You misunderstand. I'm not questioning that scientists have performed studies that demonstrate that increased CO₂ helps plant life - when considered by itself, i.e. ignoring effects of climate change, such as increased temperature and changing (and more extreme) weather patterns. 'CO₂ is good for plants' is basic scientific truth. It's not controversial at all. I'm simply asking who your 'some alarmists' are - presumably, as they don't understand science, they are from the climate-skeptic side?



Not sure what your point is, sorry.

https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/2266/

Whilst we're waiting for that guy, I'll have a go But for this one, we don't even really need data; common sense does the job for us.


Okay. Maybe. Not really worth studying because this has zero relevance to human-caused climate change.

No, and no. How does this follow from the quote above? Answer: it doesn't.

I have many years of science education, thanks. 'CO₂ helps plants to grow' is hardly an earth-shattering revelation. Not sure who these unnamed 'some alarmists' are, but they're more likely to be from the ranks of the climate-skeptics, rather than from the ranks of climate scientists (climate scientists being people who, you know, understand stuff).

You can often spot the nonsensical, misleading claims through the use of phrases such as 'up to'. A rise of 'up to 15%' could include a drop of 50%, and still meet the condition. Ridiculous.
... But again, irrelevant. Personally I would expect to see crop yields rise by considerably more than 15% through genetic engineering of drought-resistant strains, etc. And this will be needed to feed the world's population, given the ever-worsening effects of human-caused climate change.


You do realise that temperatures are rising, right? Maybe you could take a look at this study in Nature (summarised here), which uses science, data, and statistical analysis to predict that
Maybe you also understand that sea levels are rising? Might that cause a few problems? And we can go on and on, but I'll stop there as this post is already long enough.
If you want to consider what the effects of human-caused climate change will be, start from a summary such as this one, or perhaps this one, which includes the quote below:

But please, have a read, then come back, and we can debate some more. Don't just cherry-pick one fact and remove it from its context.

Yes, it does look that way. Barca improve the team, and bring in a friend... if Messi was unsure whether to stay or not, this surely settles things down.
Personally as I posted earlier, I thought he was likely to stay anyway... but this should make it almost certain.



Selling Suarez was a stupid decision, yes. I'm not sure it was really because he was too old, just that they wanted to have a clear out after the Bayern debacle, and Suarez, although not too old, was probably old enough to get rid of, and save some money from the wage bill. I would think given Atletico's league win this year, that Barca have now learned their lesson... don't sell your best players, and especially not to a rival!

I think he'll stay at Barca... remember he has been there since he was 13 years old! They want him to stay, too. It would take something extraordinary for him to leave.

I know there was the crisis at the end of last season, but they have a new man in charge now and the team seems to be turning things around a bit. Perhaps he will leave at some point, when he gets older and starts to decline maybe he'll go to the US or some other less competitive league for a couple of seasons... but while he's a world-class player, I think he'll remain at Barca.

I predict that Djokovic will win fairly easily, then keep winning easily until he comes up against someone good - probably Nadal.
At that point he will start losing some points, then when it looks like the match is getting away from him, he'll suffer an "injury" that will disrupt the flow, and allow him time to regroup. He'll then start playing better, immediately moving without any restrictions, almost as if the "injury" wasn't real at all... not that he's ever done this before of course...

Zverev (6th seed) isn't looking too great, either - he lost the first two sets before pulling one back. It's currently on serve in the fourth.

Meanwhile Osaka was fined $15k after refusing to do her press conference, and is now being threatened with escalating fines and maybe even expulsion from the tournament. Difficult to see how this can end well. I mean, if she is forced to take part after trying to take a stand against it, you can't imagine she is going to participate any more than the minimum amount possible.
On the other hand, it's backfired a bit in that she's trying to take pressure off by not doing the press stuff, and the consequence is that all attention is focused on her now... which increases the pressure.

Well, not specific to this person, but if you want to quote something crazy that you remember from months ago, for example, the phrase "a good soak with MMS (Jim Humble) will even cancel out most of the poison", then just go to that person's profile, and go back through their post history searching for the phrase or keyword that you remember. Then, when you find the post, click the quote button, copy the relevant section, and paste it into your reply.

I'm looking forward to it, I hate Monaco and I'm glad it's done and out of the way for another year. I don't think we should even call Monaco a race, when it's simply a procession.
Yes Baku is another street track, but it's an improvement on the last one It will be interesting to see how Hamilton and Mercedes react after the disaster last time out... I assume there will be a big improvement.

Can I just draw your attention to this post:

My new favourite is: It Came From Spaaaaaace!!!!

Unfortunately there is zero evidence to explain a) how the virus came to be in space in the first place, b) why it's so similar to known terrestrial viruses, or c) how it could survive the extreme radiation.

