Cancelling mRNA studies is the highest irresponsibility

[John Clark]

The following editorial is from the August 15, 2025 issue of the journal Nature:

Cancelling mRNA studies is the highest irresponsibility

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

bba

[Alan Grayson]

On a par with that is the cancelling of tax credits for installations of solar panels at domestic residences. Trump also trashed off-shore wind energy projects, and possibly those on land as well. I read of huge technical improvements on windmill efficiencies, but since they tend to kill birds -- which is what's alleged -- I am less enthusiastic of windmill technology.  AG  

ba

[John Clark]

On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 10:28 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> The following editorial is from the August 15, 2025 issue of the journal Nature:

Cancelling mRNA studies is the highest irresponsibility

> On a par with that is the cancelling of tax credits for installations of solar panels at domestic residences. Trump also trashed off-shore wind energy projects, and possibly those on land as well.

Trump also slashed the budget of the National Science Foundation, the only part of the federal government engaged in pure scientific research, by 50%. And Trump has also caused a reverse brain drain, hundreds of thousands of brilliant foreign born scientists are leaving the country. But Trump is going to spend $200 million on the White House ballroom because currently it's just not pretentious enough, it needs more gaudy gold embellishments.

> I read of huge technical improvements on windmill efficiencies, but since they tend to kill birds -- which is what's alleged

Trump also believes that windmills kill whales, I have no idea how he got that screwy idea but I do know the reason Trump hates windmills and it has nothing to do with birds or whales, it's because he thinks one of them was ugly and interfered with the view from one of his stupid golf courses.

Trump’s war on windmills started in Scotland. Now he’s taking it global

 

> I am less enthusiastic of windmill technology.  AG  

Windmills really can kill birds, but if you intend to solve the global warming problem and still provide enough energy to keep 8 billion people on the planet alive, and maybe even happy, then it's just a fact of life that some of those solutions are going to be messy. Or to put it another way, you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.   

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

bse

 

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, August 20, 2025 at 5:29:52 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 10:28 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> The following editorial is from the August 15, 2025 issue of the journal Nature:

Cancelling mRNA studies is the highest irresponsibility

> On a par with that is the cancelling of tax credits for installations of solar panels at domestic residences. Trump also trashed off-shore wind energy projects, and possibly those on land as well.

Trump also slashed the budget of the National Science Foundation, the only part of the federal government engaged in pure scientific research, by 50%. And Trump has also caused a reverse brain drain, hundreds of thousands of brilliant foreign born scientists are leaving the country. But Trump is going to spend $200 million on the White House ballroom because currently it's just not pretentious enough, it needs more gaudy gold embellishments.

> I read of huge technical improvements on windmill efficiencies, but since they tend to kill birds -- which is what's alleged

Trump also believes that windmills kill whales,

He probably got that idea from some adverse event with whales near offshore wind farms. In any event, the main problem is methane being released by melting permafrost. Methane is 25 times more effective at causing global warming than CO2,  and there's no plan, or even concepts, to contain it. Humanity may already be "the walking dead". AG

[Brent Meeker]

On 8/20/2025 4:29 AM, John Clark wrote:

Windmills really can kill birds, but if you intend to solve the global warming problem and still provide enough energy to keep 8 billion people on the planet alive, and maybe even happy, then it's just a fact of life that some of those solutions are going to be messy.

My father used to tell me about when he was a boy and rural electrification came to Texas.  Birds would fly into the wires and get a broken wing.  He could find doves, which are good eating, lying along the road.  Didn't happen when I was a boy.  The birds learned.

Brent

[Brent Meeker]

On 8/20/2025 8:10 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

In any event, the main problem is methane being released by melting permafrost. Methane is 25 times more effective at causing global warming than CO2,  and there's no plan, or even concepts, to contain it.

The half-life of methane in the atmosphere is 12ys.  CO2 in the atmosphere has no well defined half-life but a sizable fraction is expected to persist for several hundred up to a thousand years.  That's why methane is not the problem.

Brent