While there are biological differences between men and women, they don't have nearly as much influence as people think. The classic one is the old myth about men having better spacial skills. Turns out that if you give girls conduction kit toys they soon catch up and reach the same level as the boys.
In any case, I guess the issue here is that you think he said women and men are equally competent, and I don't.
Do you have the citations for this?
As for what he said, we've gone far beyond that. I believe that he expressed a forbidden opinion, and not much more.
Since he responded to an internal Google request to carry on a conversation on a potentially controversial company policy . .
One thing I learned early was that unless you want to commit career suicide, you don't express views contrary to ideologues. Is it right? Hell no. Do I care? Not all that much.
The only purpose of the whole charade of this internal "conversation" is so Google can use it as a way to say "see how inclusive we are?" Only they didn't want to hear what this man had to say. Perhaps there are prople at Google who were really angry that this man had that opinion and wanted the man punished.
Probably both.
Regardless, my career is 100 times more important to me than sharing my oipinion with bigots that I might work with. And make no mistake, there are bigots on both sides of the political spectrum.
I guess you are right, it is basically forbidden to call your work colleagues biologically handicapped. I'm not really sure how to respond to that...
Would it make any difference if he was claiming that some races have a smaller average skull size and are therefore less intelligent (on average)?
Here we go. Okay, I don't know if you read my missive on the Bell curve in this story. The bell cuve in the end is useless because it tells you nothing about the individual. Let's just for a moment assume that the aspects of race as illustrated by the Bell curve are correct. (I personally do not think it is, but that's a different story) Even if correct, you cannot decide what the intelligence of any person of that race is, just by looking at them.
The Bell curve is of interest only to racists who want to have a ready made excuse that Whites are somehow better than Blacks. They seem to ignore that Asians score higher than whites. Me, I think the whole matter is pointless, probably wrong, and useless in any event.
The same goes for any person's interest or aptitude in any matter. Bellcurving female ability or likely interest in matters of Science and technology is pointless and definitely wrong. What matters is not gender or race. What matters is the individual's interest.
I utterly reject that one's interest in science can be turned on or off like a faucet based upon societies restrictions. These are not fields where a person decides what tehy want to do in their careers on a whim. There have been excellent female scientists for ages. The female scientists and engineers I worked with - with a notable exception - have been competent, and knew from an early age what they wanted to do with their lives.
Biologically handicapped? How about mental processes that lend themselves to various fields? That isn't handicapped, just a way of saying different strokes for different folks.
Are men and women exactly the same physically? If they are, I can believe 100 percent that they think absolutely the same way. If not 100 percent teh same physically, then there is a distinct non-zero chance that they might not all think th esame way.
It's a sad day when modern feminists will take men who belive that any woman can do any job they want to do and are capable of doing, yet understand that not all women and men think alike, and turn that supporter into the enemy. That is the sort of feminism that has a parallel on teh far religious right, only a different dogma. Silly moveable goalposts.
He is welcome to his opinion, my only point here is that he's not the rational, good intentioned actor people seem to think he is.
When let loose on Twitter he starts spouting standard anti-feminist/MRA rhetoric.
His Twitter statements undermine his claim to be rational and scientifically literate.
Fortunately, all of those who are his enemies are completely rational, amirite?
Do his stupid opinions on Twitter make all of his arguments wrong? Was his firing actually brecause of wht he wrote on Twitter? Regardless, I still stand by his opinions as being forbidden, and not to be uttered because reasons.
Of course, we can take the converse. A female engineer If she wrote that Google was a tool of the patriarchy, and that it created a toxic environment because women were not paid commensurate with men, women were not given menstrual leave, and that the buildings were kept too cold, which is sexist. Would she be fired?
I suspect she wouldn't be because of what would happen afterwards.
If you think she shouldn't have been fired, explain.
Regardless, it does speak to which opinions are allowed, and which are forbidden.
It must suck to be a decent conservative (or a Republican) these days.
You have no idea. I've stayed pretty consistent as a Goldwater Conservative over the years, where you spend the money wisely but once you decide, you make certain the bills are paid, that you intrude on people's freedoms as little as possible, and that everyone gets a chance on the individual level.
And I think for myself, rather than get my ideology handed to me. I think that's what the crypto-conservatives really hate.
No, this is the case where a liberal presents a view that maybe women don't want STEM careers.
Uh no, you're leaving out the most important part. His assertion is that maybe women don't want STEM careers, and therefore that's why they're having a hard time at google. But his assertion is false, and so is his conclusion.
