There is no such thing as a “licensed scientist”. Anyone can legally do science, the same way anyone can write poetry or do math. The term "scientist" is used for anyone who systematically investigate the natural world using empirical methods (the scientific method), and are recognized by others as doing so.

I have a science education, but I'm not a scientist by most definitions.
I have a bachelor is Biotechnology, which is a science education.
I work in Bio-pharma, using the scientific method every day.
I'm part of an engineering team that improves the processes and
solves issues.

I have a scientific education ✅
I work in a science-based field ✅
I apply scientific knowledge daily ✅
I do not produce new, testable knowledge about nature ❌
I do not participate in scientific literature or the research loop ❌

It doesn't require a doctorate in quantum physics to understand climate change. High-school physics, plus a little chemistry, is enough to understand the core mechanisms of climate change for yourself.

It's not cutting edge science either, the discovery that carbon dioxide, CO₂, absorbs infrared (IR) radiation dates back to the 19th century.

The key experiments were performed by John Tyndall, a British physicist,
in 1859–1861. Tyndall demonstrated that gases like CO₂, water vapor, and methane absorb infrared radiation and trap heat. He used a setup where he passed IR radiation through various gases and measured their absorption.
His work is considered the foundational experimental proof of the greenhouse effect. These are basic experiments nowadays, which can be repeated by high school students in a few hours.

Can you do anything else, than making personal attacks?
How about an actual argument, that contradicts any of mine?

If climate change is a lie, you should be able to debunk it.
Do you even understand what that means?

Yes, I agree, it's not fair to let AI generated nudes compete with us mortal beings.

Because we already have posted other photos, it would clearly be noticed if one of us posted an image with a cock that grew to 10 inches. However, it would be difficult to recognize AI enhancement by someone who never posted any photos before.
It's becoming more difficult to detect by the day.

At some point no one will be able to see the difference, and it will result in distrust and accusing people of AI tinkering, while they are actually that well endowed. If we have a culture where everyone is respected and included, no one would feel the need to present themselves any different than who they are or what they are packing. It would still be OK to see how they would look with an AI generated 10 inch dick, but then no one would claim it was real. People will learn that there is no value in compliments that you don't deserve.

That would have been a reward that I didn't deserve.
I'm OK again, but I will never forget this cleansing experience.

Anyway, saving nature really doesn't require huge sacrifices.
Continuing to pollute it will come back to hunt us eventually.

Does burning fossil fuels emit CO2?

Do you understand how CO2 absorbs Infrared radiation from the sun
and turn that radiation into heat? I can explain it, if you don't.

Are you denying that the global average CO2 concentration is around 426 ppm today, and it was around 333 ppm in 1976?

IT'S JUST PHYSICS.

Do you understand why the planet Venus has an average surface temperature of 867 °F (464 °C), while it is only ~28% closer to the Sun. The next planet is Mercury. It is ~61% closer to the Sun, and it is on average ~333 °F (~167 °C). That's because Venus has a thick CO2 atmosphere and Mercury doesn't.
That's just science, not 'lefty lies'.


You don't have to argue with me, so don't be an asshole if I react.
Don't be a fucking snowflake.

Cover my page in shit, I don't care. It just shows that you are a petulant child.
This website is for ADULTS!! If you cannot handle that, just leave.

"It is strictly forbidden to build your own shelter or grow your own food."
In that kind of world, you will probably be executed for it, by the "Loyalists".
The suicide pact is only for the "Loyalists".

It's a damn shitty situation, but if everyone accepts to not go over the $1000/month limit, no one gets the horrible random death. But, how do you get everyone to agree?
"The Table" would not care if the people tried to start a movement to have people agree with limiting their spending to a $1000/month. That's not considered criticizing them.
They might not even care if some join forces to kill the big spenders.
However, what is the moral choice here? The big spenders didn't create this system,
they just prefer a 50 year long good life, over a long shitty one. Who is right?

There is also the inherent evil of the wealthy gaslighting people and the big spenders copying that, to help ease their conscience. Criticizing that is dangerous.

There will be enough to buy in the stores. Everyone gets $1000/month, robots can make everything, and the wealthy do want some sort of economy to keep the sheeple docile. Guns will obviously be banned, but kitchen utilities and sports accessories will be available. They got to keep the big spenders happy. People can buy a lot of knives and baseball bats and create an arsenal. The "Loyalists" are not everywhere, all the time, people can practice to become quite lethal with knife throwing. If everyone attacks them everywhere at the same time, it will be a bloodbath, but the people will win, in a day.
I didn't say that they were protected by a robot army, didn't I? (It's just a scenario)

'The Table' must have created this system for a reason, which is probably reducing overpopulation and taking most of the remaining resources for themselves.
There is no war, climate change is under control, nature is recovering.
The wealthy saw that humanity was destroying itself, Mars turned out to be
just a fantasy, so they acted to save themselves, with totalitarianism.

Will you join the big spenders? It depends a bit on your age, right?
As a young person, you would feel a lot different about it, than as an older person.

I designed this scenario to contain lots of shitty dilemmas.
So, what do you do?

Yep, that was me making the exact same mistake.
I didn't even see that until now.
I will turn off the lights and suffer my shame for an hour.

Here is an interesting scenario to think about, describing some possible dystopia:

We are in a future where robots have taken over ALL the jobs, even prostitution is replaced by robotic Waifu whores. There was a war between the wealthy, and now "The Table of Privileged" (10 immortal wealthy people) control EVERYTHING and EVERYONE ELSE.

