Slashdot Mirror

Not sure why we'd want to post to a CNN article. Here's the scientific american link:

http://www.scientificamerican....

The only truly safe place is your mind, or whatever is left of it.

Sorry: http://www.scientificamerican....

In the 1950s, brave American scientists shunned by the climate establishment of the day discovered that the Earth was warming as a result of greenhouse gas emissions, leading to potentially devastating natural disasters that could destroy American agriculture and flood American cities. As a result, the country mobilized against the threat. Strong government action by the Bush administration outlawed the worst of these gases, and brilliant entrepreneurs were able to discover and manufacture new cleaner energy sources. As a result of these brave decisions, our emissions stabilized and are currently declining.

Unfortunately, even as we do our part, the authoritarian governments of Russia and China continue to industralize and militarize rapidly as part of their bid to challenge American supremacy. As a result, Communist China is now by far the world’s largest greenhouse gas producer, with the Russians close behind. Many analysts believe Putin secretly welcomes global warming as a way to gain access to frozen Siberian resources and weaken the more temperate United States at the same time. These countries blow off huge disgusting globs of toxic gas, which effortlessly cross American borders and disrupt the climate of the United States. Although we have asked them to stop several times, they refuse, perhaps egged on by major oil producers like Iran and Venezuela who have the most to gain by keeping the world dependent on the fossil fuels they produce and sell to prop up their dictatorships.

We need to take immediate action. While we cannot rule out the threat of military force, we should start by using our diplomatic muscle to push for firm action at top-level summits like the Kyoto Protocol. Second, we should fight back against the liberals who are trying to hold up this important work, from big government bureaucrats trying to regulate clean energy to celebrities accusing people who believe in global warming of being ‘racist’. Third, we need to continue working with American industries to set an example for the world by decreasing our own emissions in order to protect ourselves and our allies. Finally, we need to punish people and institutions who, instead of cleaning up their own carbon, try to parasitize off the rest of us and expect the federal government to do it for them.

Please join our brave men and women in uniform in pushing for an end to climate change now.

-- Five Case Studies on Politicization

This isn't a heat engine; therefore, it isn't subject to the Carnot efficiency limit that is a key reason that internal combustion engines have such a low maximum theoretical efficiency in terms of extracting energy from the fuel.

Hydrocarbons are actually a great energy store for a vehicle: they are thermally stable/don't discharge over time, it's fast & trivial to "recharge" the energy store, and hydrocarbons have orders of magnitude more energy per mass than any form of battery, which improves vehicle efficiency by reducing the mass that has to be lugged around. However, the internal combustion engine is a wastefully inefficient, complicated machine. Ideally, we could get the best of both worlds with a hydrocarbon fuel cell that efficiently produces electricity to drive electric motors for a vehicle. There are other technologies that could potentially accomplish this, such as the solid oxide fuel cell.

Don't conflate the energy store (hydrocarbons) with the stored energy (e.g. fossil fuels). There is no reason we cannot create hydrocarbons at will using various approaches. Biodiesel from algae is one example as well as "reverse combustion" via more industrial processes (e.g. the Fischer-Tropsch process). Some catalytic processes have been created that use solar power to create hydrocarbons.

Personally, I prefer the idea of large nuclear plants creating hydrocarbons from atmospheric CO2. As a bonus, we would get to keep our existing petroleum distribution infrastructure while our vehicle fleet becomes carbon neutral. Backwards-compatible carbon neutrality FTW?

The fish ladders allow the Salmon to migrate and been the main concern, this news is just bad.

Except they don't. That's the problem.

With the republicans in charge, you won't be the only scientific group that doesn't have any funding! You'll have lots of company.

Hillarious... but seriously... There is no difference between republicans and democrats:
http://www.scientificamerican....

So stop pretending there is.

In reality, most of the heat goes in the oceans

I think you missed a memo. While it may be that most of the heat does go into the oceans, not enough of it has been going in there to explain the recent global warming 'pause' that climatologists are unable to explain.

http://www.scientificamerican....

Solar is the real eye opener and should serve as a lesson on blindly trusting hype and "What seems obvious." Solar panels are terrible for the environment,

It's always important to remember that there's no such thing as free energy. That said, the linked graph doesn't say anything about solar being "terrible for the environment", only that other sources of electricity consumes* very little silver compared to solar (as Scientific American also notes in the graph). Importantly, it does not show how that use compares to e.g. worldwide silver use.

