Merck defrauded the public for over a decade, falsely advertising their MMR vaccine as “safe and effective” against staggering evidence

Gain of Function, Loss of … Everything Else

Double meteor shower will light up the night skies July 30th

Majority Agree: Kamala Covered Up Biden Senility

New Swing State Poll: Race Is Basically the Same as When Biden In

Carbon dioxide. CO2. It fills the air you breathe out. It is the product of the violent oxidation of carbon that we call burning – and we’ve been burning a lot of carbon. The CO2 accumulated in the atmosphere is one of the main greenhouse gasses responsible for global warming. Carbon fixing is the process of removing CO2 from the atmosphere, and is one way in which we could try and slow, or even reverse, global warming. Trees are exceptionally good at it. How can trees fix carbon?While we breathe oxygen in and CO2 out, trees do the reverse. They take CO2 from the air, and extract the carbon to build sugars. The carbon that was in the air is now “fixed” in the tree. Living trees are not only fighting global warming by fixing carbon through photosynthesis – a recent paper suggests that microbes living in the bark can fix methane, which is responsible for around 30 percent of global warming. Go trees!When a tree is cut down (or dies) that carbon is released back into the atmosphere. Wood products like timber, however, can continue to store some amount of carbon, and release it more slowly. Unfortunately, the vast majority of deforestation is not for timber production. In the tropics, more than 90 percent of deforestation is due to agriculture.There are 4 billion hectares of land currently covered by forests, there are 593 million hectares of land that are suitable for reforestation. The preservation and restoration of living forests is the best way to harness the carbon-fixing powers of trees. Planting trees outside forests – in urban areas, for example – also has the potential to fix carbon, albeit only after several initial years of growth. However, in a recent study on the cost-effectiveness of forest restoration, the authors warn that “Achieving the entire mitigation potential of reforestation of 31.4 GtCO2 over 30 years would amount to less than 8 months of global GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions”. Reforestation does in no way absolve our need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.         How do we get forests back?Reforestation efforts are mostly centered in the tropics, where trees grow quickly, and quickly capture carbon. Trees growing at higher latitudes can impact the Earth’s albedo. Wait, what? Albedo is the fraction of sunlight that is reflected, instead of absorbed, which warms up the planet. Trees that cover snowy areas impact the albedo because more solar radiation is absorbed by the trees, instead of reflected by the snow. In some cases, this can even negate the positive effects the trees have on carbon fixing.There are two main ways to restore forests: planting and natural regeneration. Many factors need to be considered when choosing between these strategies: speed, cost, biodiversity, the needs of local communities, and non-carbon environmental impacts - just to name a few. Regeneration is generally cheap and slow, planting is fast and expensive. Regeneration is also more biodiverse, and provides water provisioning and erosion control. Plantations are more likely to be cut down for timber, releasing some carbon back into the atmosphere.At a global scale, “If your objective is to sequester carbon as quickly and as cheaply as possible, the best option is a mix of both naturally regenerating forests and planting forests” said Jacob Bukoski of the Oregon State University College of Forestry, co-author of the study on cost-effectiveness of forest regeneration, in a statement. Can we solve climate change by planting trees?In reforestation efforts, there is no one solution that fits all.Some scientists argue that natural regeneration is overall the best way to fix carbon, but others believe that a more nuanced approach needs to be taken. Considering the many factors of the impact of plantation and reforestation, a recent study proposes a mixed approach, tailored to local differences.The cost-effectiveness calculation of different reforestation efforts suggests that in more than half of the areas they studied across the globe “timber plantations sequester carbon at a lower cost than forests that grow back naturally”, said Jeff Vincent, a professor of forest economics and management at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment and co-author of the cost-effectiveness study, in a statement. For any of these plans to work, these solutions need to be permanent. Whether regenerated or planted, a forest’s effectiveness at storing carbon only exists as long as it is allowed to persist.

