So PA is making a mistake because the boom from Fracking may only last a decade or two? Isn't that like feeling sorry for someone because their massive lottery payments only run 30 years and then they'll have no income?
According to TFA: "more than one billion aquatic organisms" are killed annually by NY's Indian Point plant.
No definition of what they mean by "aquatic organism" is given. Blue whales? Minnows? Paramecium?
I stopped reading as soon as I read that. When they throw around terms like "one billion aquatic organisms" without defining the organisms you know it's for effect instead of for truth and thus a hack job instead of real science.
> So with intelligent Farming, and growing crops actually suited to the region, water usage can be minimized.
Actually, it's NOT intelligent to use less water if water is cheap and plentiful enough that it costs less than, say, adding drip irrigation. Your goods will cost more and you'll have a hard time making a living compared to the really intelligent person.
The profit motive is much derided, but at it's root it's about the efficient use of resources. Farmers SHOULDN'T move to a new system until they have "a sword hanging [over their] head" as it will destroy wealth by using resources inefficiently.
In a case where government believes a market failure has occurred (such as a tragedy of the commons situation with aquifers) they need to raise the prices artificially (usually via taxes) or subsidize other behavior (like they did with you) and to make, for instance, saving water the "intelligent" thing to do.
For an extreme example, in the Panama canal zone it's rains a tremendous amount and the problem is usually how to get rid of excess water. Fresh water there is insanely cheap and in the occasional dry spell using drip irrigation to water the crops would be wasteful as the drip system could have been used somewhere that needs it.
So the Headline is "...NOT the sun!". Then the post and the article go to length caveating the heck out it with "may" and "probably". That kind of mismatch immediately let's you know the post isn't about the science, it's about the politics.
to judge people from a different age. Values change over time. Would it be just to posthumously find Thomas Jefferson guilty of slavery when it was legal in his time?
There's probably something each of us is doing today that in 100 years will be looked back on as a hideous crime (keeping pets? Scolding our kids?) and there are things we consider crimes now that in 100 years they won't believe anyone was ever so primitive as to believe it's a crime (drug use? Assisted suicide?).
According to Wikipedia TCDD is of questionable toxicity even at "huge doses". So if it's the most toxic thing in the mix this lawsuit is bunk.
"Unequivocal evidence of the toxic effects on dioxins on human beings have been shown by surprisingly few studies. The best proven is chloracne.[1] Even in poisonings with huge doses of TCDD, the only persistent effects after the initial malaise have been chloracne and amenorrhea."
Exactly. Size doesn't matter. It's all about penetration power. I'm still not sure if our penetration power is actually lacking or if the military is just overcompensating.
RTFA. The scientists agree that there's been warming. The main thing they say is that the climate benefits of massive curbing of CO2 emissions aren't worth the substantial costs.
I was looking up today and say a bunny, a turtle and and man's face! That's WAY better evidence of life than " 'disk,' a 'black flap' and a 'scorpion'".
I was going to comment about how "some people say" there's a problem isn't worthwhile listening to unless they are experts with evidence.
But since it's Airbus and not Boeing (yes, I'm a Yank) I agree it's catastrophic and all flights should be grounded immediately. How dare they play with people's lives this way?
I always become concerned about the objectivity of something when I see statistics like this: "In terms of federal research, in 1980 the federal government provided about 70% of all dollars spent on basic research, but since then the government's share of basic research funding given to all entities has fallen to 57%."
That's pretty meaningless. the government could be giving 300% more than before but private entities are giving so much more it erodes the government's percent share.
I'd take this report with a HUGE grain of salt.
No, no, no! Organic is NOT better for the environment. The manure used to fertilize the crops makes it take twice as much land to produce than food grown with modern techniques. This doubled land use is a disaster for the environment where every acre we can leave in as natural a state as possible matters. If everyone in the world only ate "organic" then all the rain forest (and all other forests) would have to be razed to provide enough land.
