I believe the scientists. Authoritarian regimes lie. Stop being marks.
Replies to: I believe the scientists. Authoritarian regimes lie. Stop being marks.
Aim high Florida! Neighbors are expendable.
They have a dipshit anti-vax surgeon general
Likened vaccine mandates to slavery. And he's a black man.
The craziness that the right has been able to mainstream into
publicly discussion is amazing and disturbing.
96% of biologists believe that Life begins at conception. You seem to ignore those scientists.
(no message)
You mean, that would be the start of development into a Person...let's continue this discussion in
another thread.
Bullshit. Read what it says. Not what you want it to say.
(no message)
Pope Francis is on record saying that the issue of Fetal Personhood is debated...and here's what a
dissenter had to say about that...(from a "Where Peter is" columnist...
--------------------
Note however, that both the encyclical and the instruction call for the child in the womb “to be respected” as a person from the moment of conception, without definitively teaching that the embryo is a person. Donum Vitae mentions the personhood debate later in the section, stating, “This Congregation is aware of the current debates concerning the beginning of human life, concerning the individuality of the human being and concerning the identity of the human person.” Donum Vitae then quotes from the 1974 CDF document and adds the conclusion, “The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature, but it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion. This teaching has not been changed and is unchangeable.”
In 2008, this point was again reiterated by the CDF, then led by Cardinal William Levada under Pope Benedict XVI. In the document Dignitas Personae, the Congregation stated, “If Donum vitae, in order to avoid a statement of an explicitly philosophical nature, did not define the embryo as a person, it nonetheless did indicate that there is an intrinsic connection between the ontological dimension and the specific value of every human life” (5).
What does all of this mean? Well, for one thing, it is clear that the Magisterium has acknowledged on multiple occasions that there is a debate about personhood. It is also clear that the Church has not always considered the life of a human person to begin at conception, nor has the Church definitively taught this. That said, the Church has always regarded abortion to be evil from the moment of conception. More recently, the Church has pushed back against the idea that “delayed personhood” is relevant to its position on the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception. It has taught instead that life, from the moment of conception should be treated and respected as a human person. And in this, Pope Francis has always been in line with Catholic Tradition.
--------------------
So, why hasn't the RCC "Definitively" taught that Personhood begins at Conception?...Well here are a few thoughts...
>The majority (estimates of 60+%) of 'Conceptions' never reach birth...irrespective of the abortion issue. There are cases where the embryo never implants at all...and others where 'Miscarriages' occur...what is the RCC to do about that? You probably remember the therm "Limbo" from back in your childhood...that did not last very long.
>There are no RCC rites or record keepings of miscarriages or failures to implant...implying a lack of "Personhood" recognition.
And here's my addition take...just as the RCC Catechism sanctions the killing of persons in "Just Wars", after employing rigorous "Prudential Judgement" (that term is actually in the Catechism for that topic (Par. 2309 I believe)...similar means of 'Justice' needs to be afforded to former Female Babies, who are now old enough to reproduce, but are either Forced or Coerced into pregnancies they NEVER wanted. In my mind, Prudential Judgement allows such victims to option of continuing the pregnancy, or halting it.
So, I'll ask you, since no one else has answered the question..."Just because a Woman CAN reproduce...MUST she under ANY and ALL conditions, including Rape and Coercion?"...Another simple question for you...Yes, or No?
That surely is an impressive number you made up.
Do you think that the souls of all those poor zygotes are in heaven, waiting for us? Are there tons of zygote souls floating around up there?
Not made up.
You are daily proof that a prof can still be a punk.
Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/
Do you think sex is geneticly determined?
(no message)
Do you agree DJT is a criminal?
(no message)
Just look at Dr. Roy Spencer's Satellite Global Temperature data...over the last 12 yrs it's been
accelerating higher, and over the full time he's been taking readings (~47 yrs) the lowest temp for all cycles has risen ~1 deg C...and at the accelerating rate we're seeing it could plausibly exceed the 2 deg. limit highlighted by the IPCC.
If that's not concerning enough, BP's estimate for years of proven oil reserves remaining worldwide are on the order of only 50 years...barely enough time to switch to alternative sources and still have some oil left in the tank for all the myriad uses other than incinerating it for heat and power.
