Category Archives: Climate change

Gun violence due to climate change

Posted on by

No. It’s not April 1st. And even if it had been I would not have been able to make this up:

New study finds tragic factor contributing to thousands of gun deaths nationwide

Gun violence is already a pressing public health concern in the U.S., and a new study has found a troubling link between it and the overheating of our planet.

As temperatures across the country soar and unseasonably warm days continue, the number of gun deaths across the country has gone up.

Nearly 8,000 gun shootings can be attributed to extreme temperatures, according to research published by JAMA Network.

The study analyzed 100 major U.S. cities with the highest proportion of gun violence between 2015 and 2020. It found that out of 116 ,511 shootings, roughly 6.85% (or 7,973) were attributable to above-average temperatures.

This means that if we successfully address global warming we can get rid of all the gun control laws.

I fear global cooling more than global warming

Posted on by

If humans actually have some control over the global temperature we should error on the side of making things too warm rather than too cold. It’s a lot easier to deal with a few feet of rise in the level of the ocean than it is to deal with a mile of ice over Seattle, Chicago, and New York and everything north of there.

You aren’t polluting—you are fertilizing

Posted on by

Well, duh!

Carbon Dioxide Seems to Be Making Trees Grow Faster, Scientists Say

Amid serious concerns about the climate effects of carbon dioxide, scientists have discovered something intriguing — that trees appear to be growing faster and larger as levels of the compound rise.

In a press release, environmental researchers at Ohio State University claimed that the rate and size at which forests are growing may already be counteracting the worst effects of climate change.

“Forests are taking carbon out of the atmosphere at a rate of about 13 percent of our gross emissions,” Brent Sohngen, co-author of the school’s study published recently in Nature Communications and OSU professor of environmental and resource economics, said. “While we’re putting billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, we’re actually taking much of it out just by letting our forests grow.”

I suspect farm and garden crop yields are also improving.

People who want CO2 emissions reduced want people to starve*.

* Yeah, it is an absurd statement. But, if gun owners insisting the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms not be infringed means we want school children murdered then environmentalist should be able to suck it up when they are accused of wanting people to starve.

The physics of heat transfer

Posted on by

When I was going to college thermodynamics was dreaded by many engineering students. Apparently, it involved concepts difficult for many to grasp. For some reason it made perfect sense to me. Compared to most of my other engineering classes it was easy. I got a very high A in the class. That was decades ago, and I have forgotten a lot of it but I do have a good recollection of heat transfer.

That bright engineering students find it challenging means it should come as no surprise that people with little or no training in the subject would have misconception about how certain thermodynamic related physical phenomena occur. There have been many times on this blog I have made statements, or linked to articles, which described perfectly obvious observations. Some commenters declared them obliviously false. I didn’t want to take the time to explain why they were in error. It was just too much work for that particular situation.

It is now time to attempt explain certain things to people in terms and examples that will help them understand the physics of heat transfer. There are other sources on the web as well. But I will include example directly applicable to material on this blog.

The three* classic methods of heat transfer are:

  1. Thermal conduction (also called diffusion).
  2. Thermal convection.
  3. Thermal radiation.

The first two are relatively well understood at an intuitive level by nearly all functional people. It is the thermal radiation that I most want to address because of the clear lack of understanding I see in the comments here. I will explain the items 1 and 2 first to make the distinction from thermal radiation clearer. Please either stick with me or skip ahead if excessive boredom occurs.

Thermal conduction occurs when two objects of different temperature touch. Your finger touching an ice cube initiates the transfer of heat from your finger to the ice. The ice warms and when it reaches the melting point it changes phase from solid to liquid water.

If your finger is in a glass of liquid water and an ice cube thermal convection occurs**. Via conduction your finger warms the water touching your finger and because the warm water is slightly less dense than cold water*** the warm water rises. If the warm water is rising, then the cold water must be sinking. This creates a loop of water flow in the glass. It is slow enough that you cannot easily see it or feel it. If you were to put a drop of food coloring in the water, you probably could. The coldest water is next to the ice cube and the warmest is next to your finger. The water leaving the ice cube is replaced by water that recently left your warm finger. The warm water touching the ice cube conducts heat to the ice cube. This warms and melts the ice and cools the water causing it to sink. Heat is thus transferred from your finger to the ice.