Yes, organic farms have less groundwater contamination and less pesticide run off but it's a myth that they are better for the environment.
This would be like if there was a plane crash in the Andes and someone made a big deal that they dodged a bullet because they had once mentioned maybe going to Chile sometime. It's a mammoth jump from one to the next.
In the course of conversation even among senior execs they talk about buying THOUSANDS of companies. Only one in a hundred of those gets looked at seriously and only one in a hundred of those get to the bidding stage.
If scientific productivity stops increasing at age 50 as the article says, but salaries of older scientists are almost certainly higher the older and more experienced they are this is really saying you should get rid of older scientists who are providing less productivity per dollar spent on them as the years go on.
This data doesn't defend older scientists but shows that companies are wise to get them to take early retirement. (These aren't my opinions, just what is the obvious result of the data provided)
Don't forget the gender bias! The queen is obviously many times more capable than the very limited king but sacrificing her means nothing if the king survives.
Most economic growth is driven by government wealth redistribution.
That's absolutely ludicrous. In fact, redistribution is, by definition, not wealth generation and thus not economic growth. Economic growth is generated mostly by private companies seeking profit. Government does have many roles to play that can directly or indirectly drive growth but in 22 years of reading hard core economics I've never seen the case made that government redistribution is one of those drivers.
Take a look at the actual temperature data and you'll see that warming stopped after 1998 and has plateaued since. So the answer to "Is the Earth getting Warmer?" is "not in the past decade". Go look at NOAA's temperature data and see for yourself.
And you can't just ask "If yes, does this have negative effects?" The question is if it has NET negative effects. If so, are the costs to do something about it larger than the net negative effects.
I'm convinced it has warmed in the last 30 years. I'm not convinced that it will continue warming (it hasn't) for a decade, that warming is a bad thing (crop yields are positively correlated with temperature) or that it's worth the Trillion required to reduce CO2 emissions.
Slashdot Mirror
So PA is making a mistake because the boom from Fracking may only last a decade or two? Isn't that like feeling sorry for someone because their massive lottery payments only run 30 years and then they'll have no income?
According to TFA: "more than one billion aquatic organisms" are killed annually by NY's Indian Point plant.
No definition of what they mean by "aquatic organism" is given. Blue whales? Minnows? Paramecium?
I stopped reading as soon as I read that. When they throw around terms like "one billion aquatic organisms" without defining the organisms you know it's for effect instead of for truth and thus a hack job instead of real science.
> So with intelligent Farming, and growing crops actually suited to the region, water usage can be minimized. Actually, it's NOT intelligent to use less water if water is cheap and plentiful enough that it costs less than, say, adding drip irrigation. Your goods will cost more and you'll have a hard time making a living compared to the really intelligent person. The profit motive is much derided, but at it's root it's about the efficient use of resources. Farmers SHOULDN'T move to a new system until they have "a sword hanging [over their] head" as it will destroy wealth by using resources inefficiently. In a case where government believes a market failure has occurred (such as a tragedy of the commons situation with aquifers) they need to raise the prices artificially (usually via taxes) or subsidize other behavior (like they did with you) and to make, for instance, saving water the "intelligent" thing to do. For an extreme example, in the Panama canal zone it's rains a tremendous amount and the problem is usually how to get rid of excess water. Fresh water there is insanely cheap and in the occasional dry spell using drip irrigation to water the crops would be wasteful as the drip system could have been used somewhere that needs it.
So the Headline is "...NOT the sun!". Then the post and the article go to length caveating the heck out it with "may" and "probably". That kind of mismatch immediately let's you know the post isn't about the science, it's about the politics.
to judge people from a different age. Values change over time. Would it be just to posthumously find Thomas Jefferson guilty of slavery when it was legal in his time? There's probably something each of us is doing today that in 100 years will be looked back on as a hideous crime (keeping pets? Scolding our kids?) and there are things we consider crimes now that in 100 years they won't believe anyone was ever so primitive as to believe it's a crime (drug use? Assisted suicide?).