This week on Break It Down: deep-sea potatoes just shook foundational ideas about life on Earth, NASA plans to launch an artificial star, elephants sing “let’s go” like a barbershop quartet, the most complete Neanderthal skeleton has sprouted cave popcorn, the record for hottest day ever gets smashed twice in one week, and who would win in the animal Olympics? Available on all your favorite podcast apps: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Podbean, Amazon Music, and more.So sit back, relax, and let’s Break It Down…LinksDeep-sea potatoesArtificial starBarbershop elephantsCave popcornHottest dayAnimal OlympicsRead CURIOUSJurassic gardenYellowstone goes boomThe Big Questions

A joint Egyptian-French archaeological mission has uncovered stone inscriptions and other artifacts while conducting photographic survey work in Lake Nasser, Egypt.The discoveries were found on submerged rock formations around the islands of Philae and Konosso, both of which are situated near the Nile’s First Cataract. These are basically shallow lengths of the River Nile that are characterized by rocky areas of boulders and islets that protrude from the narrow channels. There are six Cataracts in total, distributed between Aswan and Khartoum, in Sudan.Before the Aswan Dam was constructed, the Cataracts were a significant hurdle for boats sailing on the Nile, as their shallower waters were essentially white-water rapids.When the Aswan High Dam was built during the 1960s, the area around the islands of Philae and Konosso became flooded, leaving it under what is now Lake Nasser. The lake now covers a 5,250-square-kilometer (2,093-square-mile) area, which, at the time of its construction, threatened a region known for its rich cultural heritage. In particular, the area contained a number of important temples, including the famous Abu Simbel, as well as the Philae temple complex.This led to the creation of the International Campaign to Save the Monuments of Nubia program, led by UNESCO.The Temple of Philae used to be situated on the Isle of Philae, but was moved when the Aswan High Dam was created. The newly discovered carvings have been found on stones near to this original site.Image credit: PRILL/Shutterstock.comDuring recent survey work, archaeologists with the Egyptian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities in collaboration with Paul Valéry University Montpellier found the stone carvings, along with paintings and miniatures that depict Amenhotep III (who reigned around 1390-1353 BCE), Thutmose IV (reigned around 1401-1391 BCE), Psamtik III (reigned around 526-525 BCE), and Apries (reigned around 589-570 BCE).At the moment, the Egyptian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities has not specified what the inscriptions say or how the carvings appear. They have released a statement that suggests more information will be released in the future as part of a formal scientific publication on the subject.According to the Ministry, the researchers have used “modern techniques” including diving, archaeological surveying, underwater photography and video, and photogrammetry, as well as classical drawings, to record and document the discoveries. The researchers are now working to create three-dimensional models of the inscriptions. The team also believe that more inscriptions and other historical information related to the reigns of the pharaohs depicted at the site will likely emerge as their work progresses.

The National Park Service (NPS) has released more details following the surprise hydrothermal explosion in Yellowstone’s Biscuit Basin earlier this week, providing further insight into how events unfolded and their aftermath.“[A]t about 10:19 a.m., a localized hydrothermal explosion occurred near Sapphire Pool in Biscuit Basin, located just north of Old Faithful,” said the NPS in a statement released on July 23, the day of the explosion.In a follow-up statement, it was revealed that water in the shallow hydrothermal system under Black Diamond Pool rapidly turned into steam, which erupted hundreds of feet into the air, sending mud, debris, and boiling water alongside it. Under normal circumstances, the pool’s water is a comparatively lukewarm 64.7°C (148.5°F).While a previous eruption in this particular pool back in 2006 was the result of an earthquake, no non-background seismic activity was detected before Tuesday’s eruption, nor were any other detectable factors that might also indicate volcanic activity. In other words, this wasn’t a sign that “the big one” is coming any time soon.That’s not to say there was nothing big about the explosion, which threw debris ranging from grapefruit-sized through to 1-meter wide “tens to hundreds of feet from the source,” according to the NPS, some of which “weigh hundreds of pounds.”Luckily, the most significant damage caused by the hefty blocks of debris was to a nearby boardwalk, which has been left pretty much destroyed. As can be seen in the video above, there were visitors in the area when things popped off, but no injuries were reported – although we wouldn’t be surprised if some pants were, quite understandably, peed.No further explosions have taken place at either Black Diamond Pool or the nearby Black Opal Pool (which was also affected by the event) since Tuesday – although there were some more tall bursts of water from the former on that day. Water levels in both continued to rise through to Wednesday, eventually overflowing and spilling their murky, debris-filled water to the close Firehole River.This is what Biscuit Basin looked like in the aftermath of the explosion.Image credit: NPS/Joe BueterAlthough hydrothermal explosions at Yellowstone are usually rare, officials will be keeping a close eye on the area, with “small explosions of boiling water from this area in Biscuit Basin [continuing] to be possible over the coming days to months” and the ground around the edges of the pools remaining unstable.“[United States Geological Survey] and NPS geologists will be monitoring conditions, mapping the debris field, and sampling water to assess any changes in the shallow hydrothermal system over the next several days,” said the NPS. Under the circumstances, the park has also announced that Biscuit Basin will remain closed to the public for the remainder of the summer season.When the area is opened once again, visitors will be returning to a slightly altered landscape – a testament to the power of hydrothermal activity. “Black Diamond Pool and Black Opal Pool were affected by Tuesday’s explosion,” said the NPS, “and while they remain distinct features, the shape of Black Diamond has changed somewhat.”

