Last week EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt stated that: “I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.”
I can only applaud Pruitt’s thoughtful comments, writes Alan Carlin.
But in fact there is not just uncertainty as Pruitt said, but actual evidence that there are no significant effects of rising human-caused emissions or atmospheric CO2 levels on global temperatures.
The Climate-Industrial Complex (CIC) has responded to Pruitt’s comments with all its usual propaganda concerning 97% of scientists, sea level rise, scientific “consensus,” etc., all of which are either incorrect, misleading, or irrelevant to the CIC’s assertion that human activity is the primary contributor to global warming.
To start with let’s get the religieus aspect out of the way.
No god exists, there is no afterlife ( if ever some contradictio in terminis ever was more true). so i am a nihilist.Or rather a realist.
Any-road. I am of the conviction everyone has the right to decide his/her end of life fulfillment . Nobody should be forced to give a reason. Which is is why i wholeheartedly support the Dutch initiative to provide the elderly with a ‘death pill’.
Subscribed by a well balanced group of professionals this medication should be available to everyone.
Freedom from persecution and a small but important alteration of current laws suffices. Why i wonder there exists in the Netherlands the concept of
- the patient’s suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement
- the patient’s request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time (the request cannot be granted when under the influence of others, psychological illness or drugs)
- the patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects, and options
- there must be consultation with at least one other independent doctor who needs to confirm the conditions mentioned above
- the death must be carried out in a medically appropriate fashion by the doctor or patient, and the doctor must be present
- the patient is at least 12 years old (patients between 12 and 16 years of age require the consent of their parents)
It’s my life, i decide how or when i end it.
Nobody else has that right. I decide if i suffer. Not you, nor you. For some the suffering might be the idea of working past 50, for some it might be working at all.
Existence itself can be a burden just to wake up everyday thinking, crap again?
So holier than thou ethical persons. Please keep your fear of death to yourself and stop forcing your instinct to live to yourselves. Please let those who’d seen life and decided ‘mwah’ decide for their selves.
Who are you to decide for me? Are you some kind of god?
I can end life now if i choose so, anyone can. But is it not a huge burden on the EMT staff to be confronted with the often stinky corpse? I can’t call them to tell them I’ve had it.
Anymore i can stand some person has to clean up the mess after some time decomposing.
I live in France so my options are limited. Jump on the train track, drown myself, hang myself. Even typing this risks me being admitted to a mental hospital for life.
Imagine you suffer from life, you must be mad. And yes i took all medication in existence, yes i did the therapy tour.Yes i had many fulfilling relations. Didin’t work
Finally i’m alone. Free.
Meals are not healthy or unhealthy. They are simply part of one’s total diet. To claim that a restaurant menu is unhealthy is to extrapolate a meal into much more than it is. Most people would consider an apple to be “healthy” but if all you ate were apples, your diet would be very unhealthy. The same applies to restaurant meals. Here, lame-o food nannies are simply trying to pressure restaurants into designing politically correct kids’ menus — tasteless food that most kids won’t enjoy or eat.
The media release is below. Original Article
Nutritional quality of kids’ menus at chain restaurants not improving
HARVARD T.H. CHAN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Boston, MA – U.S. chain restaurants participating in a National Restaurant Association initiative to improve the nutritional quality of their children’s menus have made no significant changes compared with restaurants not participating in the program, according to a new study led by Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Among both groups, the researchers found no meaningful improvements in the amount of calories, saturated fat, or sodium in kids’ menu offerings during the first three years following the launch of the Kids LiveWell initiative in 2011.
They also found that sugary drinks still made up 80% of children’s beverage options, despite individual restaurant pledges to reduce their prevalence.
The study will be published online January 11, 2017, in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
“Although some healthier options were available in select restaurants, there is no evidence that these voluntary pledges have had an industry-wide impact,” said lead author Alyssa Moran, a doctoral student in the Department of Nutrition at Harvard Chan School. “As public health practitioners, we need to do a better job of engaging restaurants in offering and promoting healthy meals to kids.”
In 2011 and 2012, more than one in three children and adolescents consumed fast food every day, according to the study. For kids, eating more restaurant food is associated with higher daily calorie intake from added sugar and saturated fats.
