"Now it is human-caused climate change that is making its mark on the landscape here."
OK, take out the word "human-caused" and I can agree. The climate has warmed and cooled at various times in the past all without humans. Perhaps we are contributing to the warming trend, but even that is really difficult to say with scientific precision. I don't think we understand all the factors that influence the climate well enough to really say that as fact. I know that is the "party line" and no other opinions are allowed, so this will stir up a huge hornets nest probably, but I just don't think there is enough evidence to say that humans are the cause of climate change. Neither is there enough evidence to say that spending trillions of dollars to try to address it will make a hill of a beans worth of a difference. This all assumes that we have a proper understanding of climate change and it's causes and I just don't think that we do.
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
Maybe it's just me, but I hate wind energy. It destroys the beauty of the environment and is dangerous for wildlife - namely birds and bats. It is inconsistent and I don't think it is all that economical. How durable are those blades in storms? Expensive to build, noisy to a certain extent, ugly, dangerous to birds/bats, etc.
This is NOT the answer to our energy needs.
-7 ( +1 / -8 )
Here is an even more exciting new discovery - one that can, through flash joule heating, in milliseconds, convert any carbon source into highly-prized graphene!
Potential uses are many! Junk, instead of going into the junkyard or trash, can instead be easily transformed into graphene, which locks up carbon and can be of great use to society. Here are some potential uses:
The process makes the new products stronger than the old ones. This is called “upcycling.” Graphene adds durability to materials reused in the recycled parts.
The other elements in the source material—hydrogen, oxygen, chlorine or silica—become vaporized in the process of flash joule heating and can also be captured for recycling.
Graphene can be incorporated into concrete—one of the largest artificial sources of carbon dioxide—mitigating climate change and making the concrete stronger in the process.
Asphalt roads can be strengthened when reinforced with graphene.
Landfills, which currently give off the potent greenhouse gas methane, can be mined for plastic to flash into graphene without the production of methane.
Because graphene is much more valuable than the discarded plastic from which it is made, a potential market could arise for poor people to collect trash and junk for flash graphene centers, helping lift them out of poverty.
The sustainable economy foreseen by this technology could create uncountable high-paying jobs.
The technology could greatly reduce the need for domestic imports. Rare earth elements become recyclable from existing computer parts without requiring dependencies on tyrannical governments.
Third world countries may benefit from higher and better use of their natural resources.
courtesy of https://crev.info/2022/05/chemist-saves-planet/
Read the article about it on NewScientist.com
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I'm sure masks have some protective value, but not fool proof - especially the kind we wear in Japan, but wearing masks outside? That's just ridiculous. If others choose to do so, that's fine with me, but I never did that and always questioned why they didn't say this was not necessary. Anyway, finally they said it so that's good.
3 ( +5 / -2 )
Nobody in science ever thought they had all the answers. That's religion. If we had all the answers, we wouldn't need science.
No, that's not true. Science is great at figuring out how things were designed, are designed, how they work, etc. You know, when you use the good old scientific method where you can actually test things and validate/falsify your hypothesis.
But it is not so good at figuring out origins of things - how they came to be. This is because you can't run experiments to verify/falsify your hypotheses. And even when the evolutionary hypothesis runs into potentially falsifying data, they just tweak the theory to keep it alive - adjust to to try to account for the falsifying data - like junk DNA, vestigial organs, abiogenesis, Big Bang(lots of rescue devices are used to support this that cannot be tested like hyper-inflation, dark matter, etc.)
The Bible speaks more to origins and tells us the world was designed; it is orderly; there are scientific laws that are dependable. The world did have a beginning and will have an end.
But science assumes that God, if He even exists, was not involved in creation in any detectable way. All of evolutionary science is built on this belief - that cannot be tested, but is just assumed/believed to be true.
Thing is, if God does exist and was involved in the origin of things, then much of origins science is wrong from the get go. They are looking or answers where none exist. This is certainly a possibility and could potentially explain why they keep running into problems trying to put together their "theory of everything."
Some people prefer to place their faith in science to eventually explain everything without God, but there is no guarantee. Each person must look at the evidence and decide what to believe.
I have trouble understanding how codes, information(software for the brain with encoded information), scientific laws, efficient interdependent systems, irreducibly complex organs/abilities(ie flight), brains(most complex thing in existence), etc etc could come about by random forces, but then maybe I just don't have enough faith.
-5 ( +1 / -6 )
There is GOOD REASON for the 10th commandment - "Thou shalt not covet" as this unfortunate incident illustrates. Coveting is the seed and origin of a lot of "bigger" sins. It makes us ungrateful for what we do have, robs us of our joy, and makes us unhappy until we get more and more and more! Coveting is something we all struggle with I'm afraid. It's too bad this kid gave in to the temptation.
