Woo boy, this is a doozy! The fact of the matter is a video comment section is not the place to have this conversation. There's too much to discuss, too many questions from one another that are best asked soon after they're conceived, etc. I frankly just don't have the time to respond to everything you said. Don't take this as acquiescence; if you'd like to have a Zoom chat some time, I'd be down.

In any event, I'll respond to what I find either the most important or at least most interesting:

Having theories is definitely the best way to go about most of the things you consider fact (for the moment), but the fact of the matter (no pun intended) is that at some point you'll need to use some of those claims as fact/belief in order to take action. And it's just human nature to, if one believes in a claim for long enough, it becomes fact, despite all your suggestions of objectivity. It's easy to say you're a scientist through and through, but if you're really someone who doesn't believe anything and merely theorize things, I think you'd be a sad human being. But that's a claim that I leave up to the scientists.

> Yes, and I eat animals because they're delicious.

You think that's a defensible moral claim? I find that disgraceful. If you truly think your own pleasure is worth sentient beings' lives then... I don't know what to say to you. That strikes me as callous and unempathetic, 2 traits you often assert as shameful. This is my point. You sound pretty obstinate to at least a reasonable claim. To respond with just "they're tasty". You don't sound reasonable to me.

> You may be correct, but eating meat is hardly the worst thing humans are up to.

Aw, come on @newtboy, I thought better of you than to give me a logical fallacy. The fact that you're resorting to logical fallacies wwould indicate to me that either you're confronting some cognitive dissonance, otherwise why would you stoop to such a weak statement?

> I gladly discuss vegetarianism with honest people, but I'm prepared when they start spouting bullshit like " eating any red meat is more harmful than smoking two packs a day of filterless cigarettes" ...

There is a lot of scientific research (not funded by Big ___) that is currently spouting this "bullshit". What happened to your receptive, scientific, theory-based lifestyle? It's true nutrition science is a fucking smog-filled night mare considering how much money is at stake, but I find it telling that a lot of the corporations are using the same ad men from Big Cigarette to stir up constant doubt.

Again, I find it peculiar that you are highly suspicious of big corporations... except when it comes to something that you want to be true.

Again, this is my point. Take a moment, take a few breaths, and look inside. Can you notice that you're acting in the exact same fashion as the people you purport to be obscenely stubborn?

Check out NutritionFacts if you want to see any of the science. Actual science. I would hope that it would give you at least somedoubt and curiosity.

That's a true scientist's homeostatic state: curiosity. Are you curious to investigate the dozens (hundreds?) of papers with a truly non-confirmation-biased mind? How much of a scientist are you?

> I've never met a vegan that wasn't a bold faced liar in support of veganism, so I'm less likely to give them a full chance at convincing me.

This, for me, raises all sorts of red flags. That's quite a sweeping claim.

> Again, that would be long held theories in my case, and it's not hard to change them. Mad cow disease got me to change until I was certain it wasn't in America. No, I'm not recoiling. I'll listen to anyone who's respectful and honest.

So, you're willing to make decisions based on self-interest and not morality? Well, duh. Everyone does that. It doesn't sound like you had a self-reflective moment. It sounds like you merely had a self-interested decision based on the risk to your own health.

And finally, all your talk about Bob -- of course he acts, consistently, like a twat. I just don't like feeding trolls. I don't think there's anyone on Videosift who's on the precipice and would be pushed over into the Alt-right Pit by Bob's ridiculous nonsense.

> Edit: in general I agree that dispassionate fact based replies with references are better at convincing people than derision, there are exceptions, and there are those who are unconvinceable and disinterested in facts that don't support their lies.

Ironically, I think science has disproved this. Facts don't change minds in situations like this. There are lots of articles on this. I didn't have the wherewithal to dig into their citations, but I leave that (non-confirmation-biased) adventure for you. [1]

---

I knew I wouldn't make this short, but I think it's shorter than it could have been.

Lastly, I'm with @BSR; I do appreciate your perseverance. Not everyone has as much as you seem to have! Whenever I see Bob... doing his thing, I can always be assured you'll take most of the words from my mouth. [2]

[1]
Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds | The New Yorker
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

This Article Won’t Change Your Mind - The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/this-article-wont-change-your-mind/519093/

Why People Ignore Facts | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/words-matter/201810/why-people-ignore-facts

Why Many People Stubbornly Refuse to Change Their Minds | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/think-well/201812/why-many-people-stubbornly-refuse-change-their-minds

Why Facts Don't Always Change Minds | Hidden Brain : NPR
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/743195213

[2] This comment has not been edited nor checked for spelling and grammatical errors. Haven't you got enough from me?

