The Skeptics Guide to the Universe Forum

Quote from: Quetzalcoatl on September 26, 2023, 04:59:53 PM

Quote from: RickyDMMont2ya on September 12, 2023, 09:08:11 PM

Quote from: Desert Fox on August 29, 2023, 02:05:53 PMI think we need to plan for a worst case situation

Worst case is a planet that is not able to be inhabited by humans. What kind of planning are you proposing for that?

Is that really a possibility? I would think that even with an extremely warmer climate, humans could still live in the far north and far south. And maybe in other regions if they stayed inside buildings with AC most of the time. Come to think of it, maybe that would be necessary in the polar regions as well.

Of course, that would mean a radically different world than we have today and such a would could support a far smaller population than the one we currently have. It would be a very bleak world, but it wouldn't mean human extinction.

Right. Worst case scenario is probably that the planet could no longer support billions of humans.

Bleak, yes, but human extinction is not likely.

Quote from: Belgarath on September 26, 2023, 05:19:17 PM

Quote from: Quetzalcoatl on September 24, 2023, 03:41:21 PMI'll grant that I was a little sloppy there. It should have been written:

The idea that the Bush administration hoped that there would be an attack and eased off anti-terrorism efforts with the purpose for that to happen is a conspiracy theory. Maybe not a classical 9/11 conspiracy theory (that would postulate that they knew in advance that it would happen or that they orchestrated it themselves), but a conspiracy theory nonetheless. There is also no evidence for it, and it is incredibly stupid.

Will you now engage with the actual discussion, rather than obsessing over that I by mistake left out a bit?

Sure.  I still say that the statement:

QuoteThe idea that the Bush administration hoped that there would be an attack and eased off anti-terrorism efforts with the purpose for that to happen is a conspiracy theory.

Isn't a conspiracy theory.  It's wrong, to the best of my knowledge, but it's not a conspiracy theory.

I don't particularly believe that Bush backed off on anti-terrorism efforts, I'd need to see some evidence.  Is it beyond the realms of reason?  No, it's a reasonable possibility, therefore it's not a conspiracy theory in the classical sense of that term.

What would be a conspiracy theory would be that the Bush Administration had specific credible evidence about 9/11 and specifically did nothing to stop it.

So to conclude, I disagree that the above is a conspiracy theory, but I also think it's a misstatement of facts, given what I know, therefore it's not true.  It wouldn't take much evidence to convince me otherwise though.  For example, if someone showed me that Bush made changes at CIA and/or DoD and/or FBI to reduce, cut, or redirect anti-terrorism efforts, then I would find the above statement true, but still not a conspiracy theory.

The point here is that a statement can be both untrue, and NOT a conspiracy theory.

FYI there is a TV Show called "The Looming Tower" featuring the guy who headed the FBI anti-terror unit charged with investigating terrorism in general and Osama Bin Laden specifically.

He left the FBI in 2001 and the unit disbanded. He took a job as head of security at the World Trade Center and died in the 9/11 attacks.

Quote from: stlc8tr on September 26, 2023, 08:01:12 AMWhy are the Rogues giving a pass to the US as far as carbon emissions are concerned? From what I can tell, the US is still much higher on a per capita basis.

That, plus we are far behind China in development of low cost solar and research on new renewables.

QuoteAnd that's not even accounting for historical emissions.

Can't do anything about those.

Quote from: Quetzalcoatl on September 26, 2023, 02:23:30 PM

Quote from: CarbShark on September 25, 2023, 03:32:34 PM

Quote from: Quetzalcoatl on September 25, 2023, 01:16:01 PM

Quote from: Harry Black on September 24, 2023, 07:44:07 PMJust to say that the malice/incompetence bit is not an actual logical rule.
It is a heuristic and one that becomes less useful every year as the malicious scumbags learn that they can hide behind it.
There is no inherent truth to it. It is just a handy way for people in power to avoid accountability.

It is a useful rule of thumb though.

If Bush had any direct influence or knowledge of things, why not blame it on Saddam Hussein immediately instead of spending two years trying to link al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein?

That's literally what Rumsfeld recommended in the days after 9/11.

Do you have a source for that?

That was in Rice's testimony to the 9/11 commission.

Quote from: Tassie Dave on September 26, 2023, 08:58:01 AMIt's not the temperature units we use that's the problem.

