TheVat

Sounds correct, on the differential being due to who gets what jobs. Many fields where men are still preferentially steered towards higher pay management positions. Or fields where women dominate in numbers and society hasn't recognized the full value of that work. Getting firm figures on this is a moving target, given the changes happening and the current rate of college enrollment of women (around 60% of students are female, per a recent reading). An example I would offer is the relative pay of primary school teachers and lawyers. I would suggest teachers are of more value to society, and a shortage would have more dire consequences. Pay scales may not reflect this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning Enough sardines!

I say, if the human bound to the chair is that evil, then the things you are doing to him to save an innocent are not evil. Some humans don't deserve the rights that most others do Though I earlier carved out extreme exceptions to laws against torture, it seems to me the law, and civilized life, would be in peril if we formally define classes of people who don't deserve the human rights that the rest do. Again, that's why torture must happen outside the law, as a last ditch effort to, say, find the suitcase nuke in Penn Station. (So sorry...how does one get rid of a messed up quote box?)

Might it be helpful to separate out the legal implications of torture (a society that legislates torture as okay) and the realworld implications of some rare and extreme emergency situation. I mean, clearly there's a strong case that a civilized nation should ban torture and not make its citizenry complicit in brutal sadism. But it is also quite sensible to say "this terrorist knows where a nuke is located in Manhattan, which will kill millions of people if detonated, so we will step outside the law in this extreme moment and do whatever it takes to get him to reveal the location." Torture still might not work, but even a low probability of getting an accurate answer, with millions of lives at stake, might be worth it. This action would not be saying that torture is generally right, or that a nation as a legal entity should ever support it. Millions of lives at stake. I feel this example might be less clouded by emotions than pedophile scenarios where the focus tends to be on revulsion for the sicko monsters.

Seriously, see a physician. If your partner was lubricated and had two children (not Caesareans, I assume?), and you are a young man, then pain would be unusual. Most young newbies to the act of coitus report the entry experience to be pleasurable, and you definitely would want to get a clean bill of health so as to have no further concerns about pain. If you are using a condom, you should also be sure and rule out any allergic skin reactions to latex. Good luck!

A 2013 paper by Shakun and colleagues examined a network of 80 climate proxy records around the world during the end of the last ice age. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915 They found that while CO2 generally lagged temperatures in the southern hemisphere – consistent with Antarctic reconstructions – the same was not true for the rest of the world. Both the northern hemisphere and overall global temperatures actually lagged CO2; in other words, for the world as a whole, warming happened after atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased. The reasons for this are complex and are driven in part by changes in ocean currents as ice ages end. Specifically, Shakun and colleagues argue that changes in orbital cycles triggered initial melting of ice sheets in the northern hemisphere. This caused large amounts of freshwater to pour into the oceans as ice sheets melted, disrupting the AMOC, which, in turn, cooled the northern hemisphere and warmed the southern hemisphere. This southern hemisphere warming caused ocean releases of CO2, which, in turn, warmed the entire planet. Shakun et al suggest that the vast majority of the global warming at the end of the last ice age occurred after CO2 increased, though this warming was driven by a combination of albedo (reflectivity) changes and the greenhouse effect. https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-the-rise-and-fall-of-co2-levels-influenced-the-ice-ages#:~:text=Both the northern hemisphere and,currents as ice ages end. Also. this study of Antarctic ice cores may be relevant... https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1226368 No Leader to Follow Changes in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and surface air temperature are closely related. However, temperature can influence atmospheric CO2 as well as be influenced by it. Studies of polar ice cores have concluded that temperature increases during periods of rapid warming have preceded increases in CO2 by hundreds of years. Parrenin et al. (p. 1060; see the Perspective by Brook) present a revised age scale for the atmospheric component of Antarctic ice cores, based on the isotopic composition of the N2 that they contain, and suggest that temperature and CO2 changed synchronously over four intervals of rapid warming during the last deglaciation. Abstract Understanding the role of atmospheric CO2 during past climate changes requires clear knowledge of how it varies in time relative to temperature. Antarctic ice cores preserve highly resolved records of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the past 800,000 years. Here we propose a revised relative age scale for the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the last deglacial warming, using data from five Antarctic ice cores. We infer the phasing between CO2 concentration and Antarctic temperature at four times when their trends change abruptly. We find no significant asynchrony between them, indicating that Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of atmospheric CO2, as has been suggested by earlier studies.

I find the argument confusing when it sounds like everyone agrees a black woman would bring a fresh and valuable perspective to the supreme bench, but some feel having Biden say it out loud was naughty. Presidential administrations are always looking for certain criteria, and they wish to please their voting constituents in the choice of criteria they use. If you object to this, you really object to representative democracy and the concept of political appointment in its present imperfect form. There's probably a whole thread there.

