Leaderboard

I think it's been a long time since we last discussed rep points, specifically negative reps. Originally, I thought they were a useful tool, but now think they cause more harm than good. This is because people seem to be using them more and more as arrows to reinforce their position in a discussion, and when several posters do it to someone in a minority position, it appears they are being subjected to mob justice. This is happening between long-time members who know each other well. It's striking me now as a petty weapon, rather than a device to moderate uncivil behaviour and other social negatives by generally less comitted newer posters. Nothing will be lost just having a like-only system because persistently uncivil, intransigent posters are banned anyway.

I have considered myself a feminist since my days at university in the 1970s. (I am a man.) But today in N America, paradoxically as the social status of women has gradually improved, sexual politics has become a confusing snake pit. One false move and you get bitten. So I am staying well out of it.

Facts which add this whole thing to the “give me a fucking break” category for me: Dwight Eisenhower expressly sought to appoint a Catholic to the seat of retiring Justice Sherman Minton in 1956 and then named William Brennan (yep, a Catholic) to the bench. Recordings from Lyndon Johnson show he deliberately chose to make history with the appointment of the first Black justice and later nominated Thurgood Marshall. Ronald Reagan, October 14, 1980. He said “one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled” by a woman. Reagan also chose Antonin Scalia for the court specifically because he was “of Italian extraction” as confirmed by several of his direct staff. In 1991, George H.W. Bush pledged to replace retiring Justice Marshall with another Black jurist and later nominated Clarence Thomas (yep, a black man just like he said). Donald Trump, September 19, 2020 (a day after Justice Ginsburg died). Donald Trump declared he would limit his search for her replacement to ONLY female candidates. "It will be a woman … we have numerous women on the list." STFU already and stop listening to the propagandists.

I don't see a problem with appointing a black female judge to the SCOTUS. I don't even see a problem with considering someone being from an underrepresented/unrepresented group to hold that as an advantage in the choice. But to announce that you intend to pick from only black females as a limiting criterion is simply wrong IMO, and also kind of dumb, also IMO. He should have just made his choice, and announced her as the best candidate available. Why burden her with a "best available Black Female" label? Why announce to other minorities (or for that matter anyone) that regardless of their qualifications they were not wanted, and ineligible, for a job they may in fact be most qualified for, and have worked hard to become qualified for? Why, but for identity politics and for the purposes of virtue signalling would he announce that? If they, Biden and the Senate, pick one with anything close to the level of integrity of Susan Collins they'll be doing well. ...and as Collins pointed out, a black female should be a welcome addition to the SCOTUS..but Biden has handled it poorly.

Excellent! We've just had our third shot, which is making me a bit heavy-headed today.

O. M. G. Some of us really have no life, innit? Actually, it's a question of access: I work at the computer anyway and need frequent times out. Since Flash died, I can't even play Stone Garden.☹️

I see no strawman: iNow 15 hours ago He's listed here things passed by GOP administrations as a means of rebuttal. I can only interpret that as "They did it, so we can".

So the substantial and significant difference is because a Democrat used race AND sex, whereas (per iNow's examples) Republicans have only stated race OR sex? Just want to make sure I'm clear on your position.

I said much the same in another feedback thread some months ago. Hear, hear.

I've had the same thought, but I feel too new here still to make this suggestion. I do agree and support and +1.

And, in the 115+ years since then, the physics has proceeded very carefully and has found a clear and efficient way to deal with these concepts. The "mass" is generally a term for the invariant mass, an inherent property of a particle (or, a specific coefficient in a QFT Lagrangian), i.e. "the rest mass". The "other numbers [] obtained for the mass" are not in use, nor are the "other definitions [] of the force and the acceleration".

I didn't ask 'Why?'. I asked 'What for?' - as in what's aim, the purpose, the payoff? A future probable home for whom or what? Are you proposing to send extrastellar space-pods full of humans, 5+ light-years away, to a planet that will, by then, maybe have amoeba? Do other planets need or want a Cambrian explosion? So did Sagan. From him, you didn't mind, though you misinterpreted both. There you go with that "known" again. "Is not known" implies that nobody, anywhere knows it. But since you don't know about anybody, anywhere else, all it really means is "I don't know." Humans are the only space-faring species that humans know about. (Not that that has any bearing on my depriving them of chances.) Those would not be rational reasons for crossing the road or climbing on the roof or fetching a glass from the kitchen. They are certainly not rational reasons for undertaking a giant project of which you will never see the result, from which you will never learn anything and which will benefit nobody. That isn't reasoning; that is chest-thumping.

Just making sure everyone was clear on precedent. Please do carry on attacking me for being aware of it and willing to share it for the important context it offers to the current “debate.”

