Who cares what the reason is that people in SF are getting sick more often? Just so long as they are. If any population deserves to be Darwin'd out of the world, it's them.
You ask "So why isn't there more of a push for this clean, affordable, safe and inexhaustible source of electricity?"
The answer is, because it still costs a fortune to buy and have installed. That's why. And companies that offer to install them "for free" and want an on-going monthly payment for reducing the cost of your electricity have deals that provide themselves almost all of the benefit and leave the risk to the home owners.
Perhaps the idiots in government that want to spend billions on their union friends should install collectors on roofs and either come up with reasonable terms for repayment from realized savings, or even give them away to play one of their global-warming / carbon credit cards in a way that really helps the people?
For $10 billion in Keynesian spending, they can install 1 million systems (at $10K average each).
No, that's not what people are doing. For many years science reported time and time again of the link between mercury preservatives and autism. People with disabled children are desperate to understand why their child is affected and the link, from authoritative sources, seems to make sense. Science created this problem with the false reports, published in respected journals, and supported by numerous other studies over the years. Then suddenly the original reports are discredited as the work of a liar and a cheat and all of the people that read those reports over time are supposed to change their minds? No way.
I've discussed this with university educators as recently as four years ago that were fully convinced of the relationship between autism and vaccination and who marked my daughter's reports down when her writing questioned that link.
It's going to take years to undo the harm done by the original and follow up reports. Public perceptions of risks and benefits are not objective. And right now there is little epidemic consequence to not having vaccinations. But when enough people are no longer covered, and kids start dying from polio, whooping cough, and other formerly controlled problems, the fault is all going to rest with those that wrote and published the lies about the relationship.
The false claims made by scientists and reported by scientific publications are totally to blame for the confusion that has flowed down into the general population and into their representatives about the dangers of vaccines as related to autism. It will take years to eliminate and probably thousands of people (mostly children) will suffer needlessly as a result.
Sadly, scientists are too often caught up in the fun of following trends like this and pitching into issues in which they are not directly involved so that the thing snowballs. Perhaps it's an attempt to look smart or appear involved in these latest trends as some kind of ego thing. I don't know.
But the backlash seen about the lies put forward by scientists regarding vaccinations should be a clarion call to all scientists about making extravagent claims that exceed the bounds of the tests performed.
The risk is that the reputation of science will be further, and deservedly, tarnished. Or more importantly, that society will turn its back on advancements that would otherwise provide some positive benefit.
Perhaps satellites cause global warming then?
What problem is that?
Apparently 33 years of satellite ice mapping is no match for geologic time scales.
So record low article ice extent means we will have an ice age? Now that's something to be worried about. We need to find ways to raise global temps. Any ideas?
More like it looks like a hockey stick.
"most free market believers also believe in various silly conspiracy theories, therefore they are idiots". That's not ad hominem, it's merely stating facts.
The "conclusion" phrase ("therefore they are idiots") at the end of this sentence is not a fact. It is a conclusion.
I was pretty shocked to read the low level of response posted in the article "Confirming the Obvious" by Stephan Lewandowsky. He uses very disparaging phrasing and stoops to name calling in his article in an attempt to discredit his detractors. Why has name calling become a standard tool of attack? This may be (sadly) accepted as normal in the field of politics, but is it normal in science?
The purpose of science is to move the body of knowledge forward. It's done with work using a certain tested approach we call the scientific method. I think it's unbecoming for someone who publishes work in science to call critics and skeptics names. The work is either accurate or it is not. The work is either supported by the data or it is not.
The simple solution is to never buy music from iTunes. But in on CD, or buy it from Amazon or Google Play. Then you get MP3 files on your machine in correctly named folders and files and with tag data in place.
It might not legally solve Bruce's problem since I guess the purchases are probably licensed to me rather than to my estate. Not sure what will become of my legal rights to them when all of my assets transfer to my trust when I'm dead. But I somehow doubt my backup copies of all those files are going to vanish.
Who will help the parents bring in the summer crops if they kids are in school????
And this product placement is supposed to positively influence
Does imply that atomic clocks are not reliable?
How's this for a hypothesis to explain the affect of solar activity and radioactive decay? "Radioactive decay does not exist in isolation, but depends on the collision of solar particles to cause the release of the decay element. The higher the level of solar activity and the proximity of the solar source, the higher the rate of radioactive decay due to the greater number of collisions that occur on the target isotopes. While this affect and result are nearly constant in our solar system (at least, for the past few billion years) other systems with more local stars, stars of different mass/size, and in systems without any local stars the rates of radioactive decay can vary significantly from that observed on Earth."