Slashdot Mirror
More Than 15,000 Scientists From 184 Countries Issue 'Warning To Humanity' (www.cbc.ca)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CBC.ca: More than 15,000 scientists around the world have issued a global warning: there needs to be change in order to save Earth. It comes 25 years after the first notice in 1992 when a mere 1,500 scientists issued a similar warning. This new cautioning -- which gained popularity on Twitter with #ScientistsWarningToHumanity -- garnered more than 15,000 signatures. William Ripple of Oregon State University's College of Forestry, who started the campaign, said that he came across the 1992 warning last February, and noticed that this year happened to mark the 25th anniversary. Together with his graduate student, Christopher Wolf, he decided to revisit the concerns raised then, and collect global data for different variables to show trends over the past 25 years. Ripple found: A decline in freshwater availability; Unsustainable marine fisheries; Ocean dead zones; Forest losses; Dwindling biodiversity; Climate change; Population growth. There was one positive outcome, however: a rapid decline in ozone depletion. One of the potential solutions is to stabilize the population. If we reduce family size, consumption patterns don't rise as much. And that can be done by empowering girls and women, providing sexual education and education on family planning.
So, other than driving a Prius and moving to a sardine can style apartment in the inner city, what realistically can people do as something against AGW? There is tons of talk, but all of it seems to just be blaming people.
It reminds me of the town I live in, where water rationing was killing property values, because the older oak trees were dying. However, it was found that the golf court down the road was using 75% or more of the water, so all the losses in dead trees and cracked foundations due to ground shrinkage did nothing. Similar with the rice paddies.
The people who can do something won't... and promptly blame it on the people who can't do anything about AGW.
The 15,000 scientists are overruled by the 50,000 US coal miners.
Ok...I thought "No meant NO".....what more empowerment does it require?
Say no, and quit spreading your legs unless you want to risk having a kid, even with "protection", you can't be 100% sure.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
How about "empowering" boys and men too? Give them a heads up on the legal dangers to themselves and their future children if they participate in the rigged game of marriage ( at least in the west ).
But hell, I guess as long as women are looked after it's all A-OK.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
This is wrongthink on slashdot, I know, but...isn't it funny how all of the "solutions" to this non-problem tend to be malthusian and authoritarian in nature?
Get back to me when 15,000 scientists agree on what the problem is with concrete evidence as opposed to this is what we think. Then we can start arguing about what the solution should be. This is how real science is supposed to work.
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
If you actually look at some of the statistics published at COP25, you'll see that US and EU emissions are down but GDP is up.
The most rapid growth in emissions is in India, which still has less emissions per person than China does. The rapid increase in pollution, greenhouse emissions, and climate impacts is mostly due to China and India, but even if we reduce it now, some of the gasses take 100 years to clear out of the atmosphere, although other shorter lived gasses are more impactful but have shorter lifespans.
The most obvious other solution is not population growth, which isn't driving either of those top two contributors to the environment, but is literally faster phasing out of harmful energy and food usage including farming, by more efficient energy sources and cracking down on illegal overuse of pesticides and crop waste burning. Note that crop waste can be processed into stored fuel with minimal impacts, but the open burning of crop waste accelerates many other processes.
Solution for this means artificial price supports for crop waste, so that it is converted into appropriate fuel, and reducing all tax exemptions and exclusions for all fossil fuels.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Global Pandemic - works for me.
No muss, no fuss, and results have a high probability of "success".
Mother Nature can ( and will ) handle it.
And people sit there and wonder why there's an anti-science sentiment that keeps growing...
the science on AGW was wrong, because they were in the minority. Now, I guess, 15,000 scientists are presumably the majority, so AGW must be right? Is that how science works?
That would probably solve one of the problems neatly.
These snowflakes are crying liberal tears because global warming melts snowflakes.
Slight correction, those aren't tears. You said it yourself, they're melting.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
And you'll have your population control wish. Any other solution is just a fantasy.
Nope. If the theory disagrees with experiment, then it is Wrong. It doesn't matter how many voices sign the petition for the theory; it must still be rejected.
The Earth will be just fine.
Humanity, on the other hand....
"And that can be done by empowering girls and women, providing sexual education and education on family planning."
Seriously? Yea that could work in oh about 50 years when it's wayyyy too late already.
Great idea. Maybe we can solve CO2 in the atmosphere by teaching our kids smoking is bad, or something.
Are you freaking kidding me.
Among those included in this list of Climate Scientists:
Davis, Joanne - Australian
Daweti, Nokuthula - Student
de Clercq, Deon - Earthling
Hamilton, Ava - independent documentary producer/citizen scientist
Jara, Andrea - Colombian
Thapa, Lal - Asst. Professor of Alien Invasion
It is very hard to take this (or their agenda) seriously when they won't even do the basic science of vetting a list of "scientists".
You will never understand how science works, so quit asking.
http://scientistswarning.fores... I really wish reporters would link to the actual articles they talk about. Sort of like when they jump all over someone's statements but don't actually quote what the person said.
There is a very simple explanation for why the number of scientists was reported. One can only hear "the science isn't settled; there is still a lot of disagreement" so many times before you just assume you have to emphasize the degree of consensus every single time AGW comes up.
It disturbs me when people can't stick to a factual message and have to immediately propose controversial solutions.
Consensus of scientists:
"Warning! There are observed things that are influencing the world's ecology and climate in severe ways we aren't prepared to handle!"
Everyone with a working fucking brain:
"Oh, then we should analyse this to see what would be a viabl..."
Small subset of scientists:
"We need social change that fits with our perceptions to be pushed on everyone!"
*audience scatters into bickering factions who couldn't decide shit about shit if the known world depended on it (and it does by the way)*
Which is too damn many people. Of course now someone will scream "racism" just because its mentioned.
who keep yelling at them to update their skills. Because if it's one thing I know about folks in their 40s who have to work for a living it's that they love going back to school while working full time. Just sayin'.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Why do we not reject every climate model? All of them have been proven wrong in the last decade.
The huge problem you have is most first world countries that at this point are taking large steps to protect the environment (in no small part by pushing those concerns off to other countries that handle manufacturing and power generation) actually have negative population growth.
That would seem to solve the problem you are laying out, except for one thing - a lot of the countries with positive population growth are not really that concerned about the environment.