People get a monthly allowance of $1000/month, and prices for food and rent and everything else are stable, and about similar with today. It is strictly forbidden to build
your own shelter or grow your own food.
For every dollar above the standard $1000/month, someone older than 50 dies;
one 50+ person, for every $1000.

"The Table" is adamant that the random death is quick and painless, but most people have seen someone kick and scream for an hour, before they burn up into a pile of ashes.
"The Table" is almost untouchable, because they have a huge mercenary army of "Loyalists", that brutally suppresses all protests and disappears people who criticize the system. The "Loyalists" get $10,000/month, but they voluntarily kill themselves on their 50th birthday. Of course they all prove their loyalty, by committing heinous acts for "The Table".

Some people manage to live their life, by buying a tent and a sleeping bag, and the food they need, to save up for a mini-home, costing $25,000. They are not allowed in the city, they live in the wasteland, until they buy that mini-home. Others live like there is no tomorrow, live in a $10,000/month luxury apartment and spend like crazy. Their argument: "I'm 25 years old. I have another 25 years without a care in the world. Don't expect me to cry for some old fart, who had a good life and gets a quick painless death!".

There have been attempts to beat this system. By word of mouth, a "Day Of Retribution" was set several times. The "Loyalists" found out every time, and it was a massacre every time. The people almost won a few years back. Another date has been set. It can work,
if everyone fights them, with whatever weapons they can lay their hands on.
However, the "Loyalists" gain ranks every single year.

What will you do?

What's your source?
ChatGPT cannot find any data that comes close to a 90%+ reduction.
"Most research suggests organic cotton yields tend to be somewhere around
10–50% lower, depending on region, farming practices, climate, and years
after conversion." That's ChatGPT searching all sources, even the ones
that might have some bias against organic cotton.

We don't need to reach the 'organic cotton' certification completely.
That is a requirement to stop using synthetic fertilizer too.
I'm only talking about banning toxic pest and weed control.
Synthetic fertilizer is no where near as harmful to the environment.

New technologies make it possible to extract very useful fibers from e.g. bamboo, on a large scale. Bamboo can yield ~5–7 times more fiber per square mile than cotton. It doesn't require any weed control, because bamboo outgrows everything, and the pest control can be done biologically, without any impact on yield. (I'm not talking about very rare cases of pests.) At the moment, creating those bamboo fibers is a damn polluting process, but that's just a matter of innovation.

Whatever you are saying does not in any way refute the fraud and horrible corruption.

It would have been perfectly acceptable to say "Yes, our use of fossil fuels is a danger
to humanity and all life on our planet, but we cannot just change that TODAY. Let's make plans to transition away from technology that emits all these greenhouse gasses,
in a responsible pace, and decide how to share the costs for that fairly."
They didn't do that, they tried to hide the truth and spend billions to lie about it.
And they BRIBED politicians to join in with the lying.
In a sane world, everyone involved would be in prison.

That comfort is declining for many people in the world already.
More and more people will need AC in their homes, not just to be comfortable,
but because the heat is rapidly turning into a health risk. That will result in even
more CO2 emissions, because AC uses a fuck ton of electricity.

Nukes will be a risk, until humanity becomes more responsible.

Risk = Likelihood x Impact

The 'Impact' of nuclear war is of course devastating.
How do we lower the 'Risk' of nuclear war? By lowering the 'Likelihood'.
We can also lower the 'Impact', by making countries reduce their number of nukes.
In any case, that 'Risk' is only reduced by governments talking with each other,
and the rest of civilization picking leaders who are NOT stupid enough to use nukes.
How about you think of THAT, the next time you vote?

Climate change is a whole different 'Risk', because the 'Likelihood' is 100%. It's a physical result of humanity emitting more greenhouse gasses than nature can absorb, while humanity is simultaneously damaging the capacity of nature to absorb these greenhouse gasses. There are only 3 options to prevent this physics from occurring:
1) Lower our emissions of greenhouse gasses to let nature keep up.
2) Enhancing nature to make it capable of absorbing all of our greenhouse gasses.
3) Start using technology to capture enough of our greenhouse gasses.

Unless we do 1, 2 or 3, or a combination of them, the 'Impact' will be exactly
directly proportional, with how much humanity as a whole fails to do what is necessary to prevent it.

It's like I'm talking to people who are denying that they will have to pay more interest,
if they keep adding debt to their credit card. Sure, the risk that you're going bankrupt isn't 100% proportional, but that increasing interest that you are paying is just a direct result of you adding debt.

Every ton of CO2 that humanity is emitting, above the capacity of nature to absorb it, results in a higher global average CO2 concentration. That MUST contribute to global warming. There’s no dice roll there, it's JUST PHYSICS.
Disasters like droughts, hurricanes and extreme rainfall are expressions of the warming, not the warming itself. Do you understand that?
If you are denying this, then you are denying the same logic as that you are paying
more interest, when you add debt to your credit card.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example scenario: Tesla invents a fantastic flying car, that takes you anywhere you want to go autonomously, without ever crashing. There is one catch though; it's engines are highly radioactive. (Accept that it cannot be prevented, like the credit card debt interest scenario). Every time you use it, your DNA gets damaged by the radiation, like you are getting an X-ray every 10 seconds. This will inevitably give you cancer, but you don't know when or how badly. How long will you keep using that fantastic flying car, that makes your life so much more comfortable?

The biggest fraud ever perpetrated in America:
only registered users can see external links

It's provided by your own intelligence agencies, which are controlled by your side.
Evidence also has sources, which are evidence for the evidence being real.

