bascule

IMM and I are both Utilitarians... and I have no problem with eating fish. She just has a different set of priorities when it comes to making moral judgements. I thought the response from a PETA spokeperson in the article was hilarious: (note the composition fallacy: some animals feel pain -> all animals feel pain. also, it's clear this spokesperson didn't actually read the study)

I think your comparison of acorn:oak tree and blastocyst:human being is apt. Furthermore, a blastocyst in vitro is not and will not become a human being, unless it is implanted back into a human uterus where it can develop.

If you lived here you'd still be 3 years off

Here's a tangentially related article: Fish lack the brains to feel pain, says the latest school of thought I don't think lobsters (or fish, for that matter) have the type of brain structure (neocortical) required for a conscious experience of the type we have. I think their behavior is more robotic.

Economies bounce back. Humans create value. The more time elapses, the more value humans create. I'm a liberal hippie douche and even I can recognize this simple fact.

What if black holes create new universes?

I'm 24

That was Hofstadter's basic conclusion. I still contend that AGI or BCI will be revolutionary. The question of when cannot be realistically answered, however.

Well, the question of personhood is really more important in my mind. But that's related to the entirely tangential issue of when will computers become people.

Are you kidding? That's my favorite time to cook!

It's certainly a big part of it for me. The "human being" bit came out of the Missouri amendment which provides protections for stem cell research, and the difference between "cloning" stem cells and cloning a human being. The amendment explicitly bans the latter.

Oh, I forgot that the topic is in reference to Genesis's Jesus He Knows Me: "I believe in the family... with my ever-lovin wife beside me... but she don't know about my girlfriend or the man I met last night" (Video features a black [male prostitute?] in a cowboy hat) http://youtube.com/watch?v=2XBMwgzO2fk

Pastor Ted Haggard of New Life Church in Colorado Springs and head of the National Evangelical Association, married and father of 5 kids, has resigned amidst a scandal in which he was accused of soliciting sex by a gay prostitute, who claimed a three year history between the two. http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4588998?source=email

One of my favorites is "Japanese Pizza", a.k.a. okonomiyaki: 200 g flour 200 ml water 2-4 eggs Diced cabbage (lots of it, the more the better) 1-2 cups okonomi fruit and vegetable sauce (you should be able to find this at any asian/japanese specialty store) 1 chinese yam (yamatoimo) Combine all of the above in a bowl. You can omit the yam if you want, but it will change the texture substantially. Once you have the batter, you cook it into griddle cakes, kind of like a pancake. The fun part is you can drop whatever ingredients you want into the griddle cake while it cooks. Cover the top, let the ingredients cook in, then flip it and cook them all directly. Some common ingredients are: (dice any of these that are large) Aonori Powder - Ground seaweed (available at a Japanese specialty store) Katsuobushi - Dried/shaved bonito (a type of fish) Shrimp Squid Onions Radishes Once it's cooked, cover it with okonomi sauce and enjoy!

DNA is just information. If "it contains human DNA" is your metric then any computer containing a human genome is a human being.

If you're going to argue potentials, then every sperm has the potential to be a human being. By that definition, every time you masturbate, you're committing genocide. Every time a woman ovulates but does not conceive, she has committed murder. Sperm and eggs are clearly not human beings (or at least, I can only hope you agree). So why is a blastocyst? A blastocyst needs to implant itself in the uterine wall and suck an enormous wealth of nutrients from the uterine bloodstream in order to become a human being. Without these things, it's a lump of cells that's doomed to die. Many blastocysts fail to implant and die. Should we charge the mother with manslaughter for killing a potential human being?

And what I should really say is: JonathanLowe, if you're going to claim the entire climate science community is wrong, your best bet is going to be to download a paper in which they assess the annual mean surface temperature and specifically criticize their methodology. You're simply claiming "I'm getting different numbers, therefore they're wrong" The obvious fallacy there is: what if you're wrong?

Okay, there's two possibilities here: 1) The climate science community is wrong 2) You are wrong Which is more likely? You haven't calculated an average mean surface temperature. Why don't you try doing that? You haven't outlined what methodology you are using, or intend to use, for calculating average mean surface temperature. I think this is because you don't know how, which is fine, because it's a difficult problem. But the values you are calculating aren't relevant to an annual mean surface temperature, or calculating the regional radiative imbalance. In short, none of the values you've calculated address the topic at hand, which is "Australia is not warming up" Australian data, as well as data all over the world is used for various GCMs and reconstructions. Worldwide statistics are calculated from regional data, because obviously an aggregate of worldwide data is how you calculate global trends. So it's not like the only people analyzing Australian data are Australians. Australia is relevant to the global climate, and Australian data is used by climate science researchers worldwide. They're certainly doing it differently than you. They're calculating the annual mean surface temperature. Why aren't you, especually when you agree that your metrics are insufficient and inappropriate? Why don't you ask them for their specific methodology? Or look up a specific methodology for analyzing regional annual means? Your argument is filled with generalities from which you draw conclusions when you lack sufficient information to reach them. Why? You seem to think monthly maximum temperatures are an appropriate metric. By that methodology you'd assess a warming trend if 29 days were -30C and one day was 120C, when the monthly mean would be higher if every day were 60C. You claim to be a MSc statistician, yet your statistical methodology is horribly flawed. Why aren't you using all the stations? Do you realistically believe you have sufficient coverage to calculate regional averages? So your solution to the urban heat island problem is to remove the stations? It sounds like you're omitting a substantial amount of data from your analysis. Have you calculated the resulting error margin in your results, and if so, what is it? Why aren't you calculating the annual mean from all available stations? It sounds to me like your analysis is plagued by arbitrary decisions which skewed your results. No climate scientist would solve the urban heat island problem by omitting the stations entirely! Your insistance that you don't need a climate science background to analyze climate data is simply incorrect. You really need to read what climate researchers have to say on things like the urban heat island problem and computation of regional mean surface temperatures. Given your completely arbitrary methodology, it's no wonder your answers are different from that of climate science researchers.