* "consumes"? "wastes"? "produces as a byproduct"? Pretty sure that oil energy (or biomass!) doesn't consume uranium, even if drilling for oil produces it as a byproduct. Not sure what exactly is being graphed here, honestly. Unfortunately, the cited report is paywalled.

Anyway, if you look at the other report cited by Scientific American as the graph source, in figure 4 on page 19, it shows the global material requirements (in giga-grams, that is, kilotons) under various energy mix scenarios. Neither silver or tin use even registers on the graph in the so-called "non-fossil" scenario (mix of solar, wind and hydro - and no nuclear). In other words, in the "non-fossil" scenario, silver and tin usage for power is less than 1 kiloton a year. Worldwide silver use in 2013 was 34 kt.

As a bonus, silver recycles better than aluminum, with energy savings of 96% (table 4.4).

The tidal currents are also completely carbon-free

This myth needs to end. There is no such thing as a "Carbon free" energy source. Some are worse than others obviously. But very large, very heavy materials will need to be used to construct those turbines. Mines will get dug, parts will get shipped, maintenance will need to occur.

This doesn't have Tidal on it but you can bet it will fall somewhere between wind and solar.
http://www.scientificamerican....

Solar is the real eye opener and should serve as a lesson on blindly trusting hype and "What seems obvious." Solar panels are terrible for the environment, yet most people don't have a clue. Keep in mind, this chart does not include waste generated by actually collecting the power. That's why oil doesn't look so horrible. Nor does it take into account the environmental impact of hydroelectric damns. If you factor all that in, Nuclear is the least damaging to the environment but people are afraid of it so...

Cobalt chloride, potassium permanganate, etc. etc. I don't remember all the nasty reactive stuff that was in my chemistry sets back in the day.

Maybe not in the 60s, but in the 50s you could get radioactivity experiment kits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

The rat has an estimated 200E6 Neurons and 4.48E11 synapses, and the mouse has 71E6 neurons and ~1E11 synapses.

There is at least some correlation between intelligence and the number of neurons. A cursory search found this: -- Fact or Fiction: When It Comes to Intelligence, Does Brain Size Matte? http://www.scientificamerican....

It would be interesting to find more definitive articles that support or contrast this.

"some who would have been considered exceptional will not be so much."

becasue more people will be exceptional; which is my point.

No, to the contrary - you'll have to be smarter than ever to be considered exceptional. If eventually we get to the point where half the population has what would be considered TODAY as an IQ of 180, that doesn't mean that half that population would be considered geniuses - they would be considered average.

Let's look at something else - height. The average height of people has changed by 4 inches. Further digging shows that this was pretty much all done between WW1 and today. Someone who was 5'10" less than 100 years ago would have been considered exceptional. Now, not. The curve changes as the population changes.

Aerosol from a sneeze could travel up to eight feet, according to reports on a recent study.

Really? One mutation?

http://www.scientificamerican....

such a mutationâ"or more likely series of mutationsâ"might physically be possible, itâ(TM)s highly unlikely. In fact, thereâ(TM)s almost no historical precedent for any virus to change its basic mode of transmission so radically.

"Conservatives" since Reagan are really about one thing, and that is continuing the consolidation of power and wealth in the hands of the few(whether you want to call them the 1% or not doesn't matter), at all costs .

Whether it is environmental issues, health and safety, human rights, etc; the "Conservative" agenda is really quite an affront to anyone on this planet who values things like clean water, justice for the marginalized, a safe workplace, and yes, a media and telecommunications system that isn't biased for and towards that "few" that controls most of the wealth and power in the US.

People like the Koch brothers, Karl Rove and rest would have the non-critical thinkers in this country swallow their load of absolute and unadulterated bullshit. They know most of the American electorate are ill informed and scared(Thanks Rupert!) and they also understand that control of the media and how getting even more control will put them in a position to "manage" the political system in the US like never before.

The "Conservatives" like to throw around that Freedom word, yet in reality, their agenda is really only about giving them more freedom to destroy, despoil and enslave.

With that being said, don't assume I'm some Obama lover, as I regard his administrations attack on whistleblowers, absolute disdain for privacy protections, etc really on par with what "Conservatives" want. On those fronts Obama, The Kocks and Karl Rove are on the same page.