You guys seem so convinced, and yet you pursue completely useless policies.
Weird conundrum
Exactly what weird and 'useless' policies are you imagining?
(no message)
Offshore wind, onshore wind, solar subsidies, subsidies for rich people to buy Rivians
CAFE rules, banning natural gas, blocking pipelines and forcing crude to travel by rail, harassing all the refineries out of California, shutting down nuclear for DECADES.
is that enough for you? You fucking clowns are not serious people. If you actually cared, you'd fight for a carbon tax. But, oh no, it doesn't poll well. Losers
Let me start with Nuclear...earlier I posted a link that demonstrates the Dems commitment to the new
GEN-IV programs...and I've explained that the O&G Industry has lobbied Congress...and our President...to "Drill, Baby, Drill" in direct opposition to the path we need to take...NOW. CO2 stays in our atmosphere for many decades and significant percentage NEVER comes out...CO2 "Sinks"...i.e. our Oceans and Boreal Forests are approaching 'Saturation' which will Accelerate Global Warming...which leads us to Wind and Solar.
I am on record that Nuclear needs to be the choice for our electrical grid...but since no new plant will be licensed until ~2030...and it takes several years to complete each plant...we need to employ the 'Next Best Thing' that DOESN'T emit CO2.
Be objective...look at the official data from NOAA on atmospheric CO2 concentration increases...especially compared with the previous 800K years...then Dr. Roy Spencer's satellite global temperature readings since he started (1978) and see the steady...now accelerating rate of increase...then, sea temperatures and level increases. Human civilization as we currently know it, was not constructed to this evolving environment and the disruption can become immense if we don't do our best to mitigate what's happening...not so much for You...but your kids, grandkids, and all those who follow.
I would add "and inconsistent" after useless. E.g., pro-electric car, but anti-nuclear.
(no message)
"Biden-Harris Administration Announces New Steps to Bolster Domestic Nuclear Industry and
Advance America's Clean Energy Future"...since you so ill-informed, be sure to read it...all. There's no doubt that Anti-Nukes exist in the Democratic Party, but the Dem mainstream is committed to the new GEN-IV Nuclear Programs, including Small Modular Reactors, along with their unique HALEU fuel, as well as Fast Reactors and their attendant 'Pyroprocessing' of Spent Nuclear Fuel that not only dramatically reduces the radioactive volume and toxicity, but also creates enough NEW fuel from what once was "Waste" that can last us upwards of 1,000 yrs, without mining another gram of Uranium.
I started speaking out agains Anti-Nukes 50 years ago with their Prop 15 Initiative in CA...and have actively lobbied my Representatives since then...so, I can safely say that the Mainstream of the Democratic Party is solidly behind Nuclear Power. My concern now is with Trump's tight linkage to the Oil industry which has been very effective in holding back Nuclear Power over the years...guess why...
Hopefully, this help you see the situation more clearly...but don't just take my word for it...do some searching on the internet...and ask the right questions, from the right sources. btw, I'm glad to help.
Link: https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/05/29/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-new-steps-to-bolster-domestic-nuclear-industry-and-advance-americas-clean-energy-future/
1. It's immaterial. 2. It's a function of increased sea bed and surface volcanic activity.
(no message)
I'd like to see your sources...I've reviewed several papers on Ocean and Boreal Forest CO2 "Sinks"
that we count on to 'Buffer' the effects of increasing, man made atmospheric CO2 content...they are fast becoming 'Saturated'...meaning that global temperatures will continue to accelerate...as Dr. Roy Spencer's recent data illustrates.
Because there are so many studies and papers, here's an AI synopisis of what's happening,
----------------------
AI Overview
While neither the ocean nor the boreal forest carbon sinks are fully saturated, their capacity to absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is showing clear signs of stress and decline. This weakening could accelerate global warming, as more CO2 would remain in the atmosphere.
Ocean CO2 uptake is weakening
The ocean is the largest and most persistent absorber of human-caused CO2, but a combination of climate-related factors is starting to hinder its efficiency.