Perhaps he prioritized diversity over other qualifications, and chose a black over other minorities as a means to support a group and specific individuals that have traditionally supported him and his party. Not too dissimilar from a Republican who prioritizes Right to Life or gun rights, and announces he will only choose from candidates with an appropriate track record, as a way to support a group and specific individuals who have traditionally supported him and his party. This is also announcing to other candidates (or for that matter anyone) that regardless of their qualifications they were not wanted, and ineligible, for a job they may in fact be most qualified for, and have worked hard to become qualified for. Do you believe there is a fundamental difference between the Republicans and Democrats who announce ahead of time qualifications they will consider?

You made a claim. I posted actual data to show it lacked merit. Then you moved the goalpost and cherry-picked some data. Unfortunately yes, I do expect that sort of thing, but that doesn’t mean I have to let it pass unchallenged. This glosses over the logarithmic nature of the impact; the climate impact is tied to a doubling of the CO2 levels, not the value itself. Meaning that a given numerical increase has a bigger impact when the levels are low. So going from 285 ppm (ca 1850) to 310 ppm (ca 1950) had a bigger impact on temperature than going from 355 ppm (~1990) to 380 ppm (~2007) The recent rise is more dramatic, and so is the rise in temperature. But there’s nothing misleading in including earlier data. Nobody claimed otherwise. Do you have any inclination to discuss science? I doubt I’m the only one tired of the rhetoric and posturing.

Join the club! The east coast of Australia over the last 4 or 5 years has gone through horredous drought, the worst most catastrophic bushfires in recorded memory, and now El Nino! and floods. I fully support the climate change models and scientific predictions, based on the evidence. But even if the evidence was slightly "wishy washy"(which it obviously isn't) and even if it was less then 100% certain, and only a smidgin of doubt, isn't the proposed worst scenario consequences, a reason to understand that if we are going to err, we must err on the side of caution? I just recently renewed my driver's license, and in NSW once you reach 75 years of age, you must undergo a full medical, which I passed with flying colours. After thinking somewhat, I decided voluntarilly to go on a restricted license limiting me to only drive within 10 kms of my home. We now rely mostly on public transport. A small reduction in my carbon foot print.

OK. What is the biggest and best piece of evidence you can quote me, for CO2 causing a warming disaster this century?

I'm wondering what on earth more any of us can do more to convince @Doogles31731 that there is not, as he imagines, some crucial gap in the basic data in science, just because nobody has revisited Tyndall's 1859 experiment. I suppose one thing is to provide a picture of an IR gas cell, to show him that in fact what a modern IR spectrometer does is exactly what Tyndall did, with the crucial addition of a means of analysing the absorption as a function of wavelength. So below is a picture of a gas cell. It is in effect Tyndall's tube, with windows at the ends transparent to IR. (To this day, many of these windows are made of rock salt, NaCl, though other minerals can also be used.: Another thing we could do is show how mixtures of gases are routinely analysed by IR, every day. Here is a link to a manufacturer of IR gas mixture analysers: https://www.servomex.com/gas-analyzers/technologies/infrared/ Apart from that, I confess I am rather stumped.

Good luck with Callendar. I hope it is useful. But thinking more about your response, I find myself wondering what sort of experimental work you are hoping to find. I don't profess any expertise in this field, but I'd have thought that the principal challenge is in the modelling of the climate, rather than in gathering data on CO2. Once you have the molar attenuation coefficient of CO2 as a function of wavelength, i.e. a well-characterised absorption spectrum (which is well known), I imagine the other data inputs on CO2 that you need are its concentration, perhaps as a function of altitude, and then it's matter of putting that into the mix with all the other horrendously complex factors to do with radiation intensity, albedo, the effect of the oceans and so on and so on, none of which involve CO2 per se. So what further experimental data on CO2 are you thinking would be needed? As for the comments on the variation between models, I'm not sure that is surprising, bearing in mind the complexity of the modelling. But I note we have convergence, rather divergence, which seems to suggest the modelling process is likely to be valid, plus of course 20 years more of actual experience of climate change since the start of the graph, against which to judge the models.

23 minutes ago INow said "They did it, so we'll do it too." In a little while he'll deny he said it, or it was taken out of context, or it's a real stretch to get there from what he said. Give me a fucking break is right ! Nice come back. When your argument can't be backed up, you argue with rep points ? After having claimed you did not say that, you go and post the exact thing I pointed out you were doing. You seem to act very much like your Republican fellow citizens you hate so much.

So nothing from you then? You don't know, but these people do? No surprise there then. That's all you get. "these people think so, so you should too". Their very first claim " The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 2.12 degrees Fahrenheit (1.18 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century" contains the first deception. CO2 levels only started to significantly rise in 1950, but climate alarmists ALWAYS quote the rise from the late 19th century. In fact, the only years that are relevant are from 1950 till now, and they know it, but they want to mislead. I'm afraid your link is a fail, when it starts out by blatantly trying to pull the wool over my eyes. In any case, a temperature rise doesn't prove a CO2 cause. As I proved in my post above. I wouldn't dream of muscling in on your territory. You posted the graph. I commented on it. You have to expect that sort of thing.