I've learned from my friends with other sexuals orientations that heterosexuality is very loud and very obnoxious. You just don't see it, because it's everywhere and it's normal. Going against this established norm automatically becomes obnoxious in some people's eyes, because it upsets the status quo and their narrow definitions of what's normal and acceptable.
I suspect you're one of those people. Getting upset because a ficitonal character is portrayed as gay is pretty sad. Even worse, thinking that it's a sign of homosexual propaganda to kids is bordering on homophobic. Showing kids homosexuality is normal isn't mean just to let the homosexuals among them feel as normal as you and I do, but it's also for the heterosexuals and their views of homosexuals. They need to be taught that different sexual orientation is no different from race or ethnicity. You don't disciriminate and you don't hate because of it. It's not propaganda, it's basic education in being an enlightened human being and not a fearful, narrowminded bigot.
With more equality, raising children and taking care of the home wouldn't be burdens just for women to bear.
There's also something to be said for daycare and similar social services, and their effect on fertility and how parents combine work and family. But then I'm from one of those countries Fox News thinks is socialist.
Even if we accept that men are more extreme and women are more consistent, you can't say that it's biologically programmed. Studies have shown that people treat boys and girls differently from the very beginning. I don't know if you meant that it was biologoical, but I wanted to point that out.
Also, as for women "giving it their all", there have been studies on women in science that show they perform worse when told they're expected to because of their gender. When not told what to expect, they perform just as well as men. Add to that an academic world still dominated by men and with quite a lot of remaining prejudice and sexism, and I wouldn't either be motivated to give it my all.
What do you say we get rid of all the prejudice and sexism and other social negative pressures, and then we can agree that whatever differences are left are biological?
I haven't read more than a few nutty people who think there are no gender differences, both people who think it's all biologically predetrmined and those who think everything is cultural. Most scientists I read fall somewhere in between.
Here's an interesting discussion between Steven Pinker and Elizabeth Spelke about gender differences, intelligence and how it relates to women in science:
Obviously there's a lot of prejudice and sexism clouding the issues, which makes it very hard to say for sure that the differences between adults are biologically programmed. When we've peeled away all the prejudice, what remains should be biological. Even so, biological differences are nothing more than slightly offset normal distributions, meaning that a fair number of women outpeform most men, and vice versa. Conservative gender roles that restrict these people are unnecessary and oppressive, especially when argued from tradition or religion.
If you think gender roles work for you, fine. But they opress a lot of people, and you parttake indirectly in that oppression by defining what's normal and what's not like this. Be a manly man if you want (doubtful since we're on Slashdot, but still), but why judge others like this when it feeds prejudice and sexism?
Fertility rates fall everywhere where women are empowered, so it's not just us. If lower fertility is the price we pay for equality, it's a small price. But there are good reasons to think that more equality can make starting a family a more promising deal, especially for women.
You asked for other sources, and you got them. In reply to your question, yes, there does exist other studies.
I repeat; do you seriously think all of climate science hinges on one single study?
#1 cites Mann, yes, but not only Mann.
As other have pointed out already, there's no reason to see a conspiracy because you percieve a difference between these two graphs. Do they use the same datasets and the same reconstructions?
Harsh personal remarks from climate scientists apparently disqualifies them by denialist logic. I guess that logic only applies one way?
Yes and yes (yes, Realclimate again, but try clicking the links and reading this time).
If you did read the links, you'd see that Mann refers to "dozen model-based and proxy-based reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature by different groups". And that was in in 2005. Do your homework.
I guess this means you seriously do think that all of climate science hinges on one single study.
Paleoclimate evidence is simply one in a number of independent lines of evidence indicating the strong likelihood that human influences on climate
play a dominant role in the observed 20th century warming of the earth’s surface.
NASA (among others) disagrees. It has been getting warmer.
Glaciers can melt from many sources, which is nothign that surprises anyone. But you can't hide behind "it's natural". It might as well save us as strengthen the effect from AGW and give us worse glacial loss.
