WSJ: New “Woke” Medical Schools...

IPSIS: Formerly the Spine Intervention Society
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I think the larger point is that liberals need to recognize how these "socialist" societies like China, Russia, North Korea, Venezuela, etc - started. The people all had noble ideas just like you guys. They all wanted a more fair and just society. They wanted less individualism and more community. They all had more faith in "common sense" of the masses than in the cold processes of the rule of law. It's a recipe for disaster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
This is Hayek’s Road to Serfdom argument and I guess you believe it or you don’t.
 
SeniorWrangler said:
This is Hayek’s Road to Serfdom argument and I guess you believe it or you don’t.
Click to expand...

History has shown that marxism cannot, and has never been attained. What it leads to is an authoritarian socialist society which has resulted in the loss of tens of millions of lives. Marxism is a corrosive ideology that seeks to not only supplant any existing ideology, but demands that the philosophy, history, and attributes of that system be destroyed completely. Witness the current left movement which uses the weapons of modern marxism to demand that classic literature be removed from curriculums and replaced with works which are not the creations of "dead european white males". Such practices are implemented and successful, due to the cynical and intimidating concept of "fairness" and "social justice".

It is an interesting study, as we basically have marxist philosophy competing with the philosophy of reason and modern existentialism, with both polar ideas being completely incompatible. One champions the concept of the individual and reason, while the other favors the collective and determinism. They are the "ying and yang" of political and philisophical thought and cannot exist together without conflict.

Before embracing one ideology or the other, one should certainly learn the origins of that movement, its intent, originators, and the subsequent history of its implementation before choosing one "side" or another. Oddly, there is a clear morally superior choice in the exercise, but millions have been beguiled by the allure of a system which has failed in every situation in which it has been implemented. As people rarely delve into history or philosophy, the mistake is repeated over and over again, with the same unfortunate outcome.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Ligament said:
This is what socialist antitheist leftists like some here on SDN want for those of us who do not agree with THEIR viewpoints. Thought crimes. Detention centers. The only accepted religion is leftist socialist dogma. Any deviation is intolerable.
Click to expand...

Not only that but they're turning the frogs gay!!!!!!!

Seriously, it's hard to take people like you seriously when you resort to ridiculous arguments like that.
 
THIS Is what happens with thought crimes are enforced by the state. This is what the left wants for non-conformers, thought-criminals, non-PC participants, and THEISTS.

 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
the only major politician that is looking to suppress free speech and actual truth is the one who has the power to do so.

think about that.....
 
hawkeye2009 said:
Well............... I am an ardent environmentalist, which is one of the reasons I find the scientific disingenuity of AGW to be very harmful. I have planted thousands of trees and created many wildlife habitats. I consider a flawed hypothesis, such as AGW to be a form of eco-terrorism, as its "remedies" are very harmful to the environment. Why?

1. The planet has had increased "greening" with higher CO2 levels- optimum for plants is 1000 ppm. Toxicity to humans occurs at 5000 ppm

2. The rain forests in the Amazon are being destroyed by demands for farmland to grow switchgrass, instead of using fossil fuels

3. Solar energy is very toxic, as the heavy metals remain in the soil for generations. Wind energy is slaughtering millions of birds on migratory pathways.

4. Massive amounts of funds are being diverted from real pollution problems- pesticides in the water, plastics and trash in the oceans, dead zones in the oceans, acid rains, and depletion of ancient aquafers. These are real issues that should be addressed, rather than using funds for an unproven hypothesis. 90% of plastics in the oceans come from developing/third world countries, not the US.

5. The AGW premise is based on four very different temp measurements, all with different standards of error, yet treated as modern satellite data in the pro-AGW papers.

6. Only in the last 20 years has there been uniform, established standards in temp monitoring- over that period, there has been no increase in temps.

7. AGW defies rational thought:
a. CO2 production declined 55% in the Great Depression, yet temps rose
b. CO2 production increased 200% during WW2, yet temps fell
c. If we believe Boyle's Law (PV=nRT), we should have seen a global increase in barometric pressure- it has fallen over the last 100 years.
d. The contribution of water vapor to CO2 with regard to "warming" is 15,000 fold, due to the concentration of water vapor and its relative absorbtion spectrum of water vs CO2 over the IR spectrum.
e. AGW has relied upon data which was "urbanized" and markedly under represented the poles and oceans until the advent of satellite data in the late 1970s.
f. temperatures were greater in the time of the Roman Empire, despite lower CO2 levels
g. the influence of solar activity, the decline in the earth's magnetic field (that increases IR energy entering the atmosphere) and other natural phenomenon has not been excluded, which is demanded in "refuting the null hypothesis".

