Please move this thread

Brian Gray5, if my memory serves me right, you used to get into heated debates even with that Flat Earther, the handyman guy.

I usually just drop one post like this, and then it becomes pretty obvious whether someone is actually open to hearing an argument, or if they’re just going to dig their heels in and ignore all the evidence like they're doing here. Plus, there's always that chance a person is just posting to serve someone else's agenda.

Personally, I think it makes way more sense to just figure out how other people think rather than trying to change their minds in situations like this. It's a total waste of time and energy.

Roger Castillo9 said:Grandma, if I recall correctly, you used to get into debates even with that flat-earther Handyman guy.

I usually just drop a single post like this, and then it becomes pretty obvious whether a person is actually willing to listen to reason, or if they’re going to dig their heels in regardless of the evidence—which seems to be the case here. There's also always the possibility that someone is just writing this to serve a specific interest.

In my book, it makes way more sense to figure out how other people think rather than trying to change their minds in situations like this. It's a total waste of time and energy.

Look, I know exactly how people think—or how they "think." Personally, I have zero patience for this hypocritical bullshit—this whole act from this self-proclaimed "sage" who claims he "isn't being paid but just studied both sides at university." 😁

Admin!! Are you going to open this thread or what? 🙂

velvetbear372 said:Admin, I’m asking you to please reopen my locked Reddit thread. Reddit thread (which is crucial for this community) move everything from PDF to PDF ASAP. Get it off the FBI files and onto PDF now. The world around me.Also, when you're at it, lock this thread and wipe the posts from the last three pages.

Things are hitting a breaking point, and people need to be warned. We need actual discussion here. But looking at that ridiculous, poorly managed FBI report, there isn't even a mention of this issue. Look at this map. Just look at it. You can see the fires spreading across the landscape like nothing else. It’s hard to ignore when you see the data laid out right in front of you. Reality doesn't care about how much we want to look away. We're looking at an apocalypse.

I wish this whole topic didn't exist. Honestly, I’d prefer if there wasn't even the slightest chance of a discussion happening here. But reality isn't that kind. It drags on, and it's ugly.

If you start that thread again, I’ll give you a proper response. I'll explain exactly what you're talking about, but also why there's a much more immediate, realistic threat facing the entire planet. This isn't some made-up nonsense; it's the actual scientific perspective. So, just take a breath and stop panicking. You have a point, sure, but don't fall for the tabloid sensationalism. We've all heard how many times "the end of the world" has been predicted by now. It’s usually just lazy reporters hyping things up because it's a long summer and they've run out of actual news to cover.

Jessica Miller51 said:If you start this thread again, I’ll give you a proper breakdown of what you mentioned, along with the much more immediate and terrifying threat facing our entire planet. And I’m talking science here, not some made-up nonsense. So, take a breath and stop panicking—your points have some merit, but don't fall for the sensationalist tabloid junk. You know how many times they've predicted the end of the world by now? It's just lazy journalism when summer drags on and there's nothing else happening; they just need filler.

🤦

Here’s some actual heavy reading for you, stuff that isn't pulled straight from the pages of Gloria:
http://news.mit.edu/2019/carbon-thre...tinction-0708?
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/...han-that.html?
http://theconversation.com/deep-sea-...n-again-113518
https://advances.sciencemag.org/cont.../e1603322.full
http://priceofoil.org/2019/07/10/sle...ss-extinction/
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6...mate-refugees/
http://climateguide.nl/2019/03/09/no...illion-people/
http://climateguide.nl/2019/03/16/th...e-middle-east/

As for that whole "lazy journalists during a slow summer" bit:
Scientists actually warned the U.S. President about global warming fifty years ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ears-ago-today
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/d...T.5.8153/full/

Maybe you want to explain ocean acidification to us? How it happens, and the havoc it wreaks on the entire planet? Honestly, my ears are practically bleeding. 🍿

Jessica Miller51 said:If you reopen this thread, I’ll write back to address what you mentioned—as well as the much closer, far more realistic threat facing our entire planet. This isn't speculation; it's the scientific perspective. So, calm down and don't panic—what you've brought up has merit, but let's not fall for journalistic sensationalism. You know as well as I do how many times they've predicted the end of the world? It's usually just clumsy reporters exaggerating because it's a long summer and there's nothing else to report.