-3 ( +2 / -5 )
Maybe Japan should send some "peace-keeping" troops into the Russian held islands to help keep the peace. They could start by bombing the islands to help keep the peace.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
So frustrating! Who could EVER trust this man? I guess his lies enable him to maintain on the surface a justifiable reason for annexing the Ukraine, but the result is that he will lose all trust that anyone ever might have had for him. I guess in retrospect, he has already lost people's trust, so what the heck?
He WANTS the Ukraine for Russia and he is going to get it.
Next will be China storming the beaches of Taiwan!
-1 ( +5 / -6 )
U.S. coastline **COULD see a century's worth of sea rise in just 30 years**
Predictions like this can never be wrong! What a great job. You can never be wrong. They COULD see a century's worth of sea rise in just 30 years, but on the other hand, they might not.
To be honest, I don't think scientists understand all the factors that affect climate change. They keep finding new things that have not been included in their models.
And, although models can be useful and helpful, they are not necessarily right. Making models is not the same thing as actual experiments. In this case, it's the best we can do, but the point is, models are not as accurate as real science done with the scientific method.
This model makes a number of assumptions that cannot be proven - the main one being that things will continue over the next 100 years as they are today. But we don't know that. The climate has warmed and cooled all on it's own in the past.
Another assumption would be that we have a good understanding of what effects temperature change in our world. If past models are anything to go on, I think it's wildly clear that we do not understand this stuff very well.
I was glad to see this article highlighted on this site the other day: https://japantoday.com/category/features/environment/don't-just-blame-climate-change-for-weather-disasters
These days, anything and everything gets attributed to climate change, but that's sloppy science - as this climate change scientist himself points out.
Personally I tend to take predictions like this with a grain of salt.
-3 ( +1 / -4 )
Not a fan of China for sure, but I do want to support our athletes!
1 ( +2 / -1 )
"They estimated such an attack would leave 25,000 to 50,000 civilians dead, along with 5,000 to 25,000 Ukrainian soldiers and 3,000 to 10,000 Russian ones."
It's Russia we're talking about, I know, but still I find it really hard to believe that even Russia would do such an evil thing.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
89 million dollars? That's a drop in the bucket compared to what Pro-abortion facilities receive. Believe it or not, there is a downside to abortion for women. There are things that women need to know before they make the extreme decision to end the life of their baby.Unfortunately, if you go to Planned Parenthood or other abortion facilities, you will ONLY receive counseling to abort. There you will actually be pressured into having an abortion. Their "counseling" might not have to do with an official religion per se, but it does stem from their world view and beliefs just like the other side.
Everyone has a worldview/beliefs that we use to guide our lives.
Why is one set of beliefs OK and the other set of beliefs "taboo"?
Why does the inclusion of God in your worldview/beliefs automatically invalidate it/them?I think these centers offer a needed service that profit hungry Planned Parenthood refuses to offer so I'm happy to see this trend.
-8 ( +6 / -14 )
Agreed! I don't know if this will really save money or not. It sure will kill a lot of birds and create a lot of waste when these massive things break. Without government subsidies, they would fail for sure, but I guess they are lucky. The taxpayers will bail them out if it doesn't go well. More debt won't help the country though.
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
Thank you for this article. I appreciate the clarification of refined sugars and natural sugars. I do have one complaint though about the explanation for why we need sugar. It is totally based on a just so evolutionary story that is nothing more than a hypothesis or guess. Here is what is written:
"Humans evolved to crave sweet tastes to get the nutrients needed to survive."
No, humans did not evolve TO DO ANYTHING. I do not believe in evolution, but if you understand it properly, nothing evolves "to do" anything - even though this phrasing is often used. It is used because it sounds like it makes sense, but evolution has no direction, no purpose and no goal. IF humans came to crave sugar for the reasons they give in the article, you still cannot say they evolved to do this. You could say that as a result of evolution, humans have come to crave sugar - but that was NOT the goal of any evolutionary changes that might have taken place. It's all totally random and depends on which mutations are more statistically possible/common than others.
"A daily supply of vitamins, minerals and fiber is needed because our bodies cannot make them. The best source of these substances for our ancient ancestors was sweet, ripe, delicious fruit. In addition, fruits contain phytonutrients and antioxidants, chemicals produced only by plants. Phytonutrients such ellagic acid in strawberries have cancer-fighting properties and promote heart health."
OK, but what does evolution have to do with this? This would be true whether or not humans are the result of millions of years of evolution.
"If you continually satisfy your taste for sweet with foods that contain refined sugar – rather than the nutrient-rich fruits at the core of this craving passed on by evolution – you may not get all the nutrients you need."
