The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
and its ability to respirate carbon that's why there's CO2 in the atmosphere and so this whole kind of politicized story of you know greenhouse gases and it's because we're burning fossil fuels is actually profoundly inaccurate in fact I think very dangerous to our future because it's it's externalizing the problem to a human behavior when in fact it's a biologic behavior of the planet itself that's leading to the accumulation of
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.