You can convict the ones who killed him, and find the reason for it.
People who are likely to have dirt on powerful people keep ending up dead.
That's not acceptable. Those powerful people need to face the law.
We cannot have powerful people doing whatever they want, to whoever they want.
That's one of the most important principles that your founding fathers wrote in
The Constitution. It's why Lady Liberty wears a blindfold. Do you still remember?

They suffer only a 82–93% reduction of the conventional yield.
That's an acceptable trade off, for not killing nature.
Strange how you do care, when it's solar panels, for which it isn't even true.

A million or even a few hundred thousand dollars going missing, even if that's true,
is not a reason to cut MANY BILLIONS of aid for people who need it.
By the way; the last claims about the childcare fraud mostly turned out to be lies.

Who are those people who are picking fights, then sending their youth to die?
It's not the citizens, it's our governments.
Care to do a an analysis of the US presidents who did that?

Conflict.........US casualties....President.............Party
Grenada............19...............Ronald Reagan.....Republican
Panama.............23...............George HW Bush..Republican
Gulf War............294...............George HW Bush..Republican
Kosovo..............1–2..............Bill Clinton.............Democrat
Afghanistan......~2,400.........George W Bush....Republican
Iraq..................~4,500...........George W Bush....Republican
Libya.................Minimal........Barack Obama......Democrat
Qasem Soleimani...0.............Donald Trump......Republican
Iran..........................0................Donald Trump....Republican
Venezuela...........7 injured......Donald Trump.....Republican

(I only added 'Acts of War' that started a war or potentially would start a war, because when you're already AT war, it almost necessarily requires further
acts of war to bring it to a peaceful resolution.)

Here's a list of territories that Trump threatened with US military action:
- Gaza Strip
- Venezuela
- Iran
- Colombia
- Mexico
- Cuba
- Greenland
- Panama
- Canada
His threats clearly described 'boots on the ground' situations.

There would be no problem, if those wealthy people were not allowed
to bribe politicians.

Epstein Files Reveal Prosecutors’ Announcement (On The Death Of Defendant
Jeffrey Epstein) Dated (One Day) Before His Death

only registered users can see external links

Newly released Epstein files include a draft statement attributed to federal prosecutors that is dated the day before Jeffrey Epstein was found dead.

The draft appears among at least 23 documents in the disclosure labeled as statements from the Southern District of New York’s U.S. Attorney’s Office.

One draft bears a date of Aug. 9, 2019, the day before Epstein was found dead in his Manhattan jail cell while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.

New Records Reveal Unseen Activity Near Jeffrey Epstein’s Jail Cell.

Newly released documents from the U.S. Department of Justice provide additional details about Jeffrey Epstein’s final hours at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in New York, raising fresh questions about the official account of his death.

What the Video Logs Show

The surveillance logs note a flash of an orange-colored shape moving near Epstein’s cell tier around 10:39 p.m., the night before he was found dead. The logs describe it as unusual, but interpretations differ:
- The FBI log suggested it could have been an inmate.
- The Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) said it might have been a corrections officer carrying bedding or performing routine duties.

Why the Public Has Not Seen the Footage

The frames showing this activity were never released to the public, because they occurred during a brief camera reset. Authorities describe this as routine technical downtime for the surveillance system, but the timing has fueled skepticism. Observers note that the unusual activity coincides exactly with a moment when the camera was offline, creating a gap in the visual record that cannot be independently verified.

Limited Camera Angles and Ambiguities

Even for footage that exists, the camera covering the stairwell and cell tier provided only a single, partially obstructed angle. Analysts have noted that this makes it difficult to clearly identify anyone approaching the cell, further complicating interpretations of the unusual movement logged that night.

Discrepancies in Guard Reports

Interviews with the corrections officers on duty, Tova Noel and Michael Thomas, reveal gaps in memory and inconsistencies in inmate counts. Both had previously faced charges (later dropped) related to falsifying records. While these discrepancies do not prove foul play, they contribute to ongoing public concern about the circumstances of Epstein’s death.

Timeline and Official Narrative Remain Unchanged

Official records maintain that Epstein was discovered dead the following morning and that his death was ruled a suicide. No medical examiner or DOJ statement has formally revised the cause of death. However, the newly released logs and internal descriptions provide additional detail that was previously invisible to the public, leaving open questions about timeline, surveillance gaps, and activity near Epstein’s cell.

Why This Matters

While there is still no direct evidence of murder, the combination of missing video, unusual movement near his cell, and inconsistencies in officer reporting makes the events of that night harder to fully verify. These details underscore the lingering uncertainty surrounding Epstein’s death and explain why the case continues to attract intense public scrutiny.

I don't care. I think it will just ANGER a lot of people.
Let him do it. It will make people even more sick of him.

Let him desecrate the White House, Mount Rushmore, the Statue of Liberty,
The Capitol Building, The Supreme Court Building, The Liberty Bell, Independence Hall and the FUCKING AMERICAN FLAG. I want you to be humiliated for voting for that FUCKING DISGRACE OF A MAN, for perpetuity.

Try to come up with some actual arguments.
You keep parroting the same nonsense.

Saab, the car manufacturer went under, Saab AB (Aerospace & Defense) did not.
I have stocks in them, which are up at 77.6% today.

I would prefer to have full public ownership of the war machine, because with private companies, it's just enriching a small group of wealthy owners, while it makes defending our countries more expensive. Still, since no one is listening,
I'll just tag along and enlarge the group of people making money from killing people a bit larger.

