Climate change is now causing
- Thread starter snarlcakes
- Start date
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I saw that. And people wonder why Big Science is being questioned.
Cell phones are the biggest contributor in my opinion. Kids are addicted to the damn things.
I would also somewhat blame technology as a whole. Kids can stay at home on their computers / gamepads / phones and play interactive games online without even leaving their beds.
Since, Covid, I’ve changed my opinion on “trust the science” and also question the altruism of it.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Well to be fair - good scientists question science all the time. That’s the basis of science.
When politicians - or partisan hacks - tell you to trust the science and they’re actively censoring skeptic scientists - you know something is afoot.
I agree. And the crappy foods we (I mean they) eat don’t help the situation.
Because Big Media suck. That's a highly oversimplified and broadly inaccurate report on what that paper actually says.
If anyone wants to read it (you probably don't, it's boring as hell), link at the bottom, but the main takeaway is this: childhood fitness is decreasing, and one factor is higher ambient temperatures. Thermoregulation in children is different than it is in adults, and we need to do more research in the area of increasing childhood fitness in the context of higher temperatures.
Moving in a hotter world: Maintaining adequate childhood fitness as a climate change countermeasure
Children cope with high temperatures differently than adults do, largely because of slight alterations in their body proportions and heat loss mechanisms compared to fully mature humans. Paradoxica...
www.tandfonline.com
Not just kids.... so many people act like answering every %$!!! text in 5 seconds is required. I never answer a text while driving and my wife knows that I won't.
Nobody has ever heard of the Journal "Temperature" or the University of Ljubljana
and yet...
IT"S BIG SCIENCE, PEOPLE!
But thanks for the link, GOAT.
I certainly exercise less when it's 90F than when it's 80F outside.
But this is not a research paper, no experiments were done.
It is an opinion piece called a "Comprehensive Review" by a solo author.
and yet...
IT"S BIG SCIENCE, PEOPLE!
But thanks for the link, GOAT.
I certainly exercise less when it's 90F than when it's 80F outside.
But this is not a research paper, no experiments were done.
It is an opinion piece called a "Comprehensive Review" by a solo author.
Last edited:
How many years study was that?Nobody has ever heard of the Journal "Temperature" or the University of Ljubljana
and yet...
IT"S BIG SCIENCE, PEOPLE!
But thanks for the link, GOAT.
I certainly exercise less when it's 90F than when it's 80F outside.
But this is not a research paper, no experiments were done. It is an opinion piece called a "Comprehensive Review" by a solo author.
I see no reason to ascribe much of the 30% rise in childhood obesity (a fact which cited data does support) to temperature. But I guess it could be ONE of many contributing factors.
There are obviously a lot of confounding variables.
Kids 40 years ago had no video games, were encouraged to play every sport they could, did not have helicopter parenting, ate at restaurants far less often. And yeah, it was a little cooler.
There are obviously a lot of confounding variables.
Kids 40 years ago had no video games, were encouraged to play every sport they could, did not have helicopter parenting, ate at restaurants far less often. And yeah, it was a little cooler.
Pong didn't come out until Novemver 1972, so I will go with 50 years.Me and my Atari 64 beg to differ.
Only if you're surprisingly bad at math for a scientist.
Science, at least to me, is a method.
In general theory begats a model which is then tested and tested and tested collecting data points to get a model that successfully recreates and predicts an outcome.
That's step one.
Step two is to get non related data to come to the similar conclusion, it further validates the theory. For example we know a certain fossil inside of sediment is 3 billion years old from multiple ways to calculate the carbon and the sediment. When both gives a similar answer, that further validates the results.
However we can use the scientific method on actual scientists which is where scientific representation comes from.
For example 97% of scientific community believes in aggressive climate change and can create a data model based on different sets of facts (carbon in the air, historical carbon in ice sheaths, etc) by era that matches along with basic temperature averages, ice cap levels, etc that point to an impact that coinsided with the industrial age that started at the end of the 1800's.
