So you're saying it was done so they can beg for funds to do the "real" study.
You can manipulate statistics to show a link between just about any pair of variables. Massage this. Try a dozen different formulas to calculate significance. And tada! You have the link you were digging for.
The article I read about this study this morning stated: "But after accounting for all lifestyle factors, the researchers found the link to dementia was statistically insignificant." Despite their best efforts, I'm sure. Yet the clickbait headline and lead still blare out "dementia!!"
Well, when the 10th person is China, who has no inclination to stop spewing CO2 no matter what, what option is there other than adapt? Nuke China?
The USA is doing admirably in reducing CO2 emissions (thanks in good part to fracking). Any government-induced suffering to reduce it further, when we know for a fact that said efforts will pale in comparison to the increases of other global actors, is idiotic.
One of the reason why coal is dying as an industry, and will continue to do so not matter what the Trump Administration does, is that natural gas is inexpensive and natural gas plants are replacing coal plants.
Look at that - free-market forces doing good for the environment! Fracking is probably the most environmentally beneficial advancement of the last 50 years, and it was entirely driven by private forces. Used to be the natural gas trapped in shale was too expensive to harvest to be viable. Then fracking was perfected. Now it's a boon of unparalleled cleaner energy.
Private industry will do the same for solar and wind, if solar and wind can be developed in such a way that it's cost effective. The government needs not lift a finger, especially with the way it's proven to be almost entirely corrupt when it does.
His point was that the government need not be the primary driver in this change. If solar/wind are viable, then private industry, driven by concerned environmentalists, are absolutely free to go out and change the way we generate power. Our electric companies aren't owned and run by the government.
No carbon cap plan caps CO2 enough to make anything but a negligible impact. It'll cost a trillion dollars to curb.1 of a degree. I read somewhere that if we stopped all fossil fuel extraction TODAY and just burned what we already had on-hand, we'd still not reduce CO2 enough to make an impact. No plan is viable to the task at hand.
Our only option is to adapt to the inevitable change.
Well, the Republicans control Congress and the purse strings, so you tell me who's responsible? We had surpluses under Clinton. As soon as Bush took office, that changed quickly.
We had surpluses under Clinton up until the dot.com bubble burst. The government ran deficits the last three years Clinton was in office. The projections of surpluses going on forever were all based on fantasy.
There's not enough nuclear fuel to do that. We have enough uranium for 200 years at CURRENT consumption rates. If you build 10 times the current number of nuclear plants, you'll only have 20 years worth of fuel.
Nationwide, law enforcement made an estimated 12,196,959 arrests in 2012.
So out of 12 million arrests, there were 602 suspects killed (statistics from Wikipedia). That a 1-in-20,000 "failure" rate. Sure, we'd prefer a perfect performance by our law enforcement officers, but given that I'm sure many of those 602 suspects engaged in life-threatening resistance, 1-in-20,000 isn't all that bad. I'd conclude the training is pretty effective.
Isn't every crime involving a firearm in the US already punished with far more severe penalties than crimes without? Doesn't seem like that's been a very effective disincentive.
In this case, there should also be mandatory training for officers on how to deal with people who don't immediately comply.
Police certainly complete many hours of training in "how to deal with people who don't immediately comply." I'd hazard to guess that subject comprises the majority of their mandatory training.
So you're seriously going with "some scientist in 1978 warned Exxon that sometime in the upcoming CENTURY there will be an increase in CO2 that'll have a major impact on core business"? OK then...
I never said I thought it was impossible to screw with the climate. It'd be easy. Want a temperature decrease? Drop a few nukes in Siberia. That'd throw a ton of matter into the atmosphere, causing dramatic global cooling. Sure there'd be radiation poisoning to those who lived around there and global famine, but we'd solve that whole global warming thing for a few decades.
Bad solution there. But it would ACTUALLY have a significant cooling impact on global temps.
Switching to windmills (which have a huge carbon footprint in their manufacture) and solar (ditto, plus the whole poisoning China thing with harvesting rare earths) won't have any significant cooling impact, ever. Those "solutions" are bunk. Better to go whole-hog on fracking - natural gas burns much cleaner with minimal environmental negatives compared to its energy density. But then the same people who cry "global warming" cry "no fracking." The perfect is the enemy of the good.