Do you think the world would see more OR less war, if there were no people getting wealthy from producing and selling weapons?

We are working on 5%.

It 'SOUNDS' better? Is that how you think about things?
I think 100% is a nice number. That's your level of 'thinking'.

How about a world where we don't have to spend money on killing each other?
Maybe, if Trump would suck Putin's dick a bit less, Ukraine would be free now.

You keep thinking that those percentages are some sort of contribution.
No one is PAYING NATO. That number is the percentage of GDP the country
SPENDS ON THEIR OWN DEFENSE.

When your country spends a trillion on the NSA, to spy on your own citizens,
that's considered 'defense'. (not an actual number, just an example)

"Believing" in climate change is not "extreme left wing", it's just accepting facts.
No one is telling you that we're all done by 2028. It will just get a bit worse very slowly. It will be more damaging, as we go along. At some point, the damages
will be more expensive than having done the complete energy transition.

You president is throwing aside energy technology that is cheaper and pollutes the environment less. Even if you don't "believe" in climate change, it's worth every dollar of investments. The only reason he does it, is because he got
a $1 billion campaign donation from BIG OIL.

About 18% of global energy consumption used by passenger cars.
That is the hardest energy to transfer to electricity, because they cannot be connected to the electric grid, all the time. Still, the people who want you to not support the energy transition, keep you focused on cars, because that's the hardest problem to solve and because Americans are very sensitive about their cars. They stand for freedom to you.
23% of global energy goes to electricity, which is now still coming for 59% from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, oil). Why? They are super easy to transition to renewable energy, which is MUCH CHEAPER NOW. Do you like burning money?

About 60–65% of global energy consumption is fossil fuels used directly by stationary objects (not counting electricity). These require some more effort to migrate to electricity, so they can use renewable energy. They would still be
much cheaper to run, after that transition.
I might be a communist, but I understand the idea of INVESTING in the future.
Do you?

Why the fuck would I want to kill the economy?
Is this the level of nonsense you need to tell yourself?

Come up with some actual arguments, because this is embarrassing.
Can you actually SHOW ME WRONG? I have fact checked everything I said in the last comment. There is still opinion in there, but NOTHING is downright false.

Unlike your ideology, who is gaslighting people to not believe their EYES,
I think LYING IS A SIGN OF WEAKNESS.

If you don't want to be ripped off, you need consumer protections.

Here’s a list of major US consumer protection or regulatory bodies that were weakened, attacked, or targeted under the Trump administration with Elon Musk’s involvement:

🇺🇸 Consumer Protection Agencies | Weakened or Targeted:

1. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
What it is: A federal agency created after the 2008 financial crisis to protect consumers in financial markets (credit cards, loans, mortgages).
What happened: Director fired and leadership replaced.
Staff ordered to stop work, HQ temporarily closed, major layoffs.
DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk) embedded within the agency and influenced shutdown and layoffs.
Proposed rules (e.g., data broker regulation) were cancelled.
Enforcement actions dropped, lawsuits dismissed or abandoned.
A federal judge blocked full dismantling, so it still exists in name, but its capacity is severely weakened.
Impact: Essentially gutted: most consumer complaint work halted, budget cut, staff slashed, priorities narrowed. Enforcement and protections sharply reduced.
Status: still legally existing but much weaker.

2. Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
What it is: The main U.S. consumer protection and antitrust agency.
What happened: President Trump fired the two Democratic commissioners, leaving the agency controlled entirely by Republicans.
Impact: Independence reduced: Political balance disrupted, which may weaken aggressive consumer protection and antitrust enforcement.

3. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
(Not strictly consumer protection, but relevant to labor rights which affect employees’ consumer power)
What it is: Protects workers’ rights to unionize and fair labor practices.
What happened: A board member was fired, dropping the board below quorum needed to act.
Impact: Operational disruption, investigations paused, reducing labor enforcement effectiveness.

4. United States Digital Service (USDS) / DOGE takeover
What happened: Trump reorganized USDS into a new entity (DOGE), firing many USDS tech staff.
Impact: Tech and regulatory oversight capabilities weakened, though this is more structural than direct consumer protection.

🧠 Elon Musk’s Role
Musk publicly called to “delete” the CFPB as a consumer watchdog.
In DOGE, his team influenced layoffs and shut down of CFPB operations.
Musk was not legally in charge of agencies, but as head of DOGE his influence contributed to restructuring and weakening enforcement in agencies like CFPB.

It depends, if they advertise with a prize of Ђ100,000 without small print below it, they are obligated by law to pay out the full amount, AFTER taxes. The fine print may say: “Any g@mbling tax is payable by the winner.”.

In the Netherlands there is a g@mbling tax (kansspelbelasting), currently 30.5%.
When our State Lottery advertises with the grand prize being like Ђ16.8 million,
the one who wins it gets that exact amount.

There is a constant fight going on in my country, between companies who are trying to get away with false advertising and our government making laws to protect consumers from misleading pricing. It worked pretty damn good last time, but non-governmental Consumer organizations are already raising the alarm again. Then the Government regulators (with enforcement powers) respond later.

Here is one ChatGPT dump with some examples:

🇳🇱 Recent laws and regulation on pricing transparency in the Netherlands

1) Stricter rules on advertised prices
As of 1 January 2023, new Dutch rules were introduced that make it illegal for sellers to show misleading “from-for” (van/voor) pricing — for example, temporarily hiking a price just to show a big discount later. The “from” price (the price before discount) must be the lowest price actually used in the last 30 days.