A couple thoughts. One, the meaning of torture is usually pretty clear to a person on the receiving end. I invite anyone troubled by definitional issues to undergo waterboarding or electrical shocks and report back to us. Torturers use methods that leave little ambiguity as to what they are doing to another person. Second, I think the negative effect of torture is not only on the recipient and on their consequent willingness to say anything to please the torturer, but also its effect on the personality and mental health of the torturer and those in the group and larger society who are supporting the torturer's actions. Ask yourself, who are you and who do you become when you torture, and who are we as a social community when we approve the torture? The pedo example is problematic, given that there may be more effective options than relying upon intel given under extreme duress. It's a tough call, but I think torture degrades mankind far more than it helps children trapped with pedos.

Scaffetta, the "climastrologist"? https://skepticalscience.com/scafetta-widget-problems.html As for polling meteorologists, this strikes me as too much of a "Scoreboard!!" argument to merit discussion from the perspective of scientific evidence.

You were misrepresenting. My reply began with my two word response reflecting my thoughts: palaeoclimate evidence. Terse, but a shorthand that was accurately reflecting my thinking which is: palaeoclimate evidence makes a compelling case for anthropogenic GW driven by a rapid rise in GHGs. I replied in good faith, but with very limited time yesterday. You seem to be trying for some ad hominem tack that suggests a brief comment that points to a vast body of peer-reviewed research can only show the member has no thoughts of their own. This is a cheap shot, bad faith approach and I will waste no more time with you.

You asked for a quote. I was agreeable to this, not having time to carry bricks for you and compose a lengthy discourse. The link provided contained this quote, which reflected my own thinking based on years of following the research: NOWHERE IN MY POST was it suggested that "these people think so, so you should too." I offered the summary as a possible path for your own research and followup, in hopes you would see for yourself the vast body of evidence just from this one area of climatology. I reversed one of your downvotes, as I feel the DV option is detrimental to civil discussion. (See Stringy's new thread in feedback)

I said much the same in another feedback thread some months ago. Hear, hear.

The antigen tests, especially where the omicron variant is concerned, has a lot of false negatives. I am still unsure if the two week infection I just got over (covid like symptoms, much hacking, worst URI ever had) was covid or not, though both my antigen tests (spaced a couple days apart while very symptomatic, per the mfr. recommendation) were negative. You may never know. And now some research suggests the nasal swab doesn't even work for omicron, and a throat swab is really needed because omicron will concentrate more in saliva and throat mucus rather than nose. In the UK, they are recommending throat swabs now.

Palaeoclimate research. Included in this summary, which is a good intro to the major lines of evidence. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

I have been following the fields of climatology and atmospheric chemistry for a couple decades. The acquisition of data has been exhaustive and continually upgraded, because the scientists are constantly testing digital modelings against observational data. And in peer review, they constantly question, ruthlessly poke holes in how data is collected, interpreted, and extrapolated from. Any consensus that now exists is a result of massively unequivocal real-world measurements of the changes going on. Very sad to hear climate science slandered like this. It is a respectable field, and hardly an "industry" as you slurred it in another post. If anything, it is the large fossil fuel companies that are, through sponsorship of denialist groups like The Heartland Institute, cranking out pseudoscience flatulence on an industrial scale. You should crack open a book or two, learn something about the complexities and concepts of climate science, before issuing such flat and dismissive comments.

Plus one. The caution is not to have demographics distract from a candidate's possible deficiencies. E.g. Uber conservative, Ayn Rand loving, Clarence Thomas would be the poster child of ideologically induced blindness. And nonparticipation (he is well known for going more than a decade without asking a single question during oral arguments). Offered as a successor to Thurgood Marshall, the contrast could not be more glaring. And the activities of his wife, leading attempted disloyalty purges of anyone questioning Trump, as well as other far right smear campaigns, would seem to cast a shadow on his attempts to project impartiality.

Just a thank you to @exchemist for posting the information on the IR gas cell. Many contrarian views on GW take their momentum on forums from posters growing weary and not digging for citations.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/putin-ukraine-democracy/621465/ Looks at what motivates Vlad, and why he might not want a democracy on his doorstep. Or have the USA continue as a functional democracy.

There seems to be some skipping over the fact that one does not APPLY for a job on the supreme court. It is an appointed position, by the President with the advise and consent of Congress. It is a POLITICAL appointment, every time, and thus driven by the choices and objectives of elected officials. If Americans voted for Biden because he said he would put a professional juggler on the SCt, then he can search only for jugglers and keep his promise. Congress can affirm or not, depending on how they juggle their constituents and donor base (heh). Labor laws regarding nondiscrimination on the basis of juggling ability do not apply. The criteria that would exist for "best" for that niche would be applied to the field of jugglers and might include many who left the circus and went on to law school. As @CharonY and I earlier noted, there is no single criterion that constitutes a best person and it often comes down to gut feelings. Where is the outrage for past appointments that specifically looked to include new demographics? Curiously the RW rage machine is quiet about Louis Brandeis, Thurgood Marshall, Sandra O'Connor, Sonia Sotomayor, et al. Weird that they accept the methods that made the Court more inclusive UP TO RIGHT NOW, but suddenly when faced with a black woman they all embrace their previously well concealed idealism.

