leicsmac

... right wing talking heads and their sycophants not taking sexual harassment and assault of women seriously and using that exact "MSM" argument to be dismissive? Colour me shocked.

Nah, it's not just you, it's a perfectly human thing that a lot of people do. It's just not necessarily conducive to the long term survival of civilisation, so we need enough people thinking beyond their line of sight.

This is assuming that an alien ethical value structure would be in any way similar to human ethical value structures, which is of course no way guaranteed. Of course, if it is true then it's totally correct - we would be entirely at whatever mercy they had, if any.

We've already found chemical markers in other places that we believe only microbial life produces (at least here on Earth). That, for me, while not definitive, is a sign that the former of your assumptions is correct and there is at least simple microbial life in a great many places in the Universe, even if we don't know exactly how such life "began".

Yeah, the simple answer regarding extraterrestrial life is that we don't know and we don't have nearly enough information to be sure either way. However, given that we have found liquid water and other chemical compounds indicative of the presence of life in this Solar System alone (Europa, Enceladus, Venus), I think it's at least a reasonable assumption to think that there is microbial life out there, given the sheer number of objects out there. That's law of averages. "Intelligent", spacefaring life that could visit us and/or contact us in a way we could understand? That's another matter and another layer of complexity entirely.

Yeah, I remember the halcyon days of Moose and sphericalfox abusing each other for page after page. And the Tinder thread, too.

In part, but also in terms of the more direct consequences of air pollution (as opposed to carbon emissions) as explained above.

If this is true (and I'm not going to dismiss it out of hand), there are multiple other costly consequences of air pollution than simply death. Additional healthcare costs and infrastructure costs being two. People do not take anthropogenic environmental issues seriously enough. That's possibly an unpopular opinion right there, though it annoys me and scares me in equal measure that it is so.

I can understand people being annoyed about the methods here, but as per above I cannot understand being annoyed about the motives unless one really doesn't care about air pollution or its effects.

Seoul isn't much better, but then that's not down to the cars, mostly.

I'm curious: do the supercars or expensive new big models that rich people do drive satisfy current emission regulations then? Genuine question, I guess they probably do.

Confirmation bias - whether truth or lies - sells. And that's the biggest problem.

I think the issue is here is a matter of communication on a matter "invisible" to most people and how difficult it can be. If Khan simply stated scientific facts about it, most people simply wouldn't mutter something along the lines of "oh dear" and then keep doing what they're doing. So he used quite sensational rhetoric instead to at least engage people with the topic, which of course has its own problems. I've seen it before with other long term scientific issues that need addressing as a nation and a species but a lot of people simply don't notice.

Ah, so it's a problem with implementation then? I would agree with that, given rich folks can simply pay up and keep polluting. A better solution is required, but at the same time I wouldn't fault anyone at least looking to prioritise long term environmental issues over short term material ones.

If I might ask a question here for the sake of clarity: Is the point being made here that the environmental issue exists but the solution to help solve it is being executed badly, or is it that the environmental issue doesn't exist at all? I'd like to know which it is, please.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66803279 Ah, some powerful tosser who clearly enjoys viewing other people as things willing to say the quiet part out loud, then.

I think that's a fair opinion but I'd like to actually see proof that this scheme would be ineffective and/or not required environmentally before taking it as anywhere near valid or factual. I think it is a fact that people, in this case and others, place short term material gain over the long term environmental and health concerns of themselves, much less other human beings, and that's not good for the future.

Some people genuinely and simply don't give a shit about such things unless they directly affect them, and sometimes not even then. Deeply frustrating flaw.

May I ask what that opinion would be exactly and why?

Every single despot who strode out on the pathway of despotism has believed their campaign to be righteous.

The best thing about the England one day team is that any one of the top 7/8 fires and they either make 300+ or chase 300+. They've been the best in the world recently for a reason.

.... the fresh misogynist gammon hell is this?

Possibly so, however the fact remains that mass casualty events from flooding and wildfires appear to becoming more common and more severe, for a variety of reasons. Nope, and it looks like he won't either considering the DOJ decided not to charge him (having looked up recent developments). Innocent until proven guilty of course, my own personal viewpoint on the guy being loathsome for many different reasons notwithstanding.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-africa-6669104 Horrifying events in Libya. A lot of these "unprecedented" natural weather-based events happening now.

Get a sample that provides observational evidence of the life under a microscope would be the ultimate final test, I think. But I think of a combination of chemical biosignatures similar to life on Earth (as opposed to just one or two different ones) would be enough to be reasonably sure.