Voluntarist
Member

Here's where you can find the report out of the study; and no, it doesn't say what the headline implies. If it was the root cause, you'd be expecting a much higher number than 53%. At 53%, it's basically a coin toss as to whether mothers scoring high on Beck Depression Inventory (BDI - Interview for Depression) or on the Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines (DIB - Interview for borderline personality disorders) are the root cause. It's an interesting correlation, but the study size would caution reading too much into it. One would like to see much larger sample size, or at least multiple replications of the study producing comparable results.

What's more; Finke won by an overwhelming majority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leigh_Finke Minnesota elections 2022: State Representative District 66A for candidate descriptions

David DePape sentenced to 30 years in hammer attack

Doing the same things and expecting different results. I could see it if it were part of some enormous, concerted effort to educate the public; but it's not. I don't see it making it to the House floor for a vote, much less passing to go on to the Senate. And if it makes it to the Senate, it's Dead On Arrival. And if it did actually make it to the President's desk, then Biden would veto it ... and there's absolutely no way it'd garner a veto-proof majority on the rebound. So, what's the point?

From the article mentioned on X ("Jeremy Clarkson, 64, is crowned the UK and Ireland's sexiest man") If you're wondering who did the rating: ... so if you're wondering who married women in the UK and Ireland are looking to hook up with, now you know.

Link to Snopes article

I've been looking into the publisher of the research - Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) which is usually described as a predatory academic publisher. This particular paper was one that is often used in pointing out SCIRP's lack of reputability. This study concluded that the number of babies born with thyroid problems in the western United States increased by 16 percent in 2011 compared to 2010, after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Beyond what XNavyNuke mentions in his quote, there's something even more basic going on. The study failed to take into account the fact that 2010 was a year with an unusually low number of births with thyroid problems, nor was it even mentioned in the paper. You see, it turns out that, over the course of a few decades, 2011 was a pretty normal year with respect to babies born with thyroid problems - it's 2010 that was the outlier. SCIRP refused to print a letter criticizing the study, but offered to publish it as an article for a charge. It's a bit like the temperature changes that are quoted for global warming; they usually quote the temperature increase between the start of the industrial age (roughly 1760 - 1840) to the present ... without mentioning what immediately preceded the industrial age (the Little Ice Age ran from 1300 - 1850, so the starting temperatures were lower than what would be considered normal). Take a look at this story for more great SCIRP-published research. Oh, and yeah, SCIRP is a Chinese-owned publisher. Another name for these publishers is "Vanity Publisher" ... they're easy to get published in and get to see your name glowing in the proverbial lights. Think of Marquis Who's Who In America.

A more meaningful number would be life expectancy after having survived infancy, childhood and adolescence - infant mortality being what it is. Or life expectancy having exceeded the age of eligibility for the military draft. Or, for me (LOL), life expectancy after having retired.

Yes it is; it accounts for more than 90% of the atmosphere's ability to intercept heat. But that isn't the entire story on the comparison between the two. In his book, Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters (pages 50-53), Steve Koonin debunks the notion that a few ppm of CO2 can be ignored because the influence of water vapor is so great. Paraphrasing him, the absorption spectra for H2O and CO2 are different. H2O is really efficient in absorbing the parts of the EM spectrum it absorbs; so much so that these portions of the spectrum are almost fully absorbed at low concentrations of H2O; and doubling the amount of H2O has a negligible effect on additional absorption. The metaphor he uses is that painting a window pane with black paint stops nearly all the light from passing through, but doubling the amount of black paint on the glass by adding a second coat of paint really doesn't stop any more light from passing through (because it was effectively all stopped by the first coat of paint). CO2 is equally effective at absorbing the portions of the spectrum which it absorbs; but because it's at such a low concentration in the atmosphere it's nowhere near the concentration at which it can absorb all the radiation from those portions of the spectrum. Metaphorically, it's like drawing a very sparse crosshatch on the window, which absorbs very little light and allows much more light to pass through. But if you make the crosshatch denser, by adding more lines to it, the result is an outsized impact on the amount of light absorbed. Basically, adding fewer than three molecules of CO2 to 10,000 atmospheric particles (a mere 0.03 percent change), can increase the atmosphere’s heat intercepting ability by about thirty times that amount (1 percent). --- Edited to add Forgot that I had already posted the extract from Koonin's book. Find it here. For more on Koonin and his book, see jmdrake's post

ANOTHER civil war? When was the previous one? What happened in the 1960's was close, but never really made it to fruition. And what happened a century earlier, in the 1860's, was a war between the federated states and rebelling states. A civil war is when you have to worry about being in a neighborhood that's a couple of miles away from you, particularly at night. A civil war is when you stop taking vacations by car because you worry about the localities you might have to pass through. A civil war is when a guy heads home from a pub after having a couple with his friends and never makes it home and is instead found face drown in a ditch the next morning, leaving his 11 year old son as the breadwinner of the family - as 69360 points out: The gun laws in Northern Ireland are much different than those in the US. So no, it WILL be a shooting war in the US. The difference is that there won't be identifiable lines of combat as there were in what was loosely called the American Civil War. Instead, it will appear as increased levels of lawlessness in adjacent neighborhoods that have ideological or ethnic differences. The 11 year old, that I mentioned above, was my grandfather. His father was assassinated by the IRA in Belfast. When I asked him about it, late in life, he answered: ... which is why I took the time to respond. Don't teach the hatred; you won't like where it leads (even less than you like where we are right now).