Really? Nothing to do with the fact we're coming out of an ice age

Yes, because we are not "coming out a [glacial period]", we are headed into one. With out anthropogenic caarbon emissions, we would actually be on the long slow decline (-0.2 C per 1000y) into another glacial period. So, by definition, it can not have anything to do with "a fact" which is not true.

and that we're still lower than the interglacial temperatures prior to the last ice age?

I don't know what source you're using for this claim, but you appear to be mixing up the terminology. An Ice Age is the period during which there are glaciers at the polls and it is made up of glacial and inter-glacial periods. If you're talking about the world being colder than before there were glaciars at the polls, then obviously, yes the world probably is colder than it was 2.58 million years ago, before the polar ice caps formed. Pretty much by definition any non-ice age period should be warmer than any ice-age period. If you mean temperatures "prior to the last [glacial period]" it also probably correct that the temperature is below the maximum from the previous interglacial which ice core records indicate was about +3 degrees above 1950. However, it should be noted that this interglacial has never been that warm. The normal trend is for a very warm beginning to an interglacial period and then a long term trend of declining temperatures, so, it doesn't make sense to say "still lower" unless you are counting on the anthropogenic forcing to exceed +3 degrees C.

We're seeing these things because of fossil fuels, not for any other reason?

To the best of your knowledge, yes. The combined effect of all of the natural forcings that we know about and can measure have had a combined negative impact on global temperatures over the last decade and a half, and the termperature has continued to rise, although at a slower pace than previously. There are a few other anthropogenic climate forcings that account for a small part of the warming (land use changes and albedo change effects, for example) but the biggest factor is the increase in greenhouse gases and the feedback effects that that increase triggers. It should be noted that not all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions come from fossil fuels. Concrete, for example, actually emits a fair amount of CO2 as well, but the grandparent is essentially correct.

Oh look, you're wrong, congratulations

Inventing bullshit under the guise of "common sense":0
Not assuming bullshit: 1

I was sceptical of your claim (must be your handle, he he, very good) and did a quick web search.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/x-rays-abound-when-lightn/

It's not been thoroughly proven, but early signs indicate that lightning strikes do emit x-rays. Not sure on the gamma ray claim though. Still, this is pretty amazing stuff!

Porn shrinks your brain

Lack of sleep shrinks your brain

Multi-tasking shrinks your brain

Religion shrinks your brain

Fat shrinks your brain

Elevated Blood Sugar shrinks your brain

Stress shrinks your brain

Aging shrinks your brain

Alcohol shrinks your brain

Vegetarianism shrinks your brain

Type 2 diabetes shrinks your Brain

Cell phones shrink your brain

I think medical fear mongering is shrinking our brains.

And yes, I did search for "Climate Change is shrinking our brains." No hits. So there you go MSM; a perfectly good theme that no one has used yet.

Sure you can have these fancy concentrators, but nothing will cost less per kW than plain solar panels arrays or wind power. Why concentrate the suns rays instead of using solar panels, whose costs decrease all the time?

Because making solar panels is horrific for the environment.
http://www.scientificamerican....

If that was the only issue, then you would be correct. However the gender hiring bias and gender income gap aren't that intertwined. They are part of the same problem, but they don't directly affect each other.

Regarding the gender income gap, I support the idea of legislation that would reward equal work with equal pay.

However, the gender hiring bias can't be simply solved with legislation, and potential income gap legislation could cause the hiring bias to worsen. This is quite possibly one of those problems that won't be solved in our generation simply due to how ingrained we are in our beliefs. Hell, as a woman who has been in IT for 15 years, I look at other women in the field differently than I look at the men; it's as if the men belong there and the women have to prove themselves. It's rather humbling to realize this. I think everyone should read this and re-examine how they view their colleagues.

Hence the claim low level antibiotics would kill gut bacterias in a way that you end up fat is scientific utter nonsense.

Maybe we're talking about two different things. Low-levels of antibiotics will probably not "kill all the gut bacteria and make you fat", but the way doctors are prescribing them (start off at low-level antibiotics, get no results, then go to higher-level antibiotics) can certainly kill a shit-load of good gut bacteria (as well as bad gut bacteria). Once that happens, you will begin noticing problems in your gut, although most will never connect the dots. I'm speaking from experience, if that makes me an asshat, then there's nothing that I can do about it.

