I'm all for the cause, but I'm a bit skeptical that freeing the nipple will really be striking that big a blow for women's equality. Regular public exposure would probably lead to some degree of normalization but I doubt it would eliminate objectification of women in general.
Many of the men they questioned seemed to grope for answers as to why boobs were so distracting, but I think it's not just about the boobs but the whole package as well. If I saw a topless woman walking down the street that I wasn't really attracted to then I probably wouldn't give her much more attention than if she were a man, whereas if she was attractive to me then I may have a harder time averting my eyes.

I could almost see this as legit because:

1. Even if these people are total oddballs that naturally trust random street weirdos giving things away, the choice that is offered would have to make even the most trusting among them a tad skeptical. Because it's got to be a trick, right? I'd be like, yeah, sure pal, that's a bar of silver - but uh...give me the chocolate. Because:

2. I know exactly what a Hershey bar looks like. I don't need to trust his claim that it's a real bar of chocolate. Whereas:

3. Most people don't know exactly what an authentic silver bar looks like. I sure don't. At least not down to the exact size, shape, and markings. So they'd be trusting some nut's claim that it really is a silver bar.

Still though, it STILL seems unlikely, because, personally speaking, I'd much rather have even a FAKE bar of silver than a bar of chocolate I could get at any convenience store.

@dannym3141,
tl;dr is always the risk when trying to also provide actual backing to something complicated, I understand the temptation, but by skipping over what I've said you've not understood me.

On the IPCC scenario, I used the RCP4.5 scenario, the one that is most widely quoted by them as their best estimate. It also the estimate they use when comparing model projections to observations, and the observations track well within it's error margins, albeit on the lower end of the RCP4.5 spectrum.
The IPCC says on temperatures by scenario in Chapter 12 of AR5:
global mean surface temperatures for 2081–2100, relative to 1986–2005 will likely be in the 5 to 95% range of the CMIP5 models; 0.3°C to 1.7°C (RCP2.6), 1.1°C to 2.6°C (RCP4.5), 1.4°C to 3.1°C (RCP6.0), 2.6°C to 4.8°C (RCP8.5). Global temperatures averaged over the period 2081–2100 are projected to likely exceed 1.5°C above 1850-1900 for RCP4.5
My sighting of 1.5C for 'best' from IPCC is derived from classing the 4.5 scenario as their best guess and I disagree with you that I'm materially misrepresenting or understanding them on it.

You also said:
... let us not pretend that the IPCC are above the skepticism...
Then later
I don't apologise for not reading the entire thread
I understand the thread is long, if you go back though you'll find I've made numerous references to additional peer-review journal articles backing and corroborating claims from the IPCC to make sure I'm not just cherry picking what might have been a politicized summary or assessment. So forgive, me but when you conclude with :
when you've cherry picked one quarter of a conclusion from one source
You are simply put, flat wrong.

Would you mind weighing in with your own position rather than a simply sitting on the fence calling us both too far on either side? I've been here refuting the notion that the scientific evidence tells us we face catastrophe prior to 2100, and even from some posters claims, catastrophe by 2050. I'm merely taking the stance that the science's best guess as approximated in IPCC RCP4.5, we aren't facing catastrophic collapse worthy of an action movie by 2100. I've said multiple times up thread we are facing problems, it's the severity I claimed by others that I am calling out for not being supported by evidence.

ExxonMobil had the Bush administration lobbying strongly to replace the chair of the IPCC with a more agreeable alternative, which we know about because of a leaked memo. So let us not pretend that the IPCC are above the skepticism of being politically influenced. The name "intergovernmental panel" says it all, in my opinion; i had assumed the I stood for Independent.

I don't apologise for not reading the entire thread because i noticed that in your first post you said the following, and it gave me cause to doubt your take on the science in the rest of the thread. I've been in too many discussions in which i spent hours researching only to find out people were completely wrong, and i spent 45 mins on your first paragraph already. Anyway here is the quote again:

"IPCC best estimates for 2100 are about 1.5 degree increase, so another hundred years and increase that is about twice as bad. Of course, it's twice as bad as what we saw the last 100 yeas and not only survived, but thrived under."

Firstly, the planet's flora and fauna have most certainly NOT thrived during that time. Humans have flourished by exploiting nature, so yes we have 'thrived'. In the same way that if i were to steal money from a dozen old ladies, i might say i was thriving even though i was out of work during the economic downturn. Pretty much every source agrees that the one thing the ecosystem is not doing is thriving - we are in or on the verge of the sixth mass extinction on the planet. So this is an inspiring yet futile "hurrah for us!" bravado that ignores the truth; we stand on the deck of a galleon around a big bonfire, ripping up planks and chopping up the boat, throwing it on the fire and going "we're all lovely and warm!" as we sit lower and lower in the water.

