The color grading of the years is really bad. The last 20/30 years are all very low in contrast compared to each other, while 1940s and 60s are easy to tell apart, where it is least important. There are so many more colors than yellow/orange/brown, we can use them to get more information density.
Deport them? What the fuck? You can’t deport US citizens fucking hell how dumb is everyone.
Just so others do not need to click etc: they found out it was faked and apologize for spreading fake news.
3 out of the 5 things have nothing to do with green energy.
It is not like it was exactly the same 5 years ago… The lazy “journalists” are the issue.
That’s not the point, which is that the results are indeed mostly very similar, unlike what OP claims.
I never said that only looking at p values is a good idea or anything else like that.
If we only look that those with p <0.05 (green) and with 95 % confidence interval, then there are 17 teams left. And they all(!) agree with more than 95% conference.
What do you mean, all different? Most are exactly the same. The first 4 are a bit low and the last 3 a bit high, but last 2 and first also extremely wide, so irrelevant anyway. Everything else agrees, most within >99 % confidence with only slight differences on the absolute values.
There is always someone who is worse off, so never do something about you own situation. Makes sense.
What…? Stinking is legal, what you say would be sabotage at least, extortion at worse.
No, people do not. Roughly 50 % would still vote him.
You have a finite amount of resources. Your want to reduce/limit global warming add much as possible. So you need to spend the resources as effective as possible, not in applications that cost 10x as much for the same effect.
It does not make sense. Like replacing the light on your oven with an LED instead of the massive flood lights lighting up your castle. Look at the MAC diagram here to see what the low hanging fruits are and which fruits are so high up that no ladder reaches them.
If we can’t even reduce emissions, then we can 10x less remove CO2 directly. That is like a gambling addict trying to cure the addiction by playing a different addictive game in parallel, instead of playing the one game less and less.
Look at the MAC diagram here and then tell me we need to start with the least sensible thing first.
The issue is not removing it or leaving it, it is not emitting even more and at growing rates on top of that.
Look at the MAC diagram here and then tell me we need to start with the least sensible thing first.
Very bad strategy “no need to fix things ASAP, we can reverse it later”. Not to mention that the massive amounts of energy need to come from somewhere.
Revelations of Papua New Guinea’s security talks with China come a month after it signed a $200 million policing deal with Australia.
Oh, I get it, was reading as base 2 and confused by that. Essentially Roman numerals without all the fancy shortcuts.