I am not panicking—I became aware of certain realities a long time ago, things most people simply haven't grasped yet. This whole topic is grounded in science. The scientific view is as follows:

1. Above us sits a thick, enclosed dome without an exhaust valve (the atmosphere).
2. Due to mining and the combustion of raw materials for manufacturing, we are emitting massive amounts of CO2 that nature cannot absorb fast enough.
3. Consequently, CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising.
4. Because of Earth's daily, natural exposure to the sun, the chemical composition of the atmosphere—now bolstered by excessive CO2—causes the air inside the dome to heat up more intensely, which directly impacts our biosphere.
5. Days become hotter (and consequently, so do the nights); the soil warms up, glaciers melt, currents shift, and sea levels rise.
6. The oceans warm, which in turn warms the frozen ground beneath them—the permafrost. This releases methane (CH4) trapped since the glacial period—methane formed during the early stages of Earth's formation. Since methane is a far more potent gas than CO2, the warming ocean increases acidity, leading to the destruction of marine flora and fauna.
7. Wildfires break out (some potentially set for capitalist reasons); these fires cause increased CO2 emissions. The surrounding flora cannot absorb these abnormal amounts of CO2 and carbon monoxide (CO)—which is colorless and odorless, the same stuff that killed that Italian man the other day—so it escapes into the atmosphere. This leads to even greater warming due to the normal action of the sun, further heating the entire biosphere and releasing more CH4 trapped in the ice caps.
8. We are looking at an unstoppable chain reaction—though perhaps we can slow it down.
9. The consequence of all this is the extinction of various flora and fauna species—species that, potentially, are expanding through this event at every moment—unable to evolutionarily adapt to these new, sudden (and extremely hostile) conditions, including humanity itself.

I’m on the same page as velvetbear372 here, and I am all for moving this discussion over to a different thread and locking this one down tight.

Hey, great topic. 👍

You make some good points, but honestly, it feels like you’re chasing a fantasy. Gravity doesn't run this world; money does. That's the snag. No one in charge is going to ditch their profits just to save the planet. This whole anti-plastic hysteria? It's mostly just a trend. Here in the States, since 2020, they've been phasing out plastic bags, replacing them with these things that look like plastic but are supposedly biodegradable. Sure, sounds nice. But if they try to swap plastic "to go" bottles for heavy glass, sales will tank, and companies won't touch that. Greedy corporations—and let's face it, they all are—aren't going to gamble their survival for an eco-friendly gesture. What about credit cards? We all carry several, and they're plastic. What about computer cases, screens, or the million other things we use daily?

What really gets to me is the mindless waste. We consume stuff so fast that our poor planet can't even begin to replenish itself. People don't even care about the air they breathe anymore; they're too busy endangering the environment by cutting down 30 million acres of forest every year. Even a five-year-old knows plants make the oxygen we need. But apparently, it's more important to clear out half of the Brazilian rainforest for a quick buck. When people prioritize profit over the survival of future generations, those people don't stand a chance.

I won't get into the weeds regarding air quality unless you want a novel, but here are some shots from around the US:



Italy: https://nation.com.pk/print_images/m...35114-8172.jpg

China on a typical day:

Air pollution kills 600,000 kids every single year. Innocent people get sick with various cancers and die through no fault of their own.

The destruction of the ozone layer—something 90% of people don't even realize matters—is one of the biggest threats we face. The sun hits Earth with all sorts of radiation, including ultraviolet rays. There are different types: UVA, UVB, and UVC.
The bulk of UVC radiation is absorbed by the ozone layer (if there is one left).
UVB hits the surface of the skin and directly damages DNA, causing burns.
UVA penetrates deep into the skin, leading to DNA mutations, tanning, and destroying collagen, which makes skin lose its elasticity. It also spikes melanoma risks because of free radical buildup.

You can see the differences here: https://suntribesunscreen.com/wp-con...7nnaupzx44.jpg

Now, about our planet's resources:
From an economic standpoint, humanity has been running a deficit since "Earth Day," because we've already burned through the entire year's worth of resources and have to borrow from the future. This state is called "Overshoot."

The Earth Day concept measures human demand against the global supply of natural resources and ecological capacity. Right now, after only seven months, we've already exhausted all renewable resources that should last at least a full year. We use economic terms like this so that regular people, not just scientists, can wrap their heads around it. Our lifestyle has pushed the planet past its breaking point. Every year, "Overshoot Day" moves earlier. That means we're exhausting the planet's annual budget sooner and sooner. This year, it hit on July 30th. Since then, we've been living on credit, overusing everything the Earth provides.