Secondly and in my opinion most significantly, according to the IPCC conclusions on page 8 you have used the term "best estimates" to mean "best case scenario" rather than "most reliable estimate" - which is why i have downvoted that comment, as it is misleading and incorrect. I would say it's cynically misleading, but i suspect you've lifted that from a cynical source rather than being cynical yourself.

I don't know if you realise, but you referred to only one result out of four, the rest of which strongly indicate a greater than 2 degree rise. Your reference is to RCP 2.6 which assumes CO2 emissions peak between 2010 and 2020. A decade in which the most populous countries on the planet are developing and a decade in which we must start to reduce global emissions so that we have a good chance of your best case scenario happening. We are already half way through it, and according to Mauna Loa observatory and every other source i could find (including EPA, NOAA and IEA) we are still increasing our CO2 emissions year on year including this year, where we've broken the 400ppm milestone, 120ppm greater than pre industrial times, half of which occured since 1980 (Pieter Tans).

So in fairness, you might have underplayed the IPCC report (which you seem to get almost all of your information from) in as much as newtboy might have overestimated the dangers and rapidity of climate change. I think you're out on a limb by telling him that the scientific community disagrees with him and he's using dodgy sources, when you've cherry picked one quarter of a conclusion from one source (the IPCC) to argue for your best case scenario which you refer to (unscientifically and incorrectly) as the "best estimate".

However, i do at least appreciate that despite your doubts (and in my opinion, slight confusion over the results, i don't think you're being intentionally misleading) you are very much behind changing our behaviour and using resources that are more appropriate... and that's what really matters right now is that people recognise the need to change.

There is some skepticism from the economics writers, and more so in the Grauniad than the BBC or our local rags, but even there they're more vocal about Greece and close to silent on Britain.

I think the IMF deserves much more scrutiny from the press than it's had

Actually the whole thing reminds me of the 80s and Reaganomics, with the whole group think from the political classes and surprisingly little argument from anyone else.

Maybe they realised how pointless it was to point out the inevitable?

It is a long time ago, and I was quite young, but I don't even remember any Cassandras at the time... certainly our local newspapers all drank the kool-aid.

Man, that makes zero sense to me ... but thanks for providing links to studies, because all I've got to back up my tendency towards skepticism of the idea is gut feeling plus personal anecdotes.

Weird, wild stuff.

We have Stewart Brand to thank for those images of the whole earth... It's too bad Tyson is more scientistic in his thinking than actually scientific. Like most television personalities, he sacrifices the rigors of skepticism (which are at the heart of the scientific method) for more popular notions of what sells books (and, now, tickets) which help to promote his "brand."

If you want to say that someone is attempting to start a flamewar bobknight would be a good candidate; however, I think you missed the continuation of the video's parody theme in @GenjiKilpatrick's reply... His statement is a spot-on parody response to bobknight's stance on many topics, as filtered through the eyes of a white-culture-skeptical commentator. Take a re-read of his first comment and see if you can see it.

As a movie tie in game, I'm skeptical it will be good, but it does look good. We'll have to wait to see how it plays. After seeing this, I'm a bit more hopeful it will satisfy.

Understood, and to be fair, the fact that the Lancet (one of the most esteemed medical publications on the planet) got suckered in really leaves the door open for laypeople who have very little medical knowledge to accept these things hook, line and sinker.

When you compound that with historical mishaps such as thalidomide, agent orange and asbestos, or even the big health push away from red meat/fats to a mainly carb based diet (hullo diabetes!), a fair amount of skepticism is understandable.

I've moderated my criticism of anti-vaxxers considerably over the years because of that. There will always be hardline true believers, but most people are acting out of a combination of fear of big pharma (not unjustified) and side effects for their kids. Watching a family member drowning on their own mucous tends to bring things in to perspective, if a little late... = (

? I'm confused. I admitted my 'test' was lacking, and deferred to @ChaosEngine who didn't trust his eyes but measured...so I am no longer certain it's 'fake' at all, in fact I was careful to NEVER call it 'fake'. Perhaps you only read my first post in this thread and missed my admission that I was wrong?

As I said, I think there's a reason it LOOKED like it did to me...probably the surrounding color reflecting off the white paper I used to mask off and 'coloring' the grey squares....and likely the paper I used was not perfectly straight to use as a straight edge....and measuring anything on a screen is less than perfect, which is why I poorly measured the table and lines...the second time I measured it I did better, and I admit they are the same size contrary to my original statement.
I also only saw grey pills.