Despite having had a day to regroup and President Biden’s Oval Office address, Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre still wouldn’t divulge (read: admit) Thursday why President Biden ended his campaign to seek reelection and, as such, even liberal White House reporters make her look foolish.  Fox’s Peter Doocy also did his thing, grilling her on leaked talking points from Vice President Kamala Harris’s team on the border and the latest acts of aggression by China and Russia. Doocy first brought up the talking points and, at first, she hilariously denied it: DOOCY TIME: “Democrats on Capitol Hill are being handed this card with talking points about the Vice President and the border. Do you know who's handing this out?” KJP: “I have no idea. You probably should ask her campaign.” Doocy: “So, the first one says, ‘Vice President… pic.twitter.com/6koTlQTFaP — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) July 25, 2024 Doocy tried again: “Do you think that the border would be less of a talking point now if there was less migration to the border, say, if somebody had addressed root causes of migration sooner?” Jean-Pierre then inadvertently seemed to admit she was part of this by touting said talking points: “So, yes, we are going to debunk the false — the false, you know, characterization of the Vice President. She was not a border czar, and it’s not just us. Independent fact checkers have said the same thing that that did not exist and that is not true.” Doocy also brought up how “Russia and China are teaming up in the skies near Alaska for the first time ever” and this could be a sign that “some of America’s enemies might be looking at what’s happening here and think there’s nobody in charge.” Since he was the first to ask about it, Jean-Pierre went onto give a lengthy, written statement about how the U.S. and Canada didn’t see anything worth responding to. Doocy’s Fox colleague Edward Lawrence also had challenging questions. His first one tied Kamala Harris to the Biden economy: FBN’s @EdwardLawrence: “[T]here's a new CNN poll out that says 39 percent of adults worry most of the time or all of the time that their income will not be enough to meet expenses. Prices are up 19 percent since President Biden and Kamala Harris, the Vice President, came into… pic.twitter.com/t3O6j6LZZN — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) July 25, 2024 Lawrence followed up with an excellent line of questioning about how Harris seems to be continuing what had been the Biden campaign theme of referring to Trump as a danger to democracy In light of the assassination attempt on Trump’s life, he pressed on whether this was “dangerous rhetoric” and not keeping their end of the deal to “lower the temperature” (click “expand”):     LAWRENCE: [L]ast night the President kept with the theme of saving democracy, alluding to the fact that maybe former President Trump is a threat to democracy. The Vice President is using the same language. Is this a dangerous rhetoric? JEAN-PIERRE: Look, it is important that we continue to talk about unity. It is. Saving democracy, making sure that we’re unified as a country and he called on the country to come together. That is something that — that is a — that is a theme that he’s talked about since 2019 — since 2019. Nothing new here. And I’ll quote, “keep calling out hate and extremism, make it clear there is no place, no place in America for political violence.” That’s something that the President said last night or any violence ever, period. “I’m going to keep speaking out to protect our kids and gun violence.” This is something that the President truly believes in, but bringing the country together is a big part of that — is actually the theme. Unity is a theme that you heard from his — his remarks last night. [TO LEONARD] Go ahead, Jenny. LAWRENCE: Well, he — but he — but he still talks about a threat to democracy. I mean there are now three public attempts that were — or threats to the former President that we know of. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. LAWRENCE: Iran being one of them, the shooter the other night, so how many threats are enough to lower the temperature? JEAN-PIERRE: The President has called on lowering the temperature, but here’s the thing, Ed, it takes on all of us to lower the temperature. All of us. I hope you can read between the lines of what I mean by all of us. It takes all of us to take that action and to lower the temperature, and I think when you have a president that uses the Oval address to talk about unity, not just once. He did it right after — sadly, right after the former President — the attempted assassination of the former President, talked about lowering the temperature then and also talked about really denouncing, condemning political violence and how it has no place in this nation. He talked about he used the Oval Office to do just that and we’ve been condemning political violence for some time. Rewinding to the start of the briefing, even the AP’s Zeke Miller argued Biden never “explicitly” said “why he stepped aside”: AP’s @ZekeJMiller: “And yesterday, you asked a couple of times about the rationale for the President's decision to tune in. One thing the President did not say explicitly why he stepped aside. He — you know, he talked about how he believed it was in the best interest of the… pic.twitter.com/tFK8Noy1a6 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) July 25, 2024 When she only said she thinks “the American people think he answered the question” during his Oval Office address when he said he realized it was time for him to give way to “younger voices”, Miller admirably noted how, “for weeks, the White House has said — had said multiple times the President is not going to leave the race.” Miller also importantly had Jean-Pierre confirm to many, many no’s that Biden would not pardon or commute any criminal sentence handed down to his son, Beau. CBS’s Weijia Jiang wasn’t having any of this lame waffling: CBS’s @Weijia Jiang: “[F]or such a monumental decision, the President did address why he left the race.” KJP: “Thank you.” Jiang: “But — but — but he left a lot of it for us to read between the lines. He did not make clear why he's leaving the race. Even in the excerpts that… pic.twitter.com/CRtDomPxDP — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) July 25, 2024 She even noted in a follow-up that Biden only had God, his health, and polling as reasons he’d quit, so it must be the third option since Jean-Pierre has been adamant it wasn’t health. Even Biden tool Tyler Pager of The Washington Post called out the Biden team for a lack of “transparency”, so he wasn’t amused at Jean-Pierre’s claim that less than a day could be enough time for someone to “think....long and hard” about going from staying in the race to quitting the presidency: The Washington Post’s Tyler Pager: “[J]ust, given the historic nature of the announcement and the decision, I think it's important to get some more transparency. You just said that the President thought long and hard about the decision to exit the race, but also yesterday you… pic.twitter.com/50xCrAib1q — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) July 25, 2024 In contrast, we had these softballs from ABC’s Karen Travers about the White House mood after Biden’s speech and then this one from Press Trust of India’s Lalit K. Jha with a softball about the left’s claims of Harris being subjected to rampant racism and sexism: Press Trust of India’s Lalit K. Jha: “What would the President say to those who have increased their attack on Vice President based on the color of her skin, the gender? They’ve been caught using terms like lunatics.” KJP: “So look — um — there's something I do want to say about… pic.twitter.com/rabWLme5me — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) July 25, 2024 National security spokesman and frequent Jean-Pierre crutch John Kirby kicked off the briefing with comments about foreign policy matters such as the war in Gaza, which led to questions from NBC’s Peter Alexander about what the administration made of the violent pro-Hamas thugs outside the Capitol: NBC’s @PeterAlexander: “John, we heard from the Vice President earlier with comments — strict — [COUGH] — sorry — strong comments related to the vandalism and the protests that we saw yesterday. We haven't heard yet from the President or from the White House at large. Do you… pic.twitter.com/azYzifwIzB — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) July 25, 2024 Always there to stand up for Hamas by trashing the Jews, The Hill’s Niall Stanage argued America’s “undermining” its “credibility and morality” by allowing in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu despite him being “an alleged war criminal”. Thankfully, Kirby again showed his backbone by dismissing this idiocy: The Hill’s Niall Stanage: “Very early in President Biden's presidency — February the 4th, 2021 — he spoke at the State Department about his priorities in foreign policy, and he said that one of those priorities was reclaiming our credibility and moral authority. Prime Minister of… pic.twitter.com/WqYMx7xoNE — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) July 25, 2024 To see the relevant transcript from the July 25 briefing (including even more solid questions about Biden being shoved out), click here.