Mostly it exposes that people love to believe stories they like. And of course journalists love to publish stories that their readers like.
And it extends past publishing stories, to a business model built around telling people what they want to hear, like Amory Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute or Al Gore.
No, the poorest do not rent. The poorest sleep on park benches and in alleys. Naturally, those people don't count, for some reason.
I actually thought of that and was going to include them, but the article says poorest 'residents'.
Maybe some have boxes that the panels could be placed on.
The amount they will save is overstated. Cal residential rates average about 15cents/kwh, a 2.5KWH panel would need about 17.8 cents per kwh to save them $818 in the first year. They also assume power rates increase for stating the total 30 year savings of $22K, but don't talk about who covers insurance/damage/maintenance, etc. How will the lucky few be selected? Who pays for panel removal/replacement when the roof needs repairs?
If you take the 14.7 million and divide by 1600, you get >$9K per system. What solar company is benefiting from selling these at such a high cost?
Even if they were immediately reverted, that the edits were done is a cause for concern on its own basis.
I'm more concerned with voters who decide based on info on wiki pages. A sad state of affairs if it really makes a difference.
Can bad scientific practices be fixed? Part of the problem is that no-one is incentivized to be right. Instead, scientists are incentivized to be productive and innovative. Tony Weidberg says that the particle physics community now invests great effort into intensive checking and rechecking of data prior to publication following several high-profile errors,. By filtering results through independent working groups, physicists are encouraged to criticize. Good criticism is rewarded. The goal is a reliable result, and the incentives for scientists are aligned around this goal. "The good news is that science is beginning to take some of its worst failings very seriously," says Horton. "The bad news is that nobody is ready to take the first step to clean up the system."
And to think I was worried about the possible loss of irreplaceable ecological assets...
Why worry? Its a perfectly natural occurrence, completely out of our control, & nobody is in harm's way.
From my experience, when those details are left out its often due to the fact that the real world numbers are small. It would be nice if the author of the article gave us that critical information so we weren't left to assumptions.
(smarts ass reply pre-emption: Yeah, I can go googling around and try to find out....but maybe I got other things to google tonight.)
I skimmed TFA, and it seems a lot of it talks about why I shouldn't be afraid of dying to an asteroid strike.
I'm NOT. Never have been.
The article generalizes that we are all as stupid and the general population, which has a tremendously skewed risk perception, in part due to media that also doesn't understand risk and/or intentionally ignores it. Unfortunately that ignorance drives our policy makers as well.
Every rider thinks like you until they have their first real wreck.
Every planetary population says asteroids are low risk until they get hit by the big one.
Every swimmer thinks shark attacks are unlikely until they get bit by one.