I wouldn't at all be surprised if many women don't want STEM careers though.
It's only my experience that on a very general level, there is a different thought process between men and women. On an individual level, there are no hard and fast differences. I cannot tell unless I know them and have been around them.
I look at both the conservative and liberal concepts of how females "are" as very prejudiced and stereotyped. To the point where they remind me of the Bell curve fallacy, in which racists try to declare one race superior to another.
Which is, even if true, it is useless, because it does not tell me one single thing about any individual.
I imagine that these tweets will be shows in court as evidence of the intent of his memo.
Hella thing when you express forbidden opinions.
Regardless, I stand by the concept that you can say whatever you like, and people are free to react however they like.
Whatever else the guy is, he is monumentally stupid for expressing a forbidden opinion inside the company. I'd fire him as well, for doing something so damn stupid.
We have to accept that times are what the times are, and that even if the concept of men's and women's minds and thought processes being identical are right up there with Lysenkoism, it is how things are, and there isn't much point in fighting that sort of power. It will rise or fall on it's own merits.
Yeah, someone posting their view on Jews totally wouldn't have a negative view on any Jewish coworkers. Oddly enough most human beings have emotions.
Whoa, hold on.
I am convinced that as a generalization, that men and women think differently.
I am likewise convinced that individual women and men do not all think alike
Therefore, any woman who wishes to work in a field where her thinking process lends itself to working in the field is welcomed to work there.
And of the female engineers and scientists and technicians I've worked with, almost all were quite competent. There was one unfortunate exception, who got into the field and was miserable, eventually leaving to start a day-care center.
Thinking that there are differences in thought processes is not holding negative views.
Those women I worked with were highly capable, and were highly capable by virtue of how their minds worked.
Counter example is my spouse, who is every bit as intelligent as me, but her thought process is geared more toward an accounting and organizational outlook, or a dear friend woman who is scary smart, yet very much more "traditional feminine" in her outlook, and makes a living as an artist.
I could give more examples, but those will suffice.
Point is, neither my wife nor this lady friend would ever thrive in what I do. They take great amusement with my "overly" analytical approach to everything. My STEM lady friends rather like my approach to the world.
Point also is that I could never do what they do proficiently. One of the most destructive aspects of modern education is the lie that "You can be anything you want - if you only try hard enough." for 90 precet of us, that is simply not true.
And as strange as it might seem to some in here, for a person who expresses opinions not in line with the present day dogma, that there is no difference between male and female, I have quite a few female friends. Both in male dominated fields, and more "traditional" situations.
I wonder if it is because I make my judgements on the individual level, and not try to force fit ideology to gender, which is as prevalent on the left as well as on the right.
But I find it quite telling that one side (Mr. Damore) cites studies and such (as biased and wrong as they might be), while all the other side does is whine and say "it can't be true". Well, if the latter is the case, go right ahead and cite some studies that clearly show Mr. Damore is wrong. Or shut the fuck up.
That's because the other side had no need for citations. That isn't how this works. Damore was expressing a forbidden opinion.
And the stupid ass expressed his forbidden opinion in an actual memo.
So is it the case that the conservative view is that women are inferior in STEM careers?
Hard to tell what all conservatives think.
There really wasn't anything exactly wrong in his memo, and I doubt that it reflects all conservative thought.
His mistake was circulating it as a memo.That was what did the dumbass in.
There is no denying that there is a powerful faction that demand that all accept the notion that men and women are exactly alike in the way that their minds work, and any differences are culturally instilled. So that except for artificial distinctions enforced by the patriarchy, there would be almost a 1:1 ratio in all fields.
One disagrees with that notion at their own risk, as is quite clear here.
I'll merely point out that it is rather strange that in a patriarchy, a person who expresses viewpoints that might be considered patriarchal is fired for it.
Funny thing is I would have fired him as well, for being so stupid as to send a memo with a forbidden opinion.
I don't switch my clocks, I just switch my work hours. I'll keep my afternoon sunshine thanks.
There's actually something to that. I travel to the west coast fairly often. If its a short stay, like a week, I simply "stay" on East coast time. For longer stays, my body will force adaptation, but for short trips it avoids jetlag.
Pee on that. Keep DST, and make the day for something besides sitting in the office and writing code while wasting all the best part of the day for doing stuff outside, then getting home and going broke feeding batteries to the flashlight(s). We can tolerate non-DST in the winter 'cuz its too nippy to enjoy stuff outside anyway, but lets apply roundup to the weeds, spray for mosquitoes, work on our big radio antennas (K8DH here), and everything else outside in the daylight by keeping DST!!!