If you really think about this long term, that is a huge issue for environmental protection - the future belongs to the people that show up. If you care about the environment, you should probably be encouraging people who feel the same to have more, not fewer, children. Otherwise we may do well now, only to find in fifty years environmental concern is non-existent.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
or in India's case just plain collecting taxes in the first place. Crop burning's already illegal in India. They do it anyway. You'd need money for enforcement and to pay the enforcers well enough they don't just become corrupt. The only place you're gonna get that kind of money is the ruling elites and good luck getting money out of them.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Solution for this means artificial price supports for crop waste, so that it is converted into appropriate fuel, and reducing all tax exemptions and exclusions for all fossil fuels.
And there you go, mixing your political position with the scientific conclusion. This is what causes science denial.
Does the science mandate your position? Are there better solutions available?
I strongly suspect that the best solution is to turn our attention to improvements in technology. This is already happening in the US with the onset of electric vehicles - this will reduce fossil fuel consumption considerably, and serve as a model and testing ground for other nations.
We then have to find energy sources to replace our current fossil fuel use.
I strongly suspect that the best solution will be rooftop solar. This is already happening in the US with the cost of rooftop solar dropping precipitously over the last 15 years.
Both of these solutions would dramatically reduce our carbon footprint, and both would benefit from improvements in technology.
Perhaps we should look to science to solve the problem, instead of identity politics?
Welcome to Marxism, comrade.
The linked article is virtually devoid of any kind of meaningful data. Who keeps putting junk like this on /.?
They've already done the analysis. You're just proposing delay.
We're at least 10 years late for action, and it's not to "save the Earth" it's to save humanity. The Earth will be just fine after it's latest extinction event.
I find the amusing part is that most of the people suggesting a wait and see/do nothing agenda are the ones with the most kids/grandkids; why do they have them if they don't give a shit if they live or die if it's inconvenient?
The forestry scientists who started this campaign should instead have been working toward bigger and better forests. To, you know, convert more of that CO2 back into oxygen.
The way science works is that the more we learn, the more we find out we don't know. A very important part of the scientific process is skepticism.
I'm a Libertarian, following Ayn Rand's wisdom, which is the best thing that has ever happened to this country, and glad it is in practice in our government now.
However, I would never roll coal.
Diesel is way too expensive to waste. Especially a dually, where you need the power at the wheels, not going out the stacks.
There are too many if you and your presence is harming the planet. Please stop having sex so that population rates can decline to more sustainable levels (maybe if you set a good example the njiggers will follow).
Climate change activists should wholeheartedly welcome greater Social Justice influence and mission creep into their movement. Its proven track record of swaying public opinion can only have a positive impact on the debate.
Warmist regards,
ExxonMobil
You flunked out of law school. Poe's Law school.
There is an excellent documentary on Netflix called Mission Blue
The problem is that we've let greed over-rule sustainability. All the environmental disasters we are seeing are just the natural consequences of choosing false profits over scientific prophets.
This begs the question though -- What can the average citizen do to make an impact? The article mentions stabilize the population as one possible solution. What are others?
What if we end up spending all this time and money to make the air, water, and soil cleaner and it ends up being a hoax? How would we sleep at night. . .
The people and organizations who should care, because they have the money, power, and influence to do something about it: Rich people, global corporations.
Why they don't care: Short-term profits, keeping shareholders happy, is more important than what'll happen a couple hundred years from now. That's 'someone else's problem to deal with', and these people will all be dead and gone by then; why, so far as they're concerned, should they even care?
Who else is standing in the way of doing something about this: Dominionists, and fundamentalist religious organizations. So far as they're concerned, The Earth is a 'temporary' home for humanity, and is therefore expendable, as is all other life on it. Dominionists in particular are more interested in accelerating the destruction of the Earth, because they fervently believe that the sooner they can bring about the Apocalypse, the sooner Zombie Jesus will 'return' to the Earth to 'take them all home'. So anything they can do to make Earth uninhabitable faster is all to the good so far as they're concerned.
Then there's the Average Person; they're too busy just trying to deal with their day-to-day lives (and in some cases, too literally trying to stay alive) to even think about anything that's going to happen even 10 years from now, let alone several hundred years from now. Again, that gets waved off as 'someone elses problem', because they'll all be dead and gone before that even happens. Sure, they think about what their theoretical grandchildren may have to deal with -- so maybe they turn off the lights when they leave a room for more than a few minutes, or put off that errand they need to do until later. But it's all a drop in the bucket that really has no effect, not even if everyone does the same.
Overall there needs to be top-down actions taken, world-wide, in every country that creates a large enough fraction of the total problems. Seeing as we can't seem to get enough nations to agree on how to handle problems a fraction of the size and scope, good bloody luck with that. Add to that resistance the fact that The Rich, the aforementioned religious types, rich, influential religious types, and disinterested greedy corporations aren't going to be cooperative, and the likelihood that anything more than just 'feel-good', overall ineffective things being done becomes rather small. What we really need to have happen first, is a change of hearts and minds across the board; we need everyone to actually give a damn, right down to the core of their being. If someone's got a recipe to make that happen, I'm all ears.
Say no, and quit spreading your legs unless you want to risk having a kid, even with "protection", you can't be 100% sure.
100% is not necessary. In fact, for 90% of the population, 90% reliability is good enough.
The insistence "don't ever do anything unless you can reach 100% certainty" is one of the real problems in this country.
A teltale sign of an intellectually corrupt mind is to try to pass denialism as "skepticism".
Anti-vaxers and fucking flat-earthers also try to play the card of the "poor persecuted skeptics" all the time.
Thanks scientists. Your assessment is noted.
Ferret
Case in point: did you actually read the actual "Warning To Humanity" article that you're dismissing (it's here)?
If you won't bother to read the evidence in a three- page article with only nine graphs, why in the world would we think you'd care if we gave you the thousand pages of evidence you ask for?
Giving the number of scientists that support it shows no consensus without revealing the total population. Numerator without denominator == useless.
The summary fails to link to the actual article; instead it links to articles talking about the article.
The article in question is here:
http://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/sw/files/Ripple_et_al_warning_2017.pdf
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Snow in the forecast for tonight where I'm at. Save the earth? That's up to the people with the money. They're only interested in making more. Sorry.
I see, it's always get rid of someone else's children, isn't it ? We can just "empower girls and women" in THOSE cultures to abort their babies.
