Maybe you don't see them because you aren't looking?

Your comment caught my attention because it displayed staggeringly colossal ignorance, it took me a few seconds to find those.

How is the rule "do not poison the people" not about the "general well-being of the people"?

No, it won't. Most corporations aren't in the business of protecting the environment, so they won't. And that is really all there is to it: bottom line, if the people running a corporation don't think protecting the environment will improve the quarterly earnings, they won't do it. If you want to protect the environment you are going to need checks and balances, and in this world, that means government intervention.

It seems that, to mangle an aphorism, absolute power corrupts the environment absolutely.

In case anyone was wondering what this rapper, Chief Keef, is wanted for? He failed to show up for a pretrial hearing for a DUI charge (because he was working in California?).

While a DUI charge is serious and failing to show up for a court date is too, this does seem like an overreaction from the city and the police.

I think the editors need to expand the Q&A FAQ. They usually say they will pick 10 of the highest rated questions to send along, so I don't think Brianna Wu actually picked the questions. The editors would probably filter out any questions they thought would be offensive to the interviewee, so likely the "hard" questions wouldn't have been sent along.

Also, I'd note that many of the so-called "hard" questions could easily be categorized as "bullshit" or "harassment" questions.

Yes, it does. So why don't you cut it out?

Not according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. energy exports are only 43% of your imports. Crude exports are a mere 5% of your imports. The total amount of exports is also overstated because the U.S. imports crude oil from Canada, refines it and then exports it to other countries, thus inflating your export total as a percentage. So, America has a 5 million barrel a day deficit between imports and exports. Total U.S. production is about 8.7 million barrels a day, so you'd need to increase U.S. production by about 60% before you could become a net exporter of energy, which would put your production target at about 4 million barrels a day more than the U.S produced at it's previous peak production.

It has one advantage, it's cheap, and it's the preferred power source when coal isn't taxed (or more commonly where it's actually subsidized), because it's cheap. Additionaly, since most of the disadvantages are either invisible (for example, cancers caused by radioactive coal soot) or are somebody else's problem (like coal sludge dumped in someone else's water supply), those costs are not factored into the average user's decisions.

Actually, yes. Your solution may or may not be ideal, unfortunately, it has no relevance at all to what I was talking about. If you would like to comment on why your plan would be better for the poor than a tax refund, please do so. However, you neglected to provide any reasons why your solution would be actually be better for anyone, and since I was merely explaining how a carbon tax could actually be beneficial rather than detrimental to the poor people of America, your comment seems a little lost.

Assuming you're American, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, that doesn't seem to have been true since the early 90s, it seems to mostly come from Canada recently (6.5 million barrels per month out of total imports of 7 million barrels).

That depends entirely on how you return the money. If you return the money as an income tax rate reduction, then yes, it will hurt the poor the most because they will spend the largest percentage of their income on the tax and receive virtually no tax relief (since they don't pay much income tax) and the vast majority of the benefit would go to the wealthiest eligible recipients (who pay the most the income tax and thus benefit the most from a rate reduction). On the other hand, if the money is divided equally and provided as a flat refund to each person, the poor will tend to get the most benefit from the refund because it will provide the largest percentage increase in their income/spending power. You should be able to agree that a $100 dollar refund is more meaningful to someone on a low fixed income than to someone with a million-dollar-a-year income.

It would help if they presented something new that even vaguely resembled science, rather than the same old tired innuendo and baseless accusations. I'm about ready to punch the next person who smugly claims that scientists don't know that the sun exists and that it warms the earth.

Are those pictures all supposed to be the same room? Because the rather large window from the first picture is clearly missing from the last picture.

Also, clearly a picture taken 10 days after she supposed fled her house, where she might be in that same house indicates that she never left it right? I mean it's not like she could have, say, left for a week and then returned in the space of 10 days? Right?

Clearly, this evidence is overwhelming proof of guilt, we should execute the victim immediately.

Perhaps, although it might be that making a reasonable comparison between transit options is better than making an unreasonable comparison. Someone who has a 5 minute commute from home to a workplace with ample parking is not an ideal candidate for most public transit solutions. Because the commute is so short, the amount of time spent waiting for the public transit tends to dwarf the regular commute time. Combined with a negligible parking cost, there would be little external incentive for anyone to go to the effort required to even consider changing their behaviour.

If it takes you 5 minutes to drive to work. Then walking or riding a bike would probably be a better solution than a bus.

From a system point of view, this seems like the opposite of what we should actually want. Journal articles exist to communicate the findings of an experiment, they actually have nearly no relevance to the public, nor should they. The results of a single article should not be trusted. It's a finding and it needs to be studied and replicated before it should be communicated to the public. So, I don't think we would ever want to force every scientist who is trying to get an article published to also draft a press release trumpeting the results of their study. Even honest scientists would constantly be tempted to embellish the significance of the results.

It seems to me, that we should actually want an independent science body who's sole job is to replicate significant experiments and confirm that the results are both legitimate and significant. Taking the advertising out of the hands of the original scientist should dramatically reduce the incentive to exaggerate findings and hopefully requiring the result to be verified first would deter all but the least reliable science journalists from writing wild articles based on never repeated experiments.

There would still be major problems, this organization would have to establish themselves as the trust authority for science questions. That would be no easy task. Additionally, there is the question of who would fund this organization. It should not be a single government, nor a single corporation, or even a single industry because of the potential for political interference.