Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

When I cited this note, I noted there was a hopefully MINOR chance that something drastic could happen in a short period of time.  We just don't know how fast something COULD happen.  I've read notions about "runaway greenhouse effects" where the tundra all melts, ice sheets collapse, and things really go to H in a short period of time, a few years.  Nobody knows is any of that is really likely.  

The other point is "we" aren't really doing much of anything about this beyond throwing a good bit of money at it.  There is no "plan" beyond that, chanting slogans and whatnot.  If "we" really have to reach "net zero" by 2050, a truly massive amount of work would be needed, so massive it's inconceivable most countries could afford it.  And most/all would throw money at it and pretend, while noting we're off target, by a lot, year after year.

And hold meetings in resort areas to clamor for more "action", with no plan at all.

Paleoclimatic records are sufficiently sketchy

ya think?

Of the science reports I see in mass media, nearly all of them are misleading, at least the ones about which I have some knowledge or take the time to read what the scientists actually reported.  Often it's a point of no real import.  And no, a scientist has no real mechanism to alter or explain better such a report, letter to the editor I suppose, which few read.

Judith Curry has some long discussions about this very topic.

One issue here is the original publication may state "Evidence suggests that X happened back when" and it gets reported that "Scientists report X happened back when".

The science "journalists" are no better than regular journalists.

Most folks look to make a buck, commies as well as capitalists, to the extent such things exist today.

A "science writer" for some newspaper might have taken a few science courses in college, that's about it.  Sports writers by contrast are paragons of virtue and superb analysis and writing skills.

I've had some personal interaction with "reporters", in every case I could tell right off they had a story in mind.  If I countered their story line, it was edited out or ignored.  They start with a conclusion and then fit any evidence to that conclusion.

60 Minutes was really bad at this back in the day, probably still are.  They hacked up some topics and later got excoriated by "experts", but the folks watching never heard about it.

How science reporting works:

• Scientist spends years studying and learning something novel that is worthy of actually getting published in a peer-reviewed journal!
• Scientist writes the paper, which is incredibly complex and usually very limited in scope, discussing one previously-unknown aspect of a wider issue. 
• Scientist submits the paper to a journal, it passes peer review, and is published. This is the last time the scientist is involved.
• The journal wants people to subscribe to the journal, so they issue a press release talking about the scientist's paper. It is by definition a crude summary, and because they want to generate buzz, the press release extrapolates that very limited scope of the findings to "what it might possibly mean". 
• A science reporter is looking for stories, receives the press release, and decides to write a story based on the findings. The reporter doesn't read (and probably wouldn't understand) the actual published paper, and relies on the journal's press release.
• The science reporter doesn't want to just parrot the press release, so decides to further embellish the possible "what it might possibly mean" to make the article sexier. 
• The science reporter has an editor, who doesn't read the original paper (obv) nor the journal's press release, only the science reporter's article. The editor then proceeds to make as wide-ranging and clickbaity of a headline as possible to get people to read the article. The headline is likely wildly over-broad and possibly misleading.
• The article then gets circulated on social media, to people who don't read the original paper (ew!), nor the journal's press release, nor the actual article. They assume that what the headline says is exactly what the scientists did, and either trumpet it as truth or argue against it. 

Everyone then pats their own back and congratulates themselves for being, like, almost a scientist!

he Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant in Japan is currently the world’s largest nuclear power plant. As mighty as it may be, its reactors have been shut off for several years due to a cacophony of disasters and controversies. Recent developments suggest that may soon change, however.

https://www.iflscience.com/worlds-largest-nuclear-power-plant-has-been-idle-for-years-but-maybe-not-for-long-72968

The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant is located at a 404-hectare (1,000-acre) site between the towns of Kashiwazaki and Kariwa in Niigata Prefecture along the coast of Japan’s main island of Honshu. Its first reactor started producing power in 1985, while the last one swung into operation in 1994.

It’s operated by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), the largest electric utility in Japan that also runs the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (or, nowadays, runs the clean-up operations there).

Made up of seven boiling water reactor units, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa has a potential total output of 8.212 million kilowatts. However, the colossal power planet is currently idle.

The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa power plant was rocked by the Chūetsu offshore earthquake in 2007, forcing TEPCO to shut down its reactors for nearly two years. Two reactors were temporarily restarted, but they were turned off again in 2012 in the wake of the Fukushima disaster a year earlier, which sparked a total shutdown of all nuclear power plants in Japan.

While Japan has since opened a few of its nuclear reactors, those at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa have remained inactive for almost 12 years.


According to some recent reports though, the power station is back on the path to reopening. In December 2023, Japanese nuclear safety regulators lifted an operational ban imposed on the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant two years prior, according to Reuters.

Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority barred TEPCO from operating Kashiwazaki-Kariwa in 2021 after numerous safety breaches were highlighted. Per the Associated Press, unauthorized people were reportedly allowed to enter “sensitive areas” of the facility, raising concern that it would be vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

After improving its safety management systems, TEPCO will now be able to apply for local permission to restart operations at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant.

However, there are still many hurdles to overcome before Kashiwazaki-Kariwa is pumping out energy again. Many people in Japan distrust TEPCO over their handling of the Fukushima disaster, plus locals in Kashiwazaki and Kariwa remain uneasy about nuclear power stations being in their neighborhoods.