It's odd that when an article suggests reducing the rate of population growth, a certain subset of radical conservatives immediately starts shouting "We need to abort their babies!"
What the actual article says is taking the step of:
So, why is it that you suddenly start shouting about abortion?
Do you want to actually reduce the rate of abortion? That turns out to be really simple: abortion rates decrease when people have access to birth control. Simple.
Boy, it would be really convenient of all these simple cultures would just stop procreating in the first place. Maybe the WHO could just pay some group to just sterilize them, like they did in Kenya? But you know what would really "eliminate" the problem? What if we just eliminated those humans, so they don't burn all those fuels without scrubbers, and pollute those lakes, and cut down the forests for fields to grow food? After all, those leftists are looking out for the "greater good", so it's ok if it's nonconsentual.
What part of "access to education and voluntary family planning" is it that you are referring to here?
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Actually yes, we just can't bear to admit that. What we call "objective truth" is merely a reflection of how many credible people believe in that claim being true. And it's even worse than that: it's how many people who *we believe* are credible do *we believe* they believe a claim is true. If it sounds like turtles all the way down it is: just try to trace the claim of "97% scientists agree" to its roots in reality and you'll see it's based on a long chain of implicit trust based on implicit credibility. (Who did they poll? What was the poll? Did scientist accurately report their convictions? Who reported the news? etc. etc.)
That doesn't mean our scientific knowledge is not useful -- on the contrary, whether it is useful is the (only) criteria to go by. But it means it is acquired statistically, as if humanity were one giant neural network. If you need a confirmation, here's a quote (supposedly) from Max Planck who (we believe) had enough experience to see the pattern: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
More socialists power grabs a coming.
Climates been changing since there was an other, man ain't got jack to do with it unless we unload all our nukes.
The Club of Rome published this book in 1972. It is based on a computer simulation of using resources and population to evaluate how long humanity can exist in this system. At that time the tipping point was about 2030. The model used has been re-evaluated many time since. The latest study has added social stability and things are not looking good.
Corporation and the rish have not done anything for the last 45 years, do you really think thay would do anything now "to reduce their profits"?
How about we discuss the real threat to peace? Governments killed more people in the 20th century than any other non-natural cause.
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/death-government-primary-fact-20th-century
I'm a Libertarian, following Ayn Rand's wisdom, which
Ayn Rand was not a libertarian (with or without a capital L)-- she was an "Objectivist," a philosophy which she coined and led.
Rand hated libertarianism, and did not hesitate to say so: "Libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism. That’s worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology... So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the libertarian movement."
(Ayn Rand, Ford Hall Forum, 1971)
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Ayn Rand was a banker's shill, out to destruct the family and religion in order to impose more bankers-favorite 'morality' onto the people.
All those atheist women-empowering individualism preaching shills are out to destroy the corner stones of society:
family, religion, unity.
Loosely connected Individuals are much easier to control and subdue than tight families with high moral values.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
I'm extremely skeptical about your two last statements.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Strange thing is that I've never seen a letter of 20,000 mathematicians stating that the value of pi isn't 3, when some state was going to pass a law that pi=3.
Or a letter of 10,000 physics that supported (or rejected) Einsteins views.
Was it maybe because in those cases solid proof was actually available?
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
I'm not convinced about low taxes, and low shelf prices and they need not go hand in hand with freedom. Gotta be free to set a high price if you want. I buy generic Excedrin, though there are obviously those who don't for example, And I'm not too thrilled over other people's freedom to poison me.
Depends on the definition of "scientists" used.
The GW alarmist counted high school students, politicians and people without a single day of real world work experience as "scientists".
Wait, you mean use the Scientific Method? No, we can't do that.
Besides out of these 15,000 scientists how many are experts in climatology? You're field of study is in molecular biology, that's great but is has nothing to do with the weather.
Isaac Asimov said that the biggest threats to humanity were 1) overpopulation and 2) humanity's habit of splitting itself into groups, and deciding that you are or are not a part of their group. I agree with him.
Here are an Asimov interview and speech on overpopulation and human unity.
This article is right on, man. But first I need another cup of latte made with fair trade coffee and soy milk, along with another gluten free non-dairy sorghum bean curd pudding.
Think you can veg out ? It ain''t just cabbage, palsy. Too many nibbers, Kfirs and slants. EOF.
Well spoken. A rock solid (re)publican fascist position and I approve. Smash-face either libtoons or progressives today and have a much better tomorrow.
Actuallyon Einstein you kinda did. Anti-jewish people hated him. And tell me where the Big Math companies making billions pushed anti-maths paranoia because they would be ruined if pi didn't change value?
Or are you just congenially retarded?
>And that can be done by empowering girls and women
I think this underlines how politically motivated these scientists really are. Why even mention such a thing in this article? It takes two people to have sex you know.
Only some of the things they talk about are even remotely scientific-ish. While I could argue with "their purpose" or their merits of their augment to do so would be ceding the point that whole endeavor is subjective, non-specific feel good jargon.
"I disagree in principle and price" so I'm not going to negotiate on price
The population boom has been trending negative for decades non-uniformly. Birth rates are trending toward negative worldwide - without any idiot intervention. Its questionable if the negative trend can be stopped at all.... so replace quasi threat with another.
Family size is highly specific; who decides whether me or my children are justified to exist? Where is the science? The levels of arrogance and ignorance are thoroughly interlaced.
Global warming is not a uniform effect so how to you assign cost? Not science! If you though Brexit, Greek dept, healthcare, or taxes was a mess just wait...
Large powerful groups are the most likely to shirk responsibility, with the "solution" then becoming a noneffective political bludgeon used force the common "plebs" into accepting a loss of control to the powerful.
Do explain that theory of more than two biological sexes or that one were a guy thinks he is really a girl trapped in males body,declares himself a woman and his ugly ass ends up on Vogue?
How about we change the words around some to get the point home.. Lets keep the Earth Inhabitable. The earth will be fine. George Carlin was right!
Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
It doesn't take a radical fucking conservative to look out the window and see that depopulation has already hit white countries, hard. All the GP is saying is that these kind of propaganda campaigns always seem to be targeted at midde-to-upper class white guilt-types in the first world, you know, the ones who are already well below replacement rate for their own kind?