Still sure, you can find some scientists that say it's bunk. Around 3%.
So who are you going to go with...the 97% or the 3%?
That's what has been so dangerous about this age of information. It's severely heightened the Dunning-Kruger effect while attacking our intellectual communities as elite snobs and worrywarts who are part of the deep state and are just a bunch of zombie, indoctrinated idiots.
Anyway
I believe statistical representation in these communities are vitally important to consider because everyone and anyone can be labeled an expert as there is huge money being made by grifters and charlatans lying about their expertise because they know a lot of people are looking for validation.
We watch it materialize every day online from an anecdote here, a random story there, a group think conspiracy takes form and then it's supported and validated by quack experts or maybe a very small percent of the overall community.
That doesn't work for me.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Sure. But statements like “Trust the Science” don’t help. That’s essentially daring people to not trust the science.
Absolutely agree. That's part of the dumbing down of society by using what amounts to marketing slogans to define complex issues or ideas.
Like describing the whole of the black rights movement with three letters. Or the whole of the progressive liberal movement with one word.
I'm glad you finally came around.... I knew you eventually would.
what examples can you come up with where science has led us astray? you obviously have benefited in some ways because you're on the internet and not in a cave with a big stick getting ready to go hunt dinner, at least I hope so
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Oh please. Don't pretend our side is any good at catchy slogans. You could put the thousand smartest Democrats in a room for a million years, and they've never come up with something as simple as "Make America Great Again." We suck at this shit, you know that.
"I'm With Her?" LOL.
Okay, I'll admit "Hope" was decent. The Obama campaign was a statistically significant anomaly of competence in the universe of recent Democratic political history.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
There are tons. Off hand are:
- Vioxx
- Heliocentrism- yes I know it’s old but it gets to cults of scientists banning outcast thinking. This is still happening today.
- Basically all the catastrophic warnings of climate change that would lead to Holland and Florida being underwater by now
- The COVID vaccine will prevent transmission
- Etc
To be fair, big chunks of Holland would be underwater right now if not for amazing feats of human engineering.
never heard anyone say Florida would be under water by now, but to deny climate change is naive, look at the west coast water supply
covid deaths have been greatly reduced by the vaccine, and I can't recall anyone saying it would stop transmission, but that's a talking point by the non-believers so it becomes fact in a Trumpy world
That and gaming consoles … playing basketball ‘till dark was commonplace for my neighbors and me.
Last edited:
It's not terrible, but it's also derivative. Never would have come up with that on our own.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
And every time some fantastical hack scientist says we’ll be underwater by a ridiculously soon year - it turns people into climate change deniers.
It's bad messaging. But I still blame the media more than the scientists themselves. Just like in this thread. The people who wrote that article didn't say kids were fat because of climate change. But that's how it was reported because it's sexy.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Even mentioning it as a contributing factor is laughable. My kids don’t care if it’s 70 or 92, they play outside. Yes they’re addicted to devices but they’re also kids and we make them play outdoors.
The article included cites to studies that kids in hot temperatures don't acclimate as well, and don't thermoregulate as well, leading to less activity. Whether or not your kids go outside to play isn't the issue.
Look, I'm not an idiot. Obviously, whatever role higher temperatures play in childhood activity is tiny compared to cultural changes. Electronics have to be the biggest factor. It's not even close.
But that doesn't mean mentioning other factors is laughable.
Edit: And either way, what the article said was lightyears away from what CBS reported about it.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Corporate media is pushing an agenda (well, severs agendas) and this time it bites the left. Reining in our media is paramount if we are to continue to be a successful republic experiment. It’s headed for disaster and until people wake up and ditch Facebook and corporate media and thus force them to change - we can’t stop it.
Latest posts
-
Surprised by the national media hate rhetoric regarding Indiana's CFP status.- Latest: Baller23Boogie
-
-
-
