placeholder

Yes, the press is sloppy. What they should say is 99 plus percent of climate change researchers agree. But why would anyone care what scientists not involved with this research think? Does anyone care what a climatologists thinks about issues in physics? Or in biology? As for the nonsense about nuclear power and fracking. Nuclear power, for one thing, is very expensive. And as satellite surveys show, natural gas mining releases huge quantities of methane into the atmosphere. Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. And the methane that is successfully extracted mostly gets burnt and creates CO2. What's more storage technologies are making extraordinary progress. And green hydrogen iow costs less than natural gas. And that's before recent developments will make the price drop even further.

And most studies of climatology are not about the issue of climate change. Which is why only those papers that mentioned the issue or depended on it were cited in the study. As for "As I've already stated, climate change is a chaotic, non-linear system which is impossible to accurately predict. The IPCC has stated this. The science is definitely not settled "Wow. You're quoting yourself as an authority. Impressive." "There is, but it rarely gets reported in the biased media, which tends to focus on bad news, such as alarmism about rising CO2 levels." It's not enough to assert it's being done. Please share them with us. Evidence? As the Cornell study noted, there were only 28 studies they were able to find, and they were all published in minor journals.

What don't you understand about the fact the most scientific papers in a particular field have no reason to address what is considered settled science in that field?

First off, I want to thank you for your open acknowledgement that that you were mistaken when you claimed that 5 percent of cars burned on a yearly basis. That, in fact, nothing close to that was claimed....Oh...wait a minute... And no, it doesn't say that about about 5000 in every 100000 car eventually have a fire. What it says is that about 3, 500 hybrid sales out of of 100,000 result in a fire. It says that about 1500 ICE vehicle sales out of 100000 eventually result in a fire. And about 25 EV sales out of 100000 result in a fire. So that total would come to about 5000 fires per 300,000 vehicle sales. As for where they got the info from "To determine whether gas or electric cars are at a greater risk of catching fire, our team of researchers dived into data from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), and government recall data from Recalls.gov."

Nice try. You think your attempt to to use the phrase "leftist academics" would go unchallenged. So it's your contention that the people doing climatological research use pretty much the same methods as professors of English or historians. There's actually a more precise word than "academics", isn't there. Hmmm....what could it be? How about "scientists"? Maybe we could get even more precise. What's the word for scientists who study climate? That's a tough one.....oh..right. Climatologist. But please, do share with us the evidence that you must that these climatologists are doing fake research and somehow all supporting each other in some kind of massive conspiracy to perpetrate this fraud.

And if you were to do the same for biology you would find that most papers take no position on the theory of evolution. That's because it's settled science. There's no significant scientific opposition. Scientific research isn't being done on the theory of intelligent design. And so on and so forth. If anthropogenic climate change were still an issue, there would be significant research being published in opposition.

Here' what you wrote and what I was replying to: There is very little trust in Biden and the hard leftist." And as for where the money is going to, have you even tried to access how the bill allocates the money?

The chief warmonger, Russia, has taken an opposite tack. At any rate, General Wesley Clark addressed this issue. He referred to a Russian tactic called de-escalation by escalation. The thing is that tactical nuclear weapons, while horrific in their way, are mainly useful against mass battle formations. So not tactically so useful in this war. Clearly, though, were Russia to use them, it would count on the psychological effect. After all, the natural inclination is not to differentiate between tactical and strategic nuclear missiles. But if the Ukrainians hold firm, what do the Russians have left? Apart from a suicide bomber approach. And of course, if the world succumbs to that tactic in the Ukraine, what's to stop Russia from laying claim to all of the former Russian empire? Anyway, Clark recommends holding firm and replying with overwhelming conventional force. Or accept Russian hegemony wherever their dismal despots please to lay claim to. There is also the question of how Russia's neighbors are going to react to the use of nukes. Even, Lukashenko, of Belarus, has already addressed that question in a way that is distinctly unfriendly to Russia.

I know what you mean. In the Senate the vote was 89-11. Given that there are 50 Republicans senators...well I'll leave you to ignore the the rules of arithmetic. As for the House, 57 Republicans voted against it. Given that there are 210 Republican members of the House...more math for you not to come to terms with...

Just for the record, that bill for small businesses was blocked by the Republicans. Only 5 voted to enable its passage. https://thehill.com/news/senate/3494868-senate-blocks-48-billion-aid-package-for-restaurants-other-small-businesses/

I visited the forum and even contributed something to an argument that was fossilized over a year ago. I couldn't help but think about Jurassic Park and the law of unintended consequences. Are we all in danger now that these threads are coming back to life?

Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966 ‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans The latest survey of peer-reviewed literature published from 2012 to November 2020 was conducted in two stages. First, the researchers examined a random sample of 3,000 studies, in which they found only found four papers that were sceptical that the climate crisis was caused by humans. Second, they searched the full database of 88,125 studies for keywords linked to climate scepticism such as “natural cycles” and “cosmic rays”, which yielded 28 papers, all published in minor journals. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/19/case-closed-999-of-scientists-agree-climate-emergency-caused-by-humans

Maybe this is their last gasp, or, to use a better analogy, a Hail Mary throw. They're going to use up pretty much all the artillery and cruise missiles they have and then dig in.

The article does not say per year. It's per 100K sales of vehicles. So that's over the lifetime of a vehicle. What's more, you're reading that chart incorrectly. You're not supposed to add up the figures in the FIRES column to come up with a total. So it's not even 5 percent of vehicles over their lifetime. For hybrids it's about 3.5 percent, for ICE vehicles it's about 1.5 percent, and for EV's, .0025 percent. There's probably some bias in favor of hybrids and even more so in the case of EV's, since a much higher percentage of those originally purchased are still in use so they still have a way to go and accidents and other failures to succumb to.

Here is the comment of yours that I replied to: "no it seems that the prov lost the war just as the war on drugs is lost ! unvaccinated can be unvax as long as they want, and their life has never changed." Clearly as a general statement this is false. The unvaxed had a far higher rate of serious illness and deaths. As for the situation now, hospitalizations are way down. That could be a permanent decline, or, in the past, there could be another wave. Cases are beginning to rise again. We'll have to see if hospitalizations follow suit. And of course it isn't true that "nobody even go to hospital for omicron". Just a lot few. At least currently.

It may be obvious to you that you never passed it on. But you could have been asymptomatic. Roughly 40% are. So your claim that you didn't pass it on is entirely unverifiable.

I know what you mean. All those insane pro-vax epidemiologists and virologists. They should be ignored.

The problem is that a cafe that is doing well probably won't want digital nomads because they take up seats that could be producing a lot more income via increased turnover. So the best bet would be to look for new places that will be grateful just to have seats filled. Prospective customers are more likely to enter a place that has some customers already in it. Of course, if the new cafe starts to prosper then it will be time to find a new venue. I do see occasionally, even now, that cafes are being opened.

Thanks for the correction.

On the contrary, there is evidence that people die because of the vaccine. But the cases are very rare as can be seen from the mortality statistics.

COVID-19 rarely spreads through surfaces. So why are we still deep cleaning? The coronavirus behind the pandemic can linger on doorknobs and other surfaces, but these aren’t a major source of infection. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00251-4 IT’S NOT JUST SARS-COV-2: MOST RESPIRATORY VIRUSES SPREAD BY AEROSOLS Conventional wisdom on viral disease transmission needs updating, international science team concludes. SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind today’s global coronavirus pandemic, spreads primarily by inhalation of virus-laden aerosols at both short and long ranges—and a comprehensive new assessment of respiratory viruses finds that many others probably do as well. SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, influenza, measles, and the rhinoviruses that cause the common cold can all spread via aerosols that can build up in indoor air and linger for hours, an international interdisciplinary team of researchers reports in a review published in Science Aug. 27. https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/its-not-just-sars-cov-2-most-respiratory-viruses-spread-aerosols

I agree. And their low resale price makes makes them a bargain as a second car.

The M-777 howitzers are just beginning to make their effect felt on the Russians. The howitzers not only have far greater range than does Russian artillery, but they are far more accurate as well. American heavy artillery enters the fight in Ukraine. "Military analysts say the full effect won’t be felt for at least another two weeks, because Ukraine has yet to train enough soldiers to fire all 90 such howitzers pledged by the United States and other allies. Only about a dozen guns are now at the front, and they are not a guarantee of victory, as the Russians continue to engage in fierce fighting in the eastern Donbas region." https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/05/23/world/russia-ukraine-war#us-ukraine-howitzers

So Japanese, Indians, and Africans won't be needing a thaipass?

Well, that may be the case. But authorities have also pointed out that a disproportionate number of cases among the gay male community may be because clinics that deal with sexually transmitted diseases have been reached out to for data.