The euphemism treadmill has been studied:

https://wstyler.ucsd.edu/posts...

Basically, "retarded" was introduced around 1950 and was considered outdated by 1980.

That's why "The Babylon Bee" had to make "notthebee.com".

This is so true, and I've been pointing it out for decades now. One might not like the old religions, but at least they stood the test of time and had a thousand plus years for people to debate and come up with some consistency.

When I read stuff like this, I just shake my head. They're saying younger people can't handle feedback so they have to change the word to "feedforward", but it's the same concept. (I'd not that my spellchecker didn't underline "feedforward", so clearly all the cool kids are using this word already). At some point they'll realize they don't like "feedforward" and it'll be something else. Endlessly.

By the way, I still use "master" as the master branch on my code repos, and I still sleep in the master bedroom. Because *neither* of those things have anything to do with slavery and changing my words isn't going to change the fact that slavery happened in this country up to 160 years ago and *still* happens today in the world.

I wish the people who are so concerned that we don't use the word "master" for our bedroom would give half as many fucks about the fact that people are still enslaved RIGHT NOW and no amount of hand wringing over vocabulary will change that.

Whoops, hit post to soon: the "The UK government just made this up out of thin air" or something...

I love how all the armchair scientists come out when stuff like this is mentioned. "What's going to keep it from just floating back out?", "It's probably going to use more energy and create more CO2 than it's going to store"... as if no one has ever had that thought yet... and the UK government just made.

There are _thousands_ of scientists all over the world studying every aspect of this (and every other scientifically informed climate change action) for MANY years. The published results from those scientists are used in policy making. That policy making takes _years_ and is hotly debated on all sides before something like this makes its way through.

On CO2 sequestration, it's been studied and re-studied and re-analyzed for over 20 years now. There is a huge body of published research on every aspect (including the "net" energy use and CO2 net balance) this is a good overview that cites tons of other papers you can go read on it: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co...

PLEASE don't assume that you can "use your intuition" on these extremely complex issues.

Nobody who owns a short-term rental wants this, and there are devices sold online that monitor the space for noise level, smoking, etc.

https://get.minut.com/airbnb

Thank you for this post. As a (nuclear) scientist it drives me crazy that people who are not part of the scientific publishing ecosystem purport to know how it works... and make claims like "intimidation" against publishing something against currently accepted theories.

Many... MANY... of the papers that go to journals these days are directly trying to refute accepted theories. Like you said, if you get it right you can become famous overnight. There is no shortage of people that are trying in every field (and definitely climate-related fields). However, the burden for these papers is that there must be factual, evidential, proof of what you are claiming.

Scientists _love_ to prove each other wrong! It's the way science works. That we haven't had any journal articles factually refuting human-caused warming in reputable journals is _proof_ itself that the current theory is correct. I can guarantee you that it's not for lack of submissions - it's just that those submissions don't withstand peer review due to not having evidence.

And anyone that thinks "peer review" means "I don't like what you're saying" does not know what they're talking about. Technical peer review is a very difficult thing to do, you have to have just as much evidence for what you are saying in your review. In fact, in my experience, I spend WAY more time writing negative reviews that positive reviews. A positive review will just get a few critiques and suggestions. A negative review turns into an entire treatise on the subject with many citations to back up my claims.

Peer review is not the wild west - and there are many stopgaps. If a reviewer doesn't properly justify their review the editor will toss it and find another reviewer.

Ok - I'm droning on now. It was just refreshing to see someone else on Slashdot that actually understand how science works!

Also not (necessarily) true. Dissolved CO2 can be consumed by algae and seagrasses in the ocean, converting it to biomass -- where carbon remains largely sequestered when the organism dies -- and oxygen.

Almost but not quite. You left out a few relevant factors.

Personal bias - despite attempts to eradicate it, it still exists. A scientist who has their reputation staked on a particular theory or outcome will tend to favor that outcome, disregard outcomes that don't agree with their position, or both. The recent LK-99 "room temp superconductor" is an example of this.