We're already killing our babies at astronomical rates, how about point the culture-destruction cannon at someone else for a change?
Millions of adherents of astrology, not to mention religious zealots would applaud your explanation. You also give legitimacy to polls conducted by Fox News and every other agenda-driven group seeking to influence opinion through the bandwagon effect.
I choose to believe that science is not a democracy.
Whenever a country's population starts to decline, the reaction is panic.
Supposedly Europe is taking in floods of immigrants because Europeans are not having enough children.
The prospect of declining population in Japan is also causing some serious concern.
Unless we accept a "Logan's Run" or "Soylent Green" solution, then lower population will mean fewer, and fewer, young people supporting more, and more, old people.
> Ayn Rand was a banker's shill, out to destruct the family and religion.
No. That is completely wrong.
Please don't misunderstand: there is a lot of valid criticism against Ayn Rand. But you are completely off base.
If you will believe me I am as uncomfortable with that as you seem to be. But I've been sitting on it for a while and have only found confirmations for it. If that is indeed true ("true") then the sooner we accept it the less we'll fall for bad science. "That" being the idea that our objective knowledge is acquired, held, and maintained as a statistical process, not as our ever closer understanding of the mind of God which was a line of reasoning that started with Newton.
Far greater minds have claimed things to that end -- this is a quote from Philip K Dick: "In one of the most brilliant papers in the English language Hume made it clear that what we speak of as 'causality' is nothing more than the phenomenon of repetition. When we mix sulphur with saltpeter and charcoal we always get gunpowder. This is true of every event subsumed by a causal law — in other words, everything which can be called scientific knowledge. "It is custom which rules," Hume said, and in that one sentence undermined both science and philosophy." I believe it is custom of our brain matter that also determines how we know what we know.
That said I also like to believe that what makes us different from a simple biological (or mechanical) deep learning network is how we decide to pursue one thing or another, before it is knowledge.
yelling at them to update their skills while giving them little to no support to do so, especially when they're already in dire economic straights is _not_ helping. Worse, I'm not even sure people want to help. If you just look down on them you don't have to worry about your taxes going up to support them while they retrain. Or for make work public works projects while we wait for the economy to catch up. You can safely abandon them and feel none the worse for it. Because it's their fault for not updating their skills, and not because the entire manufacturing base of our country collapsed in the wake of NAFTA and free trade with China...
You do know that their blue collar guys, right? Most of them would fit in just fine building infrastructure or in manufacturing if we did such things.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
They reject training because a) there are no jobs and b) retaining while working full time is fucking _hard_. They've been abandoned, they know it, and they don't know what to do. So they voted Trump because, hey, what have they got to lose, right? Sure, he's already pushing the bad stuff of the TPP into other bills, but again, they've got nothing to lose. What is it people say about people with nothing to lose? Oh, right, they think clearly and rationally and make sound decisions. I think that was it.
And yes, I know I'm feeding trolls, but fact is lots of folks think like you. They need to stop that. You need to stop that. It's what got us in this mess in the first place.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I could get more than 15k random signatures on a statement saying that AGW is horseshit.
That's pretty much the corollary to what these folks did.
In both cases people would rightly ask, "so what?"
Population growth slows as a society's wealth increases. Many western societies have slowing population growth.
Increasing the wealth of developing nations usually requires industrialization - and that typically increases greenhouse gas emissions.
If you want to slow population growth - you need to industrialize emerging nations - and I'm not sure renewables are up to the short term task.
We know we are harming our Host and how, and we are really trying to help Her recover. I would like it if one day we could have more of a symbiotic relationship. Where we can help as well. Some of those "Green Cities" being built is really a Flower in the Hair of Mother Earth. :)
[($)]
It takes 30 people in developing countries to consume the same amount of resources as you do, BigChigger.
The problem isn't their overpopulation. It's your overconsumption.
It takes 30 of them to consume the same amount of resources that you do.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01...
You mean it's your excuse of the moment. If it wasn't this, it would be something else - that's how denialism works.
It's too late. The evolutionary experiment with intelligence is coming to an end. So be it.
Religion is based on the rejection of reason. At best, anything good that comes from religion alone is blind chance.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
It doesn't take a radical fucking conservative to look out the window and see that depopulation has already hit white countries, hard.
Well, the country I live in is only white in small parts, and mostly in wintertime. I'll give you Greenland, but what other countries are predominantly white?
Stephan
Once you explain that theory then try a stab at explaining this. I saw a YouTube video of a young woman that claims she's a gay man. So she's a woman that cuts her hair short and wears baggy clothes, likes to fuck dudes, and demands to want to use the men's restroom to pee. Preventing this women from using the men's room so she can try to get a peek at some guy's dick is now some outrage. If that's what we should be outraged about then I'm thinking we're doing pretty good.
We've been so well fed, clothed, and healthy now that the outrage is not that this lady has to shit in the street, it's that she has to shit in the women's restroom. We've run out of things to be outraged about that we have to go to new extremes to invent them.
Am I saying that global warming is an invented problem? I'm saying that thought has crossed my mind. It's real easy to get a bunch of signatures that something must be done. It's real hard to actually do something about it. When these people start doing something about global warming instead of just get more signatures then I'd find the problem more convincing.
Do we really need more convincing of the problem? I think we got it already. This outrage has got so bad now I'm wondering if they "protest too much".
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
If it wasn't for SJWs importing people from third world countries.
Most of the civilized world already has negative population growth.
Somehow politicians keep saying that's bad though, because it means they can't keep up their social security ponzi scheme.
more interesting would be how many supposed scientists were actually putinbots selling penis enlargement equipement. man made global warming is soooo much nicer than the man made nuclear winters from the last few times humanity worked out the atom, I never understood what all the fuss is about.
The bigger the number the more true the reasoning...
In the old days we would have need only _one_ scientist, one with a sound argument. There was one Pitagoras, one Tales, one Copernicus, one Einstein.
15ooo scientists - this is a disgrace.
Eastern European excluding Russia. Had no colonies, haven't exploited other races, emigrated in throngs to USA to avoid war, famine and oppression of old European empires, never were rich in hundreds of years of existence, dying out from depopulation right now, forced to accept other poor bastards from Middle East and Central Asia, which will never assimilate into their culture.