2) Transparency about additional costs
Dutch regulations and enforcement by the Authority for Consumers & Markets (ACM) require that all mandatory costs (e.g., tourist tax, booking fees) must be included in the first price shown for holidays or other services. Hidden costs that only show up later in the booking process are considered misleading.

3) Penalties and enforcement
Companies can be fined significant amounts for misleading pricing — for instance several webshops were fined hundreds of thousands of euros earlier in 2024 for fake discounts that didn’t reflect real prior prices.

⚠️ So why do misleading prices still keep showing up?

1. Businesses find loopholes or new tricks
Although the law is stricter, merchants have adapted to use “recommended retail prices” or other reference prices that were never actually charged. These can still make discounts appear bigger than they really are, and this tactic is not fully covered by the current rules.

2. Enforcement and compliance are ongoing
The ACM and consumer groups frequently find continued non-compliance, especially in online travel deals and booking platforms. Even after warnings or investigations, some companies still fail to fully comply until they are directly sanctioned.

3. Regulation is complex and evolving
Price transparency law applies to many sectors (retail prices, webshops, travel sites, etc.) and enforcement evolves over time. Some misleading practices stay just outside the current legal language until a new update or enforcement case reveals a gap.

4. Consumer patterns and tech
Especially online, new marketing models (like auction systems with hidden charges, or dynamic pricing) create unexpected ways to mislead consumers that regulators are still catching up with.

At some point humanity needs to veer away from using chemicals that destroy nature,
instead of using them because it's easy.

No it wasn't. Global cooling was just a hypothesis.
No school is teaching something that has no scientific consensus.
Unless you were taking meteorology, this was not a subject, period.

The study of the climate at that time was all limited to scientists.
Back then, the propaganda against climate science hadn't even started either.
At best, maybe some teacher mentioned something, but no way was this taught.

Climate science didn't even reach science classes in the US, before 1990.
It wasn't until 2013, before the climate entered classes in general.
It's only in 2020, that some states mandate climate education explicitly in curricula.

There was only one exception, and those were people talking about another ICE AGE. But that is completely different than a man-made effect like climate change.
If you were in school between the 1970s–1980s, yes, that was the time that
'Ice Age theory' exploded. In 1976, a landmark paper showed that climate cycles
in ocean sediments matched Milankovitch orbital cycles almost perfectly.
But that's you not understanding these very long periods.
The onset of an Ice Age takes roughly 5,000–20,000 years.
Climate change has it's effects about a factor of 100x faster.

When Scientists are talking the man-made impact on the climate, due to our emissions of greenhouse gasses and our destruction of forests, they are actually talking about 'Anthropogenic climate change', which by the general public is only known as 'climate change'. They still need to study all the other causes for the changes of the climate; Ice age cycles due to orbital changes, solar activity, volcanic effects and natural CO₂ fluctuations, because without studying those, you will never know which are natural and which are not.

I was taught about Ice Ages in school too. It was just part of history classes. They even covered evolution in primary school, even though it was a Christian school, and the teacher did mention to not believe it himself. He didn't make much of a point of it.
I don't remember him saying the same about the Ice Ages. Apparently, he accepted that, but he rejected evolution. However, I also don't think he accepted the story of Adam and Eve to the letter, and had similar feelings about Noah’s Ark. I have always noticed how teachers were personally attached to what they were teaching, even if they didn't wear it on their sleeve. Some history was clearly taught as FACTS, and other was taught as this is what scientists are thinking. Some bible stories were told proudly and others were told with some hesitation. I do remember that the teacher did some inventory once, asking the kids who believed in evolution and who believed in creation by god. I was already firmly on the side of evolution then. For what I can remember, it was around 50/50, in that Christian school.

You pick one issue, to make believe it's just people living in a strip 5 miles along the coast who are in trouble. It's NOT, it's almost everyone for one reason or another.
Half of your country will be too dry for agriculture and water will be too expensive to irrigate. The whole South will have the temperature of North Africa now, around 2050. Around 2100, it will be like similar to what equatorial Africa or northern South America experiences today. At the same time, equatorial regions (Central Africa, northern South America, parts of India/SE Asia) are projected to not reliably support populations anymore due to heat, drought, and crop/freshwater limits. The countries that are associated with hunger now, will be completely uninhabitable. If you think that the run
on your borders is bad now, you have seen nothing yet.

That's basically the South of the US struggling massive economical problems. Then you have the whole East coast, which will be affected by the hurricanes. About 127 million Americans, nearly 40% of the US population lives in coastal states, that will face devastating hurricanes every other few years. They won't be able to just move. Who is going to buy a house in an area that is facing that risk? No ordinary American anyway. Obama might still have his home there, because it's cooler, but he has enough money to take that risk.

The land on higher elevations will become too expensive, because everyone wants to live there. Tens of millions of Americans will all be financially forced to stay put, until their house gets blown apart. If they survive, then they'll start looking to pick up the pieces of their lives again, probably up North.

There are already machines for that.
It's not like that requires an AI revolution.

A 2008 review of climate science literature from 1965–1979 found only 7 scientific papers that forecast global cooling, compared with 44 that predicted or supported global warming. So global cooling papers were a small minority of the literature at the time.
The idea that a majority of climate scientists believed in imminent global cooling in the 1970s is a myth amplified by media coverage, not the state of scientific research.

