LA Times isn't a neutral paper -- Just a liberal rag.
I read the story but where is his actual post.

Just fake news unless its source is linked.
Just another fake news hit piece.

A for effort S for Stupid
GullibleBoy is you new name

@newtboy,

Per my very first sentence in thread, I also oppose gov using this as a wedge issue to rally their base.

Meaning, I 100% am in agreement that nobody(gov or otherwise) should be banning trans kids(and adults) from anything, competitive sports included.

I did point out a single biological fact:
-Whether a person is born with XX or XY chromosomes has a significant impact on development that impacts performance in sports.

You jump all over that observation though, like raising it is hateful, denying peoples right to exist, and on. It is not.

And your observation that the performance advantages aren’t 100% of the time favouring XY folks is the red herring. Of course there are areas were the difference is an advantage, others were it’s neutral, and yet others a disadvantage. In a large population you also always have the possibility of individuals overcoming those odds.

Pointing to those facts though like they mean specific advantages don’t exist is the red herring.

In addition to that one fact, I also proposed applying the same standards for fairness in competition equally to everyone.

And it’s on this point I am automatically decried as hateful, evil and maliciously acting against people’s right to exist….

If your only looking for a villain to demonize there’s no point attempting further discussion.

Isn't yellow supposed to be considered a gender neutral color?

😐 🍿

😐 🍿

Just pop enough to make it neutrally buoyant and it should make your job much easier. No heavy lifting required. ;-)

My issue is the huge waste of helium. He could, nay should, have used hydrogen. He's not worried about fire, not one bit.

@newtboy,
"Actually, I'm selling their audience short. When real scientists present the real data dispassionately, I think the average person gets quickly confused and tunes out."

I'd argue bored maybe more often than confused. Although if we want to say that most of the problems society faces have their root causes in human nature, I think we can agree.

"I had read the published summaries of the recent U.N. report saying we had 12 years to be carbon neutral to stay below 1.5degree rise, they were far from clear that this was only a 50% chance of achieving that minimal temperature rise"

Here is where I see healthy skepticism distinguishing itself from covering eyes, ears and yelling not listening.

Our understanding of the global climate system is NOT sufficient to make that kind of high confidence claim about specific future outcomes. As you read past the head line and into the supporting papers you find that is the truth underneath. The final summary line you are citing sits atop multiple layers of assumptions and unspecified uncertainties that culminate in a very ephemeral 50% likelyhood disclaimer. It is stating that if all of the cumulative errors and unknowns all more or less don't matter. then we have models that suggest this liklyhood of an outcome...

This however sits atop the following challenges that scientists from different fields and specialities are focusing on improving.
1.Direct measurements of the global energy imbalance and corroboration with Ocean heat content. Currently, the uncertainties in our direct measurements are greater than the actual energy imbalance caused by the CO2 we've emitted. The CERES team measuring this has this plain as day in all their results.
2.Climate models can't get global energy to balance because the unknown or poorly modeled processes in them have a greater impact on the energy imbalance than human CO2. We literally hand tune the poorly known factors to just balance out the energy correctly, regardless of whether that models the given process better or not because the greater run of the model is worthless without a decent energy imbalance. This sits atop the unknowns regarding the actual measured imbalance to hope to simulate. 100% of the modelling teams that discuss their tuning processes again all agree on this.
3. Meta-analysis like you cited usually sit atop both the above, and attempt to rely on the models to get a given 2100 temperature profile, and then make their predictions off of that.

The theme here, is cumulative error and an underlying assumption of 'all other things being equal' for all the cumulative unknowns and errors. You can NOT just come in from all of that, present the absolute worst possible case scenario you can squeeze into and then declare that as the gold standard scientific results which must dictate policy...

Edit:that's very nearly the definition of cherry picking the results you want.

Actually, I'm selling their audience short. When real scientists present the real data dispassionately, I think the average person gets quickly confused and tunes out. Those that dumb it down enough to be understood invariably underrepresent or outright misrepresent the problems. With so many unscientific voices out there trying to out shout the real data for their own purposes, real scientists fudging the data is near criminal because it's only more ammunition for deniers.

