Oh, we need to continue to drop, BUT, what is needed is for the west to get all of the other nations to stop growing theirs. I've never said otherwise
The only problem is that we MUST get all other nations to quit growing theirs. Even stable is better than not.

The only way to do that is to put a tax on all good/service based on where the item AND all of the parts/Service and sub-service come from. Once you do that, and base it solely on direction, companies will either push nations to change directions quickly, OR they will quit buying/working in those nations.
That would stop the growth unlike the BS that UN is doing.

Seriously, comments like this are absolutely worthless. Why? Because even if the ENTIRE western nations, including America, were to stop adding CO2 to the air, it would continue to grow. Why? Because India, China, and All of the undeveloped nations that China continues to add new coal plants to, are all increasing CO2 quickly. The west has cut some 20-25% over the last 20 years. Yet, the emissions have grown much faster and much higher.

UN is NOT going to stop it because they do not want to put the screws to China or the undeveloped nations. What is needed is for the west to put on a REAL 'carbon tax'. Simply tax all goods and services based on where the WORST part/sub-service comes from, in terms of GHG DIRECTION for the last 2+ years. At this time, we just need to get ALL nations to quit adding GHG to their emissions. For more than 80% of the additional emissions, that means STOP BUILDING NEW COAL POWER PLANTS.

That's not what I said. I meant that humans have never adapted their languages to deal with the problem of war. Quite the contrary, as you yourself explain.

War is humanity's disease and humans seem quite content to remain sick. And so similarly, if humanity is also the whales' biggest problem, it's conceivable that they haven't done anything about it either for some inexplicable reason, assuming they're intelligent enough to do so.

Also, assuming whales have human-level intelligence, it's quite possible that they also have human-level forgetfulness: it's possible that today's generation of whales have totally forgotten the "terror years of whaling" their forebears have lived through, and they think the danger has passed - or they're totally unaware that terrible things have happened to them at all. To my knowledge, even if whales are supremely intelligent, they don't have history books, televisions or libraries to remember what they haven't been through themselves or heard of first hand - well, first flipper I guess...

That doesn't mean anything: humans have killed millions of humans too, and there is no evidence that humans have adapted their communication in any way to deal with the problem either.

And a lot of the sounds humans make is also about mating.

"Hey Mike, look up: the fucking monkeys are circling overhead in their fucking boats again."

"Uh oh... Better dive deep in case they came with their spikey things again"

Peer reviewers are volunteers who don't get paid, at least that's not the norm in science. Arguably they should be given the importance of the task. If you've ever seen peer review comments, some of them are obviously phoned in. Occaisionally institutions will offer honoraria for reviewing proposals -- typically $200 or so. This is not a lot of money considering how much work it is.

Here's how I look at it: generative AI is dsigned to create plausible-looking output in response to a prompt. That's how the lawyer who submitted a ChagGPT-generated brief got caught. The references the AI generated for the brief looked plausible enough to pass a cursory inspection, even by an expert, but if you looked them up they didn't exist.

This wasn't a failure of the AI; the AI did exactly what it was designed to do. It was the fault of people who relied on it to do something it wasn't designed to do. Surely someday soon a *lot* of the work of peer review will be automated by AI before a paper actually gets reviewed by a human, to avoid wasting reviewer time with obvious shortcomings.

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.

You know why? Because I block ads.

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.

The next one won't make anybody laugh.

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.

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?

how?