• for: do people know? - 50% chance, 1.5 Deg. C target - is still a crap shoot

• new trailmark: do people know?

• do people know?: 50% chance

  • the well known 1.5 Deg C. target, which currently seems almost impossible to achieve, is still a crap shoot! There is a 50% chance that if be we achieve it, we can still trigger very harmful impacts like tipping points

source?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/163G79vq-mFWjIqMb9AzYGbr5Y8YMGcpbSzJRutO8tpw/edit

Howard Rheingold, et al. A Guide to Crap Detection Resources

It's hard to say what this tells me about my hypothesis that the 7 mg patch increases HRV. It really depends on their blood levels. The second-hand smoke machine is extremely unrealistic. They were exposed to 30 puffs of 1.8% nicotine e-juice in the first measurement interval. Assuming 150 puffs per ml, that's 3.6 mg smoked in a single 15 minute interval! I've not read the full study to confirm this calculation. Nonetheless, it's clear that these insane conditions require scrutiny. That's not even counting the fact that there's no placebo (Or even control). How am I supposed to know if this is not just an effect of being concern about inhaling e-smoke? I'm still searching for studies on low concentration of nicotine and HRV.

Paying attention to the qualifications of the author(s)/composer(s) is another crucial role in crap detection at it will help discern whether or not to take the piece seriously or to use it for further research.

In the Rheinghold text , he explains the importance of pay attention the website layout as well as content. However, in doing so, you must tune your crap detection and remember that not everything with a fancy layout is reliable, and vice versa.

Rather than simply stating information, the author (Berger) explains his source and the way in which he broke his research down into smaller categories. This citation is also apart of crap detection with a reliable source.

The implementing of this specific link gives important attribution and increases source reliability. The text makes a statement and is able to back it up with an external, secure source.

Though Rheinghold stresses the importance of crap detection and researching your sources, he accepts the fact that there a limits that we reach in terms of discernment of validity. This is shown as the ISIS busters reach ethical and practical limits of search. It is important in the way that one mustn't get overwhelmed with finding the true source origin because you can only go so far.

Rheinghold stresses the importance of looking at the base of things, rather than simply the makeup and what you see initially, it is important to dig deeper and look at sources from a questionable yet structured angle.

The article ends in 'edu' which, as Rheinghold states, increases estimation of its credibility.

Considering that the origin of this post comes from a non-secure site, that appears a tad amateur - also brings forth speculation. It is a blog site, and considering this - I somehow take what is posted 'with a grain of salt'.

I begin critiquing this article based on Rheinghold's initial conversation with his daughter. In the text Rheinghold suggests using a free internet service - Whois , in order to search for validity in research. After plugging this domain name into the site, I find that the name of the registered owner is 'Educase'. Educase is a nonprofit core data service for research and analysis.

I will be connecting this text through Howard Rheinghold's "Crap Detection 101" from chapter 2 of his book Net Smart - How to Thrive Online. This allows for further critic of this article in terms of this theme.

I love the pallette of the whitewashed fence and your image below. They're aligned, so to speak. That being said, the mint green of the title of the page gets a little lost. I wonder if you might bump it up and provide a bit more contrast.