case law, the [Supreme Court] in actuality altered the doctrine of judicial review of agency action in its method and content, in ways that will have momentous consequences." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_questions_doctrine#:~:text=The major questions doctrine is,major political or economic significance.

True. It wasn't a fine. And the reason Fox decided to pay over 3/4 of a billion dollars rather than take the case to trial?

I guess you use the word implication to escape the obvious points that the issue I raised was "difference". Can you point to the sentence or phrase in which the issue of better was implied?

Once again you prove my point. The stance that people take on issues is what counts. .

It's not about better. It's about different. That you even raise this issue shows that fundamentally you agree with me. Their stances on various issues are different. I like to think that most people choose candidates because their stances on the issues are different and they think that one candidate or the other has a better stance.

Are you seriously claiming that you don't see significant differences on the issues between Joe Biden and the persons you mentioned? Really? It is to laugh.

The answer to the question was VP Biden there is it really simple one. No VP Biden was not there because Biden was no longer VP.

You must be living in an alternative universe or experiencing some cognitive disorder. Every news report? Every public debate? As for media outlets and forums, there's a wide range of issues featured on them. Are you maintaining that there's near exclusivity featuring only lgbqt issues on this forum or on social media?

What you need to understand is that random snapshots aren't diagnostic of anything except possibly the mindset of the person who offers them as evidence.

In what way? There's this little thing called issues. You know like climate change, voting rights, workers rights, etc. Something you've apparently never heard of.