SkepticLance
Senior Members-
Posts
2627 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by SkepticLance
-
jryan's post is very relevent. It is basically making a prediction that cycle 25 of sunspot activity, by the year 2022, will be weak, meaning lower solar forcings, and either less warming, or possibly a cooling globally. I think this has a very real bearing on any discussion of global warming.
-
To iNow You have got me confused. I was commenting on the general statement that lying is unethical, and I was pointing out that is true only for one specific definition of the word 'unethical'. Can you please explain your point?
-
To iNow Are you suggesting that semantics are not an issue in medicine? If so, it will be the only aspect of human nature for which that is true.
-
"It's unethical, as I've said before, because it's lying...it's that simple." This statement, like so many others, is only true if your semantics say it is. If you define lying as unethical, then it is unethical. I do not. By my personal definition, lying is neither ethical or unethical. Which category it fits into depends on intent and outcome. If you lie with the intent of saving someone from unnecessary suffering, then by my definition, it is perfectly ethical. Your definition may be more rigid than mine, but that is a matter of semantics.
-
To DrDNA Two points. 1. When we talk about nature vs nurture, we mean genetic effects versus behaviour conditioning. Since the entire human species is genetically similar to within 0.1%, the genetic conclusions are mostly still sound, even when generalised from outlier populations. 2. The conclusion is also supported by the experiments in our own western societies, as I described earlier. It appears that typical gender behaviour tends to remain that way even with drastically altered upbringing. In other words : boys will be boys, and girls will be girls, in spite of what assorted researchers try to achieve.
-
Slinkey You are assuming a graviton has mass.
-
To Mag I would love to re-read the story too. It was genuine enough, and I remember that I read about it in New Scientist. There is doubtless another, more original version written as a formal scientific paper. It was a few years back, though, so may not be easy to find. I cannot even remember the formal medical name for the genetic condition. I remember that it is found world wide, but is rare in most places, but much more common in the tribe mentioned. I guess this is due to the genetic isolation of that particular tribe. It is not unique. There was (again, going by memory) a Swiss person who became an olympic class snow skier, in the female division. He/she was going to represent his/her country, but got banned when a sex test showed that she was actually a he. Some strange things happen....
-
To Mag Sorry. Not correct. There have been numerous experiments in which researchers tried to get a bunch of kids raised with equal treatment on all areas of interest, leading to boys and girls being equally interested in all things. Did not work. The young girls developed an interest in nurturing in spite of the special training, and the young boys got boisterous as only young boys can, in spite of special training. The story I love most was that of a young girl given a toy truck. She played nicely with it till bed time, then went off to bed with said toy truck. Parents came in and found her tucking the truck into bed and kissing it good night as if it were a doll. Certain feminist researchers have tried their damnedest to prove that the difference between boys and girls behaviour was from nurture only. They succeeded in proving the opposite. There is even a tribe in central America which has high levels of a genetic disease which causes young boys to seem to be young girls, with a vagina, and no obvious male bits. Only with puberty do the male organs appear, and after that the guys develop normally physically. The tribespeople are used to this, and treat every child that seems female as if she were female - with female clothes etc. The boy/girls grow up boisterous with mainly male interests, in spite of appearing, and being treated as girls. After puberty they change the way they treat the boy/girls, and the young men, as they now are, grow up normally, and get married, and adopt a standard male role in that tribe. This was reported some years ago in New Scientist, as a result of some work for some years by an anthropologist, and used as a very good example to show how gender roles are primarily genetic.
-
It is a function of efficiency. The Cassini space probe currently orbiting Saturn is about the size of a small cottage, and is powered by a small fission reactor, showing that it is possible. However, those who designed this probe did not care if the reactor wasted energy - as long as it produced enough for the probe's needs. If you were to make small reactors, there would be enormous energy lost, and thus enormous cost. The nuclear waste would be in proportion to the energy output - even if most of that output was wasted. Thus, for your needs, you would have a device that cost megabucks, and produced far more waste per unit useful energy than nuclear power stations.
