It's almost like the IG report was specifically and solely about the actions of the Park Police and there are some questions about other involved parties that still could use some answering.
Seriously did people read those bits and not think it kinda changes the entire message
"It was planned days in advance, it couldn't possibly involve Trump!" sorta falls apart if the Secret Service jumped the gun on the tear gassing, no?
Real feel-like-I'm-taking-crazy-pills vibe out there today
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I am not sure there is quite as much distance between "tear-gassed protesters for a photo op" and "took advantage of scheduled tear-gassing of protesters for a photo op" as some people seem to claim there is.
Also I am *intensely* curious what this redacted "request" made by what is likely a WH or Secret Service official!
An interesting exercise is to imagine what exactly, if the existing attempts to limit voting by the GOP are NOT enough, would be enough to convince Manchin otherwise.
One assumes that SOMETHING would do it. Like, say a GOP-led state passed a bill saying only white people can vote. Would "partisan voting legislation" designed to stop that state's law still be off the table?
And if we can assume he WOULD be willing to go to bat for something like that, then it seems like he should have to draw an explicit line. If he feels the need to be able to "go home and explain" his votes, explain this one too.
The supersonic jet company has signed a deal with Prometheus Fuels, which uses a carbon capture tech to make supposedly net-zero jet fuel (and other fuel). Which, okay, but people have been trying to do that at competitive cost for decades now and it hasn't panned out. Yet. So.
I go back and forth on that sort of skepticism so much. EVERY technology didn't exist until it did, so why doubt? But with climate-saving tech, so much has been promised that didn't actually come to fruition, exception being the ever-plunging prices of wind/solar. But... yeah.
A year ago (+2 days) I wrote for @sciam about whether the planet would "remember" covid, based on drops in emissions and changes in pollution and how that will show up in ice cores, tree rings, and so on. The primary answer was yes, it will. 1/
Some pollutants, like soot and some aerosols from smokestacks and tailpipes, clearly ended up dropping enough as the world locked down to show up in those paleoclimate records. 2/
But the big one, CO2 -- probably not? As it turned out, even though the pandemic did stretch out, CO2 emissions only dropped less than 7%, and bounced back by the end of 2020. 3/
As usual, a fear-mongering tweet devoid of context from the Post. This is almost entirely a result of a dramatic lack of bat coronavirus sequencing effort in most parts of the world. It's not a new virus; we just haven't looked for them much yet.
Not to mention the fact that the virus is likely not any danger to humans.
From the paper, the virus "is unlikely to be zoonotic" -- meaning jump from animals to humans -- "without mutation."
But hey, get them clicks!
What the study really says is that far more resources should probably be designated for better understanding of bat coronaviruses, as well as for bat conservation.
I don't have access so I can't see the paper this story is about to get the details, but couldn't this at least partially be reflecting that the more jargon-heavy papers are simply more niche and less broadly applicable and thus citation-worthy?
Okay I read the paper. And... yeah, I still have the same concern! The authors are more or less ignoring the fact that many, many scientific papers are simply not intended to be widely read outside of extremely specialized fields.