Also, the practice of blocking the account of anyone who annoys you can clean up your home feed everywhere. It seems about 90% of annoying posts are created by 5% of the community. But I agree, the ill informed doom and gloom here is so pervasive, it kills the sun. Even the majority of replies here to op are blind knee jerk negativism.

Thanks for proving OP’s point.

Because of the avalanche of evidence and the contradictions in it. Nobody keeps a personal diary anymore.

Historians don’t recount facts. They interpret motives in a narrative weave extending out in both directions. Future historians will have a harder time.

Unlikely as that person would have been at the forefront of optical science and known in a second that they were seeing a reflection off the back wall of the eyeball.

great question and thank you, yes, im frustrated so much with that clutter too

Twitter……… oh! You didn’t mean the double negative, sorry

It’s like you never wondered why they invented the idea of an afterlife….. (to scare you!!!! Bwah-ha-ha!!!!)

But as article says, the tie to slavery conditions somewhere along the long supply chain is endemic to all modern products, and is not especially specific to the renewables industries.

They hardly get shots in goal. Goalies hardly make any saves. How about half the team must remain over the centre line in the o zone?

Fuck me

Did no one look at it to sign off on it?

Yes. But I don’t see that unemployment rate today other than among young black men. Which has also been at this rate for decades.

Also, we need to know if the number is changing much. The article states it’s been going on for decades, but doesn’t reveal the number from decades ago. If it’s normal that 8-9% have always been not in the workforce, that would be relevant. People with disabilities, people working in the black market, and people temporarily off due to paternity leave or stress leave and people in full time education would all comprise parts of that ten percent, I am presuming. But the articles also says it’s Depression Era levels, which were 25%, so that seems overstated as well

Most are checking out? The article says 7 mil. That’s under 10% of working age males. 90% are working.

There are so many other confounding things going on: hunting, not hunting, hunting or not of animals that prey on a species, hunting or not of animals that compete for food with a species, reintroductions of animals that prey on or compete, increased food due to climate change, new ranges opening up due to climate change, other species invading new territories, being either predators or new food sources. There are threats misattributed to cc, like the bees — probably killed by sprays that are now stopped, and bees are back, climate change notwithstanding.

Penguins and ice seem to go together, but Antarctica is huge, the ice shelves are massive, and penguins seem to do just fine on land of which there is plenty under the ice — they just don’t photograph so well on land.

Remember the polar bear extinction prediction in 2006 or so? Today, 16 years on, there are more polar bears than ever. Remember that emaciated bear photograph? It wasn’t unusual — they typically look like that in spring, and they only really ever die of starvation because they aren’t predated.

I’m not saying climate change isn’t real. I’m saying shrill alarmism causes worry fatigue and misdirection of energies.

To use your metaphor, yes it’s an ocean-liner not a jet-ski, and it’s an ocean, not a lake.

Accurate and precise reporting leads to accurate and precise solutions. Hair on fire alarmism at the helm leads to capsized ships

“At risk of extinction” implies their number is dropping and soon to hit zero. The story does not say this — in fact if reports the population is stable. It’s a story about habitat decline. “Habitat of emperor penguins at risk” is the accurate title.

I’m the dude that wants accuracy and precision in reporting.

It’s not declining.

Yeah. I mean to be fair, all forms of life are at risk of extinction, strictly speaking and given a large enough timeframe. I’ve just been hunting lately for statements that don’t use “could” or “should.” I mean fair enough, if co2 keeps going up, if the ice melts, if the penguins don’t adapt, they may well decline.

Article states in last sentence that the population is currently stable.

Also, desert dust. The Gobi, for example, makes Vancouver subsets red.

But also, air pollution has been lessening dramatically the last few decades.

And ironically the wrongest one. Maybe you didn’t want it explained, you wanted your preconceived answer affirmed. No scientists have said anything about unlimited economic growth in their capacity as scientists. Thermodynamics is not a relevant consideration when looking at resource abundance. And population is not “bumping up against” resource limits or global warming — its plateauing, mostly due to contraception, education, prosperity, and female independence.

Economic growth does not require more physical resources. For example, the computer gaming industry contributes significantly to American GDP, but uses negligible physical resources. The digital music industry — same.

Due to technology and language we can go on accumulation knowledge and thus growth forever. Ancient empires collapsed due to lack of knowledge