-
To bombus The problem we have here is the lack of clear cut definitions for the taxonomic categories - species, sub-species, and races. I do not think such definitions are impossible, though they will require somewhat arbitrary decisions to be made. They must be based on genetics, not physical characteristic. Imagine brothers. One becomes a tribal warrior. He spends time outdoors and develops a dark tan. He works hard and develops massive muscles. The other becomes tribal shaman, and skulks around in the dark, and fasts often, and never exercises. He becomes pale and puny. Simple physical characteristics might tell you they are unrelated. DNA would tell the truth, though. Thus, to determine if two populations are two different species, different sub-species, different races, or simply different populations of the same group, we need to measure their genetic similarity or difference, and have definitions based on degree of genetic difference. Human 'races' are genetically VERY similar to each other. This to the degree that a white European might be genetically more different from his white neighbour, than he is to an individual of the Zulu tribe. This is why we would not call them different sub-species.
-
The world has seen numerous global extinction events, and five very major ones. Each was followed by a rapid phase of new speciation - a 'mad rush' into new biodiversity to replace the older, lost biodiversity. Humans have caused the extinctions of lots of organisms. I do not believe it has quite got to the stage of calling it the sixth great global extinction event, but there have been a lot of species lost. Going by biological history, this will be followed by a further phase of speciation and new biodiversity. In fact, whether we notice it or not, we can predict that the new speciation event must already be under way. New genetically diverse populations forming, adapting to changing conditions. Global warming has not, so far, caused much, if anything, in the way of species extinctions. However, if and when it does, it would be a contributing factor towards this new speciation event.
-
To bombus As you imply, the problem is semantics - what is the exact definition of sub-species? However, most of the reading I have done on the subject of human races emphasizes how little the various races differ genetically. In fact, I recall one article written by a geneticist who argued that even the term 'race' was an over statement. Human groups differ too little, according to him, to even be called different races.
-
To snail As I pointed out before, the placebo does not work for every condition. In addition, it does not work for every patient. According to a SciAm article I read on the subject, only about 30% of the population is highly open to the placebo effect. For the other 70%, the effect is minimal or absent. Thus, for a doctor to give a placebo and have it work, it must be prescribed for the right condition and to the right person. It will not work for a cold, or other infectious condition, or any condition with a true organic cause, except to mitigate symptoms. However, it might be a reasonable diagnostic tool. If a doctor does not know what a person is suffering from, but gets good therapeutic results from a placebo, that is a damn good indication that the problem is psychosomatic. It the placebo fails, it may be because it is being given to the 'wrong' person. However, the 70% who respond poorly to placebo are the ones least likely to suffer psychosomatic problems anyway. The biggest problem with prescribing placebos is the very practical one that it will not work on genuine organic illness, such as infectious disease or cancer. However, it is not at all unusual for doctors who cannot diagnose an ill to use response to drugs as a means of narrowing down what the problem is. Would you consider that unethical? Since it is being done for the ultimate benefit of a patient, just as the placebo is?
-
Swansont We are talking about a substantial cooling. I doubt that random fluctuations or any similar explanation will wash.
-
combustion technology and the environment
SkepticLance replied to DrDNA's topic in Ecology and the Environment
To DrDNA Great strides have also been made in 2 cycle technology. I don't know how much fuel that car will use, but there is no need to assume it will be excessive. I also think, that if westerners are to be permitted to drive cars, so should everyone else. Anything else is hypocracy. The solution to ths problem is to find alternative fuels. There are lots of choices. Battery power. Biofuels. Synthetic fuels. Hydrogen. -
To snail I really do not have much concern with 'ethics'. They are too often used as excuses for not doing what is right. I am much more concerned with practical matters. In medicine, what matters is making people healthy. If a 'dishonest' use of placebo makes someone healthy, then that is doing what is right. I share your concern about inappropriate use of antibiotics. They should not be used as placebos. I would like to see a doctor getting together with a local pharmacist, and sorting out a code together, with fancy sounding names to be written on a prescription, meaning sugar pill. Of course, the doctor would have to tell the patient that they can only get the treatment from one specific pharmacy. The alternative is to use medicines that are used for specific conditions, selecting those with few side effects. However, nothing beats a good old sugar pill, with a great confidence boosting pep talk from the doctor about what a wonderful miracle drug it is. Sadly, if a proper doctor fails to use placebos, and does what is honest, then that acts to direct patients to consult with quacks.