May the 4th be with you

No matter what anyone says about me after I die, remember: I'm not Black, and I definitely cannot rap. Alexander Hamilton (moments before dying)

My understanding is that all FAFSA-based student loans (both subsidized and unsubsidized) are issued by the US Government Department of Education. So what you're effectively recommending is what Biden is trying to do now by forgiving student loans; except, under your scenario, I could see "declaring bankruptcy" becoming a standard part of the college graduation ceremony, making student loan forgiveness universal. Now if you got the government out of the business of issuing the loans, that'd be a whole different story. The lending institutions (if faced with loan recipients willing to declare bankruptcy) would then certainly be examining each individual case for credit worthiness and likelihood to repay the loans before issuing the loans. I think a better system would be for financial/investment institutions to offer grants in exchange for a percentage cut of all future earnings (pay, bonuses, stock options, etc.) ... but I think it's questionable whether the 13th Amendment would allow for that or not.

Biden Clears $6 Billion in Debt for Closed Art School’s Students May 1, 2024 My first question would be: "What was the fraud (looks to be 'made pervasive and substantial misrepresentations), and why wasn't it caught before the federal government started issuing and guaranteeing loans for students attending the schools?" ... if the bureaucrats are doing due diligence regarding taxpayer dollars, shouldn't they be certain that those dollars are going to reputable institutions? Next question: "Who's been indicted, prosecuted and convicted of this fraud?" ... because shouldn't they and the respective schools be the ones responsible for ponying up to pay the bill?

You mean like knowing which fork to use for the meat entre?

Probably shouldn't have used Leonard Nimoy's "In Search Of ..." as representative of anything being pushed by mainstream scientists in the 1970's. From Wikipedia: So, it would have been right in line with that "concept of the series" for them to have been pushing the non-mainstream perspective that we were about to enter the next Glacial Period of the Quaternary Ice Age that began about 2.5 million years ago and is still with us (an ice age being any substantial period during which extensive areas of the globe are perpetually covered by ice). Yes, there were scientists in the 1970's that thought we were headed into another Glacial Period. Most of those were not predicting it would occur within decades. They were instead pointing out that we were currently 12,000 years into an Interglacial Period and that Interglacials typically lasted 10,000 to 15,000 years before heading back into another Glacial Period. Statistically, we're much closer to the end of the Interglacial than the beginning. The portion of the science community believing/promoting the idea that a Glacial Period was a few generations away amounted to less than 10% of the community. That's quite unlike the greater than 90% pushing Global Warming today. And yes, that non-mainstream idea from the 1970's got press coverage for a short while; the sensational always does (but keep in mind that Bigfoot and the Lock Ness Monster got more coverage in the newspapers and periodicals than Global Cooling did). There are rational arguments to be made for skepticism on Global Warming, but to raise the specter of the 1970's Global Cooling proponents detracts from those arguments. In essence, it associates those making the rational arguments with those trying to insinuate that Global Cooling was a predominant theory in the 1970's (something you don't want to do because 90% of the science community in the 1970's were pushing against that hypothesis). If you're wanting to promote skepticism of Global Climate Change, then stick to what's in Steve Koonin's book, "Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters". Buy it. Read it. Know it. You can tell it's a good book, because it tears apart bad arguments both for and against the Global Climate Change hypothesis.

It's been a half century since I've lived in "farm country", but I do remember it. Same resolution handed out to egg-sucking hounds, because once they've had a taste they're always going to go back and do it again. I even knew of a horse that was put down that way. I can't recall the last time I saw Hud aired. Cosby had a routine on it (but we're not allowed to mention Cosby any longer). Both of those are from a different time back in the sixties.

Wouldn't they have to move out of the NFL and into the Sarcastaball League for that?

Rumor floating around is that her husband was having an affair with it; and Kristi just went off the deep end when she found out.

Reminder: RFK, Jr. will appear in a one-on-one interview with Bill Maher on tonight's episode (4/26/2024) of Real Time with Bill Maher. It's on HBO; but if you do a web-search around 10:00-11:00 pm ET, you can generally find a bootleg of it on YouTube.

What God wants, God gets, God help us all. ... God wants politics - God wants a good laugh Roger Waters with Jeff Beck

Maine and Nebraska are the only two states that split their electoral votes like that - and now Maine is backing out of that arrangement for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. If every state had followed the split vote paradigm, Romney would have beat Obama in 2012 (despite losing the popular vote). Biden won the popular vote in OC in 2020; so it's not a sure thing (particularly if the GOP is running a MAGA candidate). The more RINO a candidate is, the more likely they'd carry OC though. And yeah, it's unconstitutional. The Compact Clause (Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3) provides that “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ... enter into Any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power.”

Research paper for anyone interested: Last Glacial Maximum pattern effects reduce climate sensitivity estimates If they're reducing climate sensitivity estimates today, I think that means that the science from last week was not settled. Article summarizing the research: Ice age data analysis offers good news for Earth’s current climate woes

Are you better off today than you were four years ago (America: Stuck on Stupid)

Quiet On Set: The Dark Side Of Kids' TV

FYI: RFK, Jr. will be on "Real Time with Bill Maher" next week (26APR2024)