This is the first study to look at trends in the nutrient content of kids’ meals among national restaurant chains at a time when many were making voluntary pledges to improve quality. By 2015, more than 150 chains with 42,000 locations in the U.S. were participating in Kids LiveWell–which requires that at least one meal and one other item on kids’ menus meet nutritional guidelines.
Using data obtained from the nutrition census MenuStat, the researchers examined trends in the nutrient content of 4,016 beverages, entrees, side dishes, and desserts offered on children’s menus in 45 of the nation’s top 100 fast food, fast casual, and full-service restaurant chains between 2012 and 2015. Out of the sample, 15 restaurants were Kids LiveWell participants.
The researchers found that while some restaurants were offering healthier kids’ menu options, the average kids’ entrée still far exceeded recommendations for sodium and saturated fat. Kids’ desserts contained nearly as many calories and almost twice the amount of saturated fat as an entrée. And even when soda had been removed from children’s menus, it was replaced with other sugary beverages such as flavored milks and sweetened teas.
The authors would like to see the restaurant industry adhere to voluntary pledges and consider working with government agencies, researchers, and public health practitioners to apply evidence-based nutrition guidelines across a broader range of kids’ menu items. They also suggest tracking restaurant commitments to determine whether restaurants currently participating in Kids LiveWell improve the nutritional quality of their offerings over time.
In the dying days of 2016, three serious wind turbine malfunctions occurred in a small corner of Europe.
Are an illusion. Why? Quite simple they depend on multiple sensors which in turn depend on clear clean road conditions and the willingness to cleans all sensors arduously over their lifetime.
Snow, Rain, Dust, highly reflective surfaces are the least of your worries. The point is unfortunately 99.99% of the worlds infrastructure doesn’t resemble California highways at all.
Even in France or Germany with their very high standard highways the infrastructure mostly consists of badly maintained single lane roads often following the terrain resulting in very low grade daily commute connections.
The state of road infrastructure in 3 world countries is evidently even worse.
Please explain how an autonomous car is going not kill you on this extremely popular route
A twisting single lane road through multiple congested villages mostly along cliffs without a protective barrier at all. Still a a very busy commute road. So there you sit in your futuristic autonomous car, sun high & reflections all over the place, obstacles like fallen rocks a plenty, a road which is only recognizable as such because there is tarmac somewhere, passing motor-scooters at breakneck speed right and left, cars coming up on the other lane towards you.
And thats actually a reasonable road compared to for example India.
Self driving cars? Sure in the tiniest part of the world where well indicated multiple highway lanes exist.
I invite you to come over here with your Tesla during winter, the trip only takes about 40 miles. You’ll hardly reach your destination even when driving yourself due to severe drain caused by height differences, gale-force winds but for sure not with even the most advanced software someone can come up with if you go autonomous.
Facts? We Don’t Need No Stinking Facts.
One distressing characteristic of the Left, at least as far as science is concerned, is to let our ideology trump scientific data; that is, some of us ignore biological data when it’s inimical to our political preferences. This plays out in several ways: the insistence that race doesn’t exist (and before you accuse me of saying that races do exist, read about what I’ve written here before: the issue is complex), that there are no evolutionarily-based innate (e.g., genetically based) behavioral or psychological differences between ethnic groups, and that there are no such differences, either, between males and females within humans.
These claims are based not on biological data, but on ideological fears of the Left: if we admit of such differences, it could foster racism and sexism. Thus. any group differences we do observe, whether they reside in psychology, physiology, or morphology, are to be explained on first principle as resulting from culture rather than genes. (I do of course recognize that culture can interact with genes to produce behaviors.) This ideological blinkering leads to the conclusion that when we see a difference in performance between groups and genders, the obvious explanation is culture and oppression, and the remedy is equal outcomes rather than equal opportunities. Yet in areas like most sports, where everyone agrees that males are on average larger and stronger than females, it’s clear that the behavioral differences (i.e., performance) result from biological differences that are surely based on evolution (see below). In sports like track and field or judo, nobody would think of making males compete with females.