whatisthiseven

This question has been thoroughly studied: https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

"The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years."

Feel free to read the summary for policy makers: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5...

You can ask whatever questions you like. Those of us who aren't dismissive of climate science have been able to get answers like yours without problem.

What is wrong with appeal to authority? Fallacies don't mean your argument is instantly wrong. It just means your argument isn't perfectly sound: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

And you presume that I am arguing on behalf of authority, as opposed to giving an example of a "large mass of humans who believe the same thing". You haven't discredited them, you have only mocked me for choosing to believe in an expert body. That is fine, and we should always question authorities and their methods.

But flippantly saying "How is this not making an appeal to authority" is frustrating. Yea, so what? Are the authorities wrong? Unless you can answer that essential question your needling on this point is irrelevant.

Have you read or consulted parts of the IPCC report? That links to nearly all relevant science on this topic, and is so well understood by everyone talking about this topic, that when they say "the science" that is at least what they are referring to.

"When large masses of humans seem to start thinking the same, without really thinking"

So, the thousands of scientists the world over who have studied this extensively and produced some of the largest bodies of research for a field on a specific topic aren't really thinking? And when they communicate that to the public, the public should what, doubt literally everything this relatively unempowered group has to say while oil companies spend far more money and influence keeping this argument alive to ensure nothing is done?

What degree of confidence are you looking for, and is the IPCC not good enough for you? Why do you feel like all the people you disagree with "aren't thinking"?

"such as the sun heading towards the end of its hydrogen-burning life"

Yes, that event will cause the sun to start burning helium instead, and will swell to a red giant approximately the radius of the orbit of Mars.

In about 4-5 billion years.

But what would be the goal of governing them as utilities? This is always said as if it were obvious what would happen once FB gets utility status.

Should FB resume its banning of sexually explicit, beheading, animal torture, and ISIS videos when it is a "utility"? And how will the product of FB change as a utility? In what sense is FB a utility other than a very common place people like to go to, like concerts or a sports stadium or something?

What is actually meant when we say "regulate technology companies built around communication as a utility"? How large before you become one? Is any app that has chat or public posting a utility now? What classifies? Is the only goal to make them dumb pipes? What other roles and responsibilities would the government hoist onto FB and require it do?

That is a false-dichotomy. We can have something more in the middle, or at least less an extreme as "let cars just drive wherever without any tests and when it kills someone just say o well, that's progress".

In this particular case, Uber got a deal with the mayor (Governor? I can't remember) of the city to do testing, and it was clear the government bureaucrat allowed them to do whatever, and then coordinated with the police after Uber killed a pedestrian to fabricate evidence that looked like the woman came out of nowhere.

I would say that is really far from "endless oversight" and much more into the "just mow them down one at a time until you get it right" territory.

How is a legal process a coup? For readers which aren't sure of the definition of coup, "a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government."

I don't see how an impeachment inquiry (even if legally a bit vague) as "violent", "sudden", or "illegal", nor is it a seizure of power, since it is just an inquiry.

If you want to argue that ordering witnesses for investigations without first declaring a formal vote on an impeachment inquiry is illegal, you won't find the Constitution or CRS reports state that a vote must be held for such orders to be valid.

Here is the conclusion of that study to save a click:

"Based on the results of this study, there is no evidence that theatrical "smoke," at the levels found in the theaters studied, is a cause of occupational asthma among performers. Some of the constituents of theatrical "smoke," such as the aerolized glycols and mineral oil, could have irritative or mucous membrane drying properties in some individuals. Therefore, it is reasonable to minimize exposures by such means as relocating "smoke" machines to avoid exposing actors to the direct, concentrated release of the aerosols, minimizing the amount of "smoke" necessary for the production, and using only fog fluids approved by the manufacturers of the machines. The glycols used should be at the level of "food grade" or "high grade." Glycol-based systems should also be designed to heat the fog fluids only to the lowest temperature needed that achieve proper aerolsolization. This would help to avoid overheating the fluid and minimize the generation of decomposition products."

"and if someone gets super defensive about that question, odds are good that it is indeed a fake service animal."

Or maybe they don't want to defend their right to a service animal to every single person that asks and thinks their animal is fake? This strategy might unveil some fakers, but it is also incredibly derisive to those with these animals to be lumped into the same group as fakers.

Why can't we reverse your argument and say that "equality of rights is a noble cause"? Sure, we would of course prefer that, but barring that, I would absolutely prefer well-reasoned compromises for disabilities than nihilistic idealism.

I am not sure I understand your criticism here. Your original assertion was "The sentiment was the bombs would cause much less casualties on at least one of the sides", which you quoted a family member. That is fine, but I am confused what you want to know.

If you want to know what people thought, who weren't leaders, then assuredly most people thought the bombs would stop the war, but probably the same way they thought the fire-bombing would stop the war, and all other actions before that like basically wiping out the Japanese fleet. So, your family member's perspective is fine, but it doesn't tell us why the war did actually finally stop. Just what random people thought caused it to end.

If you wanted to know what leaders, who were making decisions about the war and trying to decide what to do, you could see from the Historian's report that many Japanese leaders were in conflict over whether to surrender and how to surrender before the bombs dropped, after the bombs, and after the Russian invasion. Even after the Emperor agreed to surrender there were still factions vying to prevent such a surrender for different reasons.

On r/AskHistorians, sources are not required to be given when composing a post, however they must be given upon request. If you are really interested in the sources and not my blase summary, I recommend just pinging the Historian directly for the kinds of sources you are interested in. Even if their post wasn't to your liking, they surely know where to find the sources you would want given their expertise.

For that matter, you could even open a question on r/AskHistorians itself!

"Whether it was the use of nuclear weapons or Soviet invasion that more forcefully led to surrender has been hotly debated between historians. Hasegawa places greater emphasis on the Soviet invasion, suggesting that Japan would likely have stood steadfast under multiple atomic bombings as it had done in the face of firebombing. Asada directly references and disputes his account, claiming that nuclear weapons and the threat they posed to the homeland reflected a much more "direct" impetus to end the war rather than the invasion of Manchuria, and offered an easier way out for the leadership. Further, they came as a complete surprise to Japanese leadership, whereas eventual conflict with the USSR was expected. Frank's account, and most other anti-revisionist historians support this thesis." [1]

I think it can be fair to say that the perception of the Allies/America was the bombs would lead to surrender, but from the Japanese perspective that isn't so cut-and-dry.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15kb3w/why_d...

Nate himself has explicitly addressed that complaint as a huge mistake that Nassim continues to make and refuses to admit: https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1114160511208259584

"p.s. You continue to cite a paper in which you critique our now-cast (a deliberately volatile hypothetical of what would happen in an election held today) and mistake it for our forecast but because you're such a stubborn idiot you won't admit to this very basic mistake."