olofscience

So CRT is probably something that everyone has their own definition of, so I went to wikipedia to read up on what the consensus actually was. The guy in the first clip was concerned that Grade school and High school teachers were not qualified to teach it properly, and because they were not properly qualified, they were teaching their own random definition of what it was, which of course turns out to be rubbish. Anyway, CRT says that simply adopting "colour-blind" laws might not be sufficient to prevent discrimination because it is based on a complex combination of social factors. As someone in the fundamental sciences, my take on that of course is, "no shit, sherlock". Why do we do double-blind tests for medical drugs? Why not just single-blind? As also demonstrated by the AstraZeneca vaccine, even doing double-blind studies aren't completely immune to bias. Pop quiz: what kind of bias did the AstraZeneca vaccine fall into? Now that bias is just for a faceless, colourless vaccine. Now imagine trying to eliminate bias for actual people. Whoever thinks it's just merely saying "I don't see colour" has never done a proper scientific experiment past grade school.

Libel suit, dismissed.

Yep, liberals were first to this antivax idiocy. Same here in my area. Funny how crazies on the right are trying to catch up on this. Despite RonD's beliefs, at least he and those around him got vaccinated...

According to Winsor's logic: Apple is a joke because of apple-product scams Performance Designs or [insert skydiving brand here] is a joke because someone pretending to sell one of their products scammed someone on Facebook once

and doctors need diseases to keep themselves employed, etc etc. ...and you're the only one who genuinely does their job to help people, right? The only one. Everyone else just cares about money right? Because you're special. Very special. /s

Your entire argument here is about *your* experience in the workplace, now you're saying that anecdotes and personal experience are circumstantial? Why don't you present some national statistics and data then to support your argument please.

Subconscious biases exist. That's why the gold standard for medical studies are "double-blind" studies. That's how the vaccines for Covid-19 were tested. If you think the way to eliminate bias is to just to ignore it, it just shows that you know nothing about the nature of bias and how to eliminate it.

Over decades, sure. But how about "deaths per year"? Does flu kill 4 million people every 18 months?

Right wingers like you keep citing biology when attacking discussions about human gender and sexual identity when you know next to nothing about biology. You probably think animals are just male or female. You're wrong. Biology is a branch of science and you cannot claim scientific reasoning without knowing science.

Um...it kind of is. Pretty much the entire purpose of society is to confer benefits to those playing by its rules, and one of those benefits is being protected (in principle) against being killed by idiots. Also right to a certain extent, but what's the purpose of the military then? What's the purpose of the police? They cost a lot you know. Who are they protecting if not "everyone else"?

The vaccine relies on the person's immune system creating antibodies in response to the vaccine. If the immune system is impaired (like for those taking immunosuppressants - transplant patients for example) then it won't make any antibodies, thus making the vaccine ineffective. The immune system could also focus on another target protein for a virus-vector vaccine like AZ and make it ineffective against covid-19. That's why effectiveness rates are never 100%, and some vaccines are barely over 50% effective. I thought you worked in a hospital? I'm surprised you're saying this.

Exact prediction is impossible. It's basically fluid dynamics, and while experts use supercomputers to try to simulate as many variables as possible, it's just not possible to collect enough data. Ever heard of the Butterfly Effect? "A butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a typhoon in Japan". A bit exaggerated, but not too much on how hard the Navier-Stokes equations are to solve. You'd have to cover the entire earth in sensors and the smallest thing you miss could have a cascading effect. But scientists are still trying to come up with improved models and gather improved data, and people like brent are still saying they know better.

Lithium batteries are a lot cheaper than relocating entire cities. Their price has dropped 97% in the past 20 years or so. Property prices follow the opposite trend. Same with solar power and wind turbines - solar is now the cheapest grid energy source according to the International Energy Agency. I started an entire thread about it too.

I said they CAN be recycled, I said nothing about the profit. They can be recycled for a LOT of profit - Tesla wrecks were getting bought for more than the price of other cars because people were salvaging the batteries. And the Tesla grid scale battery for South Australia, made from old and decommissioned batteries, made a TON of profit for the company they built it for, it was discussed in one of the other threads here.

Nope, batteries are actually very recyclable. Yes, internal combustion is actually shockingly inefficient. Heard of Carnot efficiency? Well if it causes an exodus of refugees/illegal immigrants to the "beneficiaries", would those areas actually benefit? Not everything is zero-sum. This is a lose-lose situation. Could you explain how they could damage society? How are they dangerous? I think they're annoying and ridiculous, but you're going to need more justification than that to call them dangerous. Hope you're prepared to pay for that. How much would relocating London cost? How about Manhattan? Have you seen house prices lately? By comparison renewables are relatively cheap.

So what thoughts did this video provoke? Were they intelligent thoughts? Should we just be thankful that they provoked your thoughts at all, because it's at least a change from the usual? You're leaving out a lot of details. It's almost like posting something without comment, trolling behaviour which you've been called out for several times.

I got some of my replies removed too (my fault, going off topic and feeding the troll), but look who's crying victim

Somebody's got to take up the slack. Back to the topic again - DC is actually making a comeback for long-distance electricity transmission as High Voltage DC (HVDC). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current The increased efficiency actually improves the viability of wind and solar since the wind is always blowing somewhere, and the sun is always shining somewhere. HVDC combined with battery storage, means that power distribution can be balanced to compensate for areas with reduced wind or solar output. New offshore wind farms are usually set up with HVDC. This, almost 100 years after Tesla won the war of the currents. Whatever happens, his legacy will live on thanks to a certain car company.

Just to bring the discussion back on topic, one of the simple things to alleviate global warming: painting roofs white. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/15/whitest-ever-paint-could-help-cool-heating-earth-study-shows

I thought you were against subsidies. And in fact, I can quote: I'll just add to that - you want fossil-fuel derived hydrogen? Pay for it. Pass the true cost onto the end consumer and let the free market decide.

They've effectively been subsidised. If they had to contribute towards the costs of Houston's proposed $26 Billion seawall, hydrogen from biomass or water will get competitive very quickly.

Got me wondering because he was always posting the same kind of graph with the wrong temperature baseline, but brent never cites his sources. Anyway, it's from a climate sceptic: http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ Why use this biased source brent? He's clearly trying to sell his books in the sidebar. Why don't you use the NASA GISS data? It's here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/

It's cheaper because they don't have to pay for the consequences yet.

Haber-Bosch needs fossil fuels as much as cars need fossil fuels. Meaning it doesn't - you can run it from electricity from a hydroelectric dam for example. For the areas that are not fertilized, the greening is due to the temperature increase due to climate change (which you sometimes say isn't happening), especially in high latitudes (off topic comment removed)

Saying things again and again doesn't make it the truth. See how that worked for Trump saying he won the election.