Science of the Month

christophski , 9 months ago

This is awesome, thanks!

ICastFist , 9 months ago

Got curious about the “new nuclear is a costly and dangerous distraction” in climate change mitigation

Went after the source, and the gist of the idea is “going nuclear takes too long, is more expensive than renewables and we need change NOW”

As for the carbon tax being better when going after the rich (because they’re the biggest consumers of luxury goods): NO SHIT SHERLOCK

prototyperspective OP , 9 months ago (edited 9 months ago)

Yes, the issue is that many of the most obvious things are not getting researched or substantiated. Moreover, the two studies provide useful data on this. Costs stats

Sadly, many of the most valuable things scientists could investigate are no-shit-sherlock things. These are highly impactful and important studies. I’ve been tracking over a thousand of the top studies per month for over three years, since recently even with extra attention to policy-relevant studies as these are rare and often drown. I could give lots of examples of similar cases such as this recently featured first review of measures to prevent risks from bioresearch/labs or yet unstudied things with nothing to cite.
Maybe that inspires some to become scientists themselves because that is required to be able to meaningfully publish valuable research on such subjects that matter in the real world.

cabron_offsets , 9 months ago

Appreciate this post, bruh.

prototyperspective OP , 9 months ago (edited 9 months ago)

Thanks, spending many days on going through >2k studies, the criteria-based selection and integrating most of these into Wikipedia (the image itself takes less time). Happy to see it’s appreciated.

Rokil , 9 months ago

Thanks for this summary! I was not aware of this article: “Why investing in new nuclear plants is bad for the climate”.

It sounded a bit counter-intuitive, but I’m gonna read this article