If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Your claim about imminent climate catastrophe and mass extinction based on speculative future emissions is the height of alarmism. Waving around unproven theories about permafrost methane and “extraterrestrial intervention” doesn’t strengthen your argument—it highlights its absurdity. ......
“We are seeing a big increase in the thaw of permafrost,'' Emily Osborne, program manager for the Arctic Research Program, NOAA, and editor of the Arctic Report Card, said. “The landscape is physically crumbling as a result… things are changing so fast, and in ways that researchers hadn’t even anticipated.”
"Thawing permafrost is one of the tipping points for climate breakdown and it's happening before our very eyes," said Jennifer Morgan, Executive Director of Greenpeace International.
"what is known is that the Arctic is warming four times faster than the rest of the planet, and the thawing permafrost is already forcing some communities to relocate."
"Dr. Brown, supported by academic peers from several notable institutions, set out to unravel the elusive nature of permafrost in a climate-challenged world.
The study was focused on the Koyukuk River in Alaska. This 425-mile tributary of the Yukon River is a vital component of the Alaskan ecosystem and plays a considerable role in the region’s permafrost.
The research, published by the American Geophysical Union, reveals a concerning trend. While new permafrost is developing along the floodplain, it’s not keeping pace with the amount melting due to rising temperatures.
There's lots more if you need it .... but no, you'll just ignore it because it doesn't suit your position.
That last one was a SCIENTIFIC STUDY ... shocking, huh?
THEORIES? You are the King of theories, of hand-waving.
Here's a suggestion Sid .... why don't YOU present a BALANCED VIEWPOINT that includes ALL THE POSSIBILTIES rather than being like a horse wearing blinders and not considering where all the CO2 and methane might be coming from?
Absurdity? Absurdity would be putting all humanity's survival eggs n one basket, the one that says we should do nothing because Sid Ballsbag says we need MORE CO2 not less.
“We are seeing a big increase in the thaw of permafrost,'' Emily Osborne, program manager for the Arctic Research Program, NOAA, and editor of the Arctic Report Card, said. “The landscape is physically crumbling as a result… things are changing so fast, and in ways that researchers hadn’t even anticipated.”
"Thawing permafrost is one of the tipping points for climate breakdown and it's happening before our very eyes," said Jennifer Morgan, Executive Director of Greenpeace International.
"what is known is that the Arctic is warming four times faster than the rest of the planet, and the thawing permafrost is already forcing some communities to relocate."
"Dr. Brown, supported by academic peers from several notable institutions, set out to unravel the elusive nature of permafrost in a climate-challenged world.
The study was focused on the Koyukuk River in Alaska. This 425-mile tributary of the Yukon River is a vital component of the Alaskan ecosystem and plays a considerable role in the region’s permafrost.
The research, published by the American Geophysical Union, reveals a concerning trend. While new permafrost is developing along the floodplain, it’s not keeping pace with the amount melting due to rising temperatures.
There's lots more if you need it .... but no, you'll just ignore it because it doesn't suit your position.
That last one was a SCIENTIFIC STUDY ... shocking, huh?
THEORIES? You are the King of theories, of hand-waving.
Here's a suggestion Sid .... why don't YOU present a BALANCED VIEWPOINT that includes ALL THE POSSIBILTIES rather than being like a horse wearing blinders and not considering where all the CO2 and methane might be coming from?
Absurdity? Absurdity would be putting all humanity's survival eggs n one basket, the one that says we should do nothing because Sid Ballsbag says we need MORE CO2 not less.
Your sources on permafrost thawing may describe a concerning trend, but they do nothing to establish that the small fraction of CO₂ in the atmosphere (0.04%) acts as a “control knob” for global climate. You’re conflating regional permafrost effects with global climate causality, an assumption not supported by the evidence you’ve presented. Yes, permafrost thaw is happening—scientists don’t dispute that—but asserting it’s primarily driven by human activity ignores broader climate dynamics, including ocean cycles, solar influences, and the role of natural carbon sinks.
Your selective use of studies on permafrost changes does nothing to support your extreme predictions of global catastrophe or mass extinction. Even leading scientists recognize that warming in Arctic regions is part of a complex set of interactions, many of which predate industrialization. If anything, the rapid warming in the Arctic suggests that natural cycles and regional factors play a far more intricate role in permafrost dynamics than your “CO₂ control knob” theory accounts for.
Regarding “balanced viewpoints,” my position is based on the totality of evidence, not cherry-picked quotes to support alarmist scenarios. The “doomsday” narrative you’re pushing lacks empirical support, and until you can address the entire spectrum of climate variables—not just isolated statements about permafrost—your argument remains speculative and incomplete.