As I understand it, in almost all western countries, post industrialization, population grows at diminishing rates until it falls. While China and India are behind Europe and North America, they are predicted to follow the same trend, and ultimately stabilize global population. I couldn't find a text article about this, but I see it on this youtube video. Kurzgesagt - Overpopulation
Unfortunately, a statement gets accepted as true only by deconstructing it to a set of claims both parties agreed are true, and they may just never agree all of them are true, especially if one party wants to keep certain other equivalent claim firmly false. Deniers don't give a shit about if global warming is true or mankind-induced, they just don't want to change certain behaviour they are very attached to. It was never an honest argument, it was never supposed to be able to end in either of two outcomes. For deniers it is just a litigation, and defence will without any reasonable doubt show that defendant never borrowed the Ming vase from the plaintiff, he returned the vase in perfect condition and the vase already had the crack on it when defendant borrowed it.
But it is very simple really. At one point those who can do something but won't will find out that solving their own part of problem on their own is no longer within their reach, and then they will scream bloody murder and demand that society as whole do something to save their property and their well-being. So, they will come around, eventually.
There is a large social stratum of well-off people who will lose their comfortable position when world as whole becomes poorer due to accumulated damage and they will sink down among the poor. It will sort-of take care of their reckless consumption. Every dynamic system, even non-linear ones, eventually reach some area of relative long-term stability. Middle class is the scourge of the world - the world never could sustain too many rich wannabes pretending they all are entitled to life of nobility, and yet it became a profitable business in previous decades to provide lifestyle of elites to ever deeper top layer of the poor. It all floated on an environmental denialism bubble. Ravaged environment will correct all that. We have seen the rise of unanticipated new professions, and future will see disappearance of many of them, for being non-essential and not viable any more.
This is certainly not something to be overly upbeat on, but as (the much-missed) Hans Rosling repeatedly pointed out at TED and similar (in his inimitable, elegant and very understandable style), WHO statistics say that we're actually already broadly on track to stabilize population. The biggest reason it's still rising, according to him, is not rising birth rates - birth rates are apparently comparatively stable - but rising average lifespan. And that's an effect that will diminish over time. (Basically, it used to be that the vast percentage of the population was young; nowadays just as many are young, but increasingly they get to be old too. And the more they stick around while the next generations grow up, the bigger the population gets. But once almost everyone is living to a ripe old age - that's it. No more growth that way.) His estimate, in one lecture at least, was a stable population at about 11-12 billion on current trends. And, perversely, he also pointed out that the best way to keep the overall stable population low, was to improve the living standards of people in less-developed countries.
Whether or not 11-12 billion is sustainable is a different discussion.
Earth is going to survive. Once all the humans are dead, everything will gradually return to normal. Humans are arrogant to think they can kill the planet. They can kill themselves and perhaps all life on it but they can't kill the planet.
We'll make great pets
http://scientistswarning.fores... 1345 students (more because of language/spelling) 33 Veterinarians 96 Anthropologist Not to mention the many names with no qualifications mentioned at all. And this is after 5 mins skimming the surface of the list. This list is a joke.
We all know the problem is people. I leave the solution to you. Captcha was overdose. (theres one)
100% of all the worlds problems start and end with homo sapiens. In order to appease everyone this species must be removed.
15,003 scientists says "Chicken Little" so majority rules. Right? Scientifically, right? isn't that how science works?
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissio...
Our carbon dioxide emissions have been declining since 2005 and continue to do so. Direct your bitching to the rest of the world.
We'll make great pets
More information, China has double our emissions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Chinese emissions are going up, United States emissions are going down:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissio...
Send this petition to the Chinese folks.
We'll make great pets
If you're doing better than Africans and not part of the 1% you should feel guilt.
Uh, just to point out the obvious, a simpler and cheaper solution would be just to make sure that birth control is available to those who want it.
A better solution would be to mandate birth control for those that can't afford it.
If by "mandate" you mean "force birth control on people whether they want it or not"-- no.
If by "mandate" you mean "mandate that birth control be available for everybody who can't afford it," -- yes, that would be a good idea.
That's been brewing for years, the fresh water crisis.
Wonder who's been investing and changing laws so you can't, for example, capture your own rainwater and use it (California?)
Good to know the charade from global warming is over.
"Be fruitful and multiply". I live by this motto every day. I have a very large family and it's a blessing to have so many brothers and sisters and sons and daughters.
Its already happening in the first world. In most of the richest nations there is a declining birthrate with governments worried about the financial consequences that brings. It is places like the Third World where they're still pumping them out at a ridiculous rate where the issue lies.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
Wrong again. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
Except that the climate models have, overall, worked remarkably well.
Here is the first and best-referenced of the global climate models, dated from 1967, and a comparison of the model against the data for the following fifty years: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly-3c0854932a4a.
The model fit the data remarkably well over a time span of fifty years.
Vogue is not a scientific journal peer-reviewed by scientists, so it's not a scientific theory,
and they misuse the word "theory" in general, because the word theory refers to philosophically a
contemplative or speculative rationally justifiable understanding ("hypothesis") regarding natural things.
To be scientific; there must be specific predictions arising from the theory that can be proven false in order to invalidate the theory.
To be rational, evidence from a logical proof or induction is required, not merely a subjective assertion or belief.
Merely THINKING you are a Guy or a Gal does not make you one, much the same way as THINKING you are
Aristotle or an Elephant doesn't make you one --- you must show something tangible for a theory such as "more than two biological sexes".
Rarely do we see anything that hints at the root cause. Finally someone dares mention the cause. Pollution, by definition is a consequence of human activity as is the destruction of nature. We have already passed the load limit for humans on this planet. Only by establishing a much lower population rate can we hope to preserve anything at all. That is going to mean some very strict and highly enforced laws do we have any hope at all. The US, for example might choose a number of 60,000,000 as our population target. Strict birth controls must be applied. We may also need to issue reproduction permits based upon academic as well as physical attributes of potential parents. Obviously some emotional pain and changes in what is seen as moral or good behavior must be tolerated. Considering that the alternative is death and desolation mandatory birth control becomes a highly moral alternative. People who think that simply evermore science and technology can keep society rolling along are worshiping a false God.