Yes, if you or I heard them lecture, we would likely hear that and even more, but the average, unscientific American would hear "taking in more energy than is leaving" as a good thing, free energy. If they explained the mechanisms involved, their eyes would glaze over as they just wished someone would tell them it's all lies so they could ignore what they can't understand fully. These people are, imo, the majority in the U.S.. They are why we need emotional delivery of simplified science from a charismatic young woman who knows her stuff.
Edit: For example, I had read the published summaries of the recent U.N. report saying we had 12 years to be carbon neutral to stay below 1.5degree rise, they were far from clear that this was only a 50% chance of achieving that minimal temperature rise, or that we only had 8 years of current emission levels to have a 66% chance, still bad odds. I understood they were also using horrendous models for ice melt and other factors to reach those optimistic numbers, and didn't take feedback loops we already see in action into account, nor did they make allowances for feedbacks we don't know about yet. The average reader only got 12 years to conserve before we are locked into 1.5 degree. They don't even know that's when known feedback loops are expected to outpace human inputs, making it exponentially harder if not impossible to turn around, or that 1.5 degree rise by 2050 likely means closer to 3 degree by 2100, and higher afterwards.

Mating habits for European swallows?! How did we get from the relationship of climatology and sociology to discussing the red light district?

Not just won, but went from either a negative or neutral position to win.

IE. if it's happened before, the team was already ahead when the non-pitcher took over in relief.

That just sounds an awful lot like two wrongs making a right.

Claiming an established well defined name for your group/association, and then proceeding to define your group as something completely different is BAD communication. That is an objective fact, not something that varies depending upon your subjective POV. Whether that bad communication also has some morality attached to it sounds more like what your addressing, which is something I was saying nothing about.

Having groups like Westboro Baptists claiming to be either Christian or Baptist is like you said much the same. Morality wise, infinitely worse. Communication wise they might arguably be more accurate, although their words and actions look nothing like the Christ they claim to follow, I do understand that their group at least claims to truly believe in and follow their God. Secular Satanists apparently neither worship nor even believe in the existence of Satan, making the moniker more misleading. Their push for religious neutrality/separation of church and state however place them as far superior morally. Again, these examples are laden with my opinion regarding morality.

Morality aside though, you honestly can't say that claiming a name for your group with a strongly established meaning and definition isn't bad communication when your group shares neither the beliefs(grammar edit) nor practices of that established meaning and definition.

You guys think that vegans are lying?

It's a shame you do not scrutinize the sellers of these products, as much as you do with vegans - Where is the *they lied to us* comments from the meat eaters about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83q9oamxmvQ

Clearly blatant number fudging, but people are happy to overlook it because vegans are the annoying ones right?

Every single study that shows animal products are good, or neutral are funded by the people that sell them. I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO FIND A STUDY THAT SHOWS ADDING ANY ANIMAL PRODUCT TO A DIET MAKES IT HEALTHIER - WHICH ISN'T TIED/LINKED TO THE INDUSTRY. In 5 years I'm yet to find one, and almost all of them have very audacious number fudging and statistic manipulation like the above egg study.

Now compare that to the 400 studies that came out last year showing meat has detrimental effects for us...... not coming from vegans. (and this happens each and every year, since 1970).



(There are also plenty of doctors who aren't vegans (like John McDougall, Caldwell Esselstyn, Dean Ornish) who all make very strong points about avoiding animal products.) These guys still eat meat on special occasions, so clearly not vegan.

RICO will never be used against churches. Kavanaugh's appointment means more and more power handed to churches so long as they are Christian. We are heading to a theocracy, and it'll get worse. Kavanaugh doesn't believe in the separation of church and state, at least keeping the church out of the state and believes in the privilege of the church. Gay rights will go out the door. Give them time to replace one more justice on the court, and it may even become a crime. Kavanaugh believes that neutrality between faith and non-faith matters is in fact hostility against the faith.