For the alt-fact conspiracy believing nincompoops, I'm afraid this video is not good enough to convince them. They'll dispute the heck out of the video as a "fake setup."

I can think of:

1) Need to zoom out more so the sensor is clearly shown to be attached to the monitor at all time

2) no cutting out frames (speed up segments are OK?),

3) show the effect on the indicator's ### by not having the sensor attached to the finger (e.g. drops down to 00 or Error), and,

4) show the number by holding the breath (nostrils pinched & mouth closed) for an extended time to see it drops significantly as verification.

have read a number of Lee descendants were okay w/removing his statues, too. by now, i'd hope, most folks know R.E.L. said statues weren't gonna be helpful.

“I think it wiser, not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.”

of course, he was talking about a gettysburg memorial, so maybe he was reluctant to have a memorial at the site of his gravest error.

but the issue is like most things: complicated. like the lincoln emancipation memorial. get how the couchant slave is a downer, but the fact former slaves paid for its erection, the model for the slave was t.s. eliott grandpa's gardener, a former escaped slave, and is mohammed ali's direct ancestor - is kinda cool. maybe worth having around just to explain all the details around its history.

People can misuse statistics to prove anything. Forfty percent of all people know that.

I'm afraid you're misrepresenting the statistics.
Those are based on overall US population, not racially divided populations.

30 per million blacks killed even though they are only 13% of the population vs 12 per million whites even though they are 76%. That's 30 dead blacks for every 12 dead whites.
Whites don't get off Scott free, but per capita it's close.
1/6 as many blacks as whites but 2.5 times more dead...making it 15 times more dead blacks per capita when divided by race...not over twice as many whites like you said.

The numbers aren't as lopsided as expected because you made a massive statistical error. Try again please.

All these issues you list are demonstrably used more often against non whites. This doesn't mean exclusively, but if your base stats are right, it should be 3-1 whites getting shafted if it wasn't racist, but it's more like 15-1 blacks/browns being shafted.

Cases on the rise in many southern states like Alabama, South Carolina and Virginia weeks after protests to reopen. We've now hit 110000 dead Americans, nearing 2000000 infected, worst of ANY country by far....almost 10000 since you wrote this a week ago and on the rise again.
It's not going away, it's resurfacing. Just wait until two weeks after George Floyd protests started.

Edit: It certainly doesn't help that Bunker Boy wants to do photo ops at manufacturing facilities making desperately needed medical items (that he claims weren't needed, btw) like sterile swabs but refuses to take any precautions whatsoever so every time he goes on a little trip to take pictures for his campaign the manufacturers have to throw out whatever they made that day and decontamination the entire facility before resuming production.

Sorry, Twitler won't be distracting or deflecting enough from his bunker to make Americans forget his enormous failures, and more are taking off their orange colored glasses and becoming ex republicans daily. Bet you wish you hadn't hoped for a huge walk away movement this election, because you've got one now.

Today's approval rating, 37-38% Disapproval 57% (for black Americans his approval rating is 10%)
Biden 55% vs Trump 41% well outside the margin of error unlike the polls showing Clinton ahead (hint, Clinton never broke 50% from this point in the election on)

Red tsunami! Look out!

You better hope Biden is better than Trump or you're going to see the national guard in your town looking to shoot you and your family in the face.

So dumb, Bobby, so short sighted, anti American, and just dumb. I get you're upset that Trump has less chance in November every single day, starting out behind and sprinting to the bottom....it's made you choose delusion over any semblance of reality....not that that's a big change.

Trump has driven us into bankruptcy, a quarantine his slow and indecisive actions caused and extended that will have to be repeated because he invited his people to ignore it, go to work even sick, and to violently protest against them (like the armed invasion of the governor's mansion and burning him in effigy on the porch), now exacerbating civil unrest he fomented by telling police to be more brutal, hurt suspects physically whenever possible.
Look how well he's done at "leading". So well, we are on the verge of civil war.

What's his approval today? >35%? How many swing states is he even within the margin of error against Biden? None today.

Waiting for your second red tsunami with bells on, this one's poised to wash away even more human garbage than the last.

