Indeed. And the issue was detected by looking at the data, finding fault with it and that is perfectly fine. Now, if the MAGAs and other denier-idiot assholes were right, the correction would never have happened. But it did. And that means things work and deliver good results. The process is just a bit more complex and takes a bit longer than their tiny brains can handle.

You clearly have not the slightest idea what the problem actually is. Well done, you are an idiot.

Well, if that is your take-away here, you clearly are a dangerous moron and asshole.

And no, there are NOT the same people. You are just lumping idiots in the press and in politics together with actual scientists because you have no idea how things actually work.

Nice denier nonsense you have there. The problem, which you are clearly not smart enough to understand is that this basically a permanent reduction and it is one that will be getting worse. You seem to think that at the end of the century, there is one point, where there will be some reduction. That is not the case. The reality is that each year will see an increasing reduction and that will last for a very long time. The problem is that very soon this will overtake total growth and then we will have negative growth each year.

Not a surprise that somebody like you does not get what is essentially a simple school-level "interest over multiple years" calculation.

Science is not broken, peer review is. And no, Science is not religion. It is the very opposite of it. A Science-denier like you will never understand that though, you are simply not smart enough.

I see you have never been part of this system. Your claims are pure hallucinations. There is no "enforcing" of any "consensus". Peer review checks, if done right, whether arguments hold up, data is plausible, etc.

The problem with peer review is that it is entirely unpaid while actually getting the publication can be very expensive, and many do it badly, just so they can claim they are doing it. I still regularly get contacted by journals wit requests to review one paper or another based on my publishing history. If it is open access and I am qualified, I will consider it. If not, I universally reject there requests now.

Not really. Science works on facts and evidences and sometimes there are errors and mistakes that then get corrected at a later time.

The Deniers work on stupidity. There is no fixing that and they do not need ammunition. They will just make stuff up.

It was probably invented by the mail-clerks at Exact Sciences. They were tired of the mishaps when receiving Cologuard return-samples whose patients didn't understand the packaging instructions.

I wonder if anyone's going to revive that old hacking tool, "back orifice".

Cheech and Chong could have benefitted from this technology.

Thanks. Now you tell me...

If the camera is poorly aimed, it puts a whole new meaning to end.

If one changes how electricity is billed, ie, the more one buys the more expensive it gets, that would help a lot. Particularly when those huge-demand customers would end up paying for the development of the very power plants that they require in the process.

Demand-surge pricing is already common in many places. I see no reason why it shouldn't be applied to industry.

Yes, that is the argument of the climate zealot side. "But none of it matters because planet is going to die. We need to stop raping Mother Gaia and start worshiping her".

These are the same people who predicted in 2000 that we'd have a "global starvation event by 2020", as well as that Pacific island nations would be underwater and cease to exist by this time. And that were talking about "global boiling" in 2020.

Turns out reality doesn't bend that way. Regardless of strength of faith of the zealots.

Yes, because Russians are key partners when it comes to operating the ISS. They own and control about half of it after all.

It's in the name. International Space Station. Not American Space Station.