Thermal convection occurs in gases as well as liquids. If you open a hot oven door with your face over the opening, you will feel an almost blast of hot air. No similar blast occurs at the crack at the bottom of the oven because cool air is rushing in. The hot air rises near a wood stove and cool air near the floor replaces it and forms a slow-moving loop of air. Soaring birds “ride the thermals” when different portions of the earth absorb more energy from the sun that others (for example dirt versus plants). This creates an updraft of air over the hotter earth which allows the birds to stay aloft with greatly reduced effort.

Thermal radiation occurs at all temperatures above absolute zero (-273.15 C or –459.67 F). But in our normal earthly circumstances most people are unaware of it because conduction and convection tend to dominate everyday life thermal transfers. Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation generated by the thermal motion of particles in matter.

  • Thermal radiation occurs across empty space as in from the sun to the earth.
  • Thermal radiation occurs through gases as in from the sun to the surface of the earth.
  • Thermal radiation occurs though solids as in the sun through glass.

The sun is not some magical generator. Microwave ovens emit a very specific frequency of identical electromagnetic waves which also transfer heat. The difference is only in the means by which the EM waves are creates, not in the nature of the waves.

The leaves of plants will sometimes get colder than the nearby air because they radiate their heat into outer space on a cold clear night when the air is still. Hence the air may be 35 F but the plant leaf can lose heat and drop to below 32F and get frost damage.

Orchard owner sometimes protect their crops by “heaters” which produce smoke to block the thermal radiation. The heaters do not produce enough heat to significantly heat the air. Owners also sometimes use large fans which move warmer air over the leaves. Via conduction the warmer air restores the heat lost by radiation.

The temperature of the sun is extremely high, and the thermal radiation occurs at high levels across a broad spectrum which includes the visible spectrum. The visible spectrum is what we call light. At the low frequency end of light, we call this thermal radiation red and even lower infrared. At the high frequency of light, we call this thermal radiation blue and even higher is ultraviolet.

Glass is not a magical solid conductor of thermal radiation. When exposed to thermal radiation all substances will do the following three things in various degrees with the incoming thermal radiation

  1. Transmit it through to the other side.
  2. Absorb it.
  3. Reflect it.

The amount of transmission, absorption, and reflection depend on the substance and frequency of the thermal radiation. These differing amounts are each described by a number between 0.0 and 1.0 inclusively. These numbers are called coefficients. The sum of all these numbers will always be equal to 1.0 (conservation of energy). Hence clear glass, for visible light, may have a transmission coefficient of 0.90. That is, 90% of the thermal radiation in the visible spectrum passes through the glass. The reflection coefficient may be 0.08 and the absorption coefficient 0.02 for a total of 1.0. Colored glass absorbs and/or reflects some energy at certain frequencies and transmits most of the energy at other frequencies.

Clean water has a high transmission coefficient for visible light but is highly absorbing of a certain frequency in the microwave region of the spectrum. This is why microwave ovens can heat a cup of water. The water absorbs nearly all the microwave frequency thermal radiation which the water intercepts.

Brick, wood, and other common house construction materials transmit thermal radiation at frequencies we know as radio waves. You can easily listen to your radio and make cell phone calls inside your brick building. At visible light frequencies and normal wall thickness there is no human perceptible transmission.

Thermal radiation is also why a vacuum is not a perfect insulator. Even in the hard vacuum of deep space, far from stars or any other object a warm object will radiate its heat into the surrounding empty space as lower and lower frequencies of electromagnetic radiation until it approaches a temperature of absolute zero.

This is also why the earth cools at night. It radiates heat into outer space. If it didn’t get rid of heat at the same average rate at it absorbed, it from the sun it would either get warmer or colder until the thermal radiation at night increased or decreased to match the visible light (as well as thermal) radiation absorbed from the sun.

Absorption and retransmission is where things get most obscure in our ordinary life and is where the commenters have been going astray.

Taking the example of an ordinary brick in the sunlight. It transmits none of the light, reflects some of the light in the red region of the spectrum and absorbs the rest. The absorbed the light causes the brick to warm. Some of that thermal energy is transferred to it’s surroundings via conduction and convection. But some of it is emitted as thermal radiation. This thermal radiation will be at various frequencies depending upon the exact chemical composition of the brick, but most will be in the infrared region of the spectrum.

