Later On

A blog written for those whose interests more or less match mine.

Archive for September 6th, 2017

Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed

leave a comment »

Katherine Ellen Foley writes in Quartz:

It’s often said that of all the published scientific research on climate change, 97% of the papers conclude that global warming is real, problematic for the planet, and has been exacerbated by human activity.

But what about those 3% of papers that reach contrary conclusions? Some skeptics have suggested that the authors of studies indicating that climate change is not real, not harmful, or not man-made are bravely standing up for the truth, like maverick thinkers of the past. (Galileo is often invoked, though his fellow scientists mostly agreed with his conclusions—it was church leaders who tried to suppress them.)

Not so, according to a review published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology. The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results.

Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, worked with a team of researchers to look at the 38 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last decade that denied anthropogenic global warming.

“Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus,” Hayhoe wrote in a Facebook post. . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

6 September 2017 at 4:16 pm

A must-watch (and must-listen) short video

leave a comment »

Just click and go, in this post. Sound required.

Written by LeisureGuy

6 September 2017 at 2:10 pm

Posted in Video

Can You Get Addicted to Trolling?

leave a comment »

Very interesting article in Motherboard by Virginia Pelley.

Written by LeisureGuy

6 September 2017 at 2:06 pm

What if our system can’t handle Trump’s out-of-control self-dealing?

leave a comment »

Sarah Posner writes in the Washington Post:

Two new investigative reports out today vividly describe in fresh detail the scope and scale of President Trump’s business conflicts of interests and the damage they are inflicting on our political system.

The reports, taken together, raise the question: Can our system handle the unprecedented conflicts and self-dealing that this president is engaged in?

The two investigative reports, one from USA Today and the other from the government watchdog group Public Citizen, together show how Trump’s refusal to divest himself from his global business holdings has created a new ecosystem, outside the view of the public and the oversight capabilities of other branches of government. In the new Trump ecosystem, the world’s wealthiest people and corporations can buy direct access to the president, simultaneously lining his pockets while achieving their own personal or policy goals.

For the first time in the nation’s history, USA Today concludes, “wealthy people with interests before the government have a chance for close and confidential access to the president as a result of payments that enrich him personally.” This Trumpian ecosystem is completely unprecedented; as former Office of Government Ethics director Walter Shaub told the newspaper, “We never thought we’d see anyone push the outer limits in this way.”

Our system is not prepared to hold Trump or these outside influence peddlers accountable because no one — not the framers of our Constitution or lawmakers of any era in U.S. history — ever anticipated a president who would retain a lucrative stake in such a far-reaching business empire once in office, despite the blatant and extensive conflicts of interest it has set in motion. Worse, no one envisioned that a president would so brazenly snub his nose at ethical standards intended to uphold the simple credos that access to the president of the United States is not for sale and the presidency is not a profit-making enterprise.

It’s precisely because such contempt for ethics was unimaginable that no constraints against Trump-like behavior were ever put in place. And now we are beginning to see the effects of his running roughshod over the standards that distinguish a functioning democracy from a kleptocracy.

The USA Today report shows how Trump, despite his claims that he would “drain the swamp” of lobbyists, has simply given wealthy people direct access to him. All they have to do is pay the hefty membership fees at one of his private golf clubs. Initiation fees can exceed $100,000, and members pay annual dues on top of that. . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

6 September 2017 at 12:51 pm

The little-known benefit of DACA: It reduced mental illness in dreamers’ children

leave a comment »

David D. Laitin, Linna Martén, and Jens Hainmueller report in the Washington Post:

Among the many dramas of the Trump presidency has been whether he would fulfill his campaign promise to dismantle the DACA program. Months of speculation and mounting anxiety among immigrants and their advocates culminated Tuesday, when Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Trump administration would rescind DACA protections in six months’ time.

The program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, provided temporary relief from deportation and the right to work for unauthorized immigrants who had been brought to the United States as children. To date, some 800,000 of these “dreamers” have successfully applied for the deferred action.

The press has focused its attention on the plight of these young people — some now adults in their 30s — many of whom have no memories of living elsewhere. What has been ignored is the predicament of the DACA recipients’ children, most of whom are U.S. citizens by birth.

When DACA was announced in 2012, those eligible for the program were parents to an estimated 200,000 children. This constitutes a subset of the estimated 5 million children in the United States who have at least one unauthorized immigrant parent.

How does DACA protection for parents affect the lives of their children? Our Stanford Immigration Policy Lab study, recently published in Science, produced this striking finding: when mothers are eligible for DACA protection, their kids’ mental health improves dramatically.

We used data from Oregon’s Emergency Medicaid program to identify mothers who gave birth to children born between 2003 and 2015. The program provides coverage for labor and delivery, and most of the program’s participants are unauthorized immigrants. Since the children of these mothers are U.S. citizens by birth, they are eligible for the broader Medicaid program, and we could thereby track their mental health outcomes over time.

To be eligible for DACA, people had to be born after June 15, 1981. This arbitrary date creates a sort of experiment, since DACA recipients born just after this cut-off date should be similar to those born just before, who were not eligible for DACA. The same should be true for their children. So by comparing these children after DACA was implemented, we could determine how DACA protection for mothers affected their children.

Our study focused on diagnoses of adjustment and anxiety disorders, mental illnesses known to be provoked by external stress and that can produce lifetime challenges for children. Childhood mental illness also accounts for the highest share of the nation’s pediatric health care spending.

Here is what we found: children with mothers born either before or after the DACA age cutoff were diagnosed with these disorders at roughly the same rate before DACA was implemented: . . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

6 September 2017 at 12:08 pm

4 lies Jeff Sessions told to justify ending DACA

leave a comment »

Vox has a good article that shows clearly why Jeff Sessions was afraid to take questions when he announced the end of DACA.

Written by LeisureGuy

6 September 2017 at 11:55 am

Edwin Jagger synthetic, Chiseled Face Summer Storm, and the RazoRock Baby Smooth

leave a comment »

The EJ synthetic does not require such a shake as required by a Plissoft synthetic, probably because the knot is somewhat more open. The brush easily worked up a fine lather with the petrichor fragrance that makes Summer Storm what it is.

The Baby Smooth is remarkably good, and I’ve noticed that after I sent one to my grandson, he favors it as well. Three very easy passes, a splash of Summer Storm aftershave, and the day is belatedly launched.

I’m having some camera problems with a cable transfer, but took out the little SD card and loaded from that. We may have photo problems.

Written by LeisureGuy

6 September 2017 at 11:26 am

Posted in Shaving

%d bloggers like this: