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.

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.