No, that's not it. There have been literally thousands of scientific papers written on this particular subject, and the issue has been highly contentious. The underlying problem is that temperature data is all that's available in estimating a net energy balance (or more specifically, a radiative imbalance). However, you're looking only at monthly maximum temperatures. There is no way to go from monthly maximum temperatures to a regional net energy balance. The proper metric for this sort of diagnosis is, of course, heat, not temperature, but since specific data regarding regional heating is not available temperature must be used in its stead. No, that's far from "it". Your analysis overlooks the overall warming or cooling trend, instead focusing on monthly extremes. You're not looking at the right data whatsoever. Please outline your specific methodology, the types of data you are analyzing, what analysis you're performing, and specifically how that can be used as an assement of a regional radiative imbalance. I mean, I don't know how much simpler I can put this... your argument contains an enormous non-sequitur fallacy. Here's the way I see it: There is no progressive trend in maximum monthly temperatures over the past 100 years -> ??? -> There is no progressive warming trend in Australia Can you answer the question: how can trends in monthly extremes be used to make assessments of the regional radiative imbalance? That would correct the non-sequitur fallacy in your argument. This belies your contradiction of the agency from whence you derive your data, an intergovernmetnal panel on climate change, and the efforts of the worldwide climate science community. Australian data is used in countless GCMs worldwide. Since you haven't even begun to calculate your own values for the annual mean surface temperature, or even provided a methodology for doing so (besides in terms which are thoroughly insufficient for the problem at hand), I don't think you really understand the problem well enough to give an opinion. Futhermore, the cooling trend towards the end of the 19th century is well-established. Nobody is trying to cover it up: If you wish to make your case, you should thoroughly outline the reasoning behind your methodology for analyzing a regional warming or cooling trend. That seems to be the basest of the problems with your arguments. To summarize: You're using the wrong metrics. This appears to be because you don't understand radiative imbalance is the cause regional heating/cooling. When others pointed out this basic flaw in your argumentation you were thoroughly confused. The best suggeston I can give is to find a climate scientist to corroborate your claims, then post what they have to offer so that we can discuss it. You are making some rather elementary errors in your analysis by looking at the wrong metrics in order to establish the trends you claim to be arguing exist. When we look at graphs of those trends, they are clear and corroborate the scientific consensus. So far you have given no argument as to why these graphs to not represent the reality of the situation: Perhaps the best starting point I can think of is: You are claiming these graphs are wrong. What is your reasoning?

So as to avoid further derailing this thread, I've created a new one in the Biomedical Ethics forum where we can continue this discussion: Is a blastocyst a human being?

If you're not going to argue either side of this argument, why do you keep bringing it up? I would like to hear a defense of how a blastocyst could be considered a human being. Any post-natal mammal is going to be far closer to a human being than a blastocyst is. For example, these creatures have a nervous system and are capible of the base acts of memory and prediction which are the basis of the human conscious experience. A blastocyst is a growth consisting of a small grouping of undifferentiated cells. By what definition of "human being" can a small growth of undifferentiated cells possibly be considered a human being, which would discount, say, a colonic biopsy, yet still enumerate the basic properties of a human being? While you claim I "ignore that part of the debate", I've discussed it several times. I do not think there is any reasonable definition of a human being under which a blastocyst would fall. If you care to attempt to define a human being in such a way, be my guest. I've already argued that one of the basic properties of a human being is a nervous system, with which you agreed. Do you care to explain how you conceed this point yet insist to argue that a blastocyst may reasonably be considered a human being?

To avoid further derailing a thread in the politics forum, I felt this thread should be split. To begin, let me post a definition of blastocyst (from WordNet): The basic question is: does a blastocyst meet the criteria of a human being? The best way to argue this point, I believe, is to enumerate the core criteria which comprise a human being, then use that to argue the point. Some things to keep in mind are various things which would comprise parts of a human being but not human beings themselves. An example would be a biopsy. Unless your argument is that a biopsy is a human being, your criteria should no be so vague as to be unable to distinguish the difference. I personally think the idea of a biopsy being considered a human being is foolish, and I think that's a sentiment which is universally shared. I'm going to go ahead and post my reply to ParanoiA from the other thread to start things off.

That really seems to be the fundamental problem here: I don't think he understands what metrics he should be utilizing to corroborate his argument that "Australia is not warming up: stats prove it"

The ABM had this to say on the non-inclusion of pre-1910 temperature records in their graphs: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/archive/media02.shtml (Surprising you didn't note that in your analysis, and instead insisted they were trying to hide something. Perhaps it's an indicative of your overall absence of climate science knowledge) Furthermore... (English motherf*cker, do you speak it?) Well, since you're in contact with them, perhaps you should ask them for their specific methodology in estimating the nationwide annual mean surface temperature. This should be a composite of the data from all stations. I think what you really need to do is get in touch with a climate science researcher and have them educate you on how the annual mean surface temperature is actually calculated. It really seems like you don't have a clear understanding, as you're evaluating metrics which are unrelated to the argument you wish to present.

They do? Where? Why does your analysis completely omit the annual mean temperature, particularly annual mean SSTs, both of which give clear indications of a warming trend and are by far the best metric you can use (in regard to temperature) to assess trends. I'm not saying max and min temperatures should be overlooked (and I don't know why you're using monthly as opposed to annual maximums) but it seems you completely ignore annual mean temperatures. And, again, the trend is clear: