Leaderboard

"The feminism movement is leading to a new culture war today?" It is hard to see how a 100 year old (and then some) movement is causing anything "new" today. But it's easy to see how the current crop of "famous for being famous" pundits could be stirring the pot today because they want to get paid today.

Maybe he is a good person?

Well, this thread might omit things like milankovich cycles and I'd be surprised if climate modeling includes it - after confirming it is insignificant at the time scales they work with. Climate science doesn't focus only on CO2. But it is the biggest forcing, second only to the atmospheric aerosol pollution that masks a large part of how much we've been enhancing the greenhouse effect. In their role of advising the likely climate consequences of economically significant activities climate scientists are right to make CO2 the headline act - without neglecting the others - (a bit old, but.. Given the dominant role CO2 has in current warming, it's propensity to exceed the capacity of vegetation and ocean carbon sinks and accumulate, along with the susceptibility of carbon sinks to stop being sinks and cross tipping points to become sources aka carbon feedbacks (aka CO2 driven warming preceding rising natural releases of CO2) it is right for policy making to give it high priority. It is not the greenhouse potential of relevant atmospheric gases that is presenting challenges for improving climate change projections. In that sense climate science is a lot less about CO2 as about the internal climate responses and feedbacks. The overall, ongoing gain of heat in air, land and water is not in doubt. It is clearly evident, eg in the ocean heat content data, so "no change" has stopped being a valid null assumption. How that heat gain plays out in terms of the weather and climate we experience is challenging climate modelers; itmay be hard to pin down precisely but climate models are doing it more than well enough to on with.

It doesn't have to be. There are 700 quintillion planets in the Universe, (whatever that means), so our planet could be like a grain of sand in this Universe. Another way of looking at the fine tuning argument, is to look at the odds against your own existence. A healthy man constantly produces 1500 brand new sperm in his testicles PER SECOND !!!!! and when he ejaculates, he lets fly with 250,000,000 of the little buggers. Only one of the 250 million would produce you. Any of the others would have produced someone quite different. And that's just PART of the odds against your existence. So the slightest difference in the conditions of your conception could have meant that someone quite different to you would have been born. Then there's the odds against your parents ever meeting, or their parents meeting, or their parents meeting, or deciding that they liked each other, or feeling like sex on that specific occasion. The odds against me getting born must be more than 700 quintillion to one against, yet here I am. Therefore, all of the conditions must have been fine-tuned to produce me !!

Interesting and balanced talk between Lex Fridman and Gary Nolan on this topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTCc2-1tbBQ Premiered February 7th, 2022

It is too anthropocentric. The idea behind a fine-tuned universe is that a superior entity, like a God, created the universe with the exact parameters that would lead to the existence of life (and by extension mankind). It is derived from philosophers like Leibniz who believed that God created the best of all possible worlds. Just like the multiverse theories, it is nonscientific because it can not be refuted. A serious scientist knows that when we measure a constant (such as the Newtonian constant of gravitation) then there is no reason to believe its value could have been different, and there is no reason to believe that there are other universes that have a different value for that constant. All that rubbish is nonscientific. There is only one value, the one we measure, period.

I agree with exchemist here – this is a longstanding project. I doubt global warming has done anything to speed up results. I did a postdoc at an accelerator lab, which is another example of a large project. The pace is dictated by technical and logistical issues.

Peterson is saying whatever creates the most outrage so that he can remain relevant and line is pockets.

Sums up the closed-mindedness right there, making sweeping incorrect statements such as this. I've had every vaccine under the sun (clearly not anti-vax) But apparently I'm the foolish one for questioning new vaccine technology that's still in its trial phase and has been rushed through in 11 months. And questioning the governments justification of removing informed consent and considering forced vaccination for healthcare workers, at least 70% of which have already been infected and acquired natural immunity, and therefore don't need the vaccine and will protect patients to a far better degree than those vaccinated and uninfected. Based just on that premise alone it's clearly not foolish to be sceptical and ask important questions over efficacy and safety and regarding government action. What's the phrase? "Only fools rush in".... and here you are rushing in, making claims of efficacy and safety that are unsubstantiated and supporting draconian government dictates that aren't supported by the science. And that's not even considering the following: The re-classification of categorising Covid based on 'flu-like' symptoms, (hugely inflated figures) Testing positive within 60 days (later 28 days) and listing all deaths 'WITH' covid as opposed to 'OF' covid (hugely inflated figures) Using flawed PCR testing without presenting or referring to CT values and claiming all to be infectious when the vast majority aren't. (hugely inflating infection figures) Ignoring natural immunity and even attempting to claim that vaccine immunity is better. No transparency in the trial data and the presentation of Relative risk instead of Absolute risk reduction figures - which misled the public as to the efficacy of the vaccine The implementation of lockdowns without evidence supporting their use - with the evidence now confirming they are useless. The attempt to present zero covid as an option (impossible to achieve) at great cost to human lives The implementation of Masks during the summer with the bulk of evidence showing a lack of effectiveness Measures implemented without a cost/benefit analysis performed. These are just a few of the major flaws and anti-scientific rhetoric that's been pushed by the 'consensus' in power that you seem to think shouldn't be questioned and we should blindly support. To accept this nonsense without question and even promote it as the norm, indicates that either you've lost the ability to critically think, or your intention is to mislead because no self respecting intelligent person would consider any of this normal practice, because clearly it isn't. But I'm sure even though I've put forward a reasonable and fair argument here, this message will still be down-voted because it challenges the agenda to support the mainstream narrative that this forum seems to have. Have you finished throwing your tantrum? Blimey, "we know your type" (echo chamber), how self-righteous (egotistical), deluded (closed-minded) and petty can one person be to claim these things against someone making valid points? ...but oh no, like you said, there's no echo chamber, bruised egos, nor closed mindedness at play here... (oh dear)