8. "Environmental engineers" who support AGW have recommended drastic, potentially very harmful "remedies" to AGW, such as flooding the atmosphere with Sulpher Dioxide and covering expanses of land with reflective plastics. Similar "remedies" have led to destroying massive areas of the Brazillian rain forest, which WILL have long lasting consequences to the planet. I certainly do not want these over zealous, misguided individuals to cause irreparable harm to the environment.
Click to expand...

this is a debate that could have been made in the 80's. we are way past that point right now. to quote the great Barry O:

"we do not have time for this sort of silliness"



you are not smarter than the climate scientists. YOU. ARE. NOT. you cant control this situation. you can choose to believe certain pieces of information to fit your overall world view: but you would be wrong. ignorance may be bliss, but, it is killing us all.

you are an NP trying to remove a glioblastoma.

do you want a pilot to fly your plane, or do you just want to do it yourself?

there are counterpoints to every piece of scientific information. darwin didn't have EVERYTHING right, but time has shown that he was basically on the mark.

i agree in principle with your thought that "education is key". education about the facts is important for the masses in china. it is important for sub saharan africa. it is important for billy bob in mississipi. you are well beyond the stage of simple education. your choice of climate denial is well-informed and dangerous. people in your position should be shamed, ridiculed, and outcasted.
 
SSdoc33 said:
this is a debate that could have been made in the 80's. we are way past that point right now. to quote the great Barry O:

"we do not have time for this sort of silliness"



you are not smarter than the climate scientists. YOU. ARE. NOT. you cant control this situation. you can choose to believe certain pieces of information to fit your overall world view: but you would be wrong. ignorance may be bliss, but, it is killing us all.

you are an NP trying to remove a glioblastoma.

do you want a pilot to fly your plane, or do you just want to do it yourself?

there are counterpoints to every piece of scientific information. darwin didn't have EVERYTHING right, but time has shown that he was basically on the mark.

i agree in principle with your thought that "education is key". education about the facts is important for the masses in china. it is important for sub saharan africa. it is important for billy bob in mississipi. you are well beyond the stage of simple education. your choice of climate denial is well-informed and dangerous. people in your position should be shamed, ridiculed, and outcasted.
Click to expand...


"...should be ashamed, ridiculed, and outcast."

Think about that for just a moment. What other area of scientific debate are those who simply question a hypothesis personally attacked and subjected to such venom? None. Cults, on the other hand, deride and vilify anyone who questions their religion. You had stated that you are opposed to religion, yet practice the faith of AGW while condemning other religions. That is a curious stance to say the least. Unlike your zeal to silence and condemn individuals with a different point of view, I feel you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Totalitarians, however, act and feel exactly as you do- opposition must be silenced and crushed by any means possible. This is not only contrary to rational science, it is in direct opposition to western political and cultural views.

As a physician, you should demand the same level of scientific inquiry and scrutiny in this manner as any other hypothesis. Obviously you understand that AGW has not refuted the "null hypothesis" and is thus an unproven theory. To fail in this regard is betraying your scientific training and objectivity in favor of an emotional political position.

A cursory understanding of the scientific literature, the means of temp measurement, and the statistical analysis shows that AGW is bunk. Keep in mind that MANY physicists do not share your views regarding AGW; even James Hansen's mentor, James Van Allen, considered Hansen's contention to be an academic embarrassment.

MANY of the simple inconsistencies of the AGW hypothesis cannot be explained rationally nor through empiric evidence. In any other venue, this deeply flawed hypothesis would have been abandoned. However, AGW has a life of its own and is more in the political arena, than a scientific one.

PS- "the great Barry O"? Are you kidding? There are certainly great presidents of the last century (TR, FDR, Truman, Reagan), but Barry O is not one of them. Keep in mind issues of perspective- when you are standing far left, EVERYTHING appears right wing to you.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
lonelobo said:
If he should be shamed or ridiculed for anything.....
Click to expand...


Come, come now. There have been great democrat and republican presidents. Simply because one is of one political stripe or another is of no importance. People become too emotional about politics and fail to recognize the contributions of some political leaders, just due to political parties. There have been MANY important contributions by different political parties From the dems, there has been SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and the EPA (initially in their mission). Only medicare and SS have actually reduced poverty rates in one demographic- no other measures have been successful.

NO ONE should be "outcast" for simply stating a scientific opinion. It is only through further examination and healthy skepticism that we learn and ultimately come to the correct conclusions. Keep in mind that issues we consider to be 100% true (gravity, evolution, dual nature of light) are still considered theories. General and Special Relativity are still theories.

