Adding to the body of evidence that biology is not a science, simply 'butterfly collecting'. With no first principles, biology simply makes guesses based on what it has found in the past. It has zero capacity to predict the existence of life (even life 'as we know it'), let alone the nature of life.
Seriously? Proliferation of chemica/biological weapons doesn't register a nod over something as nebulous and topical as climate change?
What an example of bald-faced political commentary. Regardless of its origins with scientists, this is now just another meaningless and pretentious art show.
Want to decrease your carbon footprint in a sane, achievable fashion?
Stop WASTING resources
And 'remote' charging is so wasteful the mind boggles that it is done merely in the name of convenience.
... http://www.aetonix.com/. The targetdemographic are elderly and disabled, and the focus is communications with family, care providers, and medical staff. Not a tablet, but geared towards those for whom a tablet format isn't quite sufficient.
Going to get rid of your ride and take mass transit?
Going to use your electricity more efficiently eg. turn off pool pump/heater when not in use, shut off A/C/furnace when not in house, turn off lights and 'always on' appliances when not in use?
Going to start paying for repairs instead of throwing out whatever seems a bit broken?
Going to lose the dream of living in your own, lawn-ringed, home and move in to a small unit in an energy efficient, high density high-rise?
Didn't think so.
So how to stop these inane pseudo science, politically fuelled announcements?
Removing the freedom of speech of those who would seek to remove the freedom of speech
This upcoming failure of science will lead to a religious backlash that will put all further scientific progress on hold for centuries.
... with one condition: don't all plant the same kind of tree! Use a variety.
The Air Force deems the Warthog unacceptably 'unattractive'. The plane does its job outstandingly well, offers its pilot exceptional protection, but
Even if we humans ill-advisedly bugger around with geo-engineering things we don't understand, there will still be change. So why the drive to resist the change?
The only logical answer is: for money. The people who are profiting from the status quo, want to continue to do so. Another group of people are seeking to profit from the fear mongering.
We should be wondering why there isn't a push to come up with means of adaptation. If sea levels rise, how can we reasonably evacuate lowlands? What is the impact on power generation and how do we manage that? Will there be an impact on food production and if so, what can we do about that?
Think about that last one: which is seems more reasonable, stopping the (poorly understood) climate from changing, or the (well understood) adaptation of crops to a new climate?
Fact: whether we geo-engineer or not, the climate will change, as it has always changed. So, do you want to spend your money on trying to prevent the inevitable, or do you want to spend it on something achievable?
... what about a tatoo that attaches to your skin and is responsive to your environment? So picture a tatoo that:
changes pattern/color in response to radiation or chemical agents in the air as an early warning;
changes pattern/color in response to bluetooth signals so you could have an animated pattern transmitted from your phone or a person near you could transmit a pattern, like a virtual sig block.
Not related to the article but tatoos could be way cooler
Why is 30 the new 50? Because your colleagues who are now managers, say so.
They are climbing the career ladder and a component of their success is making the business profitable. You don't do that by hiring 30-somethings who know what they're worth. You do it by hiring new grads who are only too happy to be employed, regardless how little they are paid.
So talk to your peers.
Of course it would come to this.
This is precisely what was wrong with politicizing climate change. Eventually, someone would want to _do_ something. Because that is precisely the kind of mindset of a person who gets involved in politics.
Unfortunately, while we may explore what it is we can _do_, the repercussions of those actions are unknown. We do not understand our climate sufficiently to predict the impact of our actions.
Need proof of that? Ask for the assumptions made in the existing crop of climate models and the sensitivity to perturbations of those assumptions.
Fact: we can't predict the climate even when we don't mess with it, why do we think we can predict what will happen when we do?
Now that they've spread the word, will the approach start to be 'gamed' by big pharma or gov't trying to sow the seasonal flu panic?
If a person can't verify the validity of the assertion, is it any wonder they will base their opinion on the proposed solutions?
A person is told the sky is falling. They can't verify it, but are told the potential consequences.
Then the person is told the 'needed' solution, say, cut off everbody's right leg.
Well the cure sounds pretty bad, and the impact of the cure on the person is very clear.
So two possibilities: one is unverifiable, the other well understood. Which one would a person choose?
Science and politcs, the former deals in speculation, the latter in tangible consequences. There should not be tangible consequences to mere speculation. That is just wrong-headed. History is replete with examples of 'scientifically supported' facts, resulting in barbaric consequences eg. the atrocities of WWII. We can look back _now_ and say 'the science was wrong', but _at the time_ the science was held up as the justification for action.