If it sounds like turtles all the way down it is: just try to trace the claim of "97% scientists agree" to its roots in reality
OK, I traced it. The 97% figure came from the several references: J. Cook, et al., "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 11, No. 4, 13 April 2016. DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
It states: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”
Another reference is J. Carlton et al., "The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists," Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 10, No. 94, 24 September 2015. Their results show a 96.7% agreement on anthropogenic contribution to rising temperatures among the group who indicated that 'The majority of my research concerns climate change or the impacts of climate change.'" (The agreement was "only" 91.9% when the group was expanded to all scientists and not just climate scientists.)
A slightly later paper by Cook et al. included a table summarizing fourteen other surveys of scientists, is here: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
And a nice site summarizing what scientific societies say is here: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
and you'll see it's based on a long chain of implicit trust based on implicit credibility. (Who did they poll? What was the poll? Did scientist accurately report their convictions? Who reported the news? etc. etc.)
Questions which are all answered.... if you had done the work that you suggested: "trace the claim to its roots."
That doesn't mean our scientific knowledge is not useful -- on the contrary, whether it is useful is the (only) criteria to go by. But it means it is acquired statistically, as if humanity were one giant neural network. If you need a confirmation, here's a quote (supposedly) from Max Planck who (we believe) had enough experience to see the pattern: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
The greenhouse effect isn't a "new scientific truth". It's been known and pretty well understood for well over a hundred years. It is the tool we use to understand planetary temperatures.
If that's what we should be outraged about then I'm thinking we're doing pretty good.
I do have to agree, we are now talking about micro-aggression and stuff like that. I have to say that if you need to put the prefix micro- in front of the thing you are upset about, then things must be getting pretty ok.
Not perfect, but ok.
https://xkcd.com/470/
What would be the point? Then you'd just claim that all or most of the people who didn't sign on to the warning don't agree with it. And besides, your premise is false. If I say "30 people came to my party" there doesn't have to be a denominator to determine that it's still a well attended party.
There is one and only one tool to reduce population growth that actualyl works: Female empowerment. When women study, have careers and decide themselves about their bodies and reproductive decisions.
So hopp hopp all you malthusians out there, become hardcore feminsits. It's the only way to safe the world.
Or wait, are you actually not interested in saving the world but tribalist ethno-facists who want more babies with your skin color and less imigrants in your part of the world?
Strange thing is that I've never seen a letter of 20,000 mathematicians stating that the value of pi isn't 3,
There isn't a relentless and well-funded campaign to assert that mathematicians are liars who are perpetrating a hoax about the value of pi, nor a publicity campaign by the fossil-fuel companies to convince the public that there is no consensus about the value of pi because a trillion-dollar industry might make less profit if people knew that the value of pi was well known.
[citation needed]
Among those included in this list of Climate Scientists:
A small correction: the people asked to sign were to be "scientists from any scientific discipline", not specifically climate scientists.
Davis, Joanne - Australian Daweti, Nokuthula - Student de Clercq, Deon - Earthling Hamilton, Ava - independent documentary producer/citizen scientist Jara, Andrea - Colombian Thapa, Lal - Asst. Professor of Alien Invasion
...
ON that last one: you conveniently left out most of the reference in order to highlight the phrase "alien invasion." Looking at the list, the full information following the name is:
Thapa, Lal Asst. Professor, Plant Ecology, Microbial Interaction, Climate Change, Alien Invasion Central Department of Botany, Tribhuvan University Nepal.
In the context of plant ecology, the phrase "invasion" means "invasion of a alien (that is, non-native) plant species into an ecology."
I think I'll give a person whose native language is Nepali the benefit of the doubt in not necessarily realizing that "alien invasion" might mean something different to slashdot readers than to plant ecologists.
I choose to believe that science is not a democracy.
The scientific method is not democratic, but perhaps unfortunately, the acknowledgement and cataloguing of scientific knowledge appears to be. I suppose that's why replication is important. Scientific experiments and even the scientific method are fallible. People can draw the wrong conclusions from experiments. They can design experiments that don't work well, and they can get fluke results. So we need to be able to verify what facts are true, and refine the models that we use to explain the facts in the face of new evidence. However, that's a process that is inherently democratic as it deals with our shared understanding of the universe and the way it works. Of course, it's also a meritocracy, as well, since while everyone could vote on whether a scientific fact is true (and often do, see anti-vaxxers and climate change denial, for example), the scientific community respects the carefully reasoned and explained presentation of facts by experts who have a publication record. And when multiple respected experts agree that a particular fact is true, it becomes accepted as part of the body of knowledge of science. Of course, it is always important to remember that those accepted truth are not sacrosanct. They are not the anointed words of holy men. They can and will be challenged, and occasionally those challenges will overturn an old model or improve upon it. But it is human nature to resist change, so those attempts may be met with undue scepticism, but the application of the scientific method should ultimately reveal the truth.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
False. If they were really conservative they wouldn't want ANY abortion. It is only the liberals that support abortion of any kind. You just wanted to rail on conservatives though, so I'm sure you already knew that.
We're already killing our babies at astronomical rates, how about point the culture-destruction cannon at someone else for a change?
We are not killing babies, you fucking zealot.
Not one word was written about aborting babies. What was probably implied was family planning and , yes, that probably means 1 child. Moroon....(spelled on purpose because it fits )
...as long as the scientists signing also acknowledge that the 1992 predictions and forecasts as to the impact of global warming (it's name at the time) by 2017 were, how shall we say, WILDLY erroneous. Or maybe I am writing this in an underwater home in a world with no polar ice caps and just don't realize it.
And they all flue an airplane.
Then they said, "Give us more money so we can study it.".
A friend of mine dragged me to an evangelical church service back when I was an undergraduate in the early 1980s. This was back when televangelism was relatively rare, but this church—in Toronto—had cameras, and consequently often featured A-list itinerant men of the cloth (they were almost all men). One name I now recall was Hal Lindsay.
Whoever it was, the argument went like this: the plot of the number of diseases known to medicine was shaped like a hockey stick, with the heal of the hockey stick representing God getting extra super pissed off (almost certainly the usual homosexual suspects, et. al.) and come to Jesus quickly now, while there's still time. So why are the diagnostic manuals now thick enough to erect a stairway to heaven? Is it because anal intercourse kicked evolution into overdrive? As if crusty peckers haven't been a breeding ground for hundreds of millions of years already? Or is it because we invented the gas chromatograph, the electron microscope, the CAT scan, the MRI, genetic sequencing, and principle component analysis?
