Why do I have to learn here that TikTok is banned in China? Can you imagine a US product that is government controlled and _not_ permitted to be sold in the US? What questions would that raise in your mind?

Why do I learn here that China's permitted TikTok equivalent rations online time? This is a breathtakingly clear example of a government keenly aware of the potentially detrimental effects of a product and taking action on it. Again, imagine a US product that was similarly strictly constrained in its use. What questions would that raise in your mind?

Seriously. This kind of "oh, we discovered that ..." keeps coming out simply because someone finally gets around to asking the question.

Don't care why that is but it means Geo-engineering is foolish and dangerous.

They are:

Were there _no_ lessons learned from the supposed Apollo moon landings that were done using _ancient_ tech?
Why would you design a tall lander that could tip vice a short squat lander?
Why doesn't any design assume that there will be vertical and horizontal velocity and design to land accordingly eg. skids vice legs
Why do the lander designs assume every system will work perfectly
Why don't the landers drop simultaneously with a separate camera pod so there is some visual record of what goes on
What would an irrefutable mission look like eg. activates a beacon visible from Earth by anyone with a telescope

Frankly, I believed in the initial moon landings but now increasingly have my doubts. SpaceX is precisely landing rocket boosters vertically on ocean platforms but no one can land a small lander on the moon without something going wrong and/or providing the flimsiest evidence of success?

What nonsense is that?

Also: the population is growing and will continue to do so. Therefore the human needs for food and energy will continue to grow, and so will human waste. Look in to what's required to feed and clean up after humans. A good reference

The climate change alarmists inspired fear. People don't necessarily respond rationally when scared. Exploiting fear is profitable.

And so here we are.

If you think climate change was bad, you should see what's coming.

It would be interesting to see the math on whether this is a plus or minus environmentally.

Why not force recycling say you only get a one new plastic bag per old plastic bag that you return?

As implied in the article, the problem isn't plastic bags per se, it's that people aren't re-using or re-cycling them. So why not address re-use and re-cycling?

10 on 10 for honesty as chilling as it is. But the unasked question: what else are you doing in your products to maximize your profits?

Dear biologists,

You're not scientists. You can watch what is going on because that's what you do best. Stop playing with scientific tools as if you understand them, and please never make predictions based on your misuse of those tools. Not saying you aren't smart, just that you are terribly misguided in your assessment of what you understand. Watch the beavers but stay in your lane, no predictions, no climate commentary.

Thanks

Biologists have an extremely negative view of all life but human. Consider the ethologists statement: 'If we don't understand how these animals think, then we won't understand what they need. And if we don't understand what they need, we can't design better environments for them.' Why not say: " If we understand how animals think, we can understand what they need. And if we understand what they need we can design better environments for them." The subtle difference suggests a guarded opinion that animals are _actually_ more complex than just being organic automata.

Biology is not a science. It has no first principles and so is nothing more than collection and observation ... and the latter often by the most cruel and horrific means.

CO2 is the most dangerous thing on the planet and it will destroy everything b/c climate change !!!

Also the leak is like sequestering the radioactive material in the earth and sequestering is totally fine. So we could learn from this about how to sequester the deadly CO2.

win-win

what this article reveals:

a) the models get better when they are more complex (surprise!)
b) current models aren't complex
c) we're still discovering important stuff about how aspects of the climate system work
d) we predict as if we know how everything works.

It is crazy scary absurd as exemplified by the hue and cry over sequestering spent radioactive material while embracing sequestering CO2. Biology is not science ... and nor is the climate debate.

Having fomented fear with the 'climate crisis' and identified the culprit (CO2), the profiteers are coming out in spades. Pour something into the ocean! Inject something into the air! Block the sun! Bury it! With the tacit understanding that all other business continues as usual. It's surreal. How can anyone seriously believe that the 'silver bullet' is to just suck CO2 out of the atmosphere?

At least these profiteers are honest enough to let everyone know their solution is really just a deferral of the problem. It will suck in a hundred years when all the sequestering starts releasing back in to the environment.

It is well known that we humans know everything there is to know about everything ... at least everything that matters.

So we suck the CO2 out of the air and _permanently_ store it in concrete or underground. So we know for a fact that removing anything from a system has no repercussions ... at least no repercussions that matter.

It's kind of funny too when you look back. Remember the people all fussed about radioactive material being stored underground? Not a problem in retrospect because it is stored there permanently, so no worries.

Remember when IBM used to be innovative?

Could it's orbit be altered so that it would fall in to the Sun, or head out of the Solar System, or crash on the Moon?