Here’s a breakdown of the dates and our consumption of Earth's resources over the last few decades:
Back in 1961, our annual consumption sat at just 0.73. That meant we actually had some breathing room left. We still had reserves.
Back on December 21, 1971, our consumption hit 1.01. That was the tipping point. It means we started burning through resources faster than Earth can actually replenish them in a year.
Consumption is just going to keep climbing next year. It's on an upward trajectory.
By December 19, 1987, we had already burned through all our available resources. For the rest of that year, we were consuming way faster than Earth could actually replenish itself.
Back on December 7, 1990, we blew through our entire budget of resources. By the end of that year, we were already spending faster than Earth could ever hope to replenish itself.
By November 21, 1995, we had already burned through all our available resources. By the end of that year, we were consuming way more than Earth could actually replenish.
By November 1, 2000, we had already burned through all our available resources. By the end of that year, we were consuming way more than Earth could actually replenish.
By October 20, 2005, we had already burned through all our available resources. By the end of that year, we were consuming way more than Earth could actually replenish.
Back on October 26, 2007, we hit the limit. By the end of that year, we were burning through resources faster than Earth could ever hope to replenish them.
By September 23, 2008, we had already burned through all our available resources. From that point until the end of the year, we were living way beyond our means, consuming far more than Earth can actually replenish.
By September 25, 2009, we had already burned through all our available resources. From then until the end of the year, we were basically spending way more than Earth could actually replenish.
Back on August 21, 2010, we officially burned through all our resources. From that point until the end of the year, we were essentially spending way more than Earth can actually replenish.
Back on August 27, 2011, we officially burned through all our available resources. From that point until the end of the year, we were basically living on credit, consuming way more than Earth can actually replenish.
Back on August 22, 2012, we officially burned through all our available resources. From that point until the end of the year, we were essentially living on credit, consuming way faster than Earth can actually replenish itself.
Back on August 20, 2013, we officially burned through all our available resources. From that point until the end of the year, we were basically spending way faster than Earth could ever hope to replenish.
Back on August 19, 2014, we officially burned through all our resources. From that point until the end of the year, we were living on borrowed time, consuming way more than Earth can actually replenish.
Back on August 13, 2015, we officially burned through all our available resources. From that point until the end of the year, we were basically living on credit, consuming way faster than Earth can actually replenish itself.
Back on August 3, 2016, we officially burned through everything we had. From that point on, we were just living on credit—consuming way faster than Earth can actually replenish itself.
By August 2, 2017, we had already burned through everything we were supposed to have. From that point until the end of the year, we were just living on credit—consuming way faster than Earth can actually replenish itself.
By July 29, 2018, we had already burned through all our available resources. From that point until the end of the year, we were living way beyond what Earth can actually replenish.
By July 30, 2019, we had already burned through all our available resources. From that point until the end of the year, we were consuming way more than Earth can actually replenish.

Here’s how the "Overshoot Day" numbers looked across various countries back in 2019: [Link to an image regarding Earth Day]
Look at the numbers. By April 27th this year, the US had already burned through its entire annual supply of resources. Everything we consume from that point until the end of the year is basically living on credit—we're just overdrawing our planetary account. The only reason the rest of the world manages to hold out until late July is because those economies aren't strong enough to keep up with our pace. If they were, we would have tapped out everything we own by now. Here in America, we're constantly pulling more from nature than we actually possess. Back in 2010, we used up 43% more farmland than what’s actually available in the US. That's the real cost of our lifestyle: we're cannibalizing other parts of the world just to keep things running.

Space threats. Where exactly are we right now? For the moment, we’re sitting ducks.
Here’s another way humanity could go extinct, and politicians everywhere just ignore it: asteroid impacts. Every year, chunks of rock—big and small—zip past Earth. So far, we’ve been lucky. We haven't taken a direct hit yet. Organizations like NASA have specialized observatories trying to spot these space rocks before they become problems. But looking at the data from recent years, I've noticed a pattern. Even with all our radar, telescopes, and high-tech gear, these things slip through the cracks more often than they should. We’ve dodged bullets because of luck and the way planetary gravity works, but scientists are unanimous on one thing: it’s only a matter of time before a rock hits us, and that would end civilization as we know it. Then there's the solar stuff. A single massive solar flare could wipe out our satellite communications. If that happens, everything goes dark—banking systems, power grids, essential electronic comms. Total chaos. Astronomers have been shouting about these threats for decades, pushing for ways to shield the planet, but nobody wants to foot the bill. There are plenty of theories and defense projects on paper, but no government wants to actually invest the cash into planetary defense. The scary part? An observatory might spot an object heading straight for us, and by then, it'll be too late. We are completely defenseless. We have zero protection. To actually secure the planet, every nation would need to work together, and looking at the state of the world right now, that's a pipe dream.