No surprise, the climate debate has likewise experienced narrative thickening over the last two decades.
Note that this is an absolute peak in the early 1980s. We're not even talking a mere relative peak. The earth is still reeling from this major shock to biomass distribution. Seven billion gangling apex predators all crowded together on slender seashores is a whole new ball of wax. Of course, one finds the evidence of this everywhere. Earth has had almost no time to adjust yet. And then we go around using pristine baselines, or prior composition, against which to measure decline.
Even if the earth isn't going to hell in a handbasket—either due to crusty peckers or crusty pecker aftermath—humanity's adolescent population spurt was really going to trash the joint for a couple of generations, any way you slice it. Seriously, if you extrapolate manhood from the age of 16 to 21, the only possible response is to televise REPENT NOW. Around age 21, men stop growing and start thinking (a slow process, with little to show for it in most cases until the late 20s).
Now we have 15,000 signatures that Animal House is an ecological eyesore. I really don't know what to make of this. It was plainly apparent back in the early 1970s that whatever came next was not going to be pretty, even if you regarded The Late, Great Planet Earth as being full of shit, and The Population Bomb as an alarmist wheeze.
The problems certainly demand attention, and more attention is probably better than less attention (we're still such a shallow, squirrel-obsessed species) and you can certain
Not one word was written about aborting babies. What was probably implied was family planning and , yes, that probably means 1 child. Moroon....(spelled on purpose because it fits )
I'm not sure to whom you are addressing your comment. The Anonymous Coward post that my reply was addressing stated:
We can just "empower girls and women" in THOSE cultures to abort their babies.
That explicitly does include a word about "aborting babies". So, I assume your comment was addressed to AC?
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Lets consider the things we may need to actually tackle this problem. We need humans to improve and build more solar cells. We need more researchers and engineers to design fusion reactors that are reliable and safe. We need construction workers to build the fusion reactors. We may need to start mining asteroids for materials instead of mining the earth, that will take humans to design and build rockets, humans to mine the asteroids, and humans to build the mining machines that we use. Humans are a valuable resource, economists call it the 'labor force' more humans means more inventions, more discoveries, and more laborers to turn those inventions into products and discoveries into opportunities.
By taking measures to reduce the population we may actually reduce the technological advancement of the human race. That might prevent us from solving this crisis we face. The population exploded in the last 100 years because we developed new farming, distribution, and construction methods that allows us to support more humans with even less resources. I expect this trend to only continue. Just like the people of 1800's new york couldn't fathom a city with a population greater than 1 million, because they wouldn't have enough horses for all those peple and the pollution caused by the horses would be insurmountable, so to do we look at our current predicament and assume that population increases on this planet will ruin everything. The people in 1800's new york couldn't fathom the automobile that would enable a greater population, so too we cannot fathom or predict the tech advances that will sustain even more humans on this planet without destroying the environment
Actually, Ayn Rand hated EVERYTHING that wasn't Ayn Rand (and I am not even sure that she didn't actually hate herself too). That said, she did paint a pretty accurate indictment of coerced collectivism. But her proposed cure was quite flaky.
There is so much conflicting information about Rand. But like the old Internet wisdom says, when in doubt, go read the fucking publications. I better do just that.
...
I am not saying we should ignore those claims, but rather use them as a hint to do more repetitions until we establish those claims as likely true or likely not.
Good God, how many repetitions do we have to do? We've done hundreds. Do you want thousands? Millions?
Literally hundreds of institutions on five continents are and have been repeating the work and running the models; the source codes for all the analysis tools are open-source and available to anybody; tens of terabytes of data is acquired every year (you do know that climate science is supported by data, right?; thousands of pages of documentation are available explaining exactly what and how the work was done; and they all agree on the overall consensus.
Let me suggest the opposite: the understanding of anthropogenic global warming is, at this point, the most well validated scientific theory in the history of science . Scientific theories are validated when they are challenged and meet the challenge, and no theory has ever been challenged as long or as relentlessly as anthropogenic global warming.
If there is any theory anywhere which has been challenged, and challenged, and challenged-- this is it.
We need do nothing, extreme population control is coming. Read about the Georgia Guidestones; I have seen & touched them. Even if the UN fails to kill populations down to only 500 million people on the earth, another simple solution is already working.
Progressive governments are importing Muslims. Muslims out breed civilized people and kill people plus they kill Muslims. After over 1000 years of killing, it is not reasonable to think they will not reduce populations of EU, USA & India.
Only China controls spread of Koran & so limits killing.
I think that's an overstatement, surely you'd agree that the Newtonian physics is the most well validated theory in the history of science -- it got the most mileage.
But that aside, and I don't doubt the huge amount of work involved, this is an opportunity to educate a layman: can you tell me what testable predictions does the theory make? Are any of those predictions (experiments really) simple enough for a lay person to follow?
I did a search regarding testability and found this from pro-AGW people who acknowledge that the theory is too complex and it cannot be falsified as a whole, only its individual components can. https://skepticalscience.com/a... (Pasting the best part below.)
This is fair, but I think it also shows that it is a natural block from people accepting it in order to make radically different decisions in life -- eat vegan, have fewer children -- based on such theory. Unless climate science can demonstrate almost prophetic powers like physics can, it will remain a partisan issue.
Post from the link:
falsifiability is a strange concept of limited use in science, despite its popularity. The reason is that when we test any hypothesis, we must make background assumptions both about other conditions, and about how our instruments work. These background assumptions then form auxilliary hypotheses which are tested alongside the hypothesis we actually desire to test. As a consequence, if our test gives a negative result, we do not falsify any individual hypothesis (including the one we wanted to test). Rather we falsify the conjunction of the hypotheses. We show that not all of them can be true together. This is known as the Duhem-Quine Thesis, after its two independent "discoverers".
To illustrate this, consider Dikran Marsupial's test of "global climate change theories" from 2 above. He claims that a centenial negative trend in temperatures would falsify the theory. Of course, if that centenial trend coincided with a 50% reduction of solar physics, the theory would not be falsified. Dikran is quite aware of this, and covered himself with the auxilliary clause that the trend occured "in the absence of any other change in the forcings that could explain it".
In very simple theories, we can radically reduce the number of auxilliary hypotheses making the particular hypothesis of interest more amenable to falsification in a "crucial test". We can also vary our experimental methods so that we are testing the theory with different auxilliary hypotheses. Thus, for very simple hypotheses, we can reduce the impact of the Duhem-Quine Thesis, but we can never entirely avoid it.
