She's starting to talk like climate change deniers and intelligent design cranks. Paranoid and desperate for attention.

"starting to talk like" is just code for you not being to quote and make a valid criticism of what she is saying.

Looks very flood-prone

You're correct, the comet theory has been debunked for years at this point.

I would much rather unelected bureaucrat scientists decide how to implement the intent and application of laws than congress.

Regulations that automatically expire after some time period but require Congress to given an up/down vote would give the regulations greater legitimacy in a democratic system.

Congress doesn't need the expertise to write the regulations. The elected Congress could just vote to pass the regulations as laws. Congress just doesn't want to be on the hook for the regulations, which is part of the reason why they hand off law-making to the agencies in the first place.

Theoretically, this approach would give people a greater voice in the rules that govern them. Sadly, in practice, we can't seen to rollback the proliferation of criminal laws that embolden prosecutors and lead to an unfathomable number of people in jail that have not been convicted by juries.

Congress already has that power now though..? The congressional review act lets congress review and vote on new regulations issued by government agencies. Lots of people in this thread seem to be missing the fact that congress already approves of these agency rules. If they didn't they would have blocked them under the CRA.

Congress failing to block a rule by passing a CRA resolution is very different from Congress approving of the rule. For example, if the majority in the House supports a rule but the majority in the Senate does not (or vice versa), neither an explicit approval action nor an CRA blocking resolution can be passed.

Not really. If congress writes the laws intending the responsible agency to resolve ambiguities (which they do in just about every case) and doesn't object via CRA I don't see how that isn't an explicit approval.

It’s incorrect to assume that Congress knows and intends every ambiguity they create and that they can foresee and approve of all the interpretations an agency might reasonably come up with for each such ambiguity.

Even in those cases where they recognize an ambiguity they create and where the agency’s interpretation is within a scope that Congress approvingly foresaw, that’s at most an implicit pre-approval of the agency’s regulation, not an explicit approval of the regulation in the sense that defeating a CRA resolution would be.

Far more importantly, most CRA resolutions attempted to date have not occurred in the same Congress as the one that passed the authorizing legislation for the regulation. There is no reason at all to assume that the Congress attempting the CRA resolution holds the same view on the relevant agency interpretation as the one that passed the authorizing legislation, whether that view is approval or disapproval.

You hake no reason to assume that. The people who will try to write those regulations are those with have an angle. We call it regulatory capture.

I don't see how the threat of regulatory capture would argue against letting experts decide what actions need to be taken to protect the publics health and the environment

I would argue against government bureaucrats being experts.

Congress is similarly captured.

Which is way easier when you only have to convince random court with a gish-galloping person as "expert witness".

Regulatory capture at agency level is way harder to do.

You're assuming these people are actually dispassionate scientists and not, ya know, political appointees.

You can find the preprint, which the Twitter thread summarizes, here (https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.10102)

Question for any physicists out there. If the theory can be tested with just a 1 kg mass on Earth, could the fluctuation in mass of GPS satellites also be detectable from their timing data?

I'm a physicist but not an expert in this field, but my guess would be the answer a comprehensive "no".

The way satellites orbit is incredibly well described by Newtonian mechanics and there the impact of their mass on the shape/timing of the orbit is by changing the center of mass of the combined satellite-earth system. That is you only get measurable effects if the fluctuation in the mass are big enough compared to the mass of the earth.

I've used Pocket Casts for ~8 years. Can't recommend it enough, a really great app.

I would describe Michio Kaku the same way.

I don’t know who you are or why you’d describe him this way, but your post doesn’t contribute to the discussion.

I dont think there's much to discuss about this article because Kaku's opinion on AI is worthless.

He is less a physicist than a parrot that is paid to repeat far fetched claims about whatever pop science thing is in the news.

Your comment seems to have been written by an untrained chatbot!

Further in the paper

"The mean of the bootstrapped estimates of the tipping time is 〈tc〉 = 2050, and the 95% confidence interval is 2025–2095."

Climate change was sometimes dismissed (or reduced) by saying that’s it an issue for our grandchildren. With those error bars (NOW to +40 years), the immediate nature of the problem and the required response should hit home. Given recent heatwaves, I think nature is starting to hit us with the clue stick. I hope the important people are listening.

Whoof. Those are some spooky error bars.

Especially since almost every "long term" problem seems to be happening in the much shorter term than was originally predicted. Not great!

From the paper

"The mean of the bootstrapped estimates of the tipping time is 〈tc〉 = 2050, and the 95% confidence interval is 2025–2095."