I don’t need to. You prove to me that nobody will die from radiation poisoning over the next 10,000 years from nuclear waste. You can’t.
www.sciencehistory.org
Same for me, we need to remain a <"broad church"> and <"respectful of other people's views">, even if we don't necessarily <"agree with them">.
Definitely, I might not agree with what you say (or even <"be offended by it">😉*), but I defend the <"right to free speech">.I think we may have had times in the past, as a forum, when we haven't been as <"receptive to different approaches"> as we should have been.
I have to agree.
Hi all,
I understand scale can be misleading in graphs, but do it as percentages? and then tell me it doesn't make any difference?
Here is the most up to date CO2 reading <"Trends in CO2 - NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory"> = 422.38 ppm.
So we will call that 420 ppm, against 280 ppm pre the industrial revolution and 280 / 420, so just a third more (140 ppm) atmospheric CO2 than there was before the large scale combustion of fossil fuels: <"Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide">.
You can scale either Y axis on that graph any way you like, it doesn't change what it shows.
I'm pretty sure you can attribute cause and effect to the combustion of fossil fuels, because all the variations across pre Anthropocene geological time (<"Anthropocene - Wikipedia">) are accounted for by natural factors.
This is just the Holocene (last 10,000 years), from <"Holocene CO2 Variability and Underlying Trends - CO2 Coalition"> - <"CO2 Coalition - Wikipedia">. They have their own agenda <"Trump adviser created group to defend CO2">, but even they <"can't spin"> the far right of that graph.
cheers Darrel
It is. I'll be honest I'd never heard of him until today, but a very short trawl through the WWW would bring into question* whether he is either an objective observer and / or <"a scientist">?
This is just the Holocene (last 10,000 years), from <"Holocene CO2 Variability and Underlying Trends - CO2 Coalition"> - <"CO2 Coalition - Wikipedia">. They have their own agenda <"Trump adviser created group to defend CO2">, but even they <"can't spin"> the far right of that graph.
how to fix the broken peer review system -durham university
Alec please don't mistake this for a hostile question because it really isn't, but I'm always interested, where and how do you draw this line? how do you identify when you are entitled/qualified to have an opinion on a subject? Do you refrain from commenting on political economics and leave it to the economists? from immigration issues because you leave it to the anthropologists and sociologists? or is it just that you find certain topics are too polarising and as you indicated before you just wouldn't choose to discuss them on this platform?
I don't take it as hostile Louis. I had written a longer reply to Tim but the moderators removed it. Accepting that I just said what I said. Honestly, on this particular forum I don't feel a strong need to "debate". I can see some people making points, but I personally accept climate breakdown as real, and, while I can see there are different potential solutions, I don't feel a need to debate with anyone who doesn't accept the science. I find that an extreme position. An issue I do debate and object to is comments about immigration made on this forum, because there are so many readers from international places, and because I find them objectionable. But the moderators didn't accept my comment so I was guided by that and will steer clear of the subject. My general feeling is that on some subjects people rarely change one another's minds, they talk at cross purposes, and I don't feel I'm an expert or that I need to have strong opinions here – I used to elsewhere, but having seen what social media became, I've tended to speak out less. I really would speak out if this was a forum about politics, but it isn't. So, I agree with all you say, and I saw you making interesting points, as others did. I disagree with one person quite strongly, but I suppose my feeling is that others are responding to them better than I can. I tend to comment on art, if it comes up, because it's an issue I do know about. People should engage, but whether this is the place I really doubt. The discussions about the science of aquariums are so knowledgeable and helpful, including the disagreements, but when we veer onto political subjects then what tends to draw my attention is the statements I most disagree with, and they tend to go beyond anything I feel like arguing with. I also feel that what I enjoy here is discussing my hobby with a wide variety of people, many of whom I might not know otherwise. If I post, or they post, lots of "opinions" on politics then we sort of reveal ourselves in ways that I find narrows my pleasure and ability to listen in terms of plants and fish. We sort of become "that guy who thinks X". That just a personal perspective. In terms of immigration a couple of months ago I did an access event with refugees and it taught me a lot, and was very moving. That's my politics, to try and do things that help, and to meet real people and learn. I make lots of art projects that relate to climate breakdown, or ecology, or flood prevention, but that's my work, and not really relevant. Here I'I also learn from people I might strongly disagree with in real life, but I quite like not disagreeing here. And I'm just a guy whose plants aren't doing so well, but who can breed corys. There are experts on this forum, like Wooki and Darrel, and others, that I learn so much from, about aquariums, and most people always speak in a friendly way. And thanks for the badis badis, he's been ruling the tank like a wee badass.
That is really it. Every-one has some degree of <"confirmation bias">, the important bit is that we are receptive to new findings <"Eddington experiment - Wikipedia">*, when the theory you have fails, or proves incomplete. It is the <"Rabbits">
or <"Bears argument">.