If you have additional peer-reviewed studies that explicitly prove that CO₂ levels, specifically from human activity, directly control global climate on their own, feel free to present them. Otherwise, I suggest you reconsider the selective and unbalanced approach in your argument.
Your sources on permafrost thawing may describe a concerning trend, but they do nothing to establish that the small fraction of CO₂ in the atmosphere (0.04%) acts as a “control knob” for global climate. You’re conflating regional permafrost effects with global climate causality, an assumption not supported by the evidence you’ve presented. Yes, permafrost thaw is happening—scientists don’t dispute that—but asserting it’s primarily driven by human activity ignores broader climate dynamics, including ocean cycles, solar influences, and the role of natural carbon sinks.
Your selective use of studies on permafrost changes does nothing to support your extreme predictions of global catastrophe or mass extinction. Even leading scientists recognize that warming in Arctic regions is part of a complex set of interactions, many of which predate industrialization. If anything, the rapid warming in the Arctic suggests that natural cycles and regional factors play a far more intricate role in permafrost dynamics than your “CO₂ control knob” theory accounts for.
Regarding “balanced viewpoints,” my position is based on the totality of evidence, not cherry-picked quotes to support alarmist scenarios. The “doomsday” narrative you’re pushing lacks empirical support, and until you can address the entire spectrum of climate variables—not just isolated statements about permafrost—your argument remains speculative and incomplete.
If you have additional peer-reviewed studies that explicitly prove that CO₂ levels, specifically from human activity, directly control global climate on their own, feel free to present them. Otherwise, I suggest you reconsider the selective and unbalanced approach in your argument.
Talk about being speculative ... you state "warming in the Arctic regions is part of a complex set if interactions, many of which predate industrialization." You are suggesting -- with zero evidence -- that industrialization has had little or no role in the warming of the Arctic. You say your "position" is based on totality of evidence, in this case it is presuming something for which there is lack of evidence.
Yes, there are many variables going into climate change, and we humans cannot fathom how all those variables interplay. But we do get a clue from the macro events that happen around the world:
- increasing frequency in diverse locations of "1000-year" climate events, especially flooding
- striking contrasts in climate extremes, heat and drought in some locations, deluges and floods in other locations
- overall rising trend in world temperatures, especially since year 2000
- increase in financial instability due to massive insurance claims from the various extreme climate events
We may not be able to precisely read all the coffee been grinds but we can smell the coffee!
You can fight the trend all you like, but you have picked a fight you will lose over time ... especially now that Trump is elected and the world's biggest economy will gear up again on use of fossil fuels.
And again, because you especially don't get this message: if there is even a tiny sliver of a chance that we are primarily responsible for what it happening, we must change our behavior if humanity is to survive. The only alternative is to colonize Mars as fast as we can.
Listening to you "position" (aka opinion) would be the height of irresponsibility, because it calls for doing absolutely NOTHING in the face of the macro events that tell us what is coming. Whether its a natural cycle or not, we DO know greenhouse gases contribute, and that is an area we can AND MUST address.
And we will. Nothing you say or do can stop humanity from acting to survive. You should just slink off and give up your foolish nonsense.
Talk about being speculative ... you state "warming in the Arctic regions is part of a complex set if interactions, many of which predate industrialization." You are suggesting -- with zero evidence -- that industrialization has had little or no role in the warming of the Arctic. You say your "position" is based on totality of evidence, in this case it is presuming something for which there is lack of evidence.
Yes, there are many variables going into climate change, and we humans cannot fathom how all those variables interplay. But we do get a clue from the macro events that happen around the world:
- increasing frequency in diverse locations of "1000-year" climate events, especially flooding
- striking contrasts in climate extremes, heat and drought in some locations, deluges and floods in other locations
- overall rising trend in world temperatures, especially since year 2000
- increase in financial instability due to massive insurance claims from the various extreme climate events
We may not be able to precisely read all the coffee been grinds but we can smell the coffee!
You can fight the trend all you like, but you have picked a fight you will lose over time ... especially now that Trump is elected and the world's biggest economy will gear up again on use of fossil fuels.
And again, because you especially don't get this message: if there is even a tiny sliver of a chance that we are primarily responsible for what it happening, we must change our behavior if humanity is to survive. The only alternative is to colonize Mars as fast as we can.
Listening to you "position" (aka opinion) would be the height of irresponsibility, because it calls for doing absolutely NOTHING in the face of the macro events that tell us what is coming. Whether its a natural cycle or not, we DO know greenhouse gases contribute, and that is an area we can AND MUST address.