Because AGW is a complex theory with many auxilliary hypotheses, it is difficult to develop "crucial tests", ie, any individual test that will show it to be false. In fact, in the very short term it is impossible. What we can do is develop "crucial tests" for important elements of the theory, but not for the whole theory at once. We can also measure relative likilihood with respect to competing theories. Doing so, we can show that AGW easilly is a superior theory to its competitors. But we cannot pick a single experiment to falsify the theory, so you will not find much discussion of falsification with respect to AGW.
When you do, it is often for critics of AGW who take a farcically simplistic view of falsification to declare that "AGW is falsified". Spencer and Christy played this game for a while, declaring the UAH satellite temperature index falsified AGW. Then (on several occasions) they were embarrassed when it was shown that their auxilliary hypothesis that they had eliminated all significant errors from their temperature record was what was false, and that UAH tends to confirm rather than falsify AGW.
Lucia Liljegren has played a similar game, several times declaring that the recent temperature record falsifies IPCC predictions. She has neglected, however, the IPCC auxilliary hypothesis of neutral ENSO conditions*. She has merely falsified the conjunction of hypotheses that (CO2 forcing is increasing & climate sensitivity is in the IPCC range & ENSO fluctuations do not effect global temperatures & ....). As her third, tacit, auxilliary hypothesis is known to be false, her results are massively uninteresting. (She also uses a very simplistic definition of falsification in which events with a 1in 20 probabi
If I were looking for predictions that lay persons could compare to data, I'd go for measuring the upwelling and downwelling infrared flux from balloon experiments-- these days lots of students do high altitude balloons, and that would be a cool measurement to do.
I'll remember that thank you. I'm assuming from your references you may be a climate researcher yourself. FWIW I should let you know that my beef is not with your profession. I trust you do your work honestly and competently and as best you can. My distrust is with the people who are *not* climate researchers but who use a set of talking points about climate to either, as I see it, profit or get fame from it (Al Gore comes to mind), or to label their (usually conservative) opponents as dumb anti-science people, or merely to virtue signal, without doing anything whatsoever for the cause they profess to care. Whereas I for example drive very little, fly very little, and eat mostly vegetarian. I am convinced their smug scientism hurts your work more than it helps.
If I were a climate researcher I'd hang in there, history is full of people doing work that wasn't always appreciated but they knew it was the right thing to do it anyway, and maybe I'd try to find a way to make it all closer to the mind and heart of the common man.
I do not own a car. I do not fly. My carbon footprint is in the lowest 1%. Nobody cares. Do they ever thank me? You know they donâ(TM)t. They only criticize me for not talking the talk. In 2017, you can pollute all you want, but as long as you say the right words, you are a-ok with âoeprogressivesâ. Itâ(TM)s not about the climate. Never has been, never will be. Here in Seattle, traffic is up, Sea-Tac airport just set another passenger record, and the City Council banned plastic straws. The other day, I got lectured by a woman in the grocery store line because I had the audacity to request a bag. I was walking and the stop was unplanned, yet I get the eco finger wag. I cut through the parking lot afterward, and eco woman almost hit me with her SUV. Self-described âoeprogressivesâ take more flights each year, and fly more miles each year than do âoeconservativesâ. Like most moral panic, the concern is fake, and quite demonstrably so. Itâ(TM)s gotten far past the point of absurdity.
How about learning about science instead of just spouting ignorant cynicism?
I'll remember that thank you. I'm assuming from your references you may be a climate researcher yourself.
A reasonable assumption, but not quite-- I'm in the next field over, so I work with the atmospheric optical models, but not climate. I do know some of the climate guys (mostly the ones doing atmospheric transmission and scattering, not the ones you would have ever heard of) and occasionally even work with them (but not on the Earth's atmosphere).
FWIW I should let you know that my beef is not with your profession. I trust you do your work honestly and competently and as best you can. My distrust is with the people who are *not* climate researchers but who use a set of talking points about climate to either, as I see it, profit or get fame from it (Al Gore comes to mind), or to label their (usually conservative) opponents as dumb anti-science people, or merely to virtue signal, without doing anything whatsoever for the cause they profess to care.
Thanks. I'll accept your compliments on behalf of my colleagues next door.
Do you agree that women's minds and men's minds are alike, that there are no significant systemic differences? No? In that case, why would it be a stretch of imagination to think that, in rare cases, male minds can be born in female bodies or vice versa?
Two biological sexes would mean classifying everyone as biologically male or biologically female. That mostly works, but reality is more complicated. People are born with genotypes other than XX and XY, and sometimes with two sets of sex organs.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If there are no differences, then how can there be such a thing as a "male mind" or a "female mind"?
Save yourself some time. Skip Atlas Shrugged and go read The Little Red Hen
I've found that, typically, people who claim there are differences and that they explain modern behavior have at least the same politics as those who deny that transsexuals can exist. Clearly there are differences, or there wouldn't be transsexuals, but there's a lot of other crap going on that obscures what would happen with ideal behavior.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
As a born atheist, I can tell you that you have utterly failed to understand religion. Its like you are stuck in the Bill Maher reductive to the point of eliminating all meaning level of analysis. That in itself is a rejection of reason. Don't let yourself be the ignorant monster you think you are fighting.
ter https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/... Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill. CEO Nwabudike Morgan "The Ethics of Greed"
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
Or, quite possibly, there are just 'minds.'
Minds are tied to the brain (if not directly created by it) so the mind is clearly influenced by the body.
Everyone has to discover for themselves who they are, and if that means finding a role that fits inside what society deems gender roles to be, then great. If they find themselves outside those roles, they have to make a place for themselves.
I'm of the opinion that there's room for all kinds of people in the world, and they all have a right to be in it whether they are accepted or not, but there are innumerable reasons (many not related to gender) that society will reject you and you just have to cope with that. Being on the fringe doesn't mean you get to demand that society change to suit your image of yourself.
But why shouldn't we accept people who fit into society and aren't threats? What harm does it do?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
We should. Unfortunately that is only the ideal, not the current reality. But I'm not prepared to tell the world it has to change because I'm unhappy with it; that's the SJW's approach and it not only doesn't work, it makes everyone unhappier.