AGW is a hypothesis that has far too inconsistent data collection, poor statistics, and over-reaching assumptions to be accepted to the level of other hypotheses. I remain open minded if new data or information shows otherwise, but current information fails to reject the null hypothesis and discounts many other sources of "warming" (if we even assume that warming is occurring). One of the most interesting (yet completely ignored) is the decline in the strength of the earth's magnetic field (decreased 14% over the last 100 years) which permits more radiation to reach the surface of the planet. To exclude all the other potential factors (sun spot, water vapor, volcanoes, magnetic field, earth orbit) would require a very complex ANOVA with a Neuman Keuls correction for multiple variables. This, of course, has not been done.

Do your duty- remain objective and skeptical, as you would in any other scientific endeavor.
 
hawkeye2009 said:
"...should be ashamed, ridiculed, and outcast."

Think about that for just a moment. What other area of scientific debate are those who simply question a hypothesis personally attacked and subjected to such venom? None. Cults, on the other hand, deride and vilify anyone who questions their religion. You had stated that you are opposed to religion, yet practice the faith of AGW while condemning other religions. That is a curious stance to say the least. Unlike your zeal to silence and condemn individuals with a different point of view, I feel you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Totalitarians, however, act and feel exactly as you do- opposition must be silenced and crushed by any means possible. This is not only contrary to rational science, it is in direct opposition to western political and cultural views.

As a physician, you should demand the same level of scientific inquiry and scrutiny in this manner as any other hypothesis. Obviously you understand that AGW has not refuted the "null hypothesis" and is thus an unproven theory. To fail in this regard is betraying your scientific training and objectivity in favor of an emotional political position.

A cursory understanding of the scientific literature, the means of temp measurement, and the statistical analysis shows that AGW is bunk. Keep in mind that MANY physicists do not share your views regarding AGW; even James Hansen's mentor, James Van Allen, considered Hansen's contention to be an academic embarrassment.

MANY of the simple inconsistencies of the AGW hypothesis cannot be explained rationally nor through empiric evidence. In any other venue, this deeply flawed hypothesis would have been abandoned. However, AGW has a life of its own and is more in the political arena, than a scientific one.

PS- "the great Barry O"? Are you kidding? There are certainly great presidents of the last century (TR, FDR, Truman, Reagan), but Barry O is not one of them. Keep in mind issues of perspective- when you are standing far left, EVERYTHING appears right wing to you.
Click to expand...

ok, we are through the looking glass here.

your early posts were very informative, reasoned, knowledgeable pain-related posts. now we are starting to see the forest for the trees. your posts (like mine, perhaps) are clearly colored by political bias. thus, you shouldnt be surprised when you get pushback on your partisan positions

ive never said im "opposed" to religion. i am opposed to religion influencing scientific and political thought. im not "condemning" religions, rather than poking fun at the idiocy of using "god" as a guide for behavior.

im not getting into a tit-for-tat argument on climate change. there is no changing your mind, clearly. this is the reason you should be called out.

freedoms exist as long as they dont infringe on others' freedoms. its great you plant trees: but climate change denial has a negative impact on my, my kids, and my grandkids.

as far as the quality of the presidents? im sure we all have our own ideas
 
SSdoc33 said:
ok, we are through the looking glass here.

your early posts were very informative, reasoned, knowledgeable pain-related posts. now we are starting to see the forest for the trees. your posts (like mine, perhaps) are clearly colored by political bias. thus, you shouldnt be surprised when you get pushback on your partisan positions

ive never said im "opposed" to religion. i am opposed to religion influencing scientific and political thought. im not "condemning" religions, rather than poking fun at the idiocy of using "god" as a guide for behavior.

im not getting into a tit-for-tat argument on climate change. there is no changing your mind, clearly. this is the reason you should be called out.

freedoms exist as long as they dont infringe on others' freedoms. its great you plant trees: but climate change denial has a negative impact on my, my kids, and my grandkids.

as far as the quality of the presidents? im sure we all have our own ideas
Click to expand...


I only ask that you remain skeptical and objective of any hypothesis, Condemning and ridiculing someone for a position on a scientific issue is anti-academic and not in the spirit of rational science. Such behavior is what we expect of totalitarians and those who fear or condemn reason and further examination of a subject, not those devoted to rational science.

I do not seek to change anyone's political positions (as no one ever does change their position). However, in scientific issues, the minimum that one should demand is adherence to basic, rational, scientific principles and to leave political leanings out of science.

I really do not seek your approval, nor do I care what you think about my medical views, as I try to remain objective in medicine and use evidence based treatments (that can be hard in pain). To dismiss in total one' s views for a perceived political position is really quite silly, but I really don't care. This area is one in which one can express medical questions or ideas for discussion and not one in which accolades or approval is sought. We should be seeking further information to advance our knowledge and to discuss areas in which current treatment options are not satisfactory. No one benefits from academic totalitarianism and wholesale condemnation or dismissal of ideas- that is medieval in nature and what the scientific method was designed to cure.

