Systematic reviews, including meta-analyses, are very common. Since roughly the 1980s systematic reviews have been considered the highest possible tier of scientific evidence.

This is because of certain facts about science that outsiders often find shocking: (1) complex questions nearly always have contradictory evidence and papers taking opposing views of issues, particularly early on; (2) every paper, no matter how good, has methodological shortcomings if not outright errors; and (3) many novel findings never get replicated. This means individual papers are almost useless for proving anything, at least without putting them in context.

That's what systematic reviews and meta-analyses do: they put individual studies in context of what other researchers are finding. Unlike some internet rando citing papers to prove his pet theory, a reviewer can't cherry pick papers based on what they find. There are rules that ensure papers can only be excluded for objective reasons that apply to all the papers on the topic.

In this particular paper, the authors did not find evidence that deforestation and forestation were drivers of disease. An activist writing a polemic wouldn't come to that conclusion.

One proposal I heard is that we could reflect heat back into space using those very ships.

All we have to do is add some sulfur to the fuel oil.

We actually have that sulfur because it's a waste product from desulfating the fuel, which is legally required.

So if after we desulfate the fuel we then add back in the sulfur that one simple trick could help fix global warming.

According to Congress Israel is the 51st State.

Those Jim Crow laws, tho.

It was the War Department until shortly before you were born.

Somebody read Orwell's treatise on DoubleSpeak and renamed it.

It has been known that Chinaâ(TM)s SO*/NO* was holding temps down all over northern hemisphere. It was also known that if they dropped the visible pollution ( large-medium particles, combined with above gases ), but do not lower invisible pollution such as CO*/CH4/etc, along with small particles, that heat would be increasing. That is obviously what is happening. Monitoring in RMN parks continue to pick up small particles, lead, mercury coming from China. Iâ(TM)ve not heard about arctic, but I would guess that Alaska/western Canada continue to warm much faster that eastern Canada/europe.

Oddly, I saw something the other day that might help the arctic. Basically, they are looking at doing the same thing we did back in the 60s to make rinks on lakes. Cut a hole in the ice and pump water onto the ice. It was surprising how thick that area could get compared to other ice. So, they are looking at putting a number of pumps in the ice and have it build up over a season. This could be started in April using PV, and pulled out in oct. Hopefully, this would not turn darker than normal since it will have a constant small particles falling on it. Still, this might be an interesting way to rebuild arctic ice.

> You really do deserve your holiday in the sun, amirite.

I know lots of people who virtue signal and not a single one has stopped taking hot showers even though they could.

They'll trade in their Prius for a Model X though. CO2 payback should occur in 2055 if they also install an acre of new solar in their yard and don't need to replace the battery before then.

Oh, and a new flagship iPhone every twelve months.

Maybe I'll meet somebody someday who actually walks the walk.

A reasonable approach is to get a Pixel (N)a when a refurb is $200 and Lineage support is complete. Hard to go wrong.

The US Constitution limits US government actions worldwide against everyone. /thread

The company management is pointing the finger at workers, and they're right to, just as long as they point the finger at themselves too.

These kinds of problems start at the top. If management demands workers do the impossible (or at least the wildly implausible), they know that reports of success are going to be fraudulent. The question is, are they goign to get away with it?

I really think the main argument *for* carbon offsets is that it *potentially* can harness free market mechamism to *efficiently* reduce emissions. This would be in contrast to a pure government mandate that everyone cut their emissions by some percent. The problem is that the marginal costs for industry X might be prohibitive; on the other hand industry Y could easily cut more. So why not have X pay Y to cut more than required? This *internalizes* the external benefits of extra reductions for Y.

Of course, it's very easy to screw this up, starting with letting people get away with fraud. But if you allow fraud in *any* market, that undermines the efficiency of the market. If you are going to get the entire economy to reduce emissions by some set goal, you need some mechanism to distribute those reductions so they're made where it's most efficient, and financial efficiency is one thing the free market excels at.

Five Years Ago Microsoft Bought Zenimax's Game Unit, Then Killed It As a Tax Write-Off

It's a good point and most people would be happier with a DHCP client that only pulls address, mask, and gateway.

It might make a secure default but would break some valid configs out there.

Interestingly most of my stuff is static again in the devops era and with security in mind so DHCP is mostly for guest and IoT here at this point. We need to be able to cold-up without dependencies like DHCP. The guest network is the only wifi without a 63-bit PSK so it's also useful for new device onboarding.

So let me get this straight. If there were *real* carbon offset credits, that would in your view be *just as dishonest* as fraudulent ones?

You know what to do.

how?