Again, the addition of the word "evolution" here is meaningless. This would be true whether the craving for sugar was part of God's design for humans OR if it happened by accident through random blind purposeless mutations over millions of year.
How about this for a more accurate description:
"If you continually satisfy your taste for sweet with foods that contain refined sugar – rather than the nutrient-rich fruits at the core of our craving for sugar – you may not get all the nutrients you need."
See? It still says the same thing. It's true whether or not evolution is responsible for that craving. It's just as likely, actually much more likely, that this craving for sugar was part of the Creator's design for humans.
I guess it sounds better to everyone - more scientific or something - when you give credit to evolution. Maybe that's why evolution gets so much credit for stuff. I realize that scientists MUST credit evolution - no matter the evidence - because that is the only solution permitted in science, but still, just saying something - even if one is a scientist - doesn't make it true.
To really be trustworthy, scientists would need to be able to test their hypothesis - you know - use the good old scientific method. But when it comes to origins, this is just not possible. In fact, no one really knows whether or not evolution could through random mistakes in the genetic code, create a craving for sugar.
The inability to test sll these evolutionary hypotheses means that they get a free pass and everyone ends up thinking believing them and thinking it is more evidence for evolution - like evolution is settled science or something. It's not.
In reality, you can say the same thing just as well without inserting evolutionary speculations about the origin of things or why things are the way they are.
-5 ( +1 / -6 )
Foolishness of youth - but I guess it is not only confined to youth, is it? Alcohol is DANGEROUS and no one should ever drive drunk! I'm sorry for this young man and for all involved and the families who lost precious children! He/they made a HUGE mistake. Unfortunately this will greatly impact his life as well as everyone else involved. The memory of the 2 friends he killed will haunt his mind the rest of his life.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
I don't see much meaning in dropping the quarantine from 14 days to 10 days for vaccinated people who are not coming for business! For goodness sakes! Open up the country! If they are vaccinate and have a test before coming, why not just a 3 day quarantine? MAKES NO SENSE!
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
Well, I'm not a fan. Imagine going to the beach and having these things block your view of the ocean! Personally, I think the climate thing is over-hyped. The climate has been changing since the beginning of time. The earth is more resilient than we think and sometimes I think we have this idea that we humans are able to understand the problem well enough to actually "save the planet". I'm all for reasonable efforts to go green, but nothing overboard.
Are these things really necessary? Maybe. I don't know, but just saying that I'm not a real fan.
0 ( +6 / -6 )
Should be a great reduction in medical waste as well. Imagine how many needles had to be made and disposed of for this covid vaccination. A patch would be SO SO much better and easier to administer as well. Hope this works out well for them. Unfortunately the companies are private so investment does not seem to be an option.
-2 ( +3 / -5 )
I don't know anything about the situation of this school, so I will refrain from commenting on it, but I do support parents who want to protect their kids from the seemingly anti-white racist CRT. I'm against racism of all types whether it is against blacks, whites, or people of any other color/origin. I'm sure CRT has some good points but it has become a tool of the WOKE Left to indoctrinate our kids with anti-white attitudes. This will NOT be beneficial for anyone! On the contrary, it will complicate efforts to address real racism and everyone will suffer.
0 ( +6 / -6 )
I mean, I wish her well, but she is only catering to the rich and wealthy. i have trouble seeing how this is sustainable after the newness wears off. Maybe there are enough rich people around the world who are willing to give this a try, but although she talks about sustainability, the carbon expense required for all these rich people to make enough money to pay her fees probably means it's not so sustainable after all. Maybe there are enough people willing to pay for the feeling of contributing to a "sustainable tree resort. Who knows? Again, I wish her well.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
Once you become a believer in the conspiracy theory, people shut out reality and nothing anyone can say to them will change their mind because they "know" the truth. We are the ones who are deceived.
If I were this guy, I would try to avoid the subject with his wife and encourage her to find other ways to keep busy. Youtube will suck you in and keep feeding you more of the same stuff you are listening to. Pretty soon you are in really deep over your head and it's hard to dig your way back to daylight.
-1 ( +4 / -5 )
The answer, scientists say, may be to reintroduce that genetic diversity by going back to domesticated crops' wild ancestors.
This is why evolution does not work. If evolution worked, we would not need to re-introduce genetic diversity into the genome. Evolution would take care of that all by itself. But it can't. Once we lose the genetic diversity, it's gone. So I applaud these efforts to protect the diversity.
But this is why dogs who are purebreds are often less healthy than mixed breeds. The mixed breeds have a healthy genetic diversity and can handle problems much better.