Think just for a moment- what does a suggestion of being "shamed, ridiculed or outcast" sound like? Is that a "liberal" mindset, or one that you yourself would purport to oppose?
 
hawkeye2009 said:
I only ask that you remain skeptical and objective of any hypothesis, Condemning and ridiculing someone for a position on a scientific issue is anti-academic and not in the spirit of rational science. Such behavior is what we expect of totalitarians and those who fear or condemn reason and further examination of a subject, not those devoted to rational science.

I do not seek to change anyone's political positions (as no one ever does change their position). However, in scientific issues, the minimum that one should demand is adherence to basic, rational, scientific principles and to leave political leanings out of science.

I really do not seek your approval, nor do I care what you think about my medical views, as I try to remain objective in medicine and use evidence based treatments (that can be hard in pain). To dismiss in total one' s views for a perceived political position is really quite silly, but I really don't care. This area is one in which one can express medical questions or ideas for discussion and not one in which accolades or approval is sought. We should be seeking further information to advance our knowledge and to discuss areas in which current treatment options are not satisfactory. No one benefits from academic totalitarianism and wholesale condemnation or dismissal of ideas- that is medieval in nature and what the scientific method was designed to cure.

Think just for a moment- what does a suggestion of being "shamed, ridiculed or outcast" sound like? Is that a "liberal" mindset, or one that you yourself would purport to oppose?
Click to expand...

look, "AGW" is settled science. we should be looking to further characterize it so we know the best ways to remedy it. unless you accept the concept of AGW, then there is nothing to discuss.

i dont like shaming or outcasting (although i cant give up ridiculing). and no, it is not a "liberal" mindset.

but, those of us who actually care about this issue are at war with climate change deniers. this is THE existential threat facing our world today. THE most important issue the world faces. and we are still dealing with this nonsense from people like you. we cant educate you about this, we cant throw you in jail, we cant force you to vote for who we want. and we shouldnt. but we do need to call you out by name and make sure that everyone knows who hawkeye2009 is and what he stands for
 
SSdoc33 said:
look, "AGW" is settled science. we should be looking to further characterize it so we know the best ways to remedy it. unless you accept the concept of AGW, then there is nothing to discuss.

i dont like shaming or outcasting (although i cant give up ridiculing). and no, it is not a "liberal" mindset.

but, those of us who actually care about this issue are at war with climate change deniers. this is THE existential threat facing our world today. THE most important issue the world faces. and we are still dealing with this nonsense from people like you. we cant educate you about this, we cant throw you in jail, we cant force you to vote for who we want. and we shouldnt. but we do need to call you out by name and make sure that everyone knows who hawkeye2009 is and what he stands for
Click to expand...


"Settled science"???

Again, that is anti-academic, as there is no such thing as settled science. The insinuation of this "settled science" is blatantly false and seeks to stifle or eliminate any further scientific inquiry into this topic. That is not science- that is a cult.

I care about the environment very much; I have planted thousands of trees, have many bee hives, have created grasslands for wildlife and have built ponds with rice and millet for water fowl. I have established many grass buffer areas to improve water purity and plant "cover crops" every year on my farmland. What have you done?

You assume that you are correct and have a need to "educate" me. That is the epitomy of ignorance and assumes superior knowledge and reasoning, without even knowing my background in physics and mathematics. This is what we call "The Dunning-Kruger Effect".

Your wanting to "call you out by name and make sure that everyone knows who hawkeye2009 is and what he stands for" is typical totalitarian bullying and intimidation intended to stifle differing views. Such practices are common among totalitarian entities who only value "free speech" if it coincides with your views. Just stop and think about all the hateful things you have said in this thread. Is that the behavior of one who is "enlightened" and seeks the truth, or a leftist thug intent on suppressing any information contrary to your views? You would find like minded individuals among the Brown Shirts or the Stasi, not among a cordial, open minded scientific community.

Again- just look at the statements you have made. Such sentiments would be very welcome in Nazi Germany or Stalinist USSR, but not in an environment which values free speech and open discourse. You certainly have shown what "SSdoc33 thinks and what he stands for"- suppression of free speech and opposition to open scientific discourse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
hawkeye2009 said:
"Settled science"???

Again, that is anti-academic, as there is no such thing as settled science. The insinuation of this "settled science" is blatantly false and seeks to stifle or eliminate any further scientific inquiry into this topic. That is not science- that is a cult.

I care about the environment very much; I have planted thousands of trees, have many bee hives, have created grasslands for wildlife and have built ponds with rice and millet for water fowl. I have established many grass buffer areas to improve water purity and plant "cover crops" every year on my farmland. What have you done?