The reason I was skeptical is I've seen these same 'illusions' faked many times. For instance, the last time I saw the Rubik's cube, the tiles had dark shaded colored edges they removed when 'masking off' which obviously changed the color. It's not that I don't 'believe' in optical illusions, I just think people are cheaters more often than not these days and fudge things they don't need to fudge. This time it was my method of 'masking off' that seems to be my issue...I don't have an image editor that will do much for me here....sadly...but it doesn't mean I don't trust Chaosengine who did and set me straight.
OK? ;-)

I don't blame @Stormsinger for being skeptical, but there's no trickery about a pointed spear pushing with great force into your neck. I've seen scientific examinations of a monk doing the same kinds of things and there was no fakery nor anything else to explain it away.

The human mind and body together are truly capable of seemingly impossible feats. Everyone can control a lot more of the body with the mind than most people think.

My one example (which is obviously incomparable to withstanding physical trauma) is my ability to cure my hiccups using nothing but brain power. Like most, I used to have extended fits of hiccups from time to time, and no trick ever worked (spoonful of sugar, drinking from other side of cup, holding breath, getting scared, etc.). I finally started mentally controlling my diaphragm to immediately stop my hiccups and now they're just a thing of the past for me.

We'll start with the "youtube comments are toxic".

We're in agreement. Even youtube agrees.

While it's unfortunate that the comment cream doesn't rise on youtube..

This still doesn't eliminate that fact that tons of valid criticism is being censored by Sark & plenty of other unscrupulous agenda-pushers.

It's a perfect opportunity to squash any dissent, under the guise of -

"there is no real debate here. only insults & threats. I had to disable comments to spare my audience the vitriol"

However, imagine if the youtuber was an outspoken Scientologist or Creationist..

Snowball's chance in hell you aren't viewing that as a deceitful tactic to avoid scrutiny.

"Everyone knows creationism is easily debunked/scientology is a cult. Clearly they've disabled comments because they want to squash dissent/valid arguments"

Rarely, if ever, would you think -

"Disabled comments? I get it. They probably just got too many death threats. Scientologists have feelings too yuh know"

Nonetheless, when the EXACT SAME scenario is put in front of you..

..with regard to topics that tug at your liberal, tree-huggy sympathies..

You lose all skepticism. Why is that?

Literally all it takes is a 30 second google search to discover the inconsistencies in Sarkeesian's statements & actions.

From the first article -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the words of Tumblr user robbiebaldwin:

“She says she wants to ‘create a dialogue’ or ‘force video games into open debate,’ except she turns off both comments and even ratings on her videos. Wanting to hear your own voice in an echo chamber is the total opposite of ‘open debate.’”

Leading the charge against Sarkeesian’s decision is Tumblr user amazingatheist, who posted a ten-minute video entitled "Who’s The Damsel Now?"

Arguing that Sarkeesian’s “censorship” of YouTube comments counteracts her message about strong women
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Are you seeing the larger picture now @newtboy @Babymech etc.?

This self-described - "critic of sexism in pop culture" - is espousing a set of ideas & strong statements..

Then completely cowering, juking, and being absolutely non-responsive when called on her shit.

She disabled the RATINGS for FSM's sake!
The neutral, objective, non-threatening, non-absuive RATINGS!

That's the way you stand strong for your cause, right!
By disallowing even your supporters from showing their approval!

And before you even mention that cancel lecture of hers.

WHAM!

BAM!

Straight from Utah State -

"Throughout the day, Tuesday, Oct. 14, USU police and administrators worked with state and federal law enforcement agencies to assess the threat to our USU community and Ms. Sarkeesian. Together, we determined that there was no credible threat to students, staff or the speaker, and that this letter was intended to frighten the university into cancelling the event."

They were all "Please don't cancel. We love con-artists! We're Mormons, remember!"

*TooLong,Don'tGiveaFuck*

Anita Sarkeesian is a self-proclaimed pop-culture critic..

Who claims that she wants to 'create a dialogue' & 'force video games into open debate'..

She then proceeds to disallow any & all discourse or scrutiny of her work - positive or negative - going so far as to disable like & dislike ratings on her videos.

Oh and I forgot to add..

She conveniently forgot to disable the vitriol 'whining' on her Kickstarter page until AFTER those comments boosted her campaign to over $150,000 in donations.

[i'll search for the video while you whine about citing sources]

BUT AGAIN! THIS ISN"T JUST ABOUT HER!
It's the overall debacle & all the stupid articles surrounding it.

Tho first I have to slog thru this shitstorm because you're easily distracted by syntax & word choice.

Shit, this is pointless.

Oh well. Done for now.

Anyone else struck by the irony of shinyblurry posting a video promoting skeptical thought?