Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: The world we live in. (Score 1) 585

by Truth_Quark (#47771593) Attached to: New Nail Polish Alerts Wearers To Date Rape Drugs

Show me some statistics on un-reported rape.

This can be studied by survey.

It's a fact, men are brought up in this society to own the image of strength and reporting that they were raped goes against that, while women are raised to protect themselves at any cost; because of this, most women will report a rape whether it happened or not, most men won't, even if it did.

I'd be interested to read your statistics on this claim.

Comment: Re: The world we live in. (Score 1) 585

by Truth_Quark (#47771497) Attached to: New Nail Polish Alerts Wearers To Date Rape Drugs

First of all, that is based off of 4 year old data.

If you've got more recent data, please post it. Or if you've got evidence of a trend in these sorts of attacks please post that. Or any justification for this objection.

According to a 2010 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly 1 in 5 women and 1 in 71 men in theed States have been raped. The actual number is likely higher, experts say, as incidents of sexual violence are severely underreported in the United States -- particularly among male victims.

Emphasis mine.

Certainly an important limitation of the data. Note that those stats are for rape, which according to CDC means does not include being forced to penetrate, but requires being penetrated. Females forcing sex on males, as being discussed in this thread occurs later in the piece under "being made to penetrate".

And, third, who said I was trusting that data?

No one, to my knowledge. Your claim was that the CDC data disagrees with me. It does not. It shows about 6 times as many male rapes of females as female forced penetration of males.

Comment: Re: The world we live in. (Score 1) 585

by Truth_Quark (#47755001) Attached to: New Nail Polish Alerts Wearers To Date Rape Drugs
The figures are further down:

For female rape victims, 98.1% reported only male perpetrators. Additionally, 92.5% of female victims of sexual violence other than rape reported only male perpetrators. For male victims, the sex of the perpetrator varied by the type of sexual violence experienced. The majority of male rape victims (93.3%) reported only male perpetrators. For three of the other forms of sexual violence, a majority of male victims reported only female perpetrators: being made to penetrate (79.2%), sexual coercion (83.6%), and unwanted sexual contact (53.1%).

So Females forcing males to penetrate them is 0.792*3.8% = 3.0% of the US population, Males raping females is 0.933* 18.3% = 17.1%, or 5.7 times as many.

Comment: Re: The world we live in. (Score 1) 585

by Truth_Quark (#47754981) Attached to: New Nail Polish Alerts Wearers To Date Rape Drugs

* Across all types of violence, the majority of female victims reported that their perpetrators were male.

* Male rape victims and male victims of non-contact unwanted sexual experiences reported predominantly male perpetrators. Nearly half of stalking victimizations against males were also perpetrated by males. Perpetrators of other forms of violence against males were mostly female.

Comment: Re: The world we live in. (Score 1) 585

by Truth_Quark (#47754965) Attached to: New Nail Polish Alerts Wearers To Date Rape Drugs

The CDC disagrees with you. If you'd like a source for that data, you'll have to ask Nephandus.

Why would you trust that data without a source, when its counter to biological plausibility, and common experience?

Here's a CDC data sheet.
Note that:
Nearly 1 in 5 (18.3%) women and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) reported experiencing rape at some time in their lives.


4.8% of men reported they were made to penetrate someone else at some time in their lives.

Since only the 4.8% can be women forcing sex on men, that's about 3.8 rapes of women by men for every forced penetration by a man. And I'd suspect a lot of the 4.8% would be forced penetration of another man.

Comment: Re: The world we live in. (Score 1) 585

by Truth_Quark (#47754235) Attached to: New Nail Polish Alerts Wearers To Date Rape Drugs

we may well see that men rape women no more often than women rape men.

I greatly doubt it.

You understand the game theory inherent in the biology don't you? Sperm is nothing to produce. Carrying a child is a huge investment. Men are selected to want to fuck everything that moves, and fuck most things that don't move, until it moves.

Women need to be selective. They want the very best possible father for their child and, generally speaking, a relationship to support the upbringing of the child.

Comment: Re:Transparent? (Score 2) 174

Otherwise known as "groupthink", motivated in large part by the huge amounts of tax-payer's cash available for their institutions.

Science is pretty good at routing out bad results in less than 40 years and 1,700,000 scholarly publications.

In fact scientists aren't that good at groupthink.

What about PhD students? How are they convinced to tow the line instead of getting a Nobel prize for overthrowing climate authodoxy? Nearly none of them have tax-payers funding beyond their thesis. What about scientists with Tenure? How are they convinced to do bad science, when their funding is guaranteed? What about private research bodies? How are they convinced to fudge their results when they need to compete for research grants in a wide range of areas, and bad results threatens their whole institution? What about research funded by charities? How are they convinced to tow a line that sends money to their competitors in government academic and research bodies? What about general science Journals? How are they convinced to publish poorly reviewed research, when their whole income is based solely on the fact that they don't do that?

Are you sure you've thought this through?

What other fields of science have fallen into this trap of falsifying research for "huge amounts of money"?