This change of frequency is how certain gases get classified as “greenhouse gases”. This is how paint can actually cool the substance it is painted on below the ambient air temperature.

I’ll explain the paint first since it is simpler and has less emotional content.

The back side of the paint receives thermal energy via conduction. Suppose this paint is on a building at 75 F. It emits thermal radiation out into its exterior environment with the clear empty (sun and moon transmit their own thermal radiation) sky being a very cold (many degrees below zero) heat sink. Normal paints absorb significant light energy as well as conduction gains from the air. But what if the paint had very low conduction ability on the outside but high conduction ability on the inside, and the paint also reflecting almost all light? The outgoing thermal radiation would dominate the incoming heat transfer from the air and sunlight. Hence, the paint would literally cool the building it was painted on without the use of any external power source.

Now let’s consider the case of water vapor in the atmosphere. This is transparent to visible light. Clouds are condensation and/or ice. This water vapor transmits visible light to the earth which absorbs it and retransmits infrared thermal radiation just like our brick. The water vapor in the atmosphere, just like our colored glass, blocks the thermal radiation via reflection and absorption. If the incoming high frequency energy zips through the water vapor in the atmosphere and the retransmitted low frequency outgoing energy is reflected back to earth and/or absorbed, then the earth will get warmer.

That is the extremely simple version of greenhouse gases. Things get really complicated when you throw in things like clouds which reflect significant portions of visible light as well as whether they are clouds of ice crystals or water droplets and their presence during the day versus night, the latitude, the type of surface (earth, water, forest, ice, etc.) they are shading, and probably many other things. Does water vapor and/or CO2 really cause “global warming”? I don’t know. I am skeptical of manmade changes of CO2 in earth’s atmosphere causing heating and I think water vapor is complex enough that modeling it accurately is probably currently impossible.

Venus, almost for certain, is far hotter because of its mix of atmospheric gases than it would be if the composition were something like 80% nitrogen (earth) instead of about 3.5% nitrogen.and 96.5% CO2. So, I believe greenhouse gases can be a real thing.

Summary: Thermal radiation is not as well known by the general public as thermal conduction and convection. But it is real and easily observed if it is pointed out to you. Thermal radiation becomes the dominate heat transfer mechanism when long distances are involved. Thermal radiation exists at different frequencies. Substances have different absorption, reflective, and transmission characteristics at the different frequencies. Because of these different characteristics at different frequencies, it is possible to create one-way “heat valves”. Cooling paint and “greenhouse gases” are possible and exist because of these thermal dynamic “valves” utilizing thermal radiation.

* I won’t directly cover transfer of energy by phase changes or transfer of mass of differing chemical species.

** I’m not going to address the case of a zero-gravity environment.

*** Yes, I know, at temperatures between 0 and 4 C this is not true. Let’s not complicate things. But it is interesting to note this anomaly is why ice generally forms on the top of a body of water rather than on the bottom then floating to the surface.

Mother Nature deserves the credit

Posted on by

This is interesting:

On January 15th, 2022, Tonga’s Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcano erupted, spewing tons of gas and ash into the atmosphere. According to a Wednesday report by National Public Radio, the blast contained enough water vapor – notorious for its heat-trapping abilities – to temporarily raise Earth’s temperature.

“The massive amount of water vapor is roughly 10% of the normal amount of vapor found in the stratosphere, equaling more than 58,000 Olympic-size swimming pools,” NPR wrote.

The chemicals “came from a volcano that’s more than 12 miles wide, with a caldera sitting roughly 500 feet below sea level. One day earlier, Tongan officials reported the volcano was in a continuous eruption, sending a 3-mile-wide plume of steam and ash into the sky. Then the big blast came, sending ash, gases and vapor as high as 35 miles — a record in the satellite era — into the atmosphere,” per NPR.

In a July paper published in Geophysical Research Letters, scientists discovered that Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai “may be the first volcanic eruption observed to impact climate not through surface cooling caused by volcanic sulfate aerosols, but rather through surface warming.”

Water vapor lingers in the air, which contributes to its ability to retain heat.

“It normally takes around 2-3 years for sulfate aerosols from volcanoes to fall out of the stratosphere. But the water from the Jan. 15 eruption could take 5-10 years to fully dissipate,” NPR explained.