According to Wikipedia TCDD is of questionable toxicity even at "huge doses". So if it's the most toxic thing in the mix this lawsuit is bunk. "Unequivocal evidence of the toxic effects on dioxins on human beings have been shown by surprisingly few studies. The best proven is chloracne.[1] Even in poisonings with huge doses of TCDD, the only persistent effects after the initial malaise have been chloracne and amenorrhea."
Exactly. Size doesn't matter. It's all about penetration power. I'm still not sure if our penetration power is actually lacking or if the military is just overcompensating.
Buggy whip manufacturers plan to strike back at autos by pushing the "back to nature" angle.
RTFA. The scientists agree that there's been warming. The main thing they say is that the climate benefits of massive curbing of CO2 emissions aren't worth the substantial costs.
I was looking up today and say a bunny, a turtle and and man's face! That's WAY better evidence of life than " 'disk,' a 'black flap' and a 'scorpion'".
Yeah, and plants love cold so they'd hate global warming!
I was going to comment about how "some people say" there's a problem isn't worthwhile listening to unless they are experts with evidence. But since it's Airbus and not Boeing (yes, I'm a Yank) I agree it's catastrophic and all flights should be grounded immediately. How dare they play with people's lives this way?
I always become concerned about the objectivity of something when I see statistics like this: "In terms of federal research, in 1980 the federal government provided about 70% of all dollars spent on basic research, but since then the government's share of basic research funding given to all entities has fallen to 57%." That's pretty meaningless. the government could be giving 300% more than before but private entities are giving so much more it erodes the government's percent share. I'd take this report with a HUGE grain of salt.
This is a silly suggestion. The future of astronomy is not in Canada but in space...
No, no, no! Organic is NOT better for the environment. The manure used to fertilize the crops makes it take twice as much land to produce than food grown with modern techniques. This doubled land use is a disaster for the environment where every acre we can leave in as natural a state as possible matters. If everyone in the world only ate "organic" then all the rain forest (and all other forests) would have to be razed to provide enough land. Yes, organic farms have less groundwater contamination and less pesticide run off but it's a myth that they are better for the environment.
This would be like if there was a plane crash in the Andes and someone made a big deal that they dodged a bullet because they had once mentioned maybe going to Chile sometime. It's a mammoth jump from one to the next. In the course of conversation even among senior execs they talk about buying THOUSANDS of companies. Only one in a hundred of those gets looked at seriously and only one in a hundred of those get to the bidding stage.
If scientific productivity stops increasing at age 50 as the article says, but salaries of older scientists are almost certainly higher the older and more experienced they are this is really saying you should get rid of older scientists who are providing less productivity per dollar spent on them as the years go on. This data doesn't defend older scientists but shows that companies are wise to get them to take early retirement. (These aren't my opinions, just what is the obvious result of the data provided)
Don't forget the gender bias! The queen is obviously many times more capable than the very limited king but sacrificing her means nothing if the king survives.
Most economic growth is driven by government wealth redistribution.
That's absolutely ludicrous. In fact, redistribution is, by definition, not wealth generation and thus not economic growth. Economic growth is generated mostly by private companies seeking profit. Government does have many roles to play that can directly or indirectly drive growth but in 22 years of reading hard core economics I've never seen the case made that government redistribution is one of those drivers.
Take a look at the actual temperature data and you'll see that warming stopped after 1998 and has plateaued since. So the answer to "Is the Earth getting Warmer?" is "not in the past decade". Go look at NOAA's temperature data and see for yourself. And you can't just ask "If yes, does this have negative effects?" The question is if it has NET negative effects. If so, are the costs to do something about it larger than the net negative effects. I'm convinced it has warmed in the last 30 years. I'm not convinced that it will continue warming (it hasn't) for a decade, that warming is a bad thing (crop yields are positively correlated with temperature) or that it's worth the Trillion required to reduce CO2 emissions.