Correlation is not causation you say, but then you give us a correlation between temperature increases and solar radiation?
10 years of stable or colling temperatures mean nothing. There has been several such periods in the last 100 years, but the overall trend is rising.
It's not just about what the industry spends on climate (or anti-climate) studies. You have to look at the sum of what it stands to lose, which could be a significant part of everything they own and produce. You also have to add up the salaries of so-called experts, directly and indirectly hired, who are paid to make trouble.
I prefer those scientists over conspiracy theoreticists who find worth in imagining they are among the few select brave bloggers revealing a global scheme.
What's worse is that your kind is tainting the sensible scientific criticism.
$22.6 million is pocket change for the oil industry and others who'd rather not see AGW dealt with. If the level suspicion warranted is proportional to the amount of "big bucks", then there should logically be many times more suspicion of industry interests counter-conspiring against these few scientists.
Remember Gore's CO2 graph? Probably a 95% correlation between CO2 and temperature, which he presented as proof that CO2 CAUSES global warming. Except that the CO2 increased 800 years AFTER the warming trend. In other words, warming CAUSED CO2 increases, the opposite of what he implied.
In short, with warming periods lasting for around 5000 years, a lag of 800 years isn't as significant as you might think. Other factors than just CO2 affects warming, which isn't surprising or unknown.
Note that the latest poll shows that all but a few actual climate experts (not just scientists in general) "believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures".
Do you mean the slight dip in average global temperatures? As you can clearly see in he graph, there have been several such "unexplained" declines in the last 100 years, but the overall trend is painfully obvious.
It is true that the US is the last best hope of humanity, for China builds the equivalent of a coal plant every week. If the US does not act to reduce the 'carbon footprint' of humanity, we are all going to be fucked.
The Farmer's Almanac? Balderdash! My trick knee can predict the climate more accurately than anyone.
Seriously, though. Look at NASA's data. The "cooling" you've seen since 1998 has happened several times before. 1900, 1915, 1940, 1960, etc. At every such point you could claim we're cooling, but years later it would be apparent that we're not. Besides, by your standard, every momentary upturn of the temperature would mean we're warming, and you can see there has been times like that in the last century.
Take a good, long look at the overall trend and put your Almanac in the outhouse, where it belongs.
Please show me that 70 year olds systematically get denied hip surgery because of their age here in Europe. From what I've seen, it doesn't happen.
From what I've read, insurance companies deny care based on far flimsier and callous reasons than he patient being old. Health care in Europe has its fair share of problems, but I've never read anything about millions being left without any care at all.
You don't have to lecture me in the value of life. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that health care is a finite resource. When we go beyond perfectly reasonable hip replacements for relatively young old-timers, you can burn millions on ever diminishing returns on every patient. That's not possible in the long run, so someone has to make hard decisions about how to balance individuals' health against the costs. I don't trust insurance companies to do that, the way they're set up today.
Slashdot Mirror
I've learned from my friends with other sexuals orientations that heterosexuality is very loud and very obnoxious. You just don't see it, because it's everywhere and it's normal. Going against this established norm automatically becomes obnoxious in some people's eyes, because it upsets the status quo and their narrow definitions of what's normal and acceptable.
I suspect you're one of those people. Getting upset because a ficitonal character is portrayed as gay is pretty sad. Even worse, thinking that it's a sign of homosexual propaganda to kids is bordering on homophobic. Showing kids homosexuality is normal isn't mean just to let the homosexuals among them feel as normal as you and I do, but it's also for the heterosexuals and their views of homosexuals. They need to be taught that different sexual orientation is no different from race or ethnicity. You don't disciriminate and you don't hate because of it. It's not propaganda, it's basic education in being an enlightened human being and not a fearful, narrowminded bigot.
I don't know about the US, but the idea that Europe is being taken over by quickly breeding muslims is a myth, most likely spread by fear-mongering racists.