Evolution can help select from whatever already exists in the genome, but once that diversity is lost, natural selection has NOTHING to select. Natural selection is helpful only in it's ability to select the most healthy among what exists. It cannot create anything new and most mutations are negative or harmful so they do not result in more healthy animals/plants/etc.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
I've done this on numerous occasions. If I'm going to hold up a whole line of cars and I have a chance to turn before the other cars start going, it seems like it's a good thing that will help the flow of traffic. I didn't know it was illegal.
-3 ( +1 / -4 )
"Freedom of speech is fine in Australia as long as it is true..."
The problem here is that there are differing opinions about things. What if I post a science article from a creationist perspective that criticizes a university for an article their scientists posted dissing creation scientists?
I happen to believe that evolution is not true - at least in the way it is taught in universities. If I post a negative article on evolution, could I be prosecuted?
There are differing opinions on the safety of the vaccine, usage of Ivermectin, views on the virus(plandemic some call it), etc. Who decides what is true?
If you make freedom of speech dependent on someone's decision about what is true/false, I'm not sure that is true freedom of speech. It's a difficult issue because sometimes it's just really hard to know whether something is true or not.
Is Snopes.com going to be the deciding factor? I wouldn't trust them myself. We all have our biases.
-4 ( +4 / -8 )
True. It's hard to really boycott China, but we could also boycott the Olympic games and encourage others to do the same.
6 ( +7 / -1 )
Very interesting article. Thanks!
8 ( +8 / -0 )
"Segmented hinges in the long, thin bones of fish fins are critical to the incredible mechanical properties of fins, and this design could inspire improved underwater propulsion systems, new robotic materials and even new aircraft designs.
The secret is in the structure: ‶
The science of biomimetics is blossoming. More and more inventions are being made by studying the design of things in the natural world.
Not to take anything away from the work of scientists or anything, but humans are more copy cats than inventors!
It boggles the mind that so many people think all this design happened by chance over eons of time. Even our best most intelligent minds put together cannot come up with these designs on their own and we thing that random, purposeless, directionless, mindless natural processes that compose mainly of mistakes in the genomic code actually somehow totally by accident hit on these amazing designs? Please!
Many of the designs we see and seek to copy are complicated and cannot be arrived at one little step at a time because they will not function until everything is put together just right. How in the world could stuff like this evolve? We've been taught just to accept this as true, but no one has ever seen these kinds of complex things actually created by evolution. We just think it HAD to have happened like that since God is ruled out in science.
Well, it turns out that everyone believes in miracles. Some believe in the supernatural design of a Creator and others believe in innumerable lucky and timely mutations that somehow resulted in amazing and efficient masterpieces of design. Which takes more faith to believe?that random mistakes can create these kinds of masterpieces?
ORthat an intelligent Designer purposefully created these things to function as they do?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
If anyone knows this guy's family, please tell his kids that their father is literally dying to meet them!
4 ( +6 / -2 )
I think the problem is that they are GOP rules.
Biden thinks the rules are "un-American"? OK, come up with a way to prevent voter fraud then that will ensure fair elections. Many of us also think that VOTER FRAUD IS ALSO UN-AMERICAN!
Both sides probably have some good points so let's put politics aside and come up with a fair solution.
-2 ( +2 / -4 )
It's interesting that atheists are concerned with morality because there is no such thing really, if there is no God. If there is no God, there is no such thing as true right and wrong. There might be general ideas in different cultures about what is acceptable and what is not, but nothing is truly wrong in an objective sense of the word because there is no absolute standard or right and wrong. It's all made up by humans. If we all make up our own standards, why in the world do we have to follow them? We don't and often times we even compromise and break our own standards because we know or think that it doesn't matter - that we are not accountable for our actions - outside of the law of the land. People tell us that bullying is wrong, but if it's not against the law, how can anyone say that it's wrong? It might be their personal view that it is "wrong" or "not good", but so what? Cheating on your wife? Why is that wrong? Isn't it funny that we call it cheating? Kind of shows that we know in our hearts that it is wrong, but why do we feel that it's wrong - if there is no such thing as right and wrong? So either there is real right and wrong(which we all know to be true deep down in our hearts) which points to the existence of God, or anything goes as long as it is not against the law. And even then, it doesn't matter as long as we don't get caught. After all, we don't need to give account of our actions to anyone! We are totally free! (Which makes life totally meaningless, but that's a whole other topic.)
We all look at morality in a very biased manner - wanting to justify the things we want to do, and wanting to vilify the things we don't agree with - things we don't want people to do to us. Can we trust ourselves to really be good judges of what is right and wrong when our hearts are so biased? If we want to, we can almost justify ANYTHING! It's quite convenient to be free from God's law. It allows us to live our lives however we want to. No wonder so many people choose to ignore His existence and live their (sex) lives however they want to. No bias there, right?
-1 ( +1 / -2 )