Exactly. I suppose that people who go to work, come home and never step outside except for going to some other inside place don't care, but people who do actually do things can really make use of those extra hours of daylight. Plus the neighbors won't like it if you get up and mow the lawn at 0430.
Plus Donna's crazy claims were debunked as her intentionally lying to sell a book by the DNC producing the actual documents she lied about in under an hour after her claim.
Here's a hint, Donna thought July 2016 was August 2015 and confused two documents.
What is "Donna's" Curriculum vitae? Or is this just another always never relevent to science political talking point?
The rationale is that there are economic externalities. Having established that, the argument goes that if Europe and USA did not absorb the cost of these externalities, then why should other nations?
Well then, I'm happy I live in the Northeast US at 1500 foot altitude. It'll be pretty warm here in the winter during my lifetime, but some miles less drive to get to the beach.
And who really believes all this global warming stuff, not many unless they are getting paid to do so.
Yes there are plenty of people who demand you give lip service to it but as long as you do that there is no threat where anything actually has to be done.
US is around the middle of the pack, producing value of $2,291 per ton of CO2 emitted. China is one of the worst, at $435/ton
The numbers are distorted because a lot of the US/Eur manufacturing is outsourced to China.
A Chinese factory makes a widget for $5 that gets sold in the US for $35. All the CO2 produced to create the widget is counted as China's emissions towards the $5, while the US claims $30 added value for zero CO2 emissions.
If the US is therefore responsible for China's emissions, the cure for that is for the US to not buy anything made in China, and when we do not buy their goods, they do not produce any emissions that the US is then responsible for. And the only country that is not responsible for the emissions caused by China's exports is therefore China, following your logic.
That sword bites both ways though, because the US also exports goods. Therefore, other nations are then responsible for the CO2 Emmissions we produce as part of exported goods.
Indeed if China chooses to bootstrap their economy by ignoring safety and environmental basic concepts, and not use pollutino controls, it seems like they are responsible for their emissions. Because the counter argument is no one is responsible for theirs either. Fuggidaboudit.
I know a lot of people are going to try to argue that it is somehow "different" in the case of the US's export product caused CO2 emissions, but if I don't get marked down to troll immediately I'd love to hear the logic behind that.
Why not per societal contribution or per dollar earned per person pe ton of CO2 output.?
People can pick whatever metric they want that requires them to do the least amount of effort.
Per capita is a nice metric and all, but then you can argue that India and China are completely justified in bringing up their CO2 emmmissions to the pointy where they are putting out the same per capita as the enemy, the USA.
US by the way, is number 14 on the per capita greenhouse emmissions list, down around 3.25 million tons of CO2 per capita since 1990. from 23.23 per capita, to 19.9 per capita in 1013.
So do we decide that the USA must reduce their per capita output to Burundi's? Or India's per capita as it is now, while allowing India to raise theirs to ours present per capita?
Does the planet's atmosphere pay attention by the per capita emissions? If we had 10 times the population but emit the same per capita as say Armenia's at 2.9, it's all good, no problem at all?
Dunno about you, but I was taught that the energy retentian characteristics of an atmosphere is directly related to the amount of greenhouse or anti-greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, not how many people place the gases there.
In the end though, we are all simply going to argue until it doesn't much matter any more. Don't buy a house in the Florida Keys, Outer Banks, or Houston Tx - that's for certain.
You can keep "downmod hiding" my posts but as you can easily see? I just repost them & you blow those downmod point dry, Lol!
That's not how this works - that's not how any of this works. I just set my prefs here at +2. and buh-bye to you. I just figured I'd post before moving the slider to annoy ya.
Slashdot Mirror
Try "Male Superiority in Spatial Navigation: Adaptation or Side Effect?". The Quarterly Review of Biology. 87 (4): 289â"313. ISSN 0033-5770
You did see at the bottom of the abstract:
"The alternative hypothesis that sex differences in spatial cognition result as a hormonal side effect is better supported by the data."
Regardless, not everyone is the same, and ther are women with excellent spatial cognition, and men with terrible spatial cognition.
Here's a less rigorous but interesting experiment:
You need to check out someo of Moshe's other work, because he does find differences. in some other areas, such as rist taking.