That was over 61-47 years ago. The evidence is clear now; the planet is warming up.
When they decided to use the term 'climate change' instead of 'global warming',
that was NOT because the science showed them anything different. It's an argument from people who understand absolutely nothing about it.

I don't understand why you would want to ignore the worst problem that humanity has ever faced. It's not a threat like nuclear war, that COULD wipe us all out, this is an incredibly destructive result of our own choices, that WILL happen, unless humanity chooses to prevent the worst of it.

Y2K was a clear risk, but it was fixed by IT specialists, to prevent problems.
COVID-19 has been estimated to have killed ~14–15 million people worldwide, so far.
It will keep mutating, coming up with more lethal strains sometimes, and more mild strains other times. It will keep killing people, just like other viruses do. It's also highly contagious. It's now just another option for old and immune deficient people to die from.

One of the most contageous viruses is Measles. There is a safe vaccine, that has been given to children for the last 55 years. Measles was almost eradicated, until anti-vaxxers didn't accept it anymore. Now Measles has been surging wherever immunization coverage is inadequate. The only reason for that is fear and distrust. There is no data that gives you any reason to reject the Measles vaccine, but the media nonsense about the Covid vaccin has created that for all vaccins. That ignorance has been killing many children.

Did you even read what Grok said? It doesn't contradict ANYTHING I ever told you.

You'll think differently when some horrible flood hits you.

Virginia’s coastal areas, particularly the Hampton Roads region, are experiencing
some of the highest relative sea level rise in the contiguous United States due to both rising oceans and land sinking (subsidence). Flood risks are so significant that coastal planning and resilience efforts are a major focus of state climate policy.
You will be paying for that through your state's taxes.

Virginia is warming: average temperatures have risen substantially, and extreme heat days are increasing, especially in cities like Richmond.
Extreme heat presents serious public health challenges, particularly for vulnerable populations. Are you telling me that you haven't noticed?

Depends on where you live. Some areas are already experiencing droughts much more often and longer, other areas are suffering floods, big areas were inhaling smoke from wildfires for weeks on end. We ALL experience lost harvests making our food more expensive. We ALL are paying for the damages that climate change is already causing our economies.

It appears that your government chooses to leave people who suffer a hurricane, flood or wildfire to their own fate. That is your own choice, but then you shouldn’t complain when it happens to you personally. You could help your fellow countrymen, by killing yourself, if something like that happens to you, so you won't be a burden to the rest of your country. That's a nice cost reduction for your government, so they can cut some more taxes for the wealthy.

Meanwhile the costs, to prevent worse, will rise every day we are not doing enough.
It already has an effect on you. Choosing to ignore it wont work for long.

They only pay out the full $1.6 billion to people who chose the annuity jackpot; the total amount you’d receive if you chose annual payments over 30 years.
When winners choose the lump‑sum (cash) option, the amount they actually can take immediately is much lower than the advertised jackpot. For huge jackpots (~$1.6 billion), the lump sum is typically around 50–60 % of the advertised amount before taxes.

From a tax perspective, lottery winnings in the U.S. are treated as ordinary income,
just like wages or business income. So the high tax, federal and possibly state,
isn’t unique to lottery winnings.
Some states do not tax lottery winnings (e.g., Florida, Texas, California).

Ever heard if 'organic cotton'? It's the term used for cotton that is produced
without using pesticides. There is no reason to pick cotton by hand, just because
you don't use pesticides anymore.
only registered users can see external links

If your democracy actually worked, you would be correct.
But it doesn't, because your politicians take money from corporations.
Your politics has not listened to the people in a very long time.

The US never wanted Europe to grow a pair of balls before.
You just wanted Europe to BUY lots of YOUR weapons.
Which could be easily withheld from us, if it served YOU.
Now we want to buy lots of those weapons, but you're not delivering enough.
And your argument is clearly: "We don't want to risk war with Russia for YOU!"

We cannot create a military industrial complex like yours, in a few short years.

What am I talking about? Here is an example:
The Netherlands currently has about 47 F-35 fighter jets (Officially ordered: 52).
The software is provided by the US. Without regular updates the jet doesn’t just get “a bit worse”, it loses combat relevance very fast. Certain weapons and modes are software-locked. No update = no authorization = no use. Sustainment systems (ALIS → ODIN) are US-controlled. They affect maintenance, diagnostics, and readiness. If the US doesn't like how we use our F-35s, you can just 'pull the plug'.

And that's for a country that was a “Level 2” partner in the development of the F-35. The Netherlands joined the F-35 (JSF) development program early, as far back as the early 2000s, and signed onto the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase with other partner countries. More than 90 Dutch companies and institutions are involved in the F-35 program. Because of this investment and industrial participation, the Netherlands isn’t just a customer, it's one of the official partner countries in the F-35 program, alongside the United Kingdom and Italy
(the UK is Level 1).

My Socialist Party was against the JSF program at the time. We wanted to buy
the Saab JAS 39 Gripen. We wanted to be independent from the US.

"this page should be based on transparency to create a straight line
towards the truth"

No one is PAYING to be in NATO, it's a SPENDING percentage.

The NATO's 2% 'rule', established in 2014, was not a rule in the legal sense.
It was a political commitment by NATO members to aim to SPEND at least 2%
of their GDP on defense.
You are correct that many the NATO members didn't spend what they had pledged. In 2023, the average was 1.8% of GDP, excluding the US, including the US, it was 2.6 % of GDP.