I initially wondered if the extra water could be responsible for the extraordinary wet spring we had this year. But I read elsewhere that the volcano put the water in the stratosphere and it will take a couple years for the water to move down into the troposphere and become rain.

Its sounds as if, for the next few years, we can expect warmer than normal weather. Don’t let the climate alarmist blame it on fossil fuels. Insist Mother Nature gets the appropriate credit.

No concept of overstating things

Posted on by

You have to wonder how they imagine people will take them seriously when they say things like this:

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority is a threat to the world

The Supreme Court spent recent weeks triggering political and legal earthquakes across America. But its latest audacious blow could affect the entire planet.

After advancing the Republican Party’s agenda by overturning the federal right to an abortion and loosening gun laws, the conservative court majority built by former President Donald Trump on Thursday limited the government’s capacity to fight climate change.

In a 6-3 ruling, the justices held that US law did not give the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to set caps on planet-warming emissions from power plants.

The lies are so outrageous they are funny!

I regard the fact that the legacy media and the politicians they support get away with such extreme lies more of a threat than anything SCOTUS has the power to do.

Quote of the day—Dr. Jennifer Walker

Posted on by

The fact that we’re seeing an emergence of modern rates of rise at all of these individual study sites as well by the mid 20th century just further demonstrates the really significant influence of global sea-level rise especially in the last century. By delving into individual sites the better understanding we have of regional and local processes impacting sea-level rise will continue to improve our understanding for future impacts.

Dr. Jennifer Walker
Rutgers University professor in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences
February 25, 2022
Burning coal has been driving sea level rise since the 19th century: study
[There are other things of interest in the article:

Utilizing a global database of geological sea level records from the past 2,000 years, the international team of researchers modeled global and site-specific sea level rise. They determined that in the United States, modern sea level rise can be discerned earliest in the Mid-Atlantic region somewhat later in the 19th century. By doing so, they hope to facilitate a better understanding of local processes driving variations in sea level changes.

This is not the first time I have seen stuff like this that I find bizarre. They appear to believe the ocean levels can change locally. Am I’m missing something? Or are they really that stupid?

How can you have local changes in the ocean level that do not become global within a day or less? There is a bulge of water than travels entirely around the globe in one day. It is due to gravity from the moon and sun. It is causes what are called tides, remember? Any local change in ocean level will spread out evenly around the entire earth, right? Why do these “scientists” claim there are local changes?—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rebecca Leber

Posted on by

Climate advocates point to the polling, the greenwashing, and the policy implications as pressing reasons it’s important that everyone, especially the media, drop the natural gas label.

For Alan Levinovitz, the name natural gas is simply “too dangerous to have around.” Stopping calling it natural gas is the necessary first step for the world to move away from gas as a climate solution.

Rebecca Leber
February 10, 2022
The end of natural gas has to start with its name
[I find it very telling they claim certain words and phrases are “too dangerous to have around”. Isn’t that almost straight out of George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty Four”?

The other thing about the article I find very telling is they write about how natural gas/methane is such a potent greenhouse gas then jump into how “natural gas” name has to be removed from our language. They don’t address the combustion products of natural gas versus the alternatives. It’s as if “natural gas is bad because it is methane” without addressing that natural gas isn’t deliberately released into the air. It is a product sold to customers who consume it. If they want express concerns about combustion products (or byproducts of using natural gas in things like plastics) I would consider that mostly fair. But that is not what they do.

They want to repress speech and are deliberately deceptive. That is all I need to know about them to be opposed to their agenda.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Daniel Epps

Posted on by

Some have argued that addressing the climate crisis may require rethinking society’s basic organizing principles, including capitalism itself. It may also increasingly lead many to question the fundamental tenets of the American constitutional order.

Daniel Epps
November 3, 2021
How the US supreme court could be a threat to climate action in the US
[It’s nice of them to essentially admit what has long been suspected. It’s not about the climate. It’s about the destruction of free society and the implementation of an authoritarian state.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Catherine Clifford @CATCLIFFORD

Posted on by

There have to be more people at different levels in the organization, in different parts of the organization, who are given the platform and the ability to initiate, to mobilize, to move things forward. It doesn’t only live at the C-Suite.

