Global Warning/Climate Change

[Ken]

They answered as a lawyer would

If one was to line up all the exceptional men with dexterity and all the exceptional women with dexterity, there might be parity.
The same is not true of strength.

Women tend to be represented in most gymnastics activities associated with horses, there wasn’t anything they could do on horse back that I couldn’t have equally done if we went with the laws of average. I’m a very average person you see.

And I suspect the witness was, in fact, a lawyer not a scientist.

But none of this actually supports James Morrow's assertion that (and I'm quoting from the article) "Lefties lose it over scientific facts" and "those most likely to accuse others of being “science deniers” are often the most guilty of science denial themselves."

As I pointed out, we can probably make this argument if we look at people like RFK Jr. (who is also a lawyer not a scientist). And perhaps others as well. But the example James Morrow used doesn't make the case.

[Josh]

It is a fact that men are stronger than women, and it doesn't take a scientist (or a lawyer) to know that this is true and to be able to confidently state it is true.

But let's get a bit of science in here: here's the difference in grip strength between men and women.

[1]

Even many of the weakest men are stronger than some of the strongest women.

[1] Leyk, Gorges et al. (2007), European Journal of Applied Physiology

[Ken]

It is a fact that men are stronger than women, and it doesn't take a scientist (or a lawyer) to know that this is true and to be able to confidently state it is true.

But let's get a bit of science in here: here's the difference in grip strength between men and women.

[1]

Even many of the weakest men are stronger than some of the strongest women.

[1] Leyk, Gorges et al. (2007), European Journal of Applied Physiology

Who are you arguing with? I don't disagree with you and neither would most liberals. And I've never heard anyone try to make a scientific argument to the contrary or deny this basic science.

The question in the video upstream wasn't whether men are on average stronger than women. It was whether men have a physical advantage in sport. And the correct answer to that question is that it depends on which sport. After not getting the "gotcha" moment he wanted, the commentator pieced together separate videos of different people taken at different times and answering different questions and tried to turn it into a narrative about liberals who "lose it" and about how those who are most likely to accuse others of being science deniers are themselves guilty of the same thing. Based on the actual evidence in the video commentary, he utterly failed to make his case.

[Robert]

That may have been the point that he *tried* to make. But he completely failed to make it.

Plus his own family (who are actual liberals) finds him cringeworthy.

But if you really think he is a liberal, then he is a good example of a science-denying liberal.

After not getting the "gotcha" moment he wanted

We are working to have healthy constructive conversations. Inflammatory language that you keep using does not help with that. It is like you are trying to pick fights. I just do not understand why you come here just to antagonize and agitate. What are you trying to prove and to whom are you trying to prove it to?

Stop and look at the tone you KEEP projecting. You are not attracting anyone to your comments. You are doing the opposite. You are driving people away from your input by the tone you present.

Our goal is to change the tone. If posters will not control themselves, then the Mods will.

[Grace]

That may have been the point that he *tried* to make. But he completely failed to make it.

Plus his own family (who are actual liberals) finds him cringeworthy.

But if you really think he is a liberal, then he is a good example of a science-denying liberal.

After not getting the "gotcha" moment he wanted

We are working to have healthy constructive conversations. Inflammatory language that you keep using does not help with that. It is like you are trying to pick fights. I just do not understand why you come here just to antagonize and agitate. What are you trying to prove and to whom are you trying to prove it to?

Stop and look at the tone you KEEP projecting. You are not attracting anyone to your comments. You are doing the opposite. You are driving people away from your input by the tone you present.

Our goal is to change the tone. If posters will not control themselves, then the Mods will.

[Robert]

https://co2coalition.org/publications/n ... directors/

Dr. John F. Clauser, recipient of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, has been elected to serve on the board of directors of the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia.

As viewed in visible light from space by the Sun, bright white clouds variably cover from one-third to two-thirds of the Earth’s surface. These clouds, in turn, reflect about 90% of the sunlight incident on them back out into space. Sunlight that reaches the Earth’s surface in the cloudless area, two-thirds of which is covered by oceans, is absorbed and evaporates seawater, in turn, producing cumulus clouds. It produces clouds at an increasingly abundant rate when the cloud-cover fraction is too small and the temperature is too high and vice versa when the fraction is too large. The resulting cloud-cover-fraction’s feedback-controlled variability then provides a very powerful input-power thermostat that stabilizes the Earth-surface’s heat input and its temperature. Changes in the radiative heat transfer rate (known as radiative forcing) associated with changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide is nearly two orders of magnitude smaller than the effective stabilization of the input-power provided by the cloud-based thermostat. The role of carbon dioxide may thus be considered negligible by comparison. It should be noted that reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and National Academy of Sciences repeatedly concede that the effects of clouds do indeed represent the greatest uncertainty in their climate predictions. But these organizations have made little progress in dealing with these deficiencies.

According to Dr. Clauser, “The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists. In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science.”

[Robert]

[MaxPC]

[silentreader]

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/stop-b ... ate-change

[MaxPC]

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/stop-b ... ate-change

Quite. The Greek fires were arson. A number of other fires have also been arson.