Are you skeptical of the discovery of the Higgs Boson? There's a stack of funding given to the LHC, and no other place of research that could verify their results. Surely they would be better subject to your paranoid conspiracy theory?

I think if we learned anything from the "climategate" emails, if it's not an outright fraud, it's certainly motivated a lot of questionable behaviour.

I think you've read them out of context. Do you have a one in particular that shows "questionable behavior"? Remember that there were several years of emails stolen. Data mining them for sentences that appear questionable had a lot of scope.

The vast bulk of publication on this issue in the literature is a pile of stinking bilge.

There are over 1,700,000 hits in google scholar to the search term "Climate change". I know you haven't read the vast bulk of the literature. (And I suspect you haven't read any of it).

But I'll give you a chance: What is your evidence that the "vast bulk of publication on this issue in the literature is a pile of stinking bilge"?

Oh I see. Your opinion on whether or not someone is a crackpot affects whether or not they get their ideas published, does it?

Not my opinion specifically. But you don't publish Ken Ham in Evolution & Development. And you don't publish Gene Ray in reviews of modern physics, not because I think they're crackpots, but because crackpots would never clear peer review.

Pal-review is not a guarantee of general correctness. It's a guarantee of political correctness.

Peer review certainly doesn't guarantee correctness. Most papers are refuted within 5 years. That's why established science is based on consensus, not upon a single peer reviewed paper.
Science isn't always right, it merely always corrects it's results eventually.

Comment: Re:Transparent? (Score 2) 174

Do "denialists" have a theory?

Yep. A grand conspiracy theory whereby all the world's climate scientists are perpetrating a fraud, and somehow everyone throughout the globe, and all incoming students are inducted.

They're total crackpots.

Do "denialists" get much research grant funding?

No, denialists aren't scientists. They're PR professionals. They get plenty of PR funding though.

Does they even get published?

Yes, they're well over-published. This is what PR is all about these days. What they're not is peer-reviewed. This is because they're crackpots.

I get the feeling you've missed something very important across this whole debate and that its done some damage to your credibility on this issue.

Somebody has.

Comment: Re:Transparent? (Score 3, Informative) 174


Climate change deniers?

re: You mean like no warming in 17.5 years?
There has been plenty of warming in the last 17.5 years. The warming of the surface air temperature has been marginal, (but not statistically significantly "no warming" as you appear to be claiming.) The best you can correctly and scientifically say, is that there might be a reduction in the rate of warming of the surface air temperature.

The oceans have warmed. As can be seen from the direct measurements, if you're into science, but if you're not, it's clear and obvious from sea level rise which is primarily thermal expansion.

Ice sheets have lost mass.

re: They make models that show doom, and don't match up with reality.
No they don't. They make models that investigate the climate.

Some aspects match with reality well. Some aspects require finer modelling. (And there are probably some physical processes that are not fully understood either, especially with respect to cloud formation).

Sure, all (I think) models have a double-Intertropical Convergence Zone. That doesn't mean that they aren't useful. Quite the opposite. The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the most discoveries, is not "Eureka!" but "That's funny...". And so work on the DICZ progresses. Science advances. We learn more stuff.

Claiming "Models don't match reality! All this science must therefore be rubbish!" is the call of the Luddites. Einstein didn't overthrow Newton, he built upon his work, and Newton did upon the giants upon whose shoulders he stood. This is how science works.

re: Then they redo the models to match the previous few years and again show doom.
I'll keep this response more concise: Bullshit.

re: Sorry you don't understand this and believe their lies while calling those who tell the truth liars.
Really? That's your claim? The scientists are lying to you?
FFS, mate, think about that for a while and get back to me on how likely it could be.

Comment: Re:Transparent? (Score 2) 174

I think that the concern of the Royal Society is that we are past a couple of really nasty tipping points: The loss of the northern summer sea ice and the loss of the west antarctic ice sheet. We may have crossed some other lines to do with the Indian monsoon, the African monsoon, the savannahization of the amazon rainforest and the collapse of the boreal forests.

No one wants to do geoengineering, except those with an interest in the fossil fuel industry. But the time to reduce emissions was 20 years ago, and while reductions now will make for savings, the consequences of what we have already done are likely horrific in terms of biodiveristy and displacement and starvation of vulnerable peoples.

So it needs to be on the table. Open and transparent is very important, but I think that there'll be plenty of interest in making sure that concerns are considered.

And the inertia will be all towards caution in this case, (again barring people with an interest in the fossil fuel industry). Geo-engineering may have benefits for the entire world if it ameliorates AGW, but it also has to be funded.

Comment: Re:records go back to 1880, very funny (Score 1) 547

taking measurements from inaccurate thermometers and scant coverage from over a century ago, and claiming we know global average temperatures in the 19th century is beyond ludicrous.

The coverage was a lot smaller than today's but it was so much cooler then, that the error is less than the change.

No amount of massaging of data can make credible comparison to today's grid of sensors.

Yes it can. It's just that the error bars are larger back then.

"How to make a million dollars: First, get a million dollars." -- Steve Martin