[ Envirowatchers ] [ Main Menu ]
16450
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: sulfur dioxide in jet fuel
|
Hi all, for your reading pleasure: https://naturalnewsblogs.com/the-reason-solar-geoengineering-from- jet-aircraft-is-seen-world-wide/ sequoia |
Responses:
[16460] [16461] [16477] [16452] [16454] [16458] [16464] [16455] [16459] [16457] [16466] [16468] [16471] [16469] [16456] [16465] [16451]
16460
From: Akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: article removed?(NT)
| (NT) |
16461
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: no. article not removed.
URL: https://naturalnewsblogs.com/the-reason-solar-geoengineering-from- jet-aircraft-is-seen-world-wide/
|
Hi Akira, I just checked the link given in my post and it still opens the same article. https://naturalnewsblogs.com/the-reason-solar-geoengineering-from- jet-aircraft-is-seen-world-wide/ sequoia |
Responses:
[16477]
16477
From: Akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: thanks(NT)
| (NT) |
Responses:
None
16452
From: Redhart, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: sulfur dioxide in jet fuel
|
🚩🚩🚩CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy- Pseudoscience sources. Overall, we rate Natural News a Questionable source based on promotion of quackery level pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, as well as extreme right wing bias. This is one of the most discredited sources on the internet. Detailed Report Factual Reporting: LOW Country: USA World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180 (full report on source at link) |
Responses:
[16454] [16458] [16464] [16455] [16459] [16457] [16466] [16468] [16471] [16469] [16456] [16465]
16454
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: sulfur in jet fuel
|
Hi Redhart, apparently you have given up on using your own reasoning capacity. You are providing no factual content whatsoever but instead are spreading derogatory announcements of unknown source. The information presented in the above article on sulfur in jet fuel can be checked and verified, If you don't like the source that is your problem. Your attitude is anything but scientific. sequoia |
Responses:
[16458] [16464] [16455] [16459] [16457] [16466] [16468] [16471] [16469] [16456] [16465]
16458
From: Redhart, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: sulfur in jet fuel
| go fish :) |
Responses:
[16464]
16464
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: sulfur in jet fuel
|
Hi Redhart, I told you before I am not a fisher at all and never was. So your "go fish :)" recommendation goes nowhere. It is a waste of resources. Plus most of the fish in the Pacific is probably radioactive by now from eating Fukushima laden plankton. So why should I go fish there? I called up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankton and found it interesting that "Plankton are the diverse collection of organisms that live in large bodies of water and are unable to swim against a current. The individual organisms constituting plankton are called plankters." In a way you are like plankton because you are unable to swim against the current of climate and sulfur in jet fuel madness. And since you are an individual organism you may easily qualify as a "plankter". Perhaps there are some non-radioactive fish types in Lake Tahoe because it is deep enough for them to stay away from sulfur in jet fuel which may pick up airborne radio-isotopes from Fukushima. I once had the pleasure to taste grilled non-radioactive salmon at a nice place in the woods above Tahoe City, many years before Fukushima and climate madness. If I remember correctly the salmon flew from Alaska to Tahoe. So there was no fishing required there either. sequoia |
Responses:
None
16455
From: Alan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: sulfur in jet fuel
URL: New sulphur fuel laws look set to shake up the shipping industry
|
Well why don't you post info from a more credible source in the first place! getting untarnished info from NN is like going to sewage works in the hope of getting a decent meal... "Coming into force in 2020, the new low-sulphur fuel requirements are expected to have a significant impact on the shipping industry and the global economy as a whole" |
Responses:
[16459] [16457] [16466] [16468] [16471] [16469] [16456] [16465]
16459
From: Redhart, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: sulfur in jet fuel
| Thank you Alan, exactly |
Responses:
None
16457
From: Captainj, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: sulfur in jet fuel
|
Where someone wishes to obtain their information is of no concern of others as long as it can be vetted. It is your responsibility to look into the information to verify. Pretty sure if you opened USA Today and the headline was "We will all die today due to a meteor that will enter the atmosphere at 4:378PM over Chicago" you would not believe it until properly vetted by YOU. A least I would hope not... |
