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.

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?

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.

From Space.com:

Scientists estimate the asteroid belt also contains more than 750,000 asteroids larger than three-fifths of a mile (1 km) in diameter and millions of smaller ones.

I don't predict a shortage in the foreseeable future. By the time we run out, we'll have moved on to other solar systems.

Wow - you jumped right over to space war pretty quick.

Given the vast, nearly limitless quantity of uninhabited asteroids, I don't think we'll ever see a scenario where men in space suits are going to be shooting lasers at each other to defend their claims. As soon as we have the tech to mine one asteroid, we'll have the tech to mine thousands of them. The scarcity won't be due to a dearth of asteroids. There will be some that are a lot easier to get to than others, but you're not going to be up there shooting away your competition.

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.