You assume that you are correct and have a need to "educate" me. That is the epitomy of ignorance and assumes superior knowledge and reasoning, without even knowing my background in physics and mathematics. This is what we call "The Dunning-Kruger Effect".

Your wanting to "call you out by name and make sure that everyone knows who hawkeye2009 is and what he stands for" is typical totalitarian bullying and intimidation intended to stifle differing views. Such practices are common among totalitarian entities who only value "free speech" if it coincides with your views. Just stop and think about all the hateful things you have said in this thread. Is that the behavior of one who is "enlightened" and seeks the truth, or a leftist thug intent on suppressing any information contrary to your views? You would find like minded individuals among the Brown Shirts or the Stasi, not among a cordial, open minded scientific community.

Again- just look at the statements you have made. Such sentiments would be very welcome in Nazi Germany or Stalinist USSR, but not in an environment which values free speech and open discourse. You certainly have show what "SSdoc33 thinks and what he stands for"- suppression of free speech and open scientific discourse.
Click to expand...

@Ducttape is CERTAIN that pseudo-addiction is settled science...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
hawkeye2009 said:
Come, come now. There have been great democrat and republican presidents. Simply because one is of one political stripe or another is of no importance. People become too emotional about politics and fail to recognize the contributions of some political leaders, just due to political parties. There have been MANY important contributions by different political parties From the dems, there has been SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and the EPA (initially in their mission). Only medicare and SS have actually reduced poverty rates in one demographic- no other measures have been successful.

NO ONE should be "outcast" for simply stating a scientific opinion. It is only through further examination and healthy skepticism that we learn and ultimately come to the correct conclusions. Keep in mind that issues we consider to be 100% true (gravity, evolution, dual nature of light) are still considered theories. General and Special Relativity are still theories.

AGW is a hypothesis that has far too inconsistent data collection, poor statistics, and over-reaching assumptions to be accepted to the level of other hypotheses. I remain open minded if new data or information shows otherwise, but current information fails to reject the null hypothesis and discounts many other sources of "warming" (if we even assume that warming is occurring). One of the most interesting (yet completely ignored) is the decline in the strength of the earth's magnetic field (decreased 14% over the last 100 years) which permits more radiation to reach the surface of the planet. To exclude all the other potential factors (sun spot, water vapor, volcanoes, magnetic field, earth orbit) would require a very complex ANOVA with a Neuman Keuls correction for multiple variables. This, of course, has not been done.

Do your duty- remain objective and skeptical, as you would in any other scientific endeavor.
Click to expand...
everything is a theory. even Decartes is a theory.

however, the preponderance of evidence as reviewed by scientists dedicated to the study of climate suggests that the theory of AGW is the most viable theory, not one in which there is no contribution of humankind to global warming.

even oil companies now believe there is truth towards global warming theories.


as an example that we humans have an effect on our environment, id refer you to the history of Clair Patterson and his seminal research on leaded gasoline. we do have an effect on the environment in which we live in.
 
Ducttape said:
everything is a theory. even Decartes is a theory.

however, the preponderance of evidence as reviewed by scientists dedicated to the study of climate suggests that the theory of AGW is the most viable theory, not one in which there is no contribution of humankind to global warming.

even oil companies now believe there is truth towards global warming theories.


as an example that we humans have an effect on our environment, id refer you to the history of Clair Patterson and his seminal research on leaded gasoline. we do have an effect on the environment in which we live in.
Click to expand...


Of course we have an effect on our environment. Heavy metals continue to be a problem due to the rise in use of computers, batteries, and solar panels.

However, the evidence for CO2 being a "pollutant" is scant and flawed at best. I would ask that you simply review the methods and statistics of the Mann "hockey stick" article. If you can return and say you agree with the methods and statistics with a straight face, you have more will power than I. The suggestion that "most of the scientific community" supports the concept of AGW is absolutely false and based on a series of questions which over-stepped it's conclusions.

Use your knowledge of statistics, physics, and thermodynamics, coupled with training as to what constitutes a valid study and use your own mind. EVERYONE should evaluate publications critically to determine whether the conclusions are valid, or not.

Condemning individuals who do not agree with a theory as "deniers" is akin to a medieval mob with torches hunting witches. Read the AGW papers critically and ask yourself the same questions you would of any publication. Are the measurement methods consistent? If not, how are they different and what statistical implications does this have? Using then a simple paired "student t test" when there are MULTIPLE variables is statistically incorrect, as is the elimination of standard deviations of collected data to use as discrete data points.

Think.
 