Look, scientists aren't out there shouting about this just to freak everyone out. They’re trying to raise a collective awareness that’s currently sitting well below zero. It's pathetic, really, because we're basically architecting our own downfall by wrecking the planet we live on. Personally, I don't see a clear way out right now, and I certainly don't give a damn about the media circus surrounding people like Greta. But the problems are real. That's just a fact.

Just realized this thread hasn't been moved yet.... 🤦 My bad... Thought it was posted in the wrong section... 😵

I honestly don't even know how to approach you people regarding this issue... you just don't get it. You write things like that without realizing 🤦 I feel completely helpless.

This isn't my main point, and I'm not here to argue—I just want to bring focus back to the core issue. Look. Space threats are real, obviously, but they are statistically laughable. The idea of something over a kilometer wide hitting Earth—which would cause damage on a scale comparable to all of Europe and deliver an impact equivalent to 80,000 megatons (that’s 16 times our current global nuclear arsenal) and trigger a nuclear winter leading to hundreds of millions of deaths—is such a remote possibility. An asteroid like that only hits us once every 250,000 years on average. For an object to actually wipe out most species, we're talking about a diameter of at least 5 kilometers with an energy of 80 million megatons; those kinds of collisions are billion-to-one shots. It’s essentially a niche interest for bored astrophysicists—people who, mind you, know exactly what I'm saying. The only actual danger is a few-hundred-meter rock coming from the direction of the sun, where we can't spot it in time, but even those odds are tiny. Besides, there are 700,000 recorded asteroids larger than a kilometer orbiting the sun in the belt between Mars and Jupiter, none of which will hit us, along with millions of smaller ones hitting the planet constantly. These "extinction" threats are basically science fiction. And even if a cataclysmic asteroid did strike, at least we’d know there was nothing we could do. My topic is about something happening right now—something you can grasp through simple logic based on what's described here: Reddit thread that discussion is about something tangible, something you can actually feel on your skin this very second. It's something we can influence, act upon, or mitigate—essentially slowing down the process. We are trapped in a sealed pressure cooker and we're boiling; I don't see how that isn't clear.

Feeling helpless? And you think reopening this whole topic suddenly turns you into Superman, Trump, or some male version of Merkel?

What would this "debate"—between people who haven't actually accomplished anything on some obscure internet forum—even do for the "greater good"?

What, are you going to suggest we slaughter all the cattle again, or start sorting recycling and other nonsense? As if we haven't heard that a billion times from a billion different sources. Nobody has done a damn thing so far, but I guess now it matters because velvetbear372 from that Reddit thread is going to boldly repeat it all? 🤦

Man, if you actually want someone to notice you, why the hell are you rambling on a forum? It’s pretty easy to go viral these days.

Just grab a sign, a megaphone, stand in the middle of Times Square, and start blathering everything you say here. As someone in journalism, I guarantee you'll end up on every news site, and probably even on a local commercial news broadcast.

velvetbear372 said:I don't even know how to talk to you people about this... you just don't get it. You type this stuff out and it doesn't even register. 🤦I feel completely helpless.

I'm not trying to derail things or start a debate here; I just want to bring the focus back to my main point. Look. Space threats are a joke. Sure, they exist, but they're ridiculous. The idea of something over a kilometer wide hitting Earth—causing damage on a scale comparable to all of Europe, an impact equivalent to 80,000 megatons, which is basically 16 times our entire current global nuclear arsenal, triggering a nuclear winter and killing hundreds of millions—that possibility is tiny. An asteroid like that hits us once every 250,000 years on average. For something to actually wipe out most species, you'd need an asteroid at least 5 kilometers wide with an 80-million-megaton punch. Those won't hit Earth; the odds of that alignment are one in a billion. This isn't even related to my point. It's just a hobby for bored astrophysicists, and they know exactly what I'm talking about. The only real headache would be a few-hundred-meter rock coming from the direction of the sun where we can't see it in time, but even those odds are slim. Besides, there are 700,000 recorded asteroids larger than a kilometer orbiting the sun in the belt between Mars and Jupiter, and none of them are hitting us. Millions of smaller ones hit Earth all the time. These "threats" are practically science fiction. And even if a cataclysmic asteroid did hit, at least we’d know there was nothing we could do. My topic is about something happening right now that you can grasp with simple logic; Reddit thread that discussion is about something real, something you can actually feel on your skin right now, something we can change, act on, or at least slow down. We're sitting in a closed, fireproof pot and we're boiling. What part of that don't you understand?