While there are biological differences between men and women, they don't have nearly as much influence as people think. The classic one is the old myth about men having better spacial skills. Turns out that if you give girls conduction kit toys they soon catch up and reach the same level as the boys.
In any case, I guess the issue here is that you think he said women and men are equally competent, and I don't.
Do you have the citations for this?
As for what he said, we've gone far beyond that. I believe that he expressed a forbidden opinion, and not much more.
Since he responded to an internal Google request to carry on a conversation on a potentially controversial company policy . .
One thing I learned early was that unless you want to commit career suicide, you don't express views contrary to ideologues. Is it right? Hell no. Do I care? Not all that much.
The only purpose of the whole charade of this internal "conversation" is so Google can use it as a way to say "see how inclusive we are?" Only they didn't want to hear what this man had to say. Perhaps there are prople at Google who were really angry that this man had that opinion and wanted the man punished.
Probably both.
Regardless, my career is 100 times more important to me than sharing my oipinion with bigots that I might work with. And make no mistake, there are bigots on both sides of the political spectrum.
Just asking.
Attributes got messed up, that was Animojos' statement.
See subject & as I said?
You need some new material, I get bored easily, monchichi.
I guess you are right, it is basically forbidden to call your work colleagues biologically handicapped. I'm not really sure how to respond to that...
Would it make any difference if he was claiming that some races have a smaller average skull size and are therefore less intelligent (on average)?
Here we go. Okay, I don't know if you read my missive on the Bell curve in this story. The bell cuve in the end is useless because it tells you nothing about the individual. Let's just for a moment assume that the aspects of race as illustrated by the Bell curve are correct. (I personally do not think it is, but that's a different story) Even if correct, you cannot decide what the intelligence of any person of that race is, just by looking at them.
The Bell curve is of interest only to racists who want to have a ready made excuse that Whites are somehow better than Blacks. They seem to ignore that Asians score higher than whites. Me, I think the whole matter is pointless, probably wrong, and useless in any event.
The same goes for any person's interest or aptitude in any matter. Bellcurving female ability or likely interest in matters of Science and technology is pointless and definitely wrong. What matters is not gender or race. What matters is the individual's interest.
I utterly reject that one's interest in science can be turned on or off like a faucet based upon societies restrictions. These are not fields where a person decides what tehy want to do in their careers on a whim. There have been excellent female scientists for ages. The female scientists and engineers I worked with - with a notable exception - have been competent, and knew from an early age what they wanted to do with their lives.
Biologically handicapped? How about mental processes that lend themselves to various fields? That isn't handicapped, just a way of saying different strokes for different folks.
Are men and women exactly the same physically? If they are, I can believe 100 percent that they think absolutely the same way. If not 100 percent teh same physically, then there is a distinct non-zero chance that they might not all think th esame way.
It's a sad day when modern feminists will take men who belive that any woman can do any job they want to do and are capable of doing, yet understand that not all women and men think alike, and turn that supporter into the enemy. That is the sort of feminism that has a parallel on teh far religious right, only a different dogma. Silly moveable goalposts.
Chatbot.
We do have some fun though, don't we APK?
Awesome, thanks for doing me the honor of my very own subthread topic!
He is welcome to his opinion, my only point here is that he's not the rational, good intentioned actor people seem to think he is.
When let loose on Twitter he starts spouting standard anti-feminist/MRA rhetoric.
His Twitter statements undermine his claim to be rational and scientifically literate.
Fortunately, all of those who are his enemies are completely rational, amirite?
Do his stupid opinions on Twitter make all of his arguments wrong? Was his firing actually brecause of wht he wrote on Twitter? Regardless, I still stand by his opinions as being forbidden, and not to be uttered because reasons.
Of course, we can take the converse. A female engineer If she wrote that Google was a tool of the patriarchy, and that it created a toxic environment because women were not paid commensurate with men, women were not given menstrual leave, and that the buildings were kept too cold, which is sexist. Would she be fired?
I suspect she wouldn't be because of what would happen afterwards.
If you think she shouldn't have been fired, explain.
Regardless, it does speak to which opinions are allowed, and which are forbidden.
It must suck to be a decent conservative (or a Republican) these days.
You have no idea. I've stayed pretty consistent as a Goldwater Conservative over the years, where you spend the money wisely but once you decide, you make certain the bills are paid, that you intrude on people's freedoms as little as possible, and that everyone gets a chance on the individual level.
And I think for myself, rather than get my ideology handed to me. I think that's what the crypto-conservatives really hate.
Anyhow, it's kind of lonely out here.