Weakening efficiency: While the ocean is still absorbing anthropogenic CO2, the rate of uptake has slowed over the last decade. A 2025 study found that record-high sea surface temperatures in 2023 caused the global ocean to absorb about 10% less CO2 than expected, cancelling out the strengthening effect from a simultaneous El Niño event.
Reduced CO2 solubility: The amount of CO2 that seawater can dissolve decreases as the water warms, much like a warm carbonated drink loses its fizz faster.
Ocean stratification: As warming and increased rainfall create a warmer, fresher surface layer, it becomes less dense and mixes less easily with the cooler, more alkaline waters below. This stratification prevents CO2 from being transported to the deep ocean, allowing the surface water to become saturated.
Alkalinity feedback loop: A 2023 study found that intense warming in future scenarios could lead to a feedback loop where ocean stratification decreases surface alkalinity.
Since alkalinity influences how much CO2 the ocean can absorb, this effect further reduces the ocean's CO2 uptake over centuries.
Boreal forest carbon sink is under threat
Northern boreal forests have long been a crucial terrestrial carbon sink, but climate change and disturbances are jeopardizing this capacity.
Weakening sink capacity: A 2024 study revealed that the carbon sink capacity of Northern Hemisphere boreal forests, which hold over 50% of the world's soil carbon, has already declined by 36%.
Increased wildfires: Boreal forests are experiencing more frequent and severe wildfires due to warming temperatures and drought. These fires release vast amounts of stored carbon—including "legacy carbon" trapped deep in the soil for centuries—turning forests from a carbon sink into a source.
Permafrost thawing: As the Arctic warms faster than any other region, permafrost is thawing. This process releases large quantities of stored CO2 and methane, fundamentally altering the region's carbon balance. A 2025 study showed that nearly one-third of the Arctic boreal zone has already switched from being a carbon sink to a carbon source.
Accelerated decomposition: Warming temperatures also speed up the decomposition of organic matter in the soil, which releases more CO2 into the atmosphere.
Consequences of weakening carbon buffers
Amplified warming: The ocean and boreal forests currently absorb more than half of human-caused CO2 emissions. As their capacity diminishes, a larger fraction of CO2 will remain in the atmosphere, accelerating the rate of climate change.
Reduced predictability: Changes in these major carbon sinks introduce more uncertainty into climate projections, complicating the planning for mitigation and adaptation efforts.
Ecosystem damage: Besides absorbing CO2, these buffers provide vital ecosystem services. The decline of the ocean sink accelerates ocean acidification, threatening marine life, while the loss of forest habitat affects biodiversity.
---------------------
Conor, they get much better info from the internet and podcasts
They form their own views. Not like us, the losers who trust "experts." MAGA!
The rebuttal: COVID-19. Defense rests.
(no message)
You mean the pandemic that science and vaccines stopped in its tracks? Gotcha.
(no message)
You misspelled "nasty cold" and "DNA-altering immuno-suppressant".
(no message)
The nasty cold that killed 1.2 million Americans.
And still kills 200 children a year.
But you do have your info from podcasts, so I guess it is a draw.
The unnecessary lockdowns that mentally crippled countless kids. Pick your poison.
(no message)
We learned. It also killed 1.2 million people. And the kids will bounce back.
Unless they're pussies.
So ... 0.33% of the population? Sounds like a bad case of the flu to me. How many did the jab kill?
(no message)
1.2 million Americans dying was a big deal…
And Covid is not the flu. Stop acting as if you’re an epidemiologist.
Fortunately there were no incentives like funding that resulted in over-reported COVID deaths.
(no message)
Your distain for reasoned information keeps causing you to make a fool of yourself...
COVID-19 deaths were much more Undercounted...as explained in the attached link.
Link: https://crr.bc.edu/have-we-undercounted-or-overcounted-covid-19-deaths/
Covid has a knack for exasperating existing illnesses…
hence “people at risk.” I doubt most of those people wouldn’t have died if Covid didn’t exist.
Almost none. Good try.
(no message)
Allow me to pull a Ty on you. For a "science" guy, you seem willfully ignorant on this.