What I was trying to tell you is that there isn't just one danger you're looking at. There are plenty of other threats that are way more real for our planet, and you aren't even aware of them. What's the point of fighting for the environment if a rock from space smashes into your head tomorrow and the whole planet goes to hell? Get it? Anyway, I won't nag you anymore since this isn't the topic. I feel awkward having typed out all these lines when the thread is supposed to be about complaints and comments. I guess I'm just blind. 🤦

Paul Scott4 said:Are you feeling powerless? Does reopening this whole topic suddenly make you feel like you've become Superman, Trump, or some male version of Merkel?

What would this "debate" between people who haven't actually accomplished anything on some obscure internet forum even mean for the "greater good of the community" anyway?!

What, are you going to suggest we slaughter all the cows again, or talk about sorting recycling and other nonsense, as if we haven't heard that exact same thing a billion times from a billion different sources? Nobody has moved a single muscle so far, but now suddenly everyone cares just because some velvetbear372 from a Reddit thread bolded it? 🤦

Man, if you really want someone to notice you, why on earth are you rambling away on a forum? It’s so easy to go viral these days!

Just grab a sign, a megaphone, stand in the middle of a busy town square, and start shouting everything you're blathering about here. As someone working in journalism, I guarantee you'll end up on every news site out there, and probably even on some major commercial TV news stations too!

Exactly. Stepping away from the forums is always a productive move 🙂

And as for the forums themselves, why don't you just start a new thread wherever you actually want to talk and maybe drop a link to this locked one, instead of all this drama and begging?

Because I want to point out where things went wrong. It’s significant—really—that this specific thread was moved and locked. Of course, I could just open an identical one this very second, but there are certain principles to follow.

Can we move this topic over to the "Alternatives" subforum?

Harold Evans4 said:Suggestion to move this topic over to the "Alternatives" sub-forum.

There isn't even a theoretical chance of that happening. Where do you even get the authority to say something like that without providing any actual elaboration?

Good grief. My thread is backed by pure science.

So, let me get this straight—one of your moderators is denying global warming. Just wonderful.

velvetbear372 said:There isn't even a theoretical chance. Since when do you get to say stuff like that without actually explaining yourself?

Give me a break. My whole thread is backed by actual science.

So, basically, one of you moderators is out here denying global warming. Just great.

You're freaking out. Same as usual, whether it's here or on that other thread. Not to mention how this whole discussion is sliding straight into pseudoscience, which is pretty obvious right now.
And what does recycling even have to do with global warming? Someone brought that up right at the start.

Not to mention how ugly this debate is getting because the second someone disagrees with you or denies one of your points, you just start attacking and insulting people. Where exactly did I deny global warming?

Harold Evans4 said:You're being hysterical—both here and regarding the topic at hand. Not to mention how this discussion is sliding toward pseudoscience, which is clearly visible right here.
What does recycling have to do with global warming? Someone brought that up right from the start.

Not to mention how ugly this debate has become—the moment someone denies or disagrees with one of your points, you resort to attacks and insults. Where exactly did I deny global warming?

So, anything that doesn't align with your specific worldview is automatically labeled "hysterical"? I'll admit—the idea of humanity's end sounds hysterical—but reaching such a conclusion based on science is just devastating.

Recycling is pseudoscience? What connection does recycling have to global warming? Seriously? Well, it matters because if we recycle existing materials, we won't need to clear-cut forests (which absorb CO2) just to produce more paper.

You denied it by trying to dismiss this entire subject as some fringe conspiracy theory.

I suggest you go back and re-read post #25.

Do you want me to paste climate models here? Within the next 20 years, the Arctic ice cap will vanish, releasing massive amounts of methane into the atmosphere. When methane oxidizes, it's 80 times more potent than a CO2 molecule. All of it stays trapped in the atmosphere. We'll see flowers blooming across all of Greenland. 😍 We’ll be seeing hurricanes in parts of the planet that are currently frozen. Iceland, Ireland, and England will eventually look like the new New Orleans or Miami. By the end of this century, people won't even be able to walk down a standard street—San Diego will essentially become Venice.