And we will. Nothing you say or do can stop humanity from acting to survive. You should just slink off and give up your foolish nonsense.
Your latest rant is yet another exercise in alarmism and misinformation, built on half-truths and complete ignorance of practical solutions. Here’s the reality:
Distorted Claims of Industrial Impact: You accuse me of disregarding industrial impact on the Arctic, yet it’s you who cherry-picks data and ignores natural climate cycles that predate industrialization by millennia. Blaming human CO₂ emissions as the sole “control knob” is a simplistic, scientifically baseless view. You might want to study the actual data instead of relying on selective quotes that conveniently fit your narrative.
“1000-Year” Events Misconstrued: Throwing around “1000-year events” as proof of impending doom is disingenuous. This term doesn’t mean “never before seen” but is instead a statistical probability, which has existed as long as weather patterns have been documented. Stop misrepresenting these events as proof of a crisis driven solely by human activity—it’s alarmist propaganda, not science.
Your Aversion to Real Solutions: You consistently ignore viable, proven solutions like nuclear power if correctly executed is a pollution-free, reliable energy source. Instead, you promote ideologically driven policies that create chaos and suffering. Case in point: Sri Lanka’s nitrogen fertilizer ban in the name of “sustainable farming,” which directly led to famine and economic disaster. These are real-world consequences of your utopian, one-size-fits-all approach—a direct cause of human suffering, yet you blithely ignore it.
Binary Thinking at Its Worst: Your reductionist argument that we must “decarbonize or die” is as misguided as it is uninformed. Viable alternatives—carbon capture, nuclear energy, fusion—don’t fit your narrative, so you dismiss them outright. This kind of thinking is dangerous and delusional. Addressing emissions doesn’t require dismantling entire economies or pushing unsustainable policies. But nuance clearly doesn’t fit your agenda.
Science vs. Fearmongering: Your vague references to “macro events” are not scientific evidence; they’re emotional appeals devoid of data. You talk of “smelling the coffee” instead of analyzing the science, proving you’re more interested in fearmongering than facts. Your position is built on sensationalism, not substance, and it’s frankly exhausting.
It’s clear you aren’t interested in discussing real, effective solutions. Instead, you promote fear, disregard evidence, and parrot ideological dogma while avoiding substantive debate. Until you can offer data instead of doomsday rhetoric, your comments amount to nothing more than trolling. If you’re unwilling to engage constructively, spare everyone the hollow histrionics.
Originally posted by Pargat Perrer
I have no problem seeing man as a cancer .
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Monday, 11th November, 2024, 09:46 PM.
Your latest rant is yet another exercise in alarmism and misinformation, built on half-truths and complete ignorance of practical solutions. Here’s the reality:
Distorted Claims of Industrial Impact: You accuse me of disregarding industrial impact on the Arctic, yet it’s you who cherry-picks data and ignores natural climate cycles that predate industrialization by millennia. Blaming human CO₂ emissions as the sole “control knob” is a simplistic, scientifically baseless view. You might want to study the actual data instead of relying on selective quotes that conveniently fit your narrative.
“1000-Year” Events Misconstrued: Throwing around “1000-year events” as proof of impending doom is disingenuous. This term doesn’t mean “never before seen” but is instead a statistical probability, which has existed as long as weather patterns have been documented. Stop misrepresenting these events as proof of a crisis driven solely by human activity—it’s alarmist propaganda, not science.
Your Aversion to Real Solutions: You consistently ignore viable, proven solutions like nuclear power if correctly executed is a pollution-free, reliable energy source. Instead, you promote ideologically driven policies that create chaos and suffering. Case in point: Sri Lanka’s nitrogen fertilizer ban in the name of “sustainable farming,” which directly led to famine and economic disaster. These are real-world consequences of your utopian, one-size-fits-all approach—a direct cause of human suffering, yet you blithely ignore it.
Binary Thinking at Its Worst: Your reductionist argument that we must “decarbonize or die” is as misguided as it is uninformed. Viable alternatives—carbon capture, nuclear energy, fusion—don’t fit your narrative, so you dismiss them outright. This kind of thinking is dangerous and delusional. Addressing emissions doesn’t require dismantling entire economies or pushing unsustainable policies. But nuance clearly doesn’t fit your agenda.
Science vs. Fearmongering: Your vague references to “macro events” are not scientific evidence; they’re emotional appeals devoid of data. You talk of “smelling the coffee” instead of analyzing the science, proving you’re more interested in fearmongering than facts. Your position is built on sensationalism, not substance, and it’s frankly exhausting.
It’s clear you aren’t interested in discussing real, effective solutions. Instead, you promote fear, disregard evidence, and parrot ideological dogma while avoiding substantive debate. Until you can offer data instead of doomsday rhetoric, your comments amount to nothing more than trolling. If you’re unwilling to engage constructively, spare everyone the hollow histrionics.
What you call "fearmongering" with no facts to back it up .... here are some FACTS for you to read-it-and-weep to show that I am merely REPORTING what is ALREADY HAPPENING....
As I've said ... you've picked a fight you cannot win. Learn from the Trump election victory ... what did the working class vote for? THEIR WALLETS.
You won't convince anyone of any of your bullshit when their wallets are ALREADY being decimated by property insurance hikes, by rising costs of groceries due to agricultural damages, by collapsing bridges and highways and massive wildfires and surging rivers .... and it is only going to get WORSE each year.
Originally posted by Pargault BonhamperrerView Post
What you call "fearmongering" with no facts to back it up .... here are some FACTS for you to read-it-and-weep to show that I am merely REPORTING what is ALREADY HAPPENING....
The fearmongering is that we are responsible for this you cretin.
As I've said ... you've picked a fight you cannot win. Learn from the Trump election victory ... what did the working class vote for? THEIR WALLETS.
You won't convince anyone of any of your bullshit when their wallets are ALREADY being decimated by property insurance hikes, by rising costs of groceries due to agricultural damages, by collapsing bridges and highways and massive wildfires and surging rivers .... and it is only going to get WORSE each year.
Learn Sid .... Learn!
Originally posted by Pargault BonhamperrerView Post
if there is even a tiny sliver of a chance that we are primarily responsible for what it happening, we must change our behavior if humanity is to survive.[/q
Not when that "change in behavior" murders people based on a "tiny sliver of a chance" of working especially when it has no chance of working.
Originally posted by Pargault BonhamperrerView Post
I have no problem seeig man as a cancer .
Of course, you have no problem with that. Please after you.
Since you want to quote the MSN Bill gates owned propaganda News Network, maybe it is time you learned who Bil, Gates is. https://plandemic.com/the-real-bill/
Here is what happened to the Genocidal WEF leftist Government of Sri Lanka with Pargault Bonhamperrer's dream of "changing human behavior." The dream of a Nitrogen fertilizer ban was implemented.
With Country Facing Crisis, World Economic Forum Deletes Post on Making Sri Lanka 'Rich by 2025'
Rebecca Downs | July 13, 2022 11:30 AM AP Photo/Eranga JayawardenaLast weekend, the Sri Lanka president and prime minister resigned in wake of protesters storming their residences, and the president has since fled the country. It was an instance of so-called "green" policies gone terribly wrong, as Bob Barr laid out in a column for Townhall, which involved a catastrophic fertilizer ban.
"Sri Lanka, under the leadership of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, decided in April 2021 to become the world’s first all-organic country," the editors wrote. "The government banned the use of chemical fertilizers and banned their importation. The move was pitched as creating a self-reliant economy on the island nation and hailed as a great experiment in green policy-making."
With such an embarrassing failure that Sri Lanka turned out to be, it looks like the World Economic Forum (WEF) is trying to cover its tracks. Tucker Carlson, who discussed the turmoil on his Monday night episode of "Tucker Carlson Tonight," shared that the WEF appears to have deleted an article dated August 29, 2018 from Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, "This is how I will make my country rich by 2025." Recommended
There is only the briefest of mentions about the policies that drove the Sri Lankan people to revolt, with added emphasis:
We have also played a constructive role in promoting international and regional initiatives in many areas, ranging from the environment and climate change to maritime security and migration. It is our commitment to use the strategic potential of the country, including its vibrant maritime connectivity, for enhancing friendly cooperation with all partners while reaping the economic benefits for all our peoples.
The World Bank has a page up on "Vision 2025: Sri Lanka’s Path to Prosperity," from October 17, 2017. There is no mention of buzz words such as "environment" or "climate change" or "green."
"Anti-government protesters angry over power blackouts, shortages of basic goods and rising prices have long demanded that [President Gotabaya] Rajapaksa steps down," the explainer reads at one point. It fails to delve into why such blackouts occurred though, which are already coming to the United States, especially in the case of deeply liberal California, which Gov. Gavin Newsom has sought to turn into a progressive oasis of sorts but has really become more of a wasteland.
What you call "facts" are little more than cherry-picked economic effects that have much to do with government policies and little to do with climate science. Your insistence that costs are driven by climate disasters alone is laughable given the actual drivers of inflation, including reckless government spending on inefficient “solutions” like solar panels and wind farms while neglecting effective, energy sources like nuclear energy. If you want to discuss “wallets,” look no further than the failed policies that add enormous costs without solving the root issues.