SSdoc33 said:
this is a debate that could have been made in the 80's. we are way past that point right now. to quote the great Barry O:

"we do not have time for this sort of silliness"



you are not smarter than the climate scientists. YOU. ARE. NOT. you cant control this situation. you can choose to believe certain pieces of information to fit your overall world view: but you would be wrong. ignorance may be bliss, but, it is killing us all.

you are an NP trying to remove a glioblastoma.

do you want a pilot to fly your plane, or do you just want to do it yourself?

there are counterpoints to every piece of scientific information. darwin didn't have EVERYTHING right, but time has shown that he was basically on the mark.

i agree in principle with your thought that "education is key". education about the facts is important for the masses in china. it is important for sub saharan africa. it is important for billy bob in mississipi. you are well beyond the stage of simple education. your choice of climate denial is well-informed and dangerous. people in your position should be shamed, ridiculed, and outcasted.
Click to expand...

No. @hawkeye2009 is entitled to his opinion. He has free speech, remember? He is protected by the 1st amendment to the constitution. He is allowed to express his opinions. JUST AS YOU ARE.

Neither he, nor you, should be outcasted.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
hawkeye2009 said:
Of course we have an effect on our environment. Heavy metals continue to be a problem due to the rise in use of computers, batteries, and solar panels.

However, the evidence for CO2 being a "pollutant" is scant and flawed at best. I would ask that you simply review the methods and statistics of the Mann "hockey stick" article. If you can return and say you agree with the methods and statistics with a straight face, you have more will power than I. The suggestion that "most of the scientific community" supports the concept of AGW is absolutely false and based on a series of questions which over-stepped it's conclusions.

Use your knowledge of statistics, physics, and thermodynamics, coupled with training as to what constitutes a valid study and use your own mind. EVERYONE should evaluate publications critically to determine whether the conclusions are valid, or not.

Condemning individuals who do not agree with a theory as "deniers" is akin to a medieval mob with torches hunting witches. Read the AGW papers critically and ask yourself the same questions you would of any publication. Are the measurement methods consistent? If not, how are they different and what statistical implications does this have? Using then a simple paired "student t test" when there are MULTIPLE variables is statistically incorrect, as is the elimination of standard deviations of collected data to use as discrete data points.

Think.
Click to expand...
There is no doubt you are a smart guy, but when you argue against scientists that actually do this for a living that makes you look like an Anti-Vaxxer

 
the Mann article was written in an era of data gathering that is not in existence today.

the evidence of global warming is all retrospective. one cannot do a prospective study to this magnitude. it sounds as if you are requesting a study of data that is impossible to obtain.

here is what I ask you consider.

what evidence do you have that global warming is not in part due to CO2 emissions?

and is your data from any of the "organizations" listed in the below article? because significant money has been spent to confuse intelligent people such as yourself - for financial gain. personally, I do not see that money supporting those who believe in global warming.

Global Warming Skeptic Organizations (2013)

A list of prominent global warming skeptic organizations, including examples of their disinformation efforts and funding sources from the fossil fuel industry.
www.ucsusa.org www.ucsusa.org
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
hawkeye2009 said:
Of course we have an effect on our environment. Heavy metals continue to be a problem due to the rise in use of computers, batteries, and solar panels.

However, the evidence for CO2 being a "pollutant" is scant and flawed at best. I would ask that you simply review the methods and statistics of the Mann "hockey stick" article. If you can return and say you agree with the methods and statistics with a straight face, you have more will power than I. The suggestion that "most of the scientific community" supports the concept of AGW is absolutely false and based on a series of questions which over-stepped it's conclusions.

Use your knowledge of statistics, physics, and thermodynamics, coupled with training as to what constitutes a valid study and use your own mind. EVERYONE should evaluate publications critically to determine whether the conclusions are valid, or not.

Condemning individuals who do not agree with a theory as "deniers" is akin to a medieval mob with torches hunting witches. Read the AGW papers critically and ask yourself the same questions you would of any publication. Are the measurement methods consistent? If not, how are they different and what statistical implications does this have? Using then a simple paired "student t test" when there are MULTIPLE variables is statistically incorrect, as is the elimination of standard deviations of collected data to use as discrete data points.

Think.
Click to expand...

Agree.

We are all are welcome to disagree. One is not welcome to cast aside the rights of others due to puritanical adherence to religious (leftist) dogma and perceived heresy against that dogma.
 
Last edited:
hawkeye2009 said:
"Settled science"???

Again, that is anti-academic, as there is no such thing as settled science. The insinuation of this "settled science" is blatantly false and seeks to stifle or eliminate any further scientific inquiry into this topic. That is not science- that is a cult.

I care about the environment very much; I have planted thousands of trees, have many bee hives, have created grasslands for wildlife and have built ponds with rice and millet for water fowl. I have established many grass buffer areas to improve water purity and plant "cover crops" every year on my farmland. What have you done?