It's the fact that the denialists don't concede there is a problem and/or that it's a natural cycle.

Some even laugh when you mention a planet a few degrees warmer, because they think in terms of their own comfort level. 2 or 3 degrees is a minimal change

As far as coal goes, my own country is one of the worst exporters (2nd only to Indonesia) and most of that goes to Asia. 

I agree with you about denialists, but those are not the ones we should be trying to reach.

It's those in the middle. The "swing voters" but in this context. Those not well versed in science or skepticism, and constantly hear both sides of the argument and may be persuaded that Global Warming is not that bad, because 2° is very little, to those thinking in terms of Fahrenheit.

(We should also put that 2°C (3.6°f) in its context, as in the increase from pre-industrial average temperatures.)

Quote from: gmalivuk on September 26, 2023, 07:23:32 AMI believe you've made this argument before. Are any of these alleged Americans who you think could be reached if only we'd convert temperature changes to Fahrenheit here on this forum?

I don't know.

That doesn't matter. Is there anyone here on this forum who discusses Global Warming only here and no where else in their lives?

Quote from: Guillermo on September 26, 2023, 11:27:08 AMConnections
Puzzle #107
🟨🟨🟨🟨
🟦🟩🟦🟪
🟩🟩🟩🟦
🟩🟩🟦🟩
🟩🟦🟦🟩

I don't understand how to interpret the results.

Click the ? button on the Connections window.

The first row shows you got all four correct.
The second and fourth rows show you got two correct and two wrong.
The third and fourth rows show three correct and one wrong.

Plus, each color signifies a items from the same group, and the colors show the difficulty level of making the connections in each row.

Most other definitions I've seen are closer to this.

Quote from: Guillermo on September 26, 2023, 11:05:00 AM"(a game, competition, or activity) needing physical effort"

Connections
Puzzle #107
🟦🟦🟦🟦
🟨🟨🟩🟨
🟨🟨🟩🟨
🟩🟩🟨🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟨🟨🟨🟨
🟪🟪🟪🟪

Renewable energy in China - Wikipedia

QuoteChinese energy experts estimate that by 2050 the share of electricity from coal will decline to 30%–50%, and that the remaining 50%–70% will come from a combination of oil, natural gas, and renewable energy sources, including hydropower, nuclear power, biomass, solar energy, wind energy, and other renewable energy sources.

Also, even though these plants could last longer, China is a  dictatorship and they don't need to get a return on investment. They can simply dictate that the plants close. (Also, I wouldn't assume these are actually built to last four or five decades.

Also, your famous pessimistic cynicism aside, you should read that entire Wiki page.

Warning: It's not all doom and gloom so you may not enjoy it.

SPORT | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Quotesport noun (GAME)
 
a game, competition, or activity needing physical effort and skill that is played or done according to rules, for enjoyment and/or as a job

Personally, I don't believe chess needs physical effort. Maybe darts, but that's a stretch.

Quote from: jt512 on September 25, 2023, 07:48:41 PMSo, to recap. We are now all in agreement that if you are in energy balance, then (1) increasing exercise increases your total energy expenditures, (2) doing that while maintaining your current diet leads to negative energy balance, (3) and that in turn loses to weight loss.

On paper, yes.

Are we all agreed then that in clinical trials where exercise is used by itself as a weight loss intervention it has not found to be effective, and where exercise has been used with a weight loss diet it has not been found to be significantly more effective than the weight loss diet by itself?

When dealing with humans, both in clinical trials and in the wild, the idea of "all other variables being equal" or anything like that should be thrown out the window.

 

Quote from: jt512 on September 25, 2023, 07:28:55 PM

Quote from: CarbShark on September 25, 2023, 06:46:03 PM

Quote from: jt512 on September 25, 2023, 04:59:10 PMThey disprove the hypothesis that exercise doesn't increase total energy expenditure.

Strawman much?

Bachfiend has been arguing precisely that.

I got to confess that I basically just scan his long posts, can you quote where he actually made that argument?

Quote from: jt512 on September 25, 2023, 04:59:10 PMThey disprove the hypothesis that exercise doesn't increase total energy expenditure.

Strawman much?

The point is that China is positioning itself to transition from Coal to renewables. They are leading the world in R&D for solar, with a focus on industrial applications, lowering costs and increasing output.

The question is will they transition in time.