The problem with this type of prioritization (which many markets, especially labor markets, are currently experiencing), is that free markets have many checks and balances from competition, consumers, and reputation that are sorely lacking in the regulatory system. What that means is that regulators regulate based not on the best information and feedback, but based on self-interest and political influence without regard to actual impacts on the macro economies. Capitalism uses self-interest as a driver as well as a check, as consumers and producers work toward a mutually beneficial equilibrium. These checks do not exist in the monopoly of regulation and power brokering, which can result in either regulatory capture by influential market players, or the destruction of market players by regulators seeking political power. The political system in the US, most clearly at the federal level but also in some of the local levels as well, simply isn't as responsive to the desires of its constituency or the available market information as it needs to be. This leads to many harmful interventions. Ethanol requirements are a good recent example of harmful regulation hurting markets and consumers. Uber and Lyft are challenging regulators that have created virtual monopolies for cab companies, and have blocked those companies from providing services in many places. People building "tiny homes" often find there are localities where their choice of housing is illegal due to regulations from one direction or another.

That's not a feature - it's a bug. Regulations live on, grow, and are defended even where they are unnecessary or harmful.

Apparently you've never heard of tribes such as the Creeks, Alabamas, Natchez, Chitimachas and Choctaws. They left ruins of their civilizations, many older than the Romans, all over the American southeast. All the Southwest states contain countless ancient remains and Native American sites. In the Texas panhandle you can visit the Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument, which contains some ancient flint excavation pits thought to have been used for up to 12,000 years.

Hmmm... CO2 concentrations in liquid, sure. But what does that have to do with PH? You indicate that it's self-evident, but it's not to me. Maybe you can explain that relationship in high-school sciencey language. There are actually 3 different ways to measure PH, one of which is specific to ocean chemistry (the PH Seawater Scale - sws).

No, it's not, actually. Especially in science (not the scientific community that is awash in politic, but the work of science it certainly is).

Nice try. See above.

I can't understand everything, certainly, but much of it is accessible to me. Much of it because I'm good at maths. And language.

I think you are misreading it. They are using the data from the lake in Japan to demonstrate specific relationships. For 280,000 years. It's no more an extrapolation than "More CO2 increases the greenhouse effect." Physical properties are physical properties.

Most of that is a review of the ONE study on ocean acidification that keeps getting quoted. And those reviews are pretty damning to that study, IMHO.

From ad hominem to straw man, I guess. I never made any such claim - the topic is ocean acidification. I don't even know where you're getting any of this from - unless it's simply an extension of the "attack the messenger" argument that I have already ignored.

More ad hominems to ignore.

You seem to be more familiar with this aspect of the science than I am. I have not looked into those claims although I've skimmed some of the arguments on both sides.

What I found interesting was the critique of the published numbers of PH readings. There are a lot of questions in the detail of what is being measured. Most of all, the most often-quoted studies that extrapolate changes BACKWARD - to the turn of the century - using trends from only 15 - 20 years of data. I haven't seen an explanation for this, but the EPA's website only shows readings from 1980 - 1985. They don't do the backward extrapolation, though.

Google filters those. But peer-reviewed papers are what I look for as an ultimate source. That's the reason I posted the links above. They include many references to the peer-reviewed work.

They are saying it, but is it true. The EPA's website only shows data from about 1985, at the earliest, but PH has been measured fairly accurately since the mid-19th century. And it doesn't match the extrapolated history.

You're right - exaggeration works better. We call it "propaganda". Effective for making Americans afraid of terrorists, too, even though they are 10,000 times more likely to be killed by a hail storm.

No, it turns out the PH scare was false. The original study, it turns out, didn't even use real data - it extrapolated 80 years of PH levels from about 15 years of data. Lots more details.

But it is possible to freeload on... publicly served data? You're not making any sense.

I request, they serve. I can do whatever I want with their data on my machine. There's not even a contract here.

"Unspoken understanding" in the context of a multi-million dollar faceless corporation. That actually made me chuckle. They're the first ones to break the unspoken understanding of paying proper taxes for example and I'm supposed to let them infest my machine with bullshit? GTFO.

Go and make me sign a contract or don't serve your shit freely. Easy.

Encoding targeted ads in real-time into every video? Yeah, that'll work.

Correction: That's how marketing scum wants it to work.

As was said, it's my machine. It runs code and downloads data _I_ want, not you. Don't like it? Go invent your own Internet with your own protocols that grant you more control and stop freeloading on the open protocols we already have!

I don't use an ad blocker per se. noscript + RequestPolicy somehow seem to prevent ads in videos. Maybe the ads come from different servers, I don't know.

I've never seen an ad in front of a video in years.

Not voting for any Democrats, then?

You seem to be another victim of the failing American public education system. While the term "free market" may have been coined after the Constitution, it was a well-known concept to the founders. They were, many, heavily influenced by the writings of John Locke, and while he may not have used that term specifically, his philosophy very much involved what we now call free market principles. Even more so, in fact, because the idea of taxing labour was anathema to him and the founding fathers that he influenced. Property rights and freedom were inseparable.