With more equality, raising children and taking care of the home wouldn't be burdens just for women to bear.
There's also something to be said for daycare and similar social services, and their effect on fertility and how parents combine work and family. But then I'm from one of those countries Fox News thinks is socialist.
Even if we accept that men are more extreme and women are more consistent, you can't say that it's biologically programmed. Studies have shown that people treat boys and girls differently from the very beginning. I don't know if you meant that it was biologoical, but I wanted to point that out.
Also, as for women "giving it their all", there have been studies on women in science that show they perform worse when told they're expected to because of their gender. When not told what to expect, they perform just as well as men. Add to that an academic world still dominated by men and with quite a lot of remaining prejudice and sexism, and I wouldn't either be motivated to give it my all.
What do you say we get rid of all the prejudice and sexism and other social negative pressures, and then we can agree that whatever differences are left are biological?
I haven't read more than a few nutty people who think there are no gender differences, both people who think it's all biologically predetrmined and those who think everything is cultural. Most scientists I read fall somewhere in between.
Here's an interesting discussion between Steven Pinker and Elizabeth Spelke about gender differences, intelligence and how it relates to women in science:
THE SCIENCE OF GENDER AND SCIENCE
Obviously there's a lot of prejudice and sexism clouding the issues, which makes it very hard to say for sure that the differences between adults are biologically programmed. When we've peeled away all the prejudice, what remains should be biological. Even so, biological differences are nothing more than slightly offset normal distributions, meaning that a fair number of women outpeform most men, and vice versa. Conservative gender roles that restrict these people are unnecessary and oppressive, especially when argued from tradition or religion.
If you think gender roles work for you, fine. But they opress a lot of people, and you parttake indirectly in that oppression by defining what's normal and what's not like this. Be a manly man if you want (doubtful since we're on Slashdot, but still), but why judge others like this when it feeds prejudice and sexism?
Fertility rates fall everywhere where women are empowered, so it's not just us. If lower fertility is the price we pay for equality, it's a small price. But there are good reasons to think that more equality can make starting a family a more promising deal, especially for women.
Ah, so it's not a single study, it's two studies.
Mann has updated his hockey stick with new data and it still stands, last I read. There are a bunch of other studies that show a similar result.
You asked for other sources, and you got them. In reply to your question, yes, there does exist other studies.
I repeat; do you seriously think all of climate science hinges on one single study?
#1 cites Mann, yes, but not only Mann.
As other have pointed out already, there's no reason to see a conspiracy because you percieve a difference between these two graphs. Do they use the same datasets and the same reconstructions?
Harsh personal remarks from climate scientists apparently disqualifies them by denialist logic. I guess that logic only applies one way?
Mann isn't even a scientist now?
Thanks for proving me right about the ad hominems.
Yes and yes (yes, Realclimate again, but try clicking the links and reading this time).
If you did read the links, you'd see that Mann refers to "dozen model-based and proxy-based reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature by different groups". And that was in in 2005. Do your homework.
I guess this means you seriously do think that all of climate science hinges on one single study.
McIntyre's site supports McIntyre's theories. What's your point?
No. The science concerns me, not your ad hominems.
If you had bothered to read my links you'd see that Mann refers to other such studies.
Again, do you seriously think that all of climate science hinges of this one study?
Which data sets are those? Seriously. Which? Show my a hockey stick that does not use Mann's or Briffa's data. Do it now.
This straw man is old and has been debunked so often it's silly. Realclimate deals with it on their page Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick":
Paleoclimate evidence is simply one in a number of independent lines of evidence indicating the strong likelihood that human influences on climate play a dominant role in the observed 20th century warming of the earth’s surface.
Nearly a dozen model-based and proxy-based reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature by different groups all suggest that late 20th century warmth is anomalous in a long-term (multi-century to millennial) context (see Figures 1 and 2 in “Temperature Variations in Past Centuries and The So-Called ‘Hockey Stick’”).