And ideally, if it’s done well, each person, no matter what part of the company you’re in, feels that they have a stake in this climate change response. Nobody is exempting themselves because they don’t know enough about climate. An effective response is one where everyone has something to add here and is a part of the response.

Catherine Clifford @CATCLIFFORD
September 26, 2021
Climate psychologist says neither gloom-and-doom nor extreme solution-obsessed optimism is the best way to discuss climate change productively
[I knew there were dog psychologists, horse psychologists, and I found out there are cat psychologists and even cow psychologists. But climate psychologists? Wow!

I wonder if she has a heavy client load. Are there a lot of climates in need of a shrink?

To be fair, I poked around a little bit I can can’t find where she claims she helps climates with their mental health issues.

I do wonder about her mental health some though. She seems to presume facts not in evidence. I’m fairly certain her claim that everyone should feel “they have a stake in the climate change response” is not true. For example, there are those who are more concerned about another ice age putting a sheet of ice a mile thick over southern Canada and the northern states than the possibility of a dozen feet of ocean rise. Hence, if we really think we can affect the climate then we should error on the side of keeping the earth warm rather than on keeping it cool.

Does she want those people to feel like they have a stake in the climate change response? Or is she is living in a delusional world where everyone agrees with her view of reality. In other words, is she a liar or delusional? It could be both, but I have insufficient evidence to conclusively determine which.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Greta Thunberg

Posted on by

Unfortunately, we probably already know the outcome. World leaders are still trying to run away from their responsibilities but we have to make sure they cannot do that.

We will make sure that we put them against the wall and they will have to do their job to protect our futures.

Greta Thunberg
December 13, 2019
Greta Thunberg tells cheering crowd ‘we will make sure we put world leaders against the wall’ if they do not tackle global warming as she attends climate protest in Turin
[This is consistent with much of the political left throughout the 20th Century. But usually they do not publicly announce this until they have consolidated more political power than what this 16 year old has. I attribute the poor judgement to her youth.

It would appear that after saying this she received some coaching from someone wiser than her:

Yesterday I said we must hold our leaders accountable and unfortunately said “put them against the wall”. That’s Swenglish: “att ställa någon mot väggen” (to put someone against the wall) means to hold someone accountable. That’s what happens when you improvise speeches in a second language. But of course I apologise if anyone misunderstood this. I can not enough express the fact that I – as well as the entire school strike movement- are against any possible form of violence. It goes without saying but I say it anyway.

Any native Swedish speaker out there that can verify or refute this claim?—Joe]

Rebellion is about winning hearts and minds

Posted on by

Sean points out the failure of the Extinction Rebellion to convince people of the righteousness of their cause by disrupting their lives. Mob action is a form of direct democracy. Democracy has its dark side.

It’s easy to demonstrate Extinction Rebellion claims are almost for certain in error. But even being 100% correct in your facts, logic, and principles doesn’t guarantee success. If your position is only shared by one out of every 10,000 people your position isn’t getting adopted.

Get more people on your side. Take a new shooter to the range. Invite them to Boomershoot as a spectator. Encourage people to take a firearms class with a focus on personal protection.

Win the civil war without mob violence or firing a shot in anger.

Quote of the day—Melanie Phillips

Posted on by

What are witnessing is not the imminent extinction of the planet. It is the extinction of reason.

Melanie Phillips
September 20, 2019
The extinction of reason
[Reason is but a thin veneer over the emotional mind. It takes very little to pierce that veneer. The persistence of superstition, Marxism, and hundreds of other things both large and small is proof of it.

Stand up to those who advocate for the extinction of reason or prepare for the endarkenment.—Joe]

Hide the Decline

Posted on by

Nicely done:

Via a message from Anthony Pacheco.

Here is what is called “The Sequel” but is more of slightly different version of the first:

Also, via Rolf, is this serious report from just this year:

In January 2005, NOAA began recording temperatures at its newly built U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN). USCRN includes 114 pristinely maintained temperature stations spaced relatively uniformly across the lower 48 states. NOAA selected locations that were far away from urban and land-development impacts that might artificially taint temperature readings.

…

The USCRN has eliminated the need to rely on, and adjust the data from, outdated temperature stations. Strikingly, as shown in the graph below, USCRN temperature stations show no warming since 2005 when the network went online. If anything, U.S. temperatures are now slightly cooler than they were 14 years ago.

