I would have hoped that "deleted" meant "deleted". How naïve of me.
Indeed. How else do you expect people to recover their email messages they accidentally moved to the trash, confirmed the move, and then deleted?
So, do you think 1. Carbon doesn't absorb heat 2. Carbon in the atmosphere can't, for some reason, insulate the earth, trapping more heat 3. Combustion engines do not put out carbon 4. Burning of fossil fuels aren't significantly increasing carbon levels in the atmosphere 5. The carbon is getting taken out of the atmosphere at an increased level that corresponds to our increase in emissions or 6. That God or some higher power won't let the world change or 7. That using logic is a waste of time? Honestly, I can't see many alternative hypotheses here that aren't ignoring reality. All arguments against it seem to be centered around "Nuh UH! It's NOT warming!" but I haven't really heard much talk about how that could not be the case. Carbon absorbs more heat and we're increasing the carbon doesn't seem to be under dispute. Being skeptical is good, but you don't get to reject hypotheses if you have no other way to explain the data.
Carbon is inert and just sits there... think of charcoal of graphite. Carbon monoxide, but mostly carbon dioxide is likely what you're talking about. It is important to know the distinction.
Why are you worried about carbon (or carbon dioxide)... really? Look at the data and while it has increased with temperatures, so have other things. CO2 is easy to deal with. Methane in the air absorbed 16x more heat then carbon dioxide and isn't absorbed as easily by the environment.
Know your science before trying to make a point
There is not an incentive to publish negative results - why help your competitors avoid dead ends? What proportion of scientifically useful R&D doesn't get published for this reason?
We're on the same page. I like the publications that actually only publish negative results, as they are trying to fix the problem. Science makes a ton of mistakes, and those mistakes are important to note, since hopefully someone won't repeat it. There is going to be no way to ever have everyone share knowledge willingly of failures, although government could make it easier. If a company received R&D tax credits, after x years, make the data published automatically and stored in the public domain. Would be super useful. I'm from Canada, so the US way of advertising meds just makes me sick. Doctors are a decent one to prescribe, pharmacists are also very valuable (they typically know the drugs better than the doctors)
How many people die every year because they can't afford the expensive medicine they need? Many are impoverished by drug cost and hundreds of billions of dollars of tax money are giving to pharmaceutical companies through socialized medical programs. How many future deaths will be prevented with new patented treatments? Every new treatment cost multiple times more and saves fewer and fewer people because current treatments cure most. Yes, if your disease isn't covered you don't care how much it cost but how much can society pay for one individual? At some point we run out of everybody's money.
People get sick and die - it is a fact of being alive. I do feel bad for those that cannot afford an expensive medical treatment - but here are the two scenarios: 1 - company is not allowed to charge an expensive rate for a new medical treatment. Since they cannot promise they will earn enough to recoup their costs, they don't do the research. Therefore anyone that has that ailment now dies. 2 - company is allowed to charge for an expensive medical treatment. They can now justify the cost of R&D on the project since they may be able to recoup their costs. They do the research. For the life of the patent (~ 20 years, usually 5-10 years once the drug gets on the market), people with funds are able to get treatment, those that can't afford to die. But - once the patent expires, it now suddenly becomes public domain. Now generic companies can come into the picture and make the treatment for much cheaper. Now - rich or poor(er) you can afford the treatment. It is cold, it is calculating, but you get a better net gain in the world with option 2. Life is unfair and it can suck, but out of those 2 options, it is the better of the two.
You have that exactly backwards. Large corporations would prefer to have no patent system at all. To a large corporation a patent is a barrier to profit.
In the software world - maybe. My world is pharmaceuticals and patents are needed, and should maybe even be extended in some cases. It isn't like the software world where companies buy patents for the purposes of some weird legal warfare. For pharma, patents represent a way for them to recoup the R&D costs made on a drug. Patents need to exist for pharma since there is such strict testing before it can be used on the general public. All this information has to be handed over to the government, where it doesn't remain a secret. No patents would kill new drug development in a heartbeat.