-
To snail Yes, placebo treatment is dishonest. However, I think it is needed. Simply put, about half of all ailments are psychosomatic, and those patients will seek treatment somewhere. If they turn up at a professional practitioner of placebo (chiropractor, acupuncturist, homeopath, faith healer etc), they will pay over their money and get what they need. The problem is that the quacks cannot diagnose genuine complaints, and people will die. This industry is massive - quacks make mega billions of dollars as a group. Enormous numbers of people are sucked in to their con jobs. It is much better to have genuine medical practitioners use placebos when needed, so tha the people with neurotic illnesses see them. That way, any genuine organic illness has a much better change of being picked up. The earlier question : antibiotics for colds and flu - are they placebos. If they are, they are ineffective ones. Placebos are very useful, but do not work for all ailments. They have limited value for infectious diseases, and do not work on cancer at all. Essentially, they work best on any condition that mostly affects the mind. They are often effective against distressing symptoms, without actually altering an underlying condition. Treatments like acupuncture often do very well against headaches. Placebos, like other treatments, need to be prescribed for the conditions where they actually work.
-
Swansont said : "But if volcanic activity is responsible for 0.2 ºC and CO2 for 0.1 ºC, then solar is responsible for, at most, 0.1 ºC (assuming no other factors of this order of magnitude)" We could end up arguing this one also. The vulcanism effect should have its biggest impact at the beginning of the 30 year period. Since there is not further change in vulcanism for 30 years, it is not likely to have a continuing effect. Thus, to suggest it is a big part of the 0.4 C rise over 30 years appears unlikely. Sunspot activity, on the other hand, rise quite substantially throughout the period. The thing that still puzzles me, and which no-one here seems to have addressed, is the cooling of 1940 to 1950. How can that have happened? It appears to me that either : 1. There is a novel factor of substantial power at work (but which one?). 2. or someone got the data wrong.
-
Swansont said : "Which means that solar could not be reponsible for 0.4 ºC of warming during that period, and that was the claim to which I was objecting." Sounds like a communication break down. I never said, or intended to say, that solar was responsible for all 0.4 C warming. The term I used was 'dominant cause'. If solar is responsible for 0.21 C of the 0.4 C, then we can call it dominant. "You don't see the peaks in graph d of the IPCC report replicated in the Greenland data?" Some of the peaks are there, but there are some really big gaps also. For example : in the Greenland graph, 1915 to 1950 shows significant sulphate, of the order of 60 to 70 ng/g, with peaks to much higher levels, compared to an average over the 19th Century of about 25. The vucanism graph shows minimal impact at this time.
-
To iNow A request for clarification is always welcome. You asked Are you suggesting that: "a) There is no evidence that volcanoes eject sulfates? b) There is no evidence that sulfates impact climate? or c) There is no evidence that sulfates impact frequency of volcanic eruptions?" I am not suggesting any of these. I was referring to Swansonts graphs. Purely on the basis of these graphs, and particularly the Greenland graph compared to the vulcanism graph (d), there is no evidence of correlation betwen high (or low) vulcanism and high (or low) sulphate. I know that volcanoes eject sulphates. I have stood on the edge of a crater of an active volcano, and had to adjust my gas mask to stop the SO2 entering. SO2 gas, of course, converts to sulphate. However, there are literally hundreds of volcanoes giving off sulphate. Does this translate into increases or decreases on a global scale according to specific eruptions? I do not see the evidence in Swansonts graphs. For example : the volcano I was on was White Island, in NZs Bay or Plenty, which pretty much continuously - year in and year out - emits SO2. It has the occasional more intense eruption, and killed a bunch of people in 1911 when a hot and acidic lahar swamped a sulphur mining camp. However, sulphate emissions are continuous.