The shots harmed people. The myocarditis issue was known early on, but not sufficiently disclosed. Really, the only people who should have gotten the jab were the old and those with comorbidities since the jab acted to suppress immune response and really didn't do anything to stop the spread of the disease. It was particularly insane when people were forced to get the jab AFTER they had contracted COVID-19 since that should have established primary immunity, but inconvenient fact.
Link: COVID Vax Kills
You have a penchant for shooting yourself in the foot...Myocarditis is much more likely to occur
from a COVID-19 infection...and be more severe...than from the vaccines, per Cardiac specialists.
Link: https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-poses-higher-risk-for-myocarditis-than-vaccines
It was harsh, but true…
KS, God rest his soul, was a Covid denier. He thought there were natural remedies to the virus…there weren’t. Unfortunately, he died from it. Sad but true.
Ask Killshot about it.
Oh wait. You can't.
You have been a little dark lately. You need a whiskey - next time we’re in SB, on me.
(no message)
What type of whiskey does he drink?
(no message)
This post is despicable. You have zero class.
(no message)
This was meant for you…
Killshot's life was more than a punchline.
(no message)
Of course not…
And that’s not what Chris meant. KS thought Covid was a hoax. A lot of the people who died felt the same way.
Wasn't a joke.
(no message)
Right. You brought it up out compassion for him.
You are fooling no one.
Ridiculous assertion.
(no message)
Comically True.
(no message)
He was an example, not a joke.
(no message)
Pick another example.
(no message)
False.
You've lived through 50 years of failed predictions.
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
Link: https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/
I remember the olden days of global cooling.
I guess if one leftist extreme doesn't work, try another.
Who can forget: 1973 is peak oil. Live long enough and you realize it's the same recycled narratives
(no message)
Climate change explained. No worry - you have around 11,000 years before you turn into a popsicle
(no message)
Link: Hint - you are being manipulated
BP's estimate for years of worldwide proven oil reserves at current consumption rates is less than
50 years...it was 53 yrs not that long ago (see link)...Hint...the entire world is in trouble if we don't switch to alternate energy sources...ASAP.
Link: https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2014/0714/How-long-will-world-s-oil-reserves-last-53-years-says-BP
What a relief!!! 5 years ago you said it was 47!!!
(no message)
Link: HAHAHA!!!
Your linked post was from 5 months ago...not much has changed...the entire world is facing this
crisis...196 countries have seen the evidence and acknowledged the need to switch from FFs to Carbon Free sources of Heat and Power...even China has over 200 Nuclear Plants in their energy strategy 'Pipeline'. Don't ve afraid to "Look Up".
That's an even better trend. So glad we have you confirming the growth in supply.
(no message)
The O&G Industry itself acknowledged that Fracking production is on the decline...I've posted links
to those statements. Without imports, the U.S. is in deep trouble.
Fortunately, you've gone from 5 to over 50. Great trend, thanks!
(no message)
LOL...you have memory and focus issues to deal with, but I'm here to help...the "50" number is BP's
estimate for the Entire World's Proven Oil Reserves...the "5" number (actually, more like "5-10") is the years remaining for U.S. reserves...without any imports. With either measure, we all...regardless of party affiliation...have very little time left to switch away from FFs for Heat and Power, and onto Nuclear, Wind, Solar, or other non-CO2 producing fuels (e.g. Hydrogen).
That's what they said when I was 5 in 1976.
(no message)
If you look at the EIA chart for years of Proven Oil Reserves remaining in the U.S. over time,
you'll notice that they were dramatically dropping until Fracking Technology gave us a boost in the early 2000's...but that's now peaking and there isn't a clear backup plan to give us more than the 5-10 years, without oil imports. The U.S. currently has slightly less than 50 Bbls of Proven Oil Reserves...and we consume slightly more than 7 Bbls/yr...
If you care at all about your kids and grandkids, you need to look hard at these independent facts based on Oil Industry data. Then come up with a solid plan that ensures reliable Heat, Power is available...along with Hydrocarbons for tires, plastics, fertilizers, medical equipment, etc., etc., etc.,...
This is real life...not a meaningless discussion topic...so treat it accordingly...and vote accordingly.
Link: https://www.ttnews.com/articles/us-shale-output-peaked
Obama talked about the imminent danger of rising seas…& then promptly put $30 million in beachfront
…homes.