More importantly, can we get an "Undo Post" on Slashdot for when we accidentally say something we regret?
Better yet, how about a collective "Undo Submit" to rescind articles that everyone agrees the editors should never have allowed through?
While obviously the conclusion is a bit tongue-in-cheek, the study is pretty nifty. The actual study attempted to show how environmental factors may influence self-reporting on sensitive data. Amazingly, people with stronger religious convictions or who had signed chastity pledges were more likely to maintain that they were still virgins, even on anonymous surveys, while simultaneously (on anonymous surveys) reporting accurate pregnancy history.
Here's a link to the original study: http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f7102
Not because I'm trying to be contrary or disbelieve you, but because I'm genuinely interested in cases where legitimate, well-conducted studies showed something established to be false and which were buried because of the potential ramifications.
I'm sure it's happened, but it starts to sound like a conspiracy theory, particularly in the absence of an example or two.
Where is the line between having a spirited discussion on how an administrator can lack common sense...and providing their contact details (regardless of how public they may be) to a public forum?
Have there been any studies regarding the climate impact of solar installations themselves? Cities, with all their concrete and glass and whatnot, affect their local climate. It seems like adding a crap ton of shiny things across huge swaths of land would have a similar impact (or, when in an urban area, exacerbate the effect).
I'm neither a climate scientist nor particularly familiar with the research on the effects of urban areas, and while CO2 emissions have a global impact, I'd be interested in the tradeoff of a lessened global impact alongside a stronger local impact.