Are you going to ask me next what renewable energy has to do with global warming? Or insulation for houses? Passive houses? Automation? And then ecology?

You just love twisting people's words and spinning them to fit whatever narrative you've got going on, don't you?

velvetbear372 said:So, if something doesn't line up with what you think you know, it’s automatically labeled as hysteria? Please. I'll admit, talking about the end of humanity sounds hysterical, but reaching that conclusion based on actual science? That's just terrifying.

Look, I'm not being hysterical just because this doesn't fit my worldview. It’s about how you actually laid it out. It's the way you're talking—specifically your choice of words and how you're presenting things. That's where the problem is.

velvetbear372 said:Is recycling just some kind of fake science? Seriously, what does recycling even have to do with global warming? A lot? Please. There’s actually a massive connection: if you recycle, you aren't out there cutting down forests—which are busy soaking up all that CO2—just to manufacture more paper when you could be using what's already been made.

Look, I never said recycling was pseudoscience. That’s the whole point—I put a line break right after my first statement before even mentioning recycling. You’re either reading too fast or you're just twisting my words on purpose. Which one is it?
Look, I'm not saying we shouldn't recycle. It’s not that deep. Recycling is mostly just useful for making other stuff, right? As for how much it actually helps stop global warming... who knows? Honestly, trying to pin down an exact percentage of its impact feels impossible, but most estimates suggest it doesn't move the needle all that much. I don't get why everyone starts screaming about recycling the second someone mentions global warming. Like, calm down.

velvetbear372 said:You basically shut him down just so you could pivot this whole thing into a PDF alternative. Seriously?

Wrong again. You're totally misreading me. I only said that because I saw the way you guys were arguing and the kind of "scientific" articles people were actually tossing around here. Seriously?

Maybe chill out with the drama just a little bit? If you actually want people to take you seriously, you gotta tone it down. Right now, you sound like some clickbait trash from a tabloid.

Quorgyle As requested:
You love twisting people's words—reinterpreting everything just to suit your own narrative.

I don't like it—and I never do. Perhaps you should put a bit more effort into how you structure your posts?

It isn't about hysteria—it’s not that this "contradicts my understanding" or whatever—but rather the way you presented it. It's the delivery—your specific choice of words and how you communicate—that creates the issue.

As you can see—it really comes down to the individual.

I didn't say recycling was pseudoscience—not once. That’s exactly why I put a line break after my first statement before bringing up the recycling point. You're either misreading me or being intentionally obtuse.

No—honestly, even if you're positioning yourself as an authority, your sentence structure is incredibly poor.

I'm not suggesting we should stop recycling altogether. It’s just that recycling often serves purposes other than what people assume. I don't know the exact percentage of how much it actually helps mitigate global warming—honestly, getting an airtight figure on that seems impossible—but most estimates suggest its impact isn't nearly as massive as people claim. I don't quite understand why everyone immediately jumps to recycling as the primary solution the moment global warming is mentioned.

If you’re defining "packaging" as glass bottles—then absolutely. It serves a noble purpose by driving cost savings and boosting capital efficiency—preventing the wasteful diversion of resources just to recreate products that already exist. Beyond being a legitimate industry, recycling is a fundamentally more ecological endeavor. While paper recycling accounts for a smaller portion of the equation, its contribution to reducing CO2 emissions is still significant—but when you look at other materials, the impact becomes truly substantial.

Once again—you’ve completely misread me. I only said that because I was watching how this discussion is unfolding and seeing the specific kind of "scientific" articles certain people are throwing around here.

You don't need to offer me apologies for what you've written—instead, try structuring your thoughts before hitting post. That way, you might avoid my misinterpretations, or anyone else's, for that matter.

I don't see an issue with any of the article links being posted in this thread. There’s a clear distinction between a link to a peer-reviewed scientific paper and a link to a media report—the latter is perfectly fine, provided it includes solid references. Actually, they're welcome here—though, perhaps regarding that one involving the remains, those tend to get flagged or deleted quickly if the moderation isn't tight.

Maybe you should dial back the intensity a bit—people might actually take you seriously if you did. Right now, you're coming off like just another sensationalist headline from TMZ.

My frustration levels are hitting just above the threshold—mostly because this thread has been shut down twice now, which is incredibly aggravating. This matters. It really does. Even if I sound like I'm writing a clickbait headline for a tabloid like the New York Post, the point remains valid.

Perhaps we could get our colleague z_k to join the discussion?