You make false assumptions about materialism. There is no research in neuroscience that says that consciousness and all it includes is NOT merely a phenomena of the material brain. You should know the "mind-body" problem has been a field of philosophy and science since ancient times. Yet the more we come to understand the more we are discovering that consciousness is in fact merely a phenomena of the (material) brain. That is evidenced by the fact of the effects of pharmacology and how drugs effect consciousness, how brain injuries effect cognitive abilities, how neurosurgery can effect the functioning of the brain (for good or bad), how physical illness effects brain function and cognition and the fact that there has NEVER been any scientific research that has detect any evidence for a disembodied conscious (which equivalent to providing evidence of a disembodied entity such as a deity). So if... you want to argue in support of a mind-body duality how about providing some definitive peer reviewed research proving it. All scientific research points in the other direction. Mind is a phenomena of the physical brain. http://www.scientificamerican....

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/

the (already weak) genetic influence of genes on height has an effect 20 times greater

Wait... did I just read that genes only have a weak influence on height?????

Googling "genes for height"

...about 60 to 80 percent of the difference in height between individuals is determined by genetic factors...

Height clearly has a lot to do with genetics - shorter parents tend to have shorter children, and taller parents tend to have taller children...

...Over 80 per cent of the variation within a given population is estimated to be attributable to genetic factor...

Okay, phew! I must have misinterpreted the meaning of "already weak genetic influence." Also, each of those articles do go on to explain that nutrition, including fetal nutrition, have a significant impact as well.

I don't know why anyone would be surprised that adding a traffic lane would help improve traffic flow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

http://www.scientificamerican....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

I don't know why anyone would be surprised that adding a traffic lane would help improve traffic flow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... http://www.scientificamerican....

Your quote is reference the Annual Average...which it is set to do, and shows absolutely NO SIGNS of not crossing that milestone.
Your post is one born of ignorance and an attempt to spread confusion.

Technically it was passed by in 2013...several times. But the monthly averages still came out slightly below 400ppm. April 2014 however was the first time the Monthly Average PPM level crossed 400ppm. And it's been theres since.

In fact I really dont see the point of your post. The trendline is quite clear, and is continually up. It has yet to FAIL to increase.
It couldnt be more irrelegent of ignorant if you had said "oh good, they have a testable predictiona bout gravity. but will they still claim gravity is real if hte apple fails to fall to the ground?"

http://www.climatecentral.org/...
http://www.climatecentral.org/...
https://www.climate.gov/news-f...
http://www.scientificamerican....

Mhm. That's one of the sources of water supply problems.
BTW, since you mention BPA in particular...
http://www.scientificamerican....

expenditures (loss) during human metabolism but these differences are already reflected in their rated calorie values - they are "net" values after metabolism

No.

Not only is the "loss" not accounted for in rated calorie values, it is not posible to account for it because it is different for different people.

• Methane and the risk of runaway global warming
• BBC on Runaway Methane Warming
• Methane Causes Vicious Cycle in Global Warming
• Methane's Impacts on Climate Change May Be Twice Previous Estimates
• Fracking Would Emit Large Quantities of Greenhouse Gases

The consequences would be that the ecosystem would revert to a more natural state. We don't need to have sabre tooth cats running around killing these things to keep their population in check - domestic housecats would do the job very nicely. The simple fact is, these birds were here in enormous numbers, basically a big part of the definition of the North American ecosystem, and we screwed it up....

The enormous numbers of the Passenger Pigeon actually suggest that they were the beneficiaries of an extreme environmental disruption that occurred a few centuries earlier: the sudden and dramatic disappearance on the large scale agricultural and horticultural societies of Native Americans when ~90% of the population died from successive onslaughts of pandemic disease brought by the arrival of populations from the Old World (Europeans and Africans).

European observers only ever got a look at pre-pandemic North America along the east coast, and the evidence there is of stunning change in the ecology.

Genetic studies of Passenger Pigeons have shown that the subabundance was a transient, new phenomenon. In the last million years the breeding population only averaged about 1/3 of a million, and sometimes as few as 50,000, and began a population upsurge 6,000 years ago. The enormous explosion to billions was much more recent than that.