In the end, I have faith in the species to adapt or to invent technologies that actually will be helpful. We're not there yet. Band-aid solutions in the short term are meaningless. So are gotcha-type articles about Exxon.
So then the article is effectively meaningless. It's about as damning of Exxon as if some scientist for them had predicted within 5 or 10 years pigs might sprout wings and fly to adapt to increases in atmospheric CO2.
It's silly to be fanatical when there are no viable solutions. Even the most extreme proposals to cut CO2 would have an impact of around 1/10th of a degree temperature reduction. It's laughable. The second someone comes up with an effective, viable solution to drop 2 degrees, I'm on board.
"Still might come to pass" in 2050 is far different than "5 to 10 years" from 1978. But keep moving the goal posts and you may eventually figure out a way to prove them right.
There hasn't been the "major impact on the company’s core business" that the scientist warned. It's #2 on the Fortune 500. So the scientist was wrong. Unless you're going to try to argue that some scientist in 1978 was predicting the doom of Exxon more than 5 decades in the future. That's ludicrous.
So it looks like scientists have been wrong about their global warming predictions going on four decades. Or did I miss the great, impactful Exxon global warming crash of 1988?
Or you can set up your own, as I and the members of the Pennsylvania Star Wars Collecting Society have done. Through our 501c3 we choose a local charity each year and conduct a fundraiser.
I agree, pretty much. I think she'll get backers that keep her relevant because the money understands there's an advantage to having a woman in the primary who can take shots at Hillary without getting slammed as sexist. I doubt she'll get on the ticket as VP, and I doubt she's vying for that role.
I also agree Walker looks like the front runner. He's still developing, but he starts from a very strong position. If he can avoid any major flubs that the media can run with, he has a real shot.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying it was done so they can beg for funds to do the "real" study.
You can manipulate statistics to show a link between just about any pair of variables. Massage this. Try a dozen different formulas to calculate significance. And tada! You have the link you were digging for.
The article I read about this study this morning stated: "But after accounting for all lifestyle factors, the researchers found the link to dementia was statistically insignificant." Despite their best efforts, I'm sure. Yet the clickbait headline and lead still blare out "dementia!!"
Well, when the 10th person is China, who has no inclination to stop spewing CO2 no matter what, what option is there other than adapt? Nuke China?
The USA is doing admirably in reducing CO2 emissions (thanks in good part to fracking). Any government-induced suffering to reduce it further, when we know for a fact that said efforts will pale in comparison to the increases of other global actors, is idiotic.
One of the reason why coal is dying as an industry, and will continue to do so not matter what the Trump Administration does, is that natural gas is inexpensive and natural gas plants are replacing coal plants.
Look at that - free-market forces doing good for the environment! Fracking is probably the most environmentally beneficial advancement of the last 50 years, and it was entirely driven by private forces. Used to be the natural gas trapped in shale was too expensive to harvest to be viable. Then fracking was perfected. Now it's a boon of unparalleled cleaner energy.
Private industry will do the same for solar and wind, if solar and wind can be developed in such a way that it's cost effective. The government needs not lift a finger, especially with the way it's proven to be almost entirely corrupt when it does.
His point was that the government need not be the primary driver in this change. If solar/wind are viable, then private industry, driven by concerned environmentalists, are absolutely free to go out and change the way we generate power. Our electric companies aren't owned and run by the government.
Yes - because socialists have an impeccable record of fixing things.
No carbon cap plan caps CO2 enough to make anything but a negligible impact. It'll cost a trillion dollars to curb .1 of a degree. I read somewhere that if we stopped all fossil fuel extraction TODAY and just burned what we already had on-hand, we'd still not reduce CO2 enough to make an impact. No plan is viable to the task at hand.
Our only option is to adapt to the inevitable change.
"Fewer People Are Dying of Cancer Than Ever Before"
I'd hazard to posit that fewer people died of cancer in the ancient Mesopotamian era than died in 2016.
What's another $7.7 billion in debt?
Well, the Republicans control Congress and the purse strings, so you tell me who's responsible? We had surpluses under Clinton. As soon as Bush took office, that changed quickly.