Mann et al produced an updated paper in 2008 using a more diverse and larger dataset, showing that recent increases in northern hemisphere surface temperature are anomalous relative to at least the past 1300 years.
You didn't seriously think all of climate science hinged on one study, did you?
NASA (among others) disagrees. It has been getting warmer.
Glaciers can melt from many sources, which is nothign that surprises anyone. But you can't hide behind "it's natural". It might as well save us as strengthen the effect from AGW and give us worse glacial loss.
Correlation is not causation you say, but then you give us a correlation between temperature increases and solar radiation?
10 years of stable or colling temperatures mean nothing. There has been several such periods in the last 100 years, but the overall trend is rising.
It's not just about what the industry spends on climate (or anti-climate) studies. You have to look at the sum of what it stands to lose, which could be a significant part of everything they own and produce. You also have to add up the salaries of so-called experts, directly and indirectly hired, who are paid to make trouble.
Denialist, me? Pots and kettles.
I prefer those scientists over conspiracy theoreticists who find worth in imagining they are among the few select brave bloggers revealing a global scheme.
What's worse is that your kind is tainting the sensible scientific criticism.
$22.6 million is pocket change for the oil industry and others who'd rather not see AGW dealt with. If the level suspicion warranted is proportional to the amount of "big bucks", then there should logically be many times more suspicion of industry interests counter-conspiring against these few scientists.
Remember Gore's CO2 graph? Probably a 95% correlation between CO2 and temperature, which he presented as proof that CO2 CAUSES global warming. Except that the CO2 increased 800 years AFTER the warming trend. In other words, warming CAUSED CO2 increases, the opposite of what he implied.
That's a classic argument that has been refuted again and again. Like at How to talk to a climate skeptic; CO2 Lags Not Leads, or at Realcliamate.org; The lag between temperature and CO2. (Gore’s got it right.).
In short, with warming periods lasting for around 5000 years, a lag of 800 years isn't as significant as you might think. Other factors than just CO2 affects warming, which isn't surprising or unknown.
But the oil industry-backed geologists who deny AGW are?
So why are AGW skeptics and deniers so busy with those long lists of scientists (or rather "scientists") who have an opposite consensus?
Scientific opinion on climate change
Note that the latest poll shows that all but a few actual climate experts (not just scientists in general) "believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures".
Do you mean the slight dip in average global temperatures? As you can clearly see in he graph, there have been several such "unexplained" declines in the last 100 years, but the overall trend is painfully obvious.
It is true that the US is the last best hope of humanity, for China builds the equivalent of a coal plant every week. If the US does not act to reduce the 'carbon footprint' of humanity, we are all going to be fucked.
China isn't necessarily such a hopeless case — emissions could peak in 20 years and they are taking measures against climate change. Chinese gas milage laws are about to become stricter than US ones.
The Farmer's Almanac? Balderdash! My trick knee can predict the climate more accurately than anyone.
Seriously, though. Look at NASA's data. The "cooling" you've seen since 1998 has happened several times before. 1900, 1915, 1940, 1960, etc. At every such point you could claim we're cooling, but years later it would be apparent that we're not. Besides, by your standard, every momentary upturn of the temperature would mean we're warming, and you can see there has been times like that in the last century.
Take a good, long look at the overall trend and put your Almanac in the outhouse, where it belongs.
Please show me that 70 year olds systematically get denied hip surgery because of their age here in Europe. From what I've seen, it doesn't happen.
From what I've read, insurance companies deny care based on far flimsier and callous reasons than he patient being old. Health care in Europe has its fair share of problems, but I've never read anything about millions being left without any care at all.
You don't have to lecture me in the value of life. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that health care is a finite resource. When we go beyond perfectly reasonable hip replacements for relatively young old-timers, you can burn millions on ever diminishing returns on every patient. That's not possible in the long run, so someone has to make hard decisions about how to balance individuals' health against the costs. I don't trust insurance companies to do that, the way they're set up today.