Here is why: NATO was created to ensure peace in the NATO area.
It was a combined force against Russia, while they were an ally in WW2. WHY?
That was only the US forcing everyone else to pick your side and NOT Russia's.
The US didn't like communism, wanted it to fail, and united everyone against it.
As a result, the US became the dominant military power and economic power.

Why did the US SPEND so much more that the rest of NATO?
Because the US didn't spend on DEFENSE, but on OFFENSE.
The US has been attacking countries all over the world,
and the reason was to dominate the world's resources (oil).
The US toppled governments that didn't sell the oil cheap enough.
You built military bases all over the world, to control everyone.
That was very expensive, but that is mostly for the benefit of the US.
Many Europeans didn't want their money to be used for waging war,
with heavy civilian deaths, against countries that hadn't attacked us.

Another big part of the US's 'defense' budget was primarily used for SPYING, even on European allies. The NSA has been stealing the EU citizens' personal data and our industry's intellectual property. The US has made sure that you dominated the digital infrastructure, making everyone else dependent and vulnerable. This has been a joined effort by your government that wanted people's data and your corporations that can make huge profits from people's data, and gullible citizens who give away their data willingly, to see cat videos, vent their anger on a forum,
or have their biases confirmed by some grifter. This has favored the US massively.

Meanwhile, the US heavily encouraged European countries to buy weapons from the US, instead of producing them ourselves. That resulted in our spending going directly to your military industrial complex. Since the citizens of liberal countries didn't want their pension money going to the manufacture of cluster bombs, that conflict with the Geneva convention, EU countries did fall into trouble coming up with the funding to spend the 2% of the GDP they pledged. The EU citizens didn't like how their money was being used. We actually live in a DEMOCRACY.

[Fun fact, in my country, it was mostly when our right-wing party controlled politics, when funds for the defense spending were cut the most. That was under Rutte,
who is now NATO Secretary-General. He is now telling everyone that daddy Trump is right, while he led our country to cut the defense spending the most.]

However, the NATO members were still spending roughly $430 billion, excluding the US, while Russia was spending around $140 billion. That would have been more than enough to defend us against an attack on the EU. Understand that before Russia attacked Ukraine, there was good reason to think that the Russians would be stupid enough to attack the EU, because the EU bought most of their fossil fuels, which was about half of their income. We were building Nord Stream 2 with them, at the time. Russia had a GDP just a bit bigger than the GDP of Italy. The GDP of the EU was 7.3X bigger than that of Russia.

The attack on Ukraine was not an attack on the EU, or on NATO, but it was certainly a provocation. No one invoked NATO, the EU just assumed that defending Ukraine, against the former biggest enemy of the US, would be in the US's best interest. Maybe you can explain why it doesn't seem that way?
Can you explain that anyway else than that Trump personally likes Putin and that
Trump seems to have lots of financial ties to Russia?

A challenge to you, is to read my reaction without your American bias.

When you say something, do you ever factcheck yourself?
Or do you just call me a liar, on what you have been told to believe?

You only presented ONE real argument to call me stupid; the percentages.
I have explained the spending difference. SHOW ME WRONG, on anything I said.
Do NOT just SAY I'm wrong or stupid, present verifiable facts that contradict me.
Be transparant.

Analyses comparing state union membership rates with fatal occupational injury rates have generally found that states with higher union membership have lower fatality rates than states with low union membership. For example, states with union membership above ~20 % tend to have lower fatal injury rates per 100 000 workers than states with very low union membership.
only registered users can see external links

The US averages 3.5 on the job fatalities / 100,000 workers,
The Netherlands has 0.4 on the job fatalities / 100,000 workers.
only registered users can see external links
That's because our workplaces are heavily regulated.
You don't need a union if the government protects you.

You're just shouting random insults. Useless.

Can you think this trough a bit more than such a generic idea.

We are not talking about "good paying jobs", we are talking about being able to LIVE from a job. The minimum is being able to rent a small apartment, to buy food, and to have access to healthcare. Anything less is a risk to your survival.
You are saying that this minimum is only possible with a collage education.
That means without it, you cannot build yourself a LIFE.

Jobs that required a bachelor, in the 1980s, those were GOOD paying jobs. Father drove home in an expensive car, to go home to his family, living in a big house, with kids who were all set to go to university. Today, it's about the minimum, to get by. There are not a lot jobs requiring a bachelor, that would make it possible to buy a house in the current market. You need a couple now, who both have such a job, to be able to buy a house, and it's not even a big one.

What did they do, that you consider 'woke'?
I can imagine that Nascar could hurt itself by going 'woke',
that's the sport that is most popular in solidly red areas.
You got to understand your client base as a big company.
The NFL isn't just popular in solidly red areas.
only registered users can see external links

"Climate change" is just the more accurate term for "global warming", because it's possible that some areas in the world become cooler, temporarily, for instance from the global ocean conveyor belt coming to a halt preventing warm water heating up the South Pole, while the rest of the world heats up more, and the global average temperature rises.

You don't have te 'believe' anything. It is measured by every weather service in the world, and confirmed by every scientific entity tasked to double check the claims. It's a fact.
It takes tremendous effort to disbelieve it. You need to believe in a global conspiracy, between all countries, including ones that would love to debunk and humiliate some of
the other countries. It's literally using the same 'thinking' to believe the Earth is flat.