We had surpluses under Clinton up until the dot.com bubble burst. The government ran deficits the last three years Clinton was in office. The projections of surpluses going on forever were all based on fantasy.
There's not enough nuclear fuel to do that. We have enough uranium for 200 years at CURRENT consumption rates. If you build 10 times the current number of nuclear plants, you'll only have 20 years worth of fuel.
http://www.scientificamerican....
It would require other mystical technological advancements for all-nuclear to be a viable option.
Rotten Tomatoes is the gold standard for movie quality measurement. Accept no substitutes.
Seriously, if someone is relying on Fandango to tell them if a movie is any good, they deserve to watch dreck.
From FBI statistics:
Nationwide, law enforcement made an estimated 12,196,959 arrests in 2012.
So out of 12 million arrests, there were 602 suspects killed (statistics from Wikipedia). That a 1-in-20,000 "failure" rate. Sure, we'd prefer a perfect performance by our law enforcement officers, but given that I'm sure many of those 602 suspects engaged in life-threatening resistance, 1-in-20,000 isn't all that bad. I'd conclude the training is pretty effective.
Isn't every crime involving a firearm in the US already punished with far more severe penalties than crimes without? Doesn't seem like that's been a very effective disincentive.
In this case, there should also be mandatory training for officers on how to deal with people who don't immediately comply.
Police certainly complete many hours of training in "how to deal with people who don't immediately comply." I'd hazard to guess that subject comprises the majority of their mandatory training.
When your model for fighting back is Sisyphus... yup!
So you're seriously going with "some scientist in 1978 warned Exxon that sometime in the upcoming CENTURY there will be an increase in CO2 that'll have a major impact on core business"? OK then...
I never said I thought it was impossible to screw with the climate. It'd be easy. Want a temperature decrease? Drop a few nukes in Siberia. That'd throw a ton of matter into the atmosphere, causing dramatic global cooling. Sure there'd be radiation poisoning to those who lived around there and global famine, but we'd solve that whole global warming thing for a few decades.
Bad solution there. But it would ACTUALLY have a significant cooling impact on global temps.
Switching to windmills (which have a huge carbon footprint in their manufacture) and solar (ditto, plus the whole poisoning China thing with harvesting rare earths) won't have any significant cooling impact, ever. Those "solutions" are bunk. Better to go whole-hog on fracking - natural gas burns much cleaner with minimal environmental negatives compared to its energy density. But then the same people who cry "global warming" cry "no fracking." The perfect is the enemy of the good.
In the end, I have faith in the species to adapt or to invent technologies that actually will be helpful. We're not there yet. Band-aid solutions in the short term are meaningless. So are gotcha-type articles about Exxon.
Where am I wrong?
So then the article is effectively meaningless. It's about as damning of Exxon as if some scientist for them had predicted within 5 or 10 years pigs might sprout wings and fly to adapt to increases in atmospheric CO2.
It's silly to be fanatical when there are no viable solutions. Even the most extreme proposals to cut CO2 would have an impact of around 1/10th of a degree temperature reduction. It's laughable. The second someone comes up with an effective, viable solution to drop 2 degrees, I'm on board.
"Still might come to pass" in 2050 is far different than "5 to 10 years" from 1978. But keep moving the goal posts and you may eventually figure out a way to prove them right.
There hasn't been the "major impact on the company’s core business" that the scientist warned. It's #2 on the Fortune 500. So the scientist was wrong. Unless you're going to try to argue that some scientist in 1978 was predicting the doom of Exxon more than 5 decades in the future. That's ludicrous.
So it looks like scientists have been wrong about their global warming predictions going on four decades. Or did I miss the great, impactful Exxon global warming crash of 1988?
Or you can set up your own, as I and the members of the Pennsylvania Star Wars Collecting Society have done. Through our 501c3 we choose a local charity each year and conduct a fundraiser.
http://pswcs.com/charity.cfm
I agree, pretty much. I think she'll get backers that keep her relevant because the money understands there's an advantage to having a woman in the primary who can take shots at Hillary without getting slammed as sexist. I doubt she'll get on the ticket as VP, and I doubt she's vying for that role.
I also agree Walker looks like the front runner. He's still developing, but he starts from a very strong position. If he can avoid any major flubs that the media can run with, he has a real shot.