Inflation and Government Spending: Rising insurance costs, property damage, and food prices are heavily influenced by misguided policies and overreliance on unproven climate “solutions.” Countries implementing radical environmental restrictions without alternatives—like Sri Lanka’s disastrous nitrogen fertilizer ban—prove that ideology-driven policies create far greater harm than the problems they supposedly address. Blaming climate alone for inflation is either grossly misinformed or willfully ignorantAs Spencer wrote in a column last month about these coming blackouts:
Across America, millions of citizens facing forecasts of "above-average season temperatures" are at elevated risk of "forced outages for generation and some bulk power system equipment." That means, as the NERC assessment explains, "elevated or high risk of energy shortfalls this summer." Those grim findings on the crisis that looks set to plunge Americans into darkness during the hottest summer months have already been confirmed by power officials in Texas and California, another mismanaged jurisdiction where Golden State residents have been told they'll face "blackouts every summer for another four years."
Californians, plus millions more Americans who find themselves in the elevated risk zone — nearly everyone living west of the Mississippi River — face energy emergencies during what NERC calls "extreme conditions" such as droughts, heatwaves, and wildfires. Americans in the high risk zone — including Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and portions of Michigan, Illinois, Arkansas, and Louisiana — face power disruptions during both extreme conditions as well as normal summer conditions. That is, pretty much any time that summer temperatures put a strain on the power grids on which millions of Americans rely.
Biden's apparent solution, as seen in his executive orders and dubious use of the Defense Production Act, is to continue down his leftist-inspired "transition" away from reliable fossil fuels to falsely named "green" energy. But NERC's report also contains warnings that such policies and energy sources have already jeopardized America's electrical grid and led to the foreboding predictions for that came true.
Misplaced Focus on Human-Produced CO₂: You rant about fossil fuels and human-emitted CO₂ as if they’re the sole cause of all climate issues, yet you ignore that human emissions make up a tiny fraction of atmospheric greenhouse gases. This unscientific fixation disregards the roles of oceans, volcanic activity, and natural carbon sinks, which play much larger roles in the climate system. There’s no reproducible evidence supporting CO₂ as the primary climate “control knob,” despite your obsession with it.
Real Solutions vs. Alarmist Spending: You push for drastic measures based on ideology rather than fact, ignoring reliable, proven technologies that would genuinely lower emissions without wrecking the economy. Nuclear energy, carbon and technological innovative fusion are real solutions, not the ineffective policies you cling to.
Continuing to pour money into inefficient, unreliable energy sources while banning necessary agricultural resources will result in exactly what we’ve seen in Sri Lanka: economic collapse and human suffering.
Fearmongering and No Empirical Evidence: You conflate economic hardships with climate change to push a doomsday narrative that ignores the data. Repeating buzzwords like “collapsing bridges” and “massive wildfires” without showing causation by human CO₂ emissions is not science—it’s fearmongering. If you had any concrete, peer-reviewed evidence that a minor fraction of human-emitted CO₂ is the primary cause of these disasters, you would present it. But you don’t, because that evidence doesn’t exist.
Hi Bob,
I found the interview insightful and the former EPA director being inrterviwed to be very impressive.. While I’ve seen several of Trump’s picks as questionable, such as Marco Rubio for Secretary of State—who, in my opinion, is a poor choice due to his hawkish views—Lee Zeldin’s selection for EPA head raises concerns as well. Zeldin doesn’t have the scientific background necessary for such a critical role. This position, in my view, should focus on reducing pollution and investing in reliable energy alternatives like nuclear fission and fusion, which are viable clean energy sources.
Regardless of debates around CO₂, methane, and nitrogen emissions and their impact on the climate, the primary concern remains pollution. On a positive note, RFK Jr. has a long-standing commitment to clean water and plans to tackle toxic contaminants like fluoride. He also emphasizes the dangers of non-organic foods treated with glyphosate, which harms cellular mitochondria, impairing cells' ability to produce energy efficiently. This damage pushes cells toward glycolysis—a process that encourages cancerous growth due to glycolysis being a better promoter of uncontrolled growth. Monsanto has already faced billions in fines due to health damages from products like Roundup, which have been linked to cancers such as multiple myeloma.
Hopefully, RFK Jr. can guide Zeldin towards prioritizing these vital environmental and health initiatives among other needed health initiatives.
Tweet
AP Photo/Eranga JayawardenaLast weekend, the Sri Lanka president and prime minister resigned in wake of protesters storming their residences, and the president has since fled the country. It was an instance of so-called "green" policies gone terribly wrong, as Bob Barr laid out in
Comment