I expect nothing less from a [redacted] like yourself. Cranial rectosis is cureable, but you would miss the savory fecal flavor.

In the last 3 years Trump's mismanagement has added >$4 trillion to the debt during an inherited economic expansion, with a current deficit of well over $1 trillion per year and rising. Yes, the economy seems relatively strong, but my bank account would look great too if I put 1/3 of GDP on credit and didn't pay any off. America is turning around alright, problem is it was headed in the right direction before the turn. *facepalm

Hate to tell you, but Trump loses handily to all remaining candidates in polls, and not within the margin of error like with Clinton.

Great, yeah, they're still counting the lies, and the calculators are smoking from the effort. Presidential medal of freedom to an obese, racist, uncivil, uneducated, divisive drug abuser. Way to devalue our nation's highest honor to less than a happy meal prize. Only an America hater would call that great, Bobski.

Possibly trivial, but I'd think doing by hand with no calibration would be tiresome and possibly add in errors. It's still evolutionary if not revolutionary.

Does everyone get the "please click here to watch this video on youtube" error?

An error was encountered, please try again.

So, we're up to at a minimum of 4 impeachment investigations now.
1) publicly asking and privately extorting multiple foreign powers to investigate American citizens to help his campaign, with mountains of evidence, including direct quid quo pro that isn't a necessary component of the crimes but compounds them.
2) a second whistleblower report from the IRS accusing multiple appointees of interference in the audit of his taxes.
3) hostile foreign powers bribing him directly through his properties by booking and paying for hundreds of rooms at multiple properties without even staying in them, or violating the emoluments clause if they're found to not be bribes..
4) multiple unequivocal obstruction charges, born out by both his statements and the administration's flat refusal to comply with subpoenas.

These almost certainly aren't the only investigations into his increasing criminality, but any one is more than enough for removal and prison.

There's a new move to push for anonymous ballots if it gets to the Senate. Without fear of reprisals from Trump and his cultists, up to 35 Republican senators have already privately indicated they would impeach today, but they're terrified he would ruin their careers, which they put ahead of their nation, or that his zealous followers might try to murder them or their families.

But that doesn't matter because some of the 4%(+-2% margin of error) of support he has in the black community made a rap.

Edit: Oops! Another report this morning indicates Perry, along with Giuliani and multiple Trump officials and Trump himself were pushing Ukraine to install Trump's friends on the board of a huge Ukrainian natural gas company in an unsurprisingly strikingly similar fashion to what they falsely accuse the Bidens of doing (it is his MO to accuse his enemies of the crimes he's involved in). That makes impeachment path #5 to be exposed, and explains the missing 18 minutes of the transcript of Trump's extortion call with the president of Ukraine. This is why we need the full, word for word, unredacted transcript of the call that Trump, in his idiocy, has already admitted exists.
Sorry @bobknight33, it's looking bad for daddy Donny. He also lost his case trying to block New York from his taxes this morning by claiming absolute immunity from prosecution, and claiming even a private examination of his tax returns would do him irreparable harm. Wonder why that would be.

@newtboy,

"Every IPCC report has vastly underestimated their projections"
Hogwash

IPCC AR5 predictions we can go check out are here: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf

Surface temp is in Fig. 11.9 page 981. They only graph for their 'middle' 4.5 case, not the worst 8.5 case that you call wildly optimistic. You can see even at the time they graphed it, the instrumental record sat on the extreme cold end of their projections, almost threatening to leave the margins of error. If you take today's today for 2019 and check it out we are sitting about dead center on their projected path. Doesn't seem like current temperature data shows their 'middle' case scenario underestimating anything, let alone their worst case.


If you look at the same for sea level rise in AR5 here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf

You can look for fig 13.11 on page 1181. Again, it shows projections approx 100mm sea level rise from 2000-2020, which more or less matches the instrumental record as we approach 2020 to verify. Again, not grossly underestimating.

The sea level rise is especially important to your alarms over Greenland being grossly underestimated by the IPCC. If they did grossly underestimate Greenland, it seems likely they also grossly overestimated something else if they more or less are on track with the overall sea level projections.

Again, if you just cherry pick a couple results and declare everything the IPCC did has been proven to over/under estimate things so they must be ignored, you aren't helping.

@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.

Thumb error. Internal error: Temporary directory not located.

Hi @lucky760, It seems that the thumbnail adding process is currently broken, I got Internal error: Temporary directory not located.