No, this is the case where a liberal presents a view that maybe women don't want STEM careers.
Uh no, you're leaving out the most important part. His assertion is that maybe women don't want STEM careers, and therefore that's why they're having a hard time at google. But his assertion is false, and so is his conclusion.
I wouldn't at all be surprised if many women don't want STEM careers though.
It's only my experience that on a very general level, there is a different thought process between men and women. On an individual level, there are no hard and fast differences. I cannot tell unless I know them and have been around them.
I look at both the conservative and liberal concepts of how females "are" as very prejudiced and stereotyped. To the point where they remind me of the Bell curve fallacy, in which racists try to declare one race superior to another.
Which is, even if true, it is useless, because it does not tell me one single thing about any individual.
Take a look at Damore's twitter account: https://twitter.com/jamesadamo...
"Canâ(TM)t we all just agree that women having more sexual capital than men has its positives and negatives?"
"Feminist women are more masculine than average, which may explain why most women don't identify as feminists"
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DN...
I imagine that these tweets will be shows in court as evidence of the intent of his memo.
Hella thing when you express forbidden opinions.
Regardless, I stand by the concept that you can say whatever you like, and people are free to react however they like.
Whatever else the guy is, he is monumentally stupid for expressing a forbidden opinion inside the company. I'd fire him as well, for doing something so damn stupid.
We have to accept that times are what the times are, and that even if the concept of men's and women's minds and thought processes being identical are right up there with Lysenkoism, it is how things are, and there isn't much point in fighting that sort of power. It will rise or fall on it's own merits.
Yeah, someone posting their view on Jews totally wouldn't have a negative view on any Jewish coworkers. Oddly enough most human beings have emotions.
Whoa, hold on.
I am convinced that as a generalization, that men and women think differently.
I am likewise convinced that individual women and men do not all think alike
Therefore, any woman who wishes to work in a field where her thinking process lends itself to working in the field is welcomed to work there.
And of the female engineers and scientists and technicians I've worked with, almost all were quite competent. There was one unfortunate exception, who got into the field and was miserable, eventually leaving to start a day-care center.
Thinking that there are differences in thought processes is not holding negative views.
Those women I worked with were highly capable, and were highly capable by virtue of how their minds worked.
Counter example is my spouse, who is every bit as intelligent as me, but her thought process is geared more toward an accounting and organizational outlook, or a dear friend woman who is scary smart, yet very much more "traditional feminine" in her outlook, and makes a living as an artist.
I could give more examples, but those will suffice.
Point is, neither my wife nor this lady friend would ever thrive in what I do. They take great amusement with my "overly" analytical approach to everything. My STEM lady friends rather like my approach to the world.
Point also is that I could never do what they do proficiently. One of the most destructive aspects of modern education is the lie that "You can be anything you want - if you only try hard enough." for 90 precet of us, that is simply not true.
And as strange as it might seem to some in here, for a person who expresses opinions not in line with the present day dogma, that there is no difference between male and female, I have quite a few female friends. Both in male dominated fields, and more "traditional" situations.
I wonder if it is because I make my judgements on the individual level, and not try to force fit ideology to gender, which is as prevalent on the left as well as on the right.
But I find it quite telling that one side (Mr. Damore) cites studies and such (as biased and wrong as they might be), while all the other side does is whine and say "it can't be true". Well, if the latter is the case, go right ahead and cite some studies that clearly show Mr. Damore is wrong. Or shut the fuck up.
That's because the other side had no need for citations. That isn't how this works. Damore was expressing a forbidden opinion.
And the stupid ass expressed his forbidden opinion in an actual memo.
So is it the case that the conservative view is that women are inferior in STEM careers?
Hard to tell what all conservatives think.
There really wasn't anything exactly wrong in his memo, and I doubt that it reflects all conservative thought.
His mistake was circulating it as a memo.That was what did the dumbass in.
There is no denying that there is a powerful faction that demand that all accept the notion that men and women are exactly alike in the way that their minds work, and any differences are culturally instilled. So that except for artificial distinctions enforced by the patriarchy, there would be almost a 1:1 ratio in all fields.
One disagrees with that notion at their own risk, as is quite clear here.
I'll merely point out that it is rather strange that in a patriarchy, a person who expresses viewpoints that might be considered patriarchal is fired for it.
Funny thing is I would have fired him as well, for being so stupid as to send a memo with a forbidden opinion.
I don't switch my clocks, I just switch my work hours. I'll keep my afternoon sunshine thanks.