You assume that you are correct and have a need to "educate" me. That is the epitomy of ignorance and assumes superior knowledge and reasoning, without even knowing my background in physics and mathematics. This is what we call "The Dunning-Kruger Effect".

Your wanting to "call you out by name and make sure that everyone knows who hawkeye2009 is and what he stands for" is typical totalitarian bullying and intimidation intended to stifle differing views. Such practices are common among totalitarian entities who only value "free speech" if it coincides with your views. Just stop and think about all the hateful things you have said in this thread. Is that the behavior of one who is "enlightened" and seeks the truth, or a leftist thug intent on suppressing any information contrary to your views? You would find like minded individuals among the Brown Shirts or the Stasi, not among a cordial, open minded scientific community.

Again- just look at the statements you have made. Such sentiments would be very welcome in Nazi Germany or Stalinist USSR, but not in an environment which values free speech and open discourse. You certainly have shown what "SSdoc33 thinks and what he stands for"- suppression of free speech and opposition to open scientific discourse.
Click to expand...

i do plenty for the environment -- that starts with my acceptance of anthropogenic climate change

"without even knowing my background in physics and mathematics"
humblebrag

rather than focusing on the Dunning-Kruger Effect, perhaps you should study Godwin's Law

just got 1 question for you: whodja vote for?
 
SSdoc33 said:
i do plenty for the environment -- that starts with my acceptance of anthropogenic climate change

"without even knowing my background in physics and mathematics"
humblebrag

rather than focusing on the Dunning-Kruger Effect, perhaps you should study Godwin's Law

just got 1 question for you: whodja vote for?
Click to expand...


I hope that in your medical practice and private life that you are more accepting and tolerant of others, but I doubt it. A piece of advice- seek some degree of peace in your life and you will be less angry and appreciate things more. Intolerance and anger can corrode your soul and alter your perception of the world.

I will close with that, as an atmosphere of vilification and intimidation is not conducive to learning and open discussion.

Others rarely seek out, nor enjoy the company of, someone who is angry and intolerant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Public acceptance of mankind's contribution to climate change is also increasing, with current estimates of about 3/4ths of Americans accepting at least some degree of it.

Denial is going the way of the dinosaurs. There will always be a few holdouts, but public opinion and policy are shifting whether you're ready for it or not.
 
It's jarring to see people calling skeptics "heretics" and then getting in their combustion powered cars and turning on their AC. The problem is not questioning science, which should welcomed (especially when it's accompanied by social hyperbole). The problem is that people are not taking action in their own lives.

If you really care, act like it.
 
hyperalgesia said:
It's jarring to see people calling skeptics "heretics" and then getting in their combustion powered cars and turning on their AC. The problem is not questioning science, which should welcomed (especially when it's accompanied by social hyperbole). The problem is that people are not taking action in their own lives.

If you really care, act like it.
Click to expand...

And how you know what people are doing in the personal lives in regards to climate change?
 
Ducttape said:
I passed on that gaslighting discussion. it doesn't matter whether pseudo-addiction is settled science. it matters that we follow the rules of prescribing medications - the right way.
Click to expand...

I don't think that means what you think it means. Gaslighting means you deny something as real to make someone else feel like they're losing their mind.

I'm not saying pseudo-addiction is real or imaginary. I'm saying it's contested and disputed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This conversation has been an entertaining reprive from my board studying. Thank you all for your passionate banter
 
hawkeye2009 said:
I hope that in your medical practice and private life that you are more accepting and tolerant of others, but I doubt it. A piece of advice- seek some degree of peace in your life and you will be less angry and appreciate things more. Intolerance and anger can corrode your soul and alter your perception of the world.

I will close with that, as an atmosphere of vilification and intimidation is not conducive to learning and open discussion.

Others rarely seek out, nor enjoy the company of, someone who is angry and intolerant.
Click to expand...

right. thanks for the sagely advice. relationships have never been a problem for me. im actually quite charming IRL.

i see that you ignored my question about voting. just understand that if you did indeed vote for the orange man in the oval office, then all your nonsense about fascism is the height of hypocrisy.

ill continue to listen and learn from your medical posts -- despite our disagreements, i do think your wisdom and experience has a lot to offer this board. however, i will not permit the climate change denial propaganda to go unchallenged
 
lonelobo said:
And how you know what people are doing in the personal lives in regards to climate change?
Click to expand...

The hoi polloi flying private jets to attend a climate meeting is an obvious, recent example. Gore living in a massive and inefficient home is another. The most outspoken are often the biggest offenders.
 
SSdoc33 said:
i will not permit the climate change denial propaganda to go unchallenged
Click to expand...
No one on this board is actually denying that climate change itself takes place. So, calling a person a "climate change denier" is not accurate. It's a false accusation.