Funding bias - Scientists don't work for free, and even if they did, research itself is an expensive endeavor. This requires funding from external sources, usually government but sometimes major industries contribute as well. Both these patrons tend to fund research that confirms whatever policy or product they wish to push. Likewise, funding for other things either doesn't get funded or could disqualify you for future funding.

Community peer pressure - Despite the stereotype, contemporary science is largely that of conformity. Mavericks are generally frowned upon, laughed at, or ostracized. This has historical precedence. Major luminaries like Einstein, Bohr, etc. were regarded as crackpots when they first challenged the establishment before they were recognized as prophets of truth. Very few people have the courage to stand against such as this, hence conformity and groupthink are more normal than most people suspect or are willing to admit.

Sounds like a great idea! With the best of intentions! What could possibly go wrong?

Go ahead and try such a mandate. It will accelerate the trend of businesses moving out of states requiring them.

So over the last decade our total generation has remained somewhat stagnant while demand is steadily increasing. That is the point I was making. Your figures back this up.

You gloss over why natural gas is the more economical option. Coal plants are burdened by expensive emissions controls and regulatory requirements that make them too expensive to operate. Minus these, they would still be competitive economically. I'm not arguing against such controls, merely saying emissions are the drivers of the economics.

I worked at TVA during the time frame in question. CCGT's are peak load assets but were being run constantly to make up for lost capacity when coal plants were shuttered. Maintenance cycles were being deferred. The net result was more unplanned shutdowns.

I did see the table. Did you? From 2011 to 2021, total coal generation dropped from 1,733,430KMWh to 897,885KMWh, a difference of 835,545KMWh. During that same time solar added 164,422KMWh, wind (aka "Renewable Sources Excluding Hydroelectric and Solar") added 256,261KMWh. That's a deficit of 414,862KMWh, not even factoring in the ~12KMWh loss in nuclear. Solar and wind are not making up the difference lost to coal shutdown. Natural gas.is making up the difference, and, as stated, these are not designed to be base load generation and hence unsustainable.

Government researchers have been tracking heat waves for more than 100 years. According to data from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, the annual heat wave index for the contiguous 48 states was substantially higher in the 1930s than at any point in recent years. In some years in the 1930s, it was four times greater or even more. Additionally, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has a large database of daily temperatures that goes back to 1948. NOAA used 1,066 weather stations located across the U.S. to collect this data.

According to NOAA, huge swaths of the U.S. have experienced a significant decrease in abnormally hot days recorded since 1948, especially in the Midwest and northern and eastern Texas. Although it’s true that some parts of the U.S. have seen the number of hotter-than-usual days increase over the past 70 years, most weather stations have shown no meaningful changes or even declines.

This maxim equally applies to your comments. My points stand and your own data does not refute it.

We're shutting down capacity faster than we're replacing it. Aging nuclear plants aren't being replaced. Coal is being shut down due to emissions. Even combined-cycle gas turbines running on natural gas are being shut down, nevermind that these are peak load assets, not base load assets and not designed to run 100% of the time anyway.

Solar capacity is going up, along with wind, but not nearly enough to replace what's going away. Meanwhile the government is doing all in its power to stop you from buying gas stoves, gas furnaces, gas water heaters, and pushing automakers towards all-electric.

Demand is going up. Efficiencies will not blunt that. Capacity is not going up and in many cases it is shrinking.

Is it just me or does this seem...stupid?

Not sure why this is marked down. I don't care if I'm feeding the grid, rather, I'd like to see the grid as my backup in case I can't generate enough power.

Every roof of every kind should be a solar panel.

Strange as it may seem, the SCOTUS disagreed with you and said they did have standing. Alas, I'm sure your vast knowledge of Constitutional Law exceeds theirs, not to mention the hundreds of other lawyers who worked this case trying desperately to prove lack of standing. I'm sure you're right. So sure. So very, very sure. I mean, it's not like you can be wrong. That would be a tragedy.