It was a useful topic, not least in that it raises the question of what people mean by that nebulous term "best." On a team, there is no ideal best, just people who are more or less able to fill a particular spot on that team. One of the helpful observations here (INow, iirc) was that it is rather Orwellian to take a process that increases inclusion and call it "exclusionary." A bit like calling the appointment of a library acquisitions board exclusionary because they specifically sought candidates with varied reading backgrounds rather than just stuffing the board with fans of bestsellers. The RW objections are kind of like, in my example, someone saying "well, most people like bestsellers, so how dare we exclude people, on this particular search, who just read bestsellers?" Anyway, if you believe the US Constitution is a living document, then you may need people who have lived in many ways to interpret and apply it. Personally, I feel the best appointments are the ones who see the SCt as above politics and partisanship and truly set aside their own past politics. That IS what the highest court is supposed to do, in all deliberations. They are supposed to owe the POTUS who appointed them NOTHING. That was the specific intent in designing out justice system.

(Replied before reading whole thread) I think some of those slinging AA at the process may not fully understand the principle at work here. The race and gender, in this context, are visible markers for finding jurists who have a diversity of upbringing and life experience and resultant perspective to bring to the panel of nine. Like others, I think that diversity should include not only women and PoC, but those who didn't attend Ivy League schools (currently 8 of 9 attended Harvard or Yale), for example. (And one of the candidates went to a state university -- good for her!) Most of the past minorities who made it on the Court, traditionally a club of white Protestant men, did so because a POTUS made a conscious selection of someone outside that group. Starting with Louis Brandeis in the early 20th century. In any case, Biden's goal is not to exclude white men but rather to continue the process of having the SCt be more a cross section of the real America. Growing up black and female does give you a perspective on the law and justice that is quite valuable when you are part of the highest court, that will rule on cases that impact the most vulnerable populations. In this regard, being black and female is a uniquely powerful qualification in bringing balance to the SCt. When you look at the current Court, you will not have any impression that whites or males are being excluded.

This, on radiative forcing of CO2, and the use of simulations, may be helpful. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/radiativeforcing.html#:~:text=Thus CO2 concentration is,3.53 W·m–2. The computations to determine the radiative forcing for a greenhouse gas require a detailed knowledge of its IR absorption and emission properties. These are available from the HITRAN database. “HITRAN is an acronym for high-resolution transmission molecular absorption database. HITRAN is a compilation of spectroscopic parameters that a variety of computer codes use to predict and simulate the transmission and emission of light in the atmosphere. The database is a long-running project started by the Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories (AFCRL) in the late 1960's in response to the need for detailed knowledge of the infrared properties of the atmosphere,”

The rice mold toxin is one to add to my list of rice negatives. Others are (for white rice, the most commonly eaten form): very high glycemic, very constipating, potential arsenic residues, and nutritionally meager. I tried a gluten free diet for six months, which tends to lead to lots of rice consumption (most GF breads are mainly rice flour) and felt so better when I returned to wheat. Tea bags? Let me sing the praises of loose tea. Better flavor, better control of brew strength, and no plastic nanoparticles from the bag moving through your gut villi. You can now find bags made with plant fibers, but it's usually more expensive.

Looking in again. To be clear, I was not really "naysaying" this scenario, which is somewhat different from what was proposed earlier in the thread. Truly pristine barren planets could be seeded, and extend the reign of DNA life and its survival chances. Any such world will, of course, diverge from our biota as it develops, and could well become quite hostile to humans over time. So it would not really be something that could serve as a backup for humans in case of terrestrial disaster. Having a biotically similar backup Earth, a quite different feat of planetary bioengineering, seems reasonable if it has fully developed ecosystems that would be compatible with human colonization. However, it's hard to see this project working out well on a newly formed planet, and we wouldn't likely have several billion years to bioengineer it the slow old-fashioned way, building up an Earth Two from stromatolites and cyanobacteria while we just hang out in space arks. So how would you get a mature planet and make it Earth Two, without squashing indigenous life? I would think you would he limited to planetary systems near recent supernovae which had been completely sterilized by an intense gamma burst and proton shock wave.

Just found this thread. Count me as a vote for probes. I lean toward KenF et al. idea that we should be humble learners, be open to other possibilities of abiogenesis and exotic ecologies, or... who knows... planets where exotic crystals spread and have slow piezoelectric thoughts. I find the seeding concept too embedded in a sort of corporate "branding" to trust. It is tainted with Terran biochauvinism.