16466
From: Alan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: sulfur in jet fuel
|
"Where someone wishes to obtain their information is of no concern of others" Have you studied in further education/ academia Cap''n? i.e. a Captaining course for example... If you have then when you write an essay / paper you list verifiable sources - meaning that it's been reviewed by experts on its topic for accuracy and quality before being published. If anyone put 'Natural News' as a serious source - well maybe in media studies as an example of contemporary 'Fake News' - then they'd expect an F grade. |
16468
From: Captainj, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: sulfur in jet fuel
|
Ah, lest you forget Alan, the Internet is not Academia. It is entirely up to YOU to vet the information coming your way in this day and age. It really is not too hard, using the double O, Bing, or whatever search engine you wish to use. Yes, it would be nice to have all information coming our way properly vetted. But, someone left the Barn Door open... If someone just realizes this, they could also expect an F grade, no? |
16471
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Captainj has a point
|
Captainj has a point here. The internet is wide open and information comes from all kinds of sources. It is up to us to vet the information. There has been a trend around here to simply attack people for their source and it looks more like trolling than discussion. I'm certainly not saying Natural News is a good source of information... it isn't. In fact Natural News floods the internet with false information. And this halfwit article by someone named "Raptorman" on chemtrails is an example of why people shouldn't rely on certain sources. But there is rarely any discussion on these topics and people take the intellectually lazy method of attacking the source over and over which is basically trolling. Why do people take the time to constantly attack sources but never bother to show what bullshit these articles are? Cheers Jim |
Responses:
None
16469
From: Alan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: sulfur in jet fuel
|
So how do you rate Natural News on scale of 1 to 10 1 reliably factual – 10 far right brain rot Can you think of any sources better or worse than NN? |
Responses:
None
16456
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: sulfur in jet fuel
|
Hi Alan, just because Redhart, the all-knowing, denounces a piece of factual information as untrustworthy without providing even so much as a pico-iota of factual content herself does not make the source un-credible. Redhart's and your attitude is like saying that the truth of 1+1=2 depends on who is counting. It is a sign of arrogance combined with an inflated ego and a complete failure to think with your own circuits At least this time you provide some informational content on high- sulfur shipping oil. But please explain how the shipping oil law will eliminate sulfur from jet fuel which produces SO2 in the high atmosphere where it first causes acidic cloudiness then rains down on everyone and everything including soil, water, trees, plants, humans, animals, rocks, mountains, deserts, gardens, and your favorite tomatoes. While "your" article mentions jet fuel it does not specify if sulfur will be completely eliminated from that substance. And the sulfur content will only be reduced from 3.5 to 0.5 percent. While that is obviously an improvement the fuel will still contain significant amounts of sulfur. Perhaps you want to find some current numbers on the sulfur content of jet fuel so that Redhart can yell at you for a change. sequoia |
Responses:
[16465]
16465
From: Alan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: sulfur in jet fuel
|
"While "your" article mentions jet fuel it does not specify if sulfur will be completely eliminated from that substance." Did you read the article - it all depends on if consumers/suppliers of fuels comply with regulations. Some nations will likely give a flying fig. Besides with Iran blowing up refineries sending goodness how much pollution into the atmosphere, and let's not not get onto volcanoes - how do you regulate and enforce against that.... |
Responses:
None
16451
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: sulfur in jet fuel
|
Hi all, for your reading pleasure: https://naturalnewsblogs.com/the-reason-solar-geoengineering-from- jet-aircraft-is-seen-world-wide/ In my above post the subject line is incorrect. It should read sulfur in jet fuel, not sulfur dioxide. sequoia |
Responses:
None
[ Envirowatchers ] [ Main Menu ]