There's a brief summary of the theory here: https://www.space.com/coronavirus-not-from-outer-space.html

... or you could go straight to the 'serious' scientific paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7358766/

Image below is a photo of the Covid Mothership*.


*Correction: Sorry... I forgot to include the word 'not'. This is not a photo of the Covid mothership. Or indeed a photo.

I also bet on Chelsea... but I didn't think they would win. I just found a site where the odds of a Chelsea victory were quite extreme.
Man City were deservedly the favourites going into the match, as they are the better team... but of course they had lost twice already to Tuchel's Chelsea within the last six weeks, so it wasn't like Chelsea didn't have a chance.
Some sites definitely overcompensate for the favourites, which means they undercompensate for the outsiders, which means you can get very good odds on an "unlikely" outcome.

They are quite entertaining, though. The Vaccidents one is a personal favourite... but I also like the one where Bill Gates is a forked-tongued anti-human demon who is trying to block the sun.

Yes.

Please don't believe unsubstantiated and misleading conspiracist nonsense. Instead, look at the data and form your own conclusions. There is a wealth of information on Covid out there, from numerous independent sources around the world: https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus

If someone genuinely believes that vaccinated people will die within two years, then they don't understand how vaccines work. A basic grasp of science is important; it helps people to form logical, evidence-based conclusions.

Nope. Magneto wasn't genetically-modified, he was born with those superpowers. But I stopped caring after Apocalypse - what a dreadful movie that was. And as for Deadpool, I gave up halfway through the trailer... a new nadir. I don't know how much those writers get paid, but frankly it's too much. I'm going back to the subtitled art-house stuff - you can call me pretentious if you want; I won't apologise for having good taste.

Anyway, must try harder. Let's see what the next all-bold evidence-free conspiracy thread looks like.

I don't think this works, though. If you need a majority to win an election, the problem is that the majority don't vote for the candidate who supports the people's best interests... they vote for whoever the elitist candidate is... in the UK at least. A few media scare story headlines about communists etc is enough to do it. People vote for whom they're told to vote for.


But you do have a point, and I was too quick to dismiss it in my last post. I agree with you here, and this quote reminded me... recently in Germany, young climate activists mounted a legal challenge against their country's inadequate work on climate change... and they won, and forced significant policy changes at the highest level: https://www.climatechangenews.com/2021/04/30/top-court-rules-german-climate-law-falls-short-historic-victory-youth/
Sometimes, yes, you're right, if people approach things in the right way - not by simply waving placards and complaining - real change can be effected.

I'm waiting to see how many top English clubs will be linked with Jack Grealish. In the last week I think we've had Man City, Man United, and Arsenal. Just Liverpool, Chelsea and Spurs to go... crazy prices being quoted, too, £100 million is the latest figure.

I think he's worth more than that to Villa, they have money already and won't want to sell at any price... but it may be a fight to hold onto him.

Money is a representation and - crucially, a quantification - of power. They don't want money-as-a-means-of-exchange, they want power... in order to retain and strengthen their existing power. Money as a thing that has utility in that it can be exchanged for other things is in this context irrelevant. If we are talking about the elite... then money is a proxy for power.

Interaction is required in order to establish and maintain a relationship. Some relationships in international politics, such as that between the US and the waning-but-still-powerful Russia, are vital to world peace. It doesn't matter how unpleasant or untrustworthy your interlocutor is, it is always better to talk than not to talk. Silence creates uncertainty, which leads to paranoia, which leads to risk.

I'm in the UK, and I'd agree that certainly the American Civil War was a completely different thing.
As for the founding of the US, I generally refer to it as the American War of Independence, rather than the Revolutionary War... I don't know if that's standard terminology over here, or just me. But it definitely was revolutionary, yes. Whilst the US is obviously not the world's first democracy, it's arguably the first modern democracy... and it's no coincidence that the French Revolution occurred only a few years later.


I'd argue that the problem here is that petitions, legal protests, etc are fighting within the system, i.e. within the strict boundaries and rules defined by those in charge, who are acting unfairly and need to be deposed. I don't believe there is anything within a system that allows for the utter dismantling of that system. If you want to do that, then you have to break stuff... starting with the rules. Taking your quote above, what would be the penalty that people can enforce? Those who have no power cannot do this, surely?
But perhaps this is just a question of semantics, and I'm misunderstanding your point. Certainly a degree of change can be forced within a system, if those in power believe that they are at risk of losing power, or losing money. If something is a huge vote-winner, then it can influence policy. More often though, seeds of rebellion are suppressed through the establishment media. And any attempted change that does succeed is generally minor. For a major change, you need a revolution, and all the chaos that involves.

That's a ridiculous and sensationalist comparison, an example of 'I don't like x, therefore it's the worst thing ever'.
Someone cuts into a parking space ahead of you? OMG Hitler!

If you want some context on what it's like to live in North Korea, try this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shin_Dong-hyuk