Call them "skeptics of the scientific conclusion that humans add significantly to climate change".
 
hyperalgesia said:
No one on this board is actually denying that climate change itself takes place. So, calling a person a "climate change denier" is not accurate. It's a false accusation.

Call them "skeptics of the scientific conclusion that humans add significantly to climate change".
Click to expand...

exactly: climate change deniers. you are splitting hairs and clouding up the issue.
 
pmrmd said:
The hoi polloi flying private jets to attend a climate meeting is an obvious, recent example. Gore living in a massive and inefficient home is another. The most outspoken are often the biggest offenders.
Click to expand...
Well the poster was referring to people on this site
 
hyperalgesia said:
I was referring to hypocrites in general, definitely including the jet-setting celeb variety who liberals worship.
Click to expand...
OK ...how about you don't watch TV, Movies, or listen to music since you despise celebrities and what they stand for
 
lonelobo said:
OK ...how about you don't watch TV, Movies, or listen to music since you despise celebrities and what they stand for
Click to expand...
I don't despise them. I feel nothing for them. They are marionettes, briefly animated by their master to entertain us.

Some, I assume, are good people ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Ducttape said:
the Mann article was written in an era of data gathering that is not in existence today.

the evidence of global warming is all retrospective. one cannot do a prospective study to this magnitude. it sounds as if you are requesting a study of data that is impossible to obtain.

here is what I ask you consider.

what evidence do you have that global warming is not in part due to CO2 emissions?

and is your data from any of the "organizations" listed in the below article? because significant money has been spent to confuse intelligent people such as yourself - for financial gain. personally, I do not see that money supporting those who believe in global warming.

Global Warming Skeptic Organizations (2013)

A list of prominent global warming skeptic organizations, including examples of their disinformation efforts and funding sources from the fossil fuel industry.
www.ucsusa.org www.ucsusa.org
Click to expand...


1. Satellite data has only been used since the 1970s. Before that, temps were measured using "proxy" measurements, alcohol and mercury thermometers.

2. Since the type of measurement and location have been standardized, there has not been any increase in temps.

3. CO2 rises after temps increase in ice cores, not the other way around.

4. 500 climate scientists just sent a resolution to the UN asking that "global warming" initiatives be abandoned, as the objective science did not support it. These are climate scientists from institutions like MIT, Cal Tech, and the Max Plank institute. Stating that the "science" completely supports this hypothesis is 100% inaccurate.

5. The burden of proof is upon those making the hypothesis. That is the basis of the scientific method- disprove the null hypothesis. Global warming does the opposite, in that it makes a hypothesis, states it is 100% true, then challenges others to refute it. That is the opposite of the scientific method and is not rational science.

6. If AGW was true, we would have an increase in world wide barometric pressure (PV=nRT). However, there has been a decline in barometric pressure over the last 100 years.

7. In the Great Depression, global CO2 output fell 55%, yet temps increased.

8. During and after ww2 global CO2 output increased 300%, yet temps went down.

9. The Mann "hockey stick" article has been shown to be incorrect with regard to the statistical analysis and data collection. It was an article published by Mann in his first year after his PhD and has been shown to be a very flawed study, from which, the opposite conclusions could be drawn with appropriate statistics.

10. One must exclude other sources (other than CO2) to reliably embrace CO2 induced global warming. However, NONE of the AGW studies have sought to eliminate or consider natural sources of temperature change, a HUGE one being the 20% decline in the strength of the earth's magnetic field, which increases the amount of radiation reaching the earth's surface. Given this, CO2 cannot be deduced to be the major (or even minor) source of global temperature changes. A true statistical analysis would involve an ANOVA of the other factors with an adjustment for multiple comparisons. Not one AGW study has done this.

This topic has been politicized, with legitimate science being highjacked in favor of such agendas. The left tends to be very intolerant of others (as evidenced by this thread) and is prone to vilify and condemn individuals out of political loyalty, engaging in bullying and intimidation to replace discourse and discussion.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Predicting Ideological Prejudice

A major shortcoming of current models of ideological prejudice is that although they can anticipate the direction of the association between participants’ ideology and their prejudice against a range of target groups, they cannot predict the size ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

drusso
Review Book for Woke Questions on MOC Exam
Replies
12
Views
684
SSdoc33
S
drusso
WSJ: Medical School Applications Soaring: Implications for Pain?
Replies
42
Views
3K
Ferrismonk
Ferrismonk
drusso
WSJ: Doctors More Likely to Be Democrats Now...
2 3 4 5
Replies
224
Views
9K
deleted1011020
D
drusso
WSJ: Medicare for All Would Ban Private Practice
Replies
1
Views
761
willabeast
willabeast
drusso
WSJ: Pain patients get relief from regulations
Replies
8
Views
1K
lobelsteve
lobelsteve
Top