tjguy comments

Biden must have some friends who need some help. Otherwise, why waste money on this "technology" that won't be able to put a dent in the climate change problem - even if it is really a problem! Maybe he just wants to brag that he is doing something?

Total waste. We need to get him out of the White House as soon as possible!

Cool Biz is fine, but it's not going to be very cool if the air conditioner is set at 28! It's still going to be hot. I don't know if I could work in that type of setting.

It's obvious these men have no respect for life, for the law, and no compassion whatsoever for others. They have no fear of God, no morals, and no fear/respect for life or for the law. With beliefs like that, they would most certainly strike again, so I think they are actually very dangerous.

Proposing a theory to explain something that is not understood seems a very scientific approach.

First of all, one does not propose a "theory". One proposes a hypothesis. Dark Matter is not a theory, scientifically speaking. It is nothing more than a hypothesis that remains unverified.

Could some invisible stuff be the explanation for the data?

Sure. But every attempt to verify it thus far has failed. It was dreamed up to save the Standard Model. (Kind of like hyper-inflation at the very beginning of the Big Bang.)

It's really amazing that according to the standard model, a full 96% of the universe is unknown - Dark Matter and Dark Energy. No one knows what these things are or if they even exist. Theoretically, scientists could keep on looking for dark matter for all of eternity because it is philosophically and scientifically impossible to prove a negative. Just as we cannot prove that God does not exist, neither can we ever prove that dark matter does not exist. So believers will probably always exist.

BUT, here is the important question: At what point do scientists admit defeat and allow the evidence to disprove the Standard Model? How long do we give them to find evidence to support this hypothesis? Lots of time and money has been spent on what has so far proven to be a wild goose chase. I'm sure things have been learned along the way, but again, how long do we keep looking for evidence of dark matter before deciding that it might not really exist after all?

How about making it a little cheaper? That would help everyone and more people might even be willing to use the toll roads.

Glad to hear this! It's 26 years too late for me, but I'm happy for couples who are having babies now.

I doubt that too many Japanese - maybe not even the priests? - really believe that their sins are washed away or that they are really purified through ceremonies like this, but still they do it our of habit and maybe just in case it works? Not sure.

If it ends up saving money, then fine, but I'm afraid this will just add to the cost of new homes and not really save much money in the end.

Not all houses would be able to take advantage of the sun enough to warrant solar panels. I would hope that is taken into consideration. I guess privately constructed homes will not be forced to do this so al least there is some leeway there. In fact, it might make it more difficult for home builders to sell certain homes.

I'm not against solar power, BUT I'm also no on board with the whole global warming fearmongering either. The environmental whackos have too much power and influence. Let's be wise in the decisions we make.

I'm not against a balanced approach towards green energy, but I am against draconian measures to attack it that cause human suffering. And I'm concerned that Big Science is cancelling and suppressing the data that does not align with the view they are pushing. I don't think they even fully understand the issue and yet they are calling for huge changes that will hurt many people. The example of Holland closing down dairy farms is one very pertinent example. There is an article on crev dot info entitled "Big science spreading climate disinformation" posted on July 30 that talks about this problem. This site finds what the scientists themselves are saying/writing and posts it so we can see it. It's interesting to see what some scientists, even supporters of climate change, are actually saying.

At the bottom of the article there is a list of other relevant articles to check. It's a tad long, but might be worth

I thought this was a joke at first. I'm having trouble actually believing that they would take their climate panic so far. Unbelievable. This anthropogenic climate change nonsense has gone far enough. The "cures" are going to be far worse than the hyped up results of climate change. I hope New Zealanders vote these people out of office promptly.

"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.

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.

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!

VERY SUGOI!

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

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2321629-zapping-scrap-plastic-from-cars-can-turn-it-into-recyclable-graphene/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

Not a fan of China for sure, but I do want to support our athletes!

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.