The ecosystem for the PP were forests of nut-bearing trees, which the super-population of PPs could be seen to be damaging in their locust-like swarming and foraging, an unsustainable situation. These forests were not "natural" though, they were managed for thousands of years by Native America horticulturists who encouraged the development of large dense stands of edible nut trees.

When the Native American populations suddenly disappeared that left large stands of unexploited nut-food that allowed the PPs to break-out into the vast populations that were observed. Their habit of long distance migration in large groups was well suited for such an explosion, exploiting all of the nut-tree resources on North America.

Untrue:

http://www.scientificamerican....

There also was a long period of time where fungus and bacteria were unable to digest lignin so dead plant material would just accumulate. This is what formed most of our coal. Only later were fungus and bacteria able to evolve mechanisms to break down and use the lignin.

While it is possible to sequester plant based carbon, it would require heating it to charcoal and burying it in order to prevent it from being recycled back into the atmosphere.

http://www.scientificamerican....

The October 2013 issue of Scientific American had an article named "Long Live the Humans". It concerned why humans live so long. Part of the authors analysis was the radiological examination of as many mummies as they could find from all over the world. What that showed was a distribution of chronic diseases very similar to modern populations. This argues against the premise that diet is the root of modern chronic diseases. The article argues they are genetic in their origin.

Here is a link to the article. It is only a preview, they want to to give them money to read it. A point I find reasonable.

http://www.scientificamerican....

Actually yes there is
http://www.scientificamerican....
The US could easily replace coal for the next 100 years with nuclear without reprocessing.
At present we have over 230 years supply of uranium so even if we double our use we have well over 100 years of supply and that it without finding any more and without breeding more fuel..
"http://www.whatisnuclear.com/articles/thorium.html"
If you go to thorium it is a lot longer well over 1000 years.
And if we we use breeder reactors you are talking several thousand years supply.
Yes some reactors are over budget but other GEN III reactors are already in service in Japan.

More relevant links to asynchronous/clockless computing:
http://www.embedded.com/design...
http://www.technologyreview.co...
http://www.scientificamerican....
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03...

so you're pushing the old "rich scientists" myth?
You know its BS right?
As in false, made up, not true?
In fact, it's actually a projection, because the REAL money to be made in global warming is in DENYING it.

Well you should.
Come back to reality.
It's not just more rational, it's nicer over here too.
And we have cookies.

To sum up: climate research doesn't pay well, the amount of money dedicated to it has been shrinking, and if the researchers were successful in convincing the public that climate change was a serious threat, the response would be to give money to someone else. If you come across someone arguing that scientists are in it for the money, then you can probably assume they are willing to make arguments without getting their facts straight.

http://arstechnica.com/science...
http://www.scientificamerican....

Yeah, but like you said, the present neocon government is willing to give HUGE corporate welfare to make new nuclear reactor plans viable.

Given that Nuclear power is the best way to reduce CO2 emissions, wouldn't that make sense?
http://www.scientificamerican....
Check out the silver consumption of Solar... silver mining is terrible for the environment.
Keep in mind the graph doesn't track CO2 output of burning the fuel itself. So Coal, oil, natural gas and biomass fuels would have huge CO2 impacts. Biomass consumes much of what it produces, but it still imbalances CO2 levels throughout the seasons (spikes in the winter, troughs in the summer) Hydroelectric has the lowest impact, but damns are terrible for river ecosystems. Nuclear power has the least direct impact, though older reactor designs put out warm water that can lead to algae blooms in the immediate area. I used to live next to one, the areas where the water exited the plant were the best fishing spots in the state.

If we can build foolproof reactors, and we can, then nuclear power is by far and away the best and safest source of power we have.

Similarly, the amount of radioactive material released by burning coal is rarely mentioned.

Hmmm. Here is an article that seems to assert the opposite. It is newer (2012 vs 2009 for your link.)

Here is another article, that suggests that testosterone actually affects dominance, which makes more sense, and supports the original article.

Hmmm. Here is an article that seems to assert the opposite. It is newer (2012 vs 2009 for your link.)

Here is another article, that suggests that testosterone actually affects dominance, which makes more sense, and supports the original article.

Citation needed.

