Models have all predicted warming, and there is warming.
Of course all global warming models predict warming, that was the reason they were created. Any model that doesn't is discarded because it doesn't match recent historical measurements. So its kind of a stupid thing to say. It doesn't add to their validity at all. It might even be a sign of bias if we discard a model that doesn't show continued warming rather than prove or disprove the functions that drive it the 'assumed' wrong way going forward.
I'm not criticizing the models, I'm only responding to that particular statement which scientifically does not stand on its own.
That's largely because there are cooling factors such as sulfate aerosols that are still very difficult to model.
We wish it were that simple, but there is a heck of a lot more than that they they can't accurately model. We don't even know all the inputs, outputs, and feedback mechanisms. We can't even accurately model must smaller complex chaotic systems. Now, to be fair, 'accuracy' in this context is subjective. I think the accuracy is good enough for the prediction that we should have some warming, but not nearly good enough for catastrophic predictions of storms/flooding/drought, etc in specific regions.
These kids need to miss a few meals in their life and then maybe they will get some perspective.
No they won't, they'll protest until they get their meals.
a senior research scholar with the Genetic Engineering and Society Center at North Carolina State University, told Gizmodo.
"Senior Research Scholar" is a title that tells us nothing of the person's qualifications to make the comment. You can just be the oldest student that helped to an internet search and get that title. I'm sure he's not speaking in any professional, and likely not even a thoughtful capacity when he chooses words like "fukced up directions",
You didn't even read to the end of the summary, it seems. The problem is they are not suing over the mistake made by the clinic, but that the child has the wrong genes.
They are suing because the child has the wrong genes because of the mistake.
Pedestrians are slightly more likely to suffer a head injury than cyclists per mile travelled.
Car drivers are more likely to be hit by a car than cyclists in general. (Cyclists more likely per mile travelled, but generally they use safer transport like trains for longer distances)
Cyclists overall live much longer lives. So any head injury risk is completely outweighed by the risk of cardiac arrest, cancer, suicide caused by depression, getting stuck in a doorway and starving to death cos you're too fat, etc, etc
All true, but it is still fact that the more you cycle, the more likely it is to injure or kill you.
Disk crisis, please clean up!