The term "climate change" also includes secondary effects from the Earth getting warmer;
- More extreme weather (heatwaves, storms, floods, droughts)
- Rising seas from warming oceans and melting ice
- Changes to oceans (warming, acidification, current shifts)
- Disrupted ecosystems and species loss (e.g. coral)
- Impacts on food, water, and human health
- Feedback loops that can amplify warming (e.g. wildfires)

Damn, you're brainwashed. The US has been exploiting the rest of the world.
You will see how your country handles it, when we don't let you anymore.
Trump called himself a "unifier". True, he unites everyone against the US.

They're really putting in an effort, I give you that.
But, the citizens of New York don't believe you.
His popularity keeps surging.

The previous mayor left him a $12 billion deficit, to fuck him over.
A standard mayor would let the working class cough that up.
Mamdani is working hard to take it back from the people who took it.

What kinds of experiments are you talking about? Cruel ones?
Are you saying that Israel did cruel experiments?

It's not necessary to do cruel experiments to advance medicine. Luckily not.

If there is some new promising cancer treatment, every patient is begging for it.

You have to start trying to make any sense on these points.

Women today might want to be in the White House as PRESIDENT.
The type of Melania just wants a wealthy man, who gives her a luxurious life. Some might want to be a first lady like Jackie Kennedy, who was respected by her husband, and got to be First Lady as a position with at least some substance, in a modern way.

Melania is just dragged along as a prop. And from day one, she got disrespected by her husband directly and humiliated by his actions indirectly. Not even the gold-digger tradwife that you make her out to be, has the lack
of agency, to accept this level of humiliation.

Why hasn't she got a divorce yet? Prenups? Fear? Have you seen what happens to people who are disloyal to Trump?

Trump should have kicked the bucket by now, the way his health has been deteriorating. Some doctors only give him a few months. No way that he still has many years. Melania thinks she can wait it out. That time is not worth the risk.

The cell phone was invented in 1973, by Martin Cooper, an engineer at Motorola,
in the US.
The first Inactivated Polio Vaccine (IPV), the “Salk vaccine”, was developed by Jonas Salk in the US, in 1955.
Israel has indeed played a very significant role in the development of modern medicine, particularly in medical technology, pharmaceuticals, and innovative treatments, for such a small country. The 98% number is nonsense though.
Israel was founded in 1948. Here is a list of all the "medical arts" that were developed before Israel even existed:

Surgical & Diagnostic Technology:
- Antiseptic surgery techniques (using carbolic acid/phenol): – UK
- X-rays (radiography): – Germany
- Electrocardiogram (ECG/EKG): – Netherlands
- Blood transfusion techniques: – UK / France
- Insulin for diabetes treatment: – Canada
- Penicillin (first mass-produced antibiotic): – UK

Vaccines & Immunology:
- Smallpox vaccine (variolation then Jenner’s vaccine): – UK
- Rabies vaccine (Pasteur’s development): – France
- Diphtheria antitoxin: – Germany / France
- Tetanus antitoxin: – Germany

Medical Devices:
- Sphygmomanometer (blood pressure cuff): – Italy
- Stethoscope: – France
- Thermometer for clinical use: – Germany / UK
- Hypodermic syringe: – France / UK

Microbiology & Laboratory Medicine:
- Germ theory of disease: – France / Germany
- Pasteurization (applied to medical microbiology): – France
- Bacterial culture techniques: – Germany
- Blood typing (ABO system): – Austria

Anesthesia & Pain Management:
- Ether anesthesia: – USA
- Chl0roform anesthesia: – UK

The Dutch have been creating cities all over the world, before Israel even existed.
"olive branches"? I can do without, but olive oil comes from Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Tunisia, Morocco, Portugal and parts of California. Israel is well outside
the top 10 countries producing the most olive oil.
I've heard that Israel is very nice. My grandparents once visited it. I also want it to stay nice. To protect that, they didn't need to do what they did. They could have done that, while sharing the region with the other people who have lived there for
a very long time. Genetically, there isn't even a difference between the Muslim inhabitants and the Jewish inhabitants who never left to other countries. It's just a conflict between religions, started by the State of Israel, that was created very much biased in favor of the Jewish religion. That was not necessary, and it created all the problems afterwards. It is also one of the reasons for conflicts between The West and the Middle East. The US keeps stoking that fire, and one way is to keep sending Israel lots of money, without demanding any peace effort in return. It's not MY fucking money though, and I see no answer to my question why you should care about Israel.

Greece is a paradise, it's the birth-place of science, philosophy and mythology,
it has been very peaceful and it exports lots of olive oil, all as you claim about Israel.
The EU supported it with lots of loans, when they had the debt crisis, but we required them to follow lots of rules in return. And we wouldn't support them,
when they, e.g. kill all the Turks on Cyprus and take the island for themselves.

Maybe because you (have to) live in that country?

I have heard that Singapore is nice and pretty good to live in.
They say it's beautiful, safe and clean, and the people are nice.
I have never been there, because it's very hot there, I tend to spend less on vacations, and they eat a shitload of soy that my girlfriend is allergic to.

You could ask some AI: "Why is Singapore a good country to live in?"
"Better than the US?"
I asked: "In what ways is it better than The Netherlands to live in?"
ChatGPT started with the climate, calling it a Tropical climate.
But other points made it look good.

So the 37% below it should just live with their parents or in their car?
Yeah, why is that, that so much education is needed to make a living?

If they make it the wokest show ever, that's a sign that your side lost.
The NFL is big business and only does what their wallets tells them is popular.

I think he got himself kicked. Just like TrumpSupporter, TrumpSupporter2, TrumpSupporter8, TrumpSupporter69, or whatever he called himself before.
Shame, I was just starting to warm up to him. And he LOVED me.