Animal studies have shown a strong correlation between testosterone and aggression (the opposite of what the GPP asserts). In humans, the data is less conclusive, but tends to show a similar correlation. Wisnoskij's assertion that testosterone makes people friendly and cooperative is not supported by any evidence that I can find.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression#Testosterone
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2029601
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/testosterone-promotes-agression-aut-12-06-09/

you said:

"Fracking doesn't poison ground water".

Weird, taking a second and googling "fracking poisoning groundwater", the top hit was this:

http://www.scientificamerican....
" Records from disparate corners of the United States show that wells drilled to bury this waste deep beneath the ground have repeatedly leaked, sending dangerous chemicals and waste gurgling to the surface or, on occasion, seeping into shallow aquifers that store a significant portion of the nation's drinking water.

In 2010, contaminants from such a well bubbled up in a west Los Angeles dog park....."

the second hit was this:
"...How can drinking poisoned water be safe? Numerous scientific studies have concluded that fracking poisons the local water supply by adding carcinogens and radioactive materials. According to Dr.Sandra Stenigraber, Distinguished Scholar in Residence at Ithaca College and Science Advisor to Breast Cancer Action, there have been over 1,000 different cases of water contamination near fracking sites."

So um where exactly do you get this bit of logic? oh from the oil/natural gas companies you shill for? that would be my guess.

Could have been a couple million stone-age people, or it could have been a freaking comet.

Sounds simple doesn't it? Except where do you put all that salt?
                  see:Impacts via Scientific American
And where do you get all that energy for desalination and at what cost?
                  see: Cost of Desalination
Also the quantity water for agriculture and industrial use is HUGE. The flushing of soil by natural water flow is one of the basic ways we flush salt from overused fields
                  See: Salt and Agriculture

Didn't an animal study in 2009 or so show that fMRI was fundamentally flawed, as it showed brain activity in DEAD salmon?

Ah, here it is:
http://blogs.scientificamerica...

Nuclear plants don't emit an even level of radiation in all directions. They emit radioactive particles that then move around on the wind, in the soil and in the water.

Did you just make this shit up? Completely false. Radioactive particles are defined as contamination, and there is no contaminated material released from nuclear plants, except for a few cases of tritium leaks. But, tritium is quite benign and doesn't "travel around on the wind". Your statement displays the common misconceptions nuclear power, radiation, and the associated risks.

It is funny how people's definitions of "safe" change depending on the subject. You can get multiple acute radiation doses, each many times above present day safety limits, and your risk of any physically threatening results are still many times less than riding in a car for just a short trip. You have so many higher risk things you just accept. How about leaching chemicals from semiconductors or even your cookware? How about pesticides? How about the risks listed on every medication we take?

For those that don't buy into the FUD, here is a good overview of where we stand today with assessing risks of very high acute exposure medical tests.

http://www.scientificamerican....

A key excerpt;

"All these estimates share a serious flaw. Among survivors exposed to 100 mSv of radiation or less—including the doses typical for CT scans—the numbers of cancer cases and deaths are so small that it becomes virtually impossible to be certain that they are significantly higher than the rate of cancer in the general population. To compensate, the National Research Council and others based their estimates primarily on data from survivors who were exposed to levels of radiation in the range of 100 mSv to 2 Sv. The fundamental assumption is that cancer risk and radiation dose have a similar relationship in high and low ranges—but that is not necessarily true."

I'm sick and tired of the notion that it's OK to pollute, as long as you don't pollute "too much."

200+ chemicals found in samples of people's blood: http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/...

200+ chemicals found in newborn's umbilical core blood: http://www.scientificamerican....

http://www.cdc.gov/exposurerep...

These chemicals by and large don't go away...and time after time, we find chemicals that were thought to be "safe"...aren't. When are we going to learn that? When are we going to require chemicals be considered dangerous until proven otherwise, instead of the present situation, where chemicals are only later shown to be dangerous once scientists and environmental groups collect a mountain of evidence?

good. dismiss the comment with an insult rather than tackle the underlying issue. methinks you should return to Tumblr or Reddit or whereever it is you learned basic internet.

this is not new. comments about how a person looks, or comments about how men and women "think differently", are in fact sexual harassment. it's not just opinion, it's scientifically observed and recorded fact. such comments are used daily to continue the kind of harassment that goes on in scientific fields.

but ok, that's a "Tumblr" position so obviously you win. sorry, for a second i thought I was on Slashdot, where rational and well thought out argument was the baseline.