There's actually something to that. I travel to the west coast fairly often. If its a short stay, like a week, I simply "stay" on East coast time. For longer stays, my body will force adaptation, but for short trips it avoids jetlag.
Dark, dark, dark, dark, dark...
Pee on that. Keep DST, and make the day for something besides sitting in the office and writing code while wasting all the best part of the day for doing stuff outside, then getting home and going broke feeding batteries to the flashlight(s). We can tolerate non-DST in the winter 'cuz its too nippy to enjoy stuff outside anyway, but lets apply roundup to the weeds, spray for mosquitoes, work on our big radio antennas (K8DH here), and everything else outside in the daylight by keeping DST!!!
Exactly. I suppose that people who go to work, come home and never step outside except for going to some other inside place don't care, but people who do actually do things can really make use of those extra hours of daylight. Plus the neighbors won't like it if you get up and mow the lawn at 0430.
And it's too hot down here in the summer.
Plus Donna's crazy claims were debunked as her intentionally lying to sell a book by the DNC producing the actual documents she lied about in under an hour after her claim.
Here's a hint, Donna thought July 2016 was August 2015 and confused two documents.
What is "Donna's" Curriculum vitae? Or is this just another always never relevent to science political talking point?
The rationale is that there are economic externalities. Having established that, the argument goes that if Europe and USA did not absorb the cost of these externalities, then why should other nations?
Well then, I'm happy I live in the Northeast US at 1500 foot altitude. It'll be pretty warm here in the winter during my lifetime, but some miles less drive to get to the beach.
And who really believes all this global warming stuff, not many unless they are getting paid to do so. Yes there are plenty of people who demand you give lip service to it but as long as you do that there is no threat where anything actually has to be done.
Let the grownups talk, will.
US is around the middle of the pack, producing value of $2,291 per ton of CO2 emitted. China is one of the worst, at $435/ton
The numbers are distorted because a lot of the US/Eur manufacturing is outsourced to China.
A Chinese factory makes a widget for $5 that gets sold in the US for $35. All the CO2 produced to create the widget is counted as China's emissions towards the $5, while the US claims $30 added value for zero CO2 emissions.
If the US is therefore responsible for China's emissions, the cure for that is for the US to not buy anything made in China, and when we do not buy their goods, they do not produce any emissions that the US is then responsible for. And the only country that is not responsible for the emissions caused by China's exports is therefore China, following your logic.
That sword bites both ways though, because the US also exports goods. Therefore, other nations are then responsible for the CO2 Emmissions we produce as part of exported goods. Indeed if China chooses to bootstrap their economy by ignoring safety and environmental basic concepts, and not use pollutino controls, it seems like they are responsible for their emissions. Because the counter argument is no one is responsible for theirs either. Fuggidaboudit.
I know a lot of people are going to try to argue that it is somehow "different" in the case of the US's export product caused CO2 emissions, but if I don't get marked down to troll immediately I'd love to hear the logic behind that.
Per capita is the most important metric.
Why not per societal contribution or per dollar earned per person pe ton of CO2 output.?
People can pick whatever metric they want that requires them to do the least amount of effort. Per capita is a nice metric and all, but then you can argue that India and China are completely justified in bringing up their CO2 emmmissions to the pointy where they are putting out the same per capita as the enemy, the USA.
US by the way, is number 14 on the per capita greenhouse emmissions list, down around 3.25 million tons of CO2 per capita since 1990. from 23.23 per capita, to 19.9 per capita in 1013.
So do we decide that the USA must reduce their per capita output to Burundi's? Or India's per capita as it is now, while allowing India to raise theirs to ours present per capita?
Does the planet's atmosphere pay attention by the per capita emissions? If we had 10 times the population but emit the same per capita as say Armenia's at 2.9, it's all good, no problem at all?
Dunno about you, but I was taught that the energy retentian characteristics of an atmosphere is directly related to the amount of greenhouse or anti-greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, not how many people place the gases there.
In the end though, we are all simply going to argue until it doesn't much matter any more. Don't buy a house in the Florida Keys, Outer Banks, or Houston Tx - that's for certain.
You can keep "downmod hiding" my posts but as you can easily see? I just repost them & you blow those downmod point dry, Lol!
That's not how this works - that's not how any of this works. I just set my prefs here at +2. and buh-bye to you. I just figured I'd post before moving the slider to annoy ya.
All of this is possible
Has there ever been a +5 Flamebait?