UscrnTemperatureGraph

Since 2005 there have been several new weather stations added. There now exist stations in Alaska (22), Hawaii (2), and Canada (1).

And if you want to really mock those claiming global warming refer them to the signs saying the Glacier National Park will be glacier free by 2020. The signs have been removed in the last two or three years. See also this video:

The end of the climate change hoax?

Posted on by

Via Thomas Lifson.

TL;DR version:

Michael Mann, the guy who claimed a graph of global temperature rise in the late 1990s resembled a hockey stick, sued a skeptic, Dr. Tim Ball, who publicly said Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State”. The libel lawsuit has now been dismissed because Mann refused to show the court the data and math by which he produced the graph. The lawsuit took six years, cost millions of (Canadian) dollars, and Mann has been told to pay the legal fees.

It is becoming more and more clear that a criminal conspiracy case against Mann and others regarding the climate change hoax is valid.

Read various quotes and get the links to the entire story below.

Continue reading →

Quote of the day—George Monbiot

Posted on by

We’ve got to go straight to the heart of capitalism and overthrow it.

George Monbiot
April 11, 2019
Tweeted by Novara Media @novaramedia
[Some of the most repressive nations ever, the Soviet Union and Communist China, were not able to completely exterminate capitalism no matter how many people they murdered. Free markets always find a way.

Yet, this loon wants to try yet again.

Just keep saying no until you run out of ammo.—Joe]

Prepare for the next ice age

Posted on by

I’ve often thought global cooling was far more threatening than global warming. Think of it this way: Which is worse, northern cities under 1000 feet of ice or 10 feet of water?

And that doesn’t even take into consideration the growing seasons for our food. With cold weather the seasons in the higher latitudes are shorter and food production decreases. Global rainfall also decreases with lower temperatures.

Hence, if humans actually can influence the climate they should error on the side of increasing the temperature rather than decreasing the temperature.

Do you need still more convincing? Here it is Bundle Up: Scientists Predict “Mini Ice Age” Will Hit Earth in Five Years:

scientists led by Valentina Zharkova at Northumbria University are arguing that we might be about to see the reverse occurring – instead of heating up, starting in 2021, the world is going to enter a period of cooling that’s being described as a “mini ice age”.

So, fire up those coal plants, rev up your V8s, put some logs in the fireplace, and save the planet!

Those we pay to preach to us

Posted on by

I won’t call it “irony”, exactly, for that would be unfair. AHA speaker has heart attack.

Heart disease is real. People die from it. I get it. It’s just that I’m remembering a lifetime of being preached to, agitated, made to fuss over our food, told we shouldn’t eat salt, we shouldn’t eat fat, then told that, never mind, fat and salt are necessary, then we’re told this, told that, do this, don’t do that, or OMG! we’re going drop dead any second! “Be afraid! Be very, very afraid!!!

“Are you having a heart attack right now? Are you sure? Maybe you are having a heart attack! Do you know the signs? We think you’re having a heart attack right now…” I’ve heard the radio ads to that effect, from those rat bastards.

I believe that worry, fear, obsession over your food (or anything else) is more likely to cause health problems than any of the foods (or most any actual dangers) themselves. Trouble is, the fear, agitation and obsession have been the main product, packaged and promoted by the media and the AHA.

So if all you heart experts are so knowledgeable that you could presume to tell the rest of us how to live, would you be having heart attacks yourselves? What is the rate, or incidence, of heart problems among heart specialists, compared to the population at large? Is there any difference? That’s a question. I don’t know.

And if you’re having heart attacks yourselves, maybe go ahead and study the phenomenon but stop with the preaching? When you have proven answers, then come out and calmly declare them. I just don’t want to hear another ad, sponsored by the Ad Counsel, subsidized with my tax dollars, telling me how I should live, assuming that I have the maturity, experience and intellect of a three-year-old.

Just stop with the nanny-nag, nanny state shenanigans. Then I might could take you seriously. Maybe.

I know people who can’t get through half a day without worrying about their food, or their environment, killing them, and that right there is a potentially deadly psychological disease, promoted and spread by the nanny state “experts”.

In any case, if I’m going to die of a heart attack this very day, at least I will have spent some time living without fear, and living without fear is a good thing.