Staticnz wrote:Global warming is occurring ON AGGREGATE. It isn't about the natural rhythms of global temperature, but the global average, which is the very simple fact science is not divided on.
Aggregate statistics are only as relevant as the range on which you perform the calculation. Modern calculations rely quite heavily on the recorded data, which is at most 150 years old as far as statistics are concerned. The further back we look at the problem, analyzing relative information collected from, for instance the arctic ice sheets, we can see gradual fluctuations over time in the earths general level of warmth and cooling, many of which were quite rapid. It's all in how you look at the data isn't it....
Kind of the point I was getting at, in a somewhat facetious way.
Despite "Global Warming" we are still living in a much cooler earth than in the times of the dinosaurs, or so I've heard (and hearsay is perfectly justified in a forum debate where word has been the only one to post links to studies).
So if we say "is there a warming trend?" to answer that we need to specify a timeline. If we say:
Has there been a warming trend over the last 65 million years? The answer will be no, the earth has cooled in that time.
Has there been a warming trend over the last 40 years? The answer will be yes, the earth has warmed over that time.
Has there been a warming trend over the last 10 years? The answer will be no, not really, the earth's temperature has been stable (with statistically insignificant fluctuations) over that time.
You tried to use Global Warming as "INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE OF FACT THAT PEOPLE WRONG-HEADEDLY DENY", but it's not. The warming trend depends on your frame of reference.
Global warming is actually a GOOD comparison to gender equality because they both depend heavily on your frame of reference and neither is incontrovertibly "true". We're not at a perfect equilibrium in gender equality, but perfect equality only exists between things that are perfectly identical (reminds me of Kripke's "Naming and Necessity"). Women are different to men, the outcomes women achieve are different to those men achieve, the opportunities women have are FAR more comparable to the opportunities men have today than they were 50 years ago. There are still things that are taboo for men to do (arguably more than women!) and there are still areas where women face stronger or different pressures than men. But I think I'd say that gender is becoming irrelevant in terms of opportunity
(in English-speaking, predominantly white societies)- at least compared to other factors like socio-economic status and I'd argue probably race. So given a frame of reference that looks at what opportunities have become available to women over time, the situation is dramatically better than it was in the past and it is continuing to improve and trend upwards.
There are still some differences in outcome which may be due to sexist attitudes, but there are things that can influence that, such as women choosing to take on more child rearing and domestic duties. Studies have shown that time spent on domestic chores can have an impact on earning potential and that women, even when single and living by themselves (ie. not coerced into doing it by their husband or social pressures), spend more time doing domestic duties than men. I fully support breaking the glass ceiling and having women feel like they CAN become a CEO, a lawyer or a doctor but I don't think we need to put quotas on those professions to ensure equal representation. You bring up gay rights, well, if 10% of the population is gay that doesn't mean you need 10% of the military to be gay before things are equal. You just need to abolish DADT and give people the choice. It's okay for things to be different, as long as people have the choice.