-
To swansont I accept that your graph (d) of vulcanism shows low levels 'coinciding' with the 1910 to 1940 warming. However, there are still some problems you might like to comment on. 1. Lack of vulcanism as a major (not the only) cause for the warming of 1910 to 1940 suffers from exactly the problem you were so scathing about when I suggested that increases in sunspot activity was a major cause. That is, it continues to 1950. We know that the warming went from 1910 to 1940, and was followed by a significant cooling from 1940 to 1950. We now have three warming influences going from 1910 to 1950. We have increases in sunspot activity, a dearth of vulcanism, and the minor increase in CO2. I know of no driver from 1940 to 1950 large enough to cause a cooling in the face of those three warming influences. 2. Lack of vulcanism from 1910 to 1950 seems to be constant. Warming over the 1910 to 1940 period is an increase. To keep temperature rising for three decades should require an increasing warming 'force' - not a stable condition, which suggests that, while lack vulcanism may have had an impact initially, it cannot be a mjor effect for the last couple of decades of that period. 3. We still lack a mechanims by which lack of vulcanism can drive warming. I am not arguing against it, but I am puzzled. You say that your graph (b) of sulphate aerosol represents only anthropogenic. OK, though I did not see any such statement in your reference. When I go back to your Greenland graph, I see no correlation at all between the vulcanism and sulphate aerosol change. In other words, there is no evidence that the effect of vulcanism or its lack operates through changes in sulphate aerosols. Perhaps you might like to comment?
-
To iNow If you choose to take some honest advise as derision, that is your affair.
-
To swansont 1910 to 1940. OK. Point taken about the vulcanisms. I have to agree. It looks like vulcanism is one of the influences leading to warming. Can you explain the mechanism? Not that you have to. Just that I am curious. Your sulphate aerosol graph (b) shows that it is not via sulphate aerosol, since that seems unrelated to the pattern of vulcanism. Note to iNow and Lockheed. Swansont has set the example of how to debate, by using real facts. You guys are very poor debaters. Just opinions and personal comments. I do not believe it is just vulcanism, of course. As we have agreed, there are a number of factors involved and sunspot activity certainly correlates with warmings and coolings. And please don't give me the old saw about correlation not equalling causation. That would apply equally to vulcanism. Let me also repeat my question about 1940 to 1950. Can anyone explain why that is a cooling phase when sunspot activity continues to increase, greenhouse gases continue to increase, there is no special vulcanism, and sulphate aerosol change is unexceptional?
-
Scepticism of data is also called for when (5) the data is incomplete. I pointed out that data from Greenland alone may not be applicable to the world as a whole. For example : if some local event raised or lowered sulphate aerosol levels near the data sampling point.
-
Swansont said : "And it isn't up to you to be happy or unhappy with data. It is what it is." If we are not discussing data and its interpretation, we are not discussing science. Good science requires scepticism, and that scepticism must extend to data as well as interpretation. There are thousands of examples in the history of science where false conclusions have been drawn from shakey data. If I cannot challenge data, then I cannot do science. Swansont said "I didn't offer this as evidence of anything." True. But I did. Our argument stems from my view that sunspot activity is a major driver of warming/cooling, and your denial of that view. The graph you posted supports my view. "Now, look at the duration: the 1883 peak doesn't subside for eight years." That is deceptively worded. It does not disappear for that time, but it subsides almost immediately. It very rapidly loses most of its impact. And by 1910, it is down to about 0.5 W/m2. For most of the warming period of 1910 to 1940, vulcanism effect is essentially zero. I am still very puzzled about the cooling period of 1940 to 1950. Previously, I believed it to be due to a drop in sunspot activity, based on a Max Planck Institute graph which showed that to be the case. Swansont showed some later data that indicated the opposite - that sunspot activity actually increased from 1940 to 1950. Obviously, some other factor must be driving the cooling from 1940 to 1950. The usual candidate is ascribed to sulphate aerosols. However, when I look at Swansont's graph b, there is nothing special about the sulphate aerosol effect for that period. His graph d also shows no vulcanism to explain it. Anyone got a better explanation for global cooling 1940 to 1950??