Your opinion means a lot to me. I’m broken right now. Downright shattered by your harsh views and dislike of this community. I may never recover. Rejecting creationism and acknowledging the validity of evolution… supporting the evidence backed consensus position of natural selection… does not mean there’s an echo chamber, bruised egos, nor closed mindedness at play. Dismissing deniers of anthropogenic climate change… supporting the evidence backed consensus position on the primary drivers of global warming… does not mean there’s an echo chamber, bruised egos, nor closed mindedness at play. In much the same way, having no more patience for this sort of anti-vaccination foolishness and Ayn Rand style childish libertarianism in now year 3 of a global pandemic… a pandemic that’s already claimed 6,000,000 lives… and supporting the evidence backed consensus position on vaccine safety and efficacy does not mean there’s an echo chamber, bruised egos, nor closed mindedness at play. We know your type. You’re not the first to come here acting this way. You won’t be the last. You’re simply on the wrong side of this one, and every one else is tired of your tired obstinacy, your willful ignorance, your type of selfishness, and your misguided ideological bullshit and disingenuous presentations of evidence. Summarized: Right. Whatever. Cheerio.

I think the point you are missing is that more relevant / recent data is available - why use old data? Doing so indicates a misinformed view or confirmation bias. Please provide the evidence for these statistics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning Enough sardines!

I would stop all money spent on climate research, and spend it on fusion. It must be a win/win. If climate change is a real threat, then your money spent on fusion might make a difference. Instead of modelling the problem, your money might actually solve the problem. If climate change didn't turn out to be as bad as you thought, your money isn't wasted, it's still well-spent on cheap and limitless energy. After all, what more, of any practical use, is there to be learned about GW? C02 is bad. Methane is bad. We know that now.

Am I getting voted down for pointing out major errors? Making accusations of intent to mislead? Or simply because you don't like it when someone challenges your opinions with reasonable arguments? Nothing I've said here is controversial - maybe a little adversarial - but certainly nothing out of the ordinary.

Your interpretation of the data is disingenuous, and conclusion incorrect which appears to expose your intention to mislead. I can accuse you of the latter because you are a biology expert, and should therefore be aware of the following major errors in your conclusion - which you did not draw attention to: The 0.146% figure you quote is only for hospitalised patients with Covid not all cases of covid! Naturally excluding the vast majority of people who test positive (or have covid) without needing to be hospitalised means that the true risk of myocarditis in the population who get infected would be many orders of magnitude smaller than the 0.146% figure you disingenuously claim is the figure that represents the overall risk of myocarditis from catching covid. Underlying medical conditions and alternative etiologies for myocarditis (e.g., autoimmune disease) were not ascertained or excluded. The spurious vaccinated figure of 0.0071% not only seems to be a miscalculation on your part (please provide your workings) but this figure is taken from VAERS, which as you know, is a passive reporting system - meaning the data is greatly inaccurate. It is claimed that only 1-10% of vaccine injury cases are reported, in other words your conclusion is gross under-calculation of the actual threat. It's extremely concerning that someone of your alleged medical expertise has ignored these major limitations, failed to point them out and presented misleading data to generate what is essentially a glaringly obvious false conclusion. I recommend you consider your own confirmation bias. I just find it very odd on a science forum that very few appear to be open-minded, choosing instead to defend the status quo as if the majority are always correct, that's not objective critical thinking, it's defending dogma. It's also strange that you are mentioning conspiracy theories when all I've been doing is questioning the science - scientists and politicians do get things wrong you know, there doesn't have to be a conspiracy. It seems like you are implying that the official narrative is always correct - meaning politicians and scientists never get things wrong. Besides the word conspiracy is synonymous with corruption - are you saying conspiracies don't exist? Because if you are this implies that corruption doesn't exist. This type of thinking echo's that of a closed-mind.

I haven't. Only the points I disagree with that are not a genuine attempt to present an objective argument, or attempts to demean: For example how is implying I'm sealioning (The Vat) a constructive contribution? It's not, so it gets a down vote. And yet I put forward many reasonable arguments, and yet they are down-voted. This is hardly an objective forum. Arete has clearly been disingenuous with the figures presented, I point that out as any critical thinker should do - and it gets down-voted? I'm sorry, are we not allowed to point out when people are wrong? You lot seem to be more than happy to dish it out, just not so happy to receive it back. Shame, and petty.

That response tells me everything I need to know. The words, echo chamber, bruised ego's, and closed-mindedness spring to mind when describing this forum.

I feel this women deserves a husband who is much better looking than her current husband.