Genesis 1:11 “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.”
‘One of the criticisms of solar power is that it is so variable. Clearly, a solar plant is going to produce no energy at night and an inadequate supply when the sky is cloudy. On the other hand, a suitable size plant could over-produce when sunlight is intense.
Plants have a similar problem. The rapidly changing incidence of sunlight on their leaves could, conceivably, cause problems within the plant. However, researchers have discovered that plants have mechanisms to cope with these variations, and one such mechanism could answer the old question: “Why are plants green?”
Plants produce high energy carbohydrate molecules from water vapor and carbon dioxide by the well-known process of photosynthesis. This endothermic reaction requires the input of energy in the form of light, and the reaction is catalyzed by the green dye chlorophyll. What many of us have not considered is why chlorophyll is green.
White light is a mixture of all three primary colors – red, green and blue – which have increasing frequency and, hence, increasing energy, in that order. The remarkable thing about plants, therefore, is that they are absorbing light energy only at either end of the visible spectrum while rejecting – and reflecting – the middle of the spectrum, which is green. Researchers have shown that this selective absorption of certain frequencies minimizes “noise” and, therefore, enables the plant to cope with rapidly changing conditions of sunshine.
‘Only approved journalism, thank you! That appears to be Twitter’s logic behind suspending Just the News founder John Solomon for 12 hours. Solomon bashed the censorship as “outrageous and unfair.”
Just the News released a report Dec. 28 noting that Solomon was suspended from the leftist Big Tech platform “for sharing an article about the legal distinctions between Pfizer’s fully approved and emergency use authorization (EUA) COVID-19 vaccines.” The distinction “could affect the legality of vaccine mandates.” Twitter slapped the article Solomon attempted to share with a “Warning: this link may be unsafe” label and propagandized that it “could lead to real-world harm.”
Perhaps Twitter likes vaccine mandates? “An immunologist who reviewed the article told Just the News he saw nothing wrong with it factually,” according to the report. Twitter had reportedly “limited” Solomon’s account temporarily for 12 hours because his tweet supposedly violated “its policy on ‘spreading misleading and potentially harmful information’ related to COVID.”
Activity on Solomon’s account suggests that it had been restored. “It’s Twitter’s second known suspension of a JTN staffer’s account for comments about vaccines, which it lifted after the CDC confirmed the tweet was accurate,” according to Just the News. The link to the article Solomon tried to share, however, still has the warning label.
Here was the context behind the article that Twitter apparently didn’t like:
The report noted that Pfizer and several experts have claimed that the fully approved Comirnaty vaccine has the same ingredients and manufacturing process as the EUA vaccine, known as Pfizer-BioNTech. But it also cited the FDA’s acknowledgment that the two are ’legally distinct’ owing to more stringent requirements for the Comirnaty vaccine, whose biologics license application (BLA) was approved.
The report cited two medical experts who knocked Twitter for censoring Solomon: Stanford School of Medicine professor Jay Bhattacharya and Harvard Medical School epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff. “There is nothing in the story that is not well reported or misleading,” said Bhattacharya. “‘Twitter’s censorship of COVID information has contributed greatly to the collapse in trust in public health.’”
Kulldorff added, “It is scary to live in such censorship, which also lea[d]s to self censorship.”
Solomon also slammed Twitter for the censorship:
‘It is outrageous and unfair that a story that is completely accurate and points out an important legal distinction between the two versions of vaccines gets blocked and my account suspended.’
‘A man in Finland has blown up his Tesla vehicle with 66 pounds of dynamite in defiance over the cost of a new battery after he claimed to face a $22,000 repair bill.
Tuomas Katainen, who lives in Jaala village in south Finland’s Kymenlaakso, exploded his 2012 Tesla Model S at a former quarry in a video uploaded to YouTube.
The Tesla S model 2012 cost around $57,400 to $77,400 when it was released.
Tesla’s warranty covers battery replacements if the capacity drops below 70 percent within 150,000 miles or eight years of purchase, leaving some owners of the older models facing large repair bills.
The video, which is over eight minutes long, shows Katainen and a group of people loading the car with the dynamite before notably placing a dummy with Elon Musk’s face on it inside the car.
The vehicle then explodes into pieces amid a rather serene and picturesque scene of snowy mountains.
“When I bought that Tesla, the first 1,500 km were nice. It was an excellent car. Then error codes hit. So I ordered the tow truck to take my car in for a service. So the car was at a Tesla dealer’s workshop for about a month. Finally, I got a call that they cannot do anything for my car and that the only option is to change the whole battery cell,” Katainen said in the YouTube video.
He didn’t reveal the total miles the car has been driven or show proof of the would-be repair bill in the video.
The Epoch Times reached out to him for comment.
“The cost would be at least 20,000 € ($22,000), and permission to operation has to ask Tesla. So I told them that I’m coming to pick up the Tesla. Now I’m going to explode the whole car because apparently there is no guarantee or anything,” he added.
Tesla didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Tesla Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk—who has said he will pay more than $11 billion in taxes this year—is the world’s richest person with an estimated net worth of $244.2 billion, according to Forbes’ real-time billionaire’s list.
Battery issues are not the only problems Tesla vehicle users have encountered, as safety issues have also been raised over a number of the vehicle’s features, including its autonomous driving features.
In August, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) opened a formal probe into Tesla’s Autopilot and full self-driving (FSD) systems following nearly a dozen crashes with parked emergency vehicles that left one person dead and injured 17 others.
According to an NHTSA document issued on Aug. 13 (pdf), the agency’s Office of Defects Investigation was probing 765,000 Tesla vehicles—Models Y, X, S, and 3, from model years 2014 to 2021. On Aug. 31, that investigation was expanded to cover a 12th incident (pdf).
In October, Tesla withdrew its latest version of its FSD beta software just one day after it was released after noting “some issues,” and said it would roll the software back to version 10.2 for now.
While Musk didn’t specifically mention what the issues were, he noted that Tesla’s internal quality assurance had found problems with some left turns at traffic lights.
“Regression in some left turns at traffic lights found by internal QA in 10.3. Fix in work, probably releasing tomorrow,” Musk said at the time.
Earlier this month, the NHTSA said it was in discussions with Tesla to replace cameras in some U.S.-made vehicles after it was made aware of an issue related to faulty Autopilot cameras.
The Tesla CEO said this month that no other CEO on the planet cares as much about safety as he does and insisted that he had not misled Tesla’s customers about the company’s self-driving technology, including Autopilot and FSD, and any potential risks to their safety.
Genesis 1:21 “And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”
‘The pseudo-science of climate change is replete with scare stories. New Scientist recently contained a most disingenuous example, with the headline: “Climate change will make world too hot for 60 per cent of fish species”. “Fish are at a far greater risk from climate change than previously thought,” the article opined.
Yet, in the very next sentence, the article conceded that the figure of 60% of species becoming extinct was only a concern in the “worst-case scenario of 5°C of global warming.” A rise of 5°C is equivalent to a 9°F rise. Previous warming models – which have still over-estimated global temperature rises by more than 200% – have suggested rises of 2.3°C. The New Scientist article suggests that a 1.5°C rise would kill off 10% of fish species. Actual temperature rises have stayed below 1°C, with no noticeable reduction in species of bony fish.
The article is fallacious on many levels. Evolutionists have made great play in the past of criticizing creationists for referring to “fish”, as evolutionists have concluded that former fish class is actually three classes – bony fish, cartilaginous fish and jawless fish. Yet, this climate-change article, purporting to be scientific, uses the old fish classification. Also, the extraordinary ability of fish to adapt to different environments has been overlooked.
whatyareckon 