Well, CO2 is driven by temperature. Of course it will correlate.
Well, CO2 is driven by temperature. Of course it will correlate.
Assuming you're citing: https://www.aauw.org/files/201...
My problem with their analysis (and indeed, it may be an impossible problem to solve), is factoring in productivity.
Here's what they looked at:
Job and Workplace Characteristics
Employer sector (e.g., nonprofit)
Hours worked per week
Whether employee worked multiple jobs Workplace flexibility, ability to telecommute Months at employer
Education and Training Characteristics
Educational attainment (bachelor’s and any graduate enrollment or completion)
Current enrollment status Other license or certification Work-related training Undergraduate GPA Undergraduate major
Ever attended less-than-four-year institution Institution sector
Demographic and Personal Characteristics
Highest education of either parent Race/ethnicity
Region of residence
Volunteered in past year
On top of that, they are comparing only college educated folk, and make the statement:
That is, after controlling for all the factors known to affect earnings, college-educated women earn about 5 percent less than college-educated men earn.
So, it's not "all the factors known to affect earnings", it's just "a large number of factors". Or maybe even "a large number of factors we're able to measure."
Nobody has told you that engineering isn't for girls, and nobody has told you that you have to act feminine when asking for a raise, and if you decide that the lower paid partner should take parental leave, you can always work harder if you want to make more money than your partner. Or give your partner the choice to make less money.
Now, as for women being the child bearing sex, well, agreed, that's not a choice - but given that biological fact, nobody is stopping you from making free choices, even if they are influenced by your biology.
Clearly, in some professions, men have an inherent advantage, just as in some professions women have an inherent advantage - it's not just about physical differences, there are mental differences between men and women too.
Being primarily left-brained helps you write code, and being willing to sacrifice social bonds can help you precision engineer a new widget.
Free choices can lead to disparate outcomes without any nefarious external influences.
You do realize that the often reported "pay-gap" doesn't control for qualifications, workload, or responsibility, right?
The pay-gap exists because men and women make different choices, and these choices have consequences even when everyone is paid identically based on qualifications, workload and responsibility.
Now, if you really want to talk about equal pay, hows about union shops where seniority drives pay, rather than qualifications, workload and responsibility. Two people, both working the same job, both producing the same results, and one gets paid more simply because they have been there longer. Now that's a sticky wicket.
Ask yourself for a moment why there are separate men's and women's events in the olympics.
For extra credit, calculate what medals the women would've won if they were required to compete against the men.
I suppose it depends on how you measure "hard".
If you mean "hard" as in "put in my own personal maximum effort", you've got a point. A five year old girl can "work as hard" as a 35 year old man, if they're both trying their best. Hell, a five year old girl can work even *harder* than a 35 year old man, if he's just slacking.
If you mean "hard" as in "actually performed an objectively measurable feat of strength", then, yes, there are some inherent sexual differences, and you can clearly see this in the over-representation of men in objectively hard, dangerous, physical jobs. Your "hard working" five year old girl might be putting 100% maximum effort to lift that 10 pound bag, and the "slacking" 35 year old man might only be putting in 10% effort moving around a 40 pound bag, but the 35 year old man is doing harder work.
I only point this out because GP didn't use the word "effort", which you seem to have interpreted into their comment.
In my experience, there is a significant difference in productivity for men and women, across quite a number of professions. Claiming that there is no difference in the productivity is quite misandrinistic. It's also false.
Say we stipulate for a moment you're correct, that it was "one factor".
By what method do you discern how much of a factor? How do you tell the difference between "3% responsible for leading to an arid desert wasteland" and "30% responsible for leading to an arid desert wasteland"?
Obligatory CO2 desert greening link: http://phys.org/news/2013-07-g...
I'll lightly disagree with the drive to procreate not being rational, if only because one can take the perspective of the individual, and one can take the perspective of the species - from a species point of view, procreation is definitely rational.
That all being said, I think part of the larger picture is that, whether driven primarily by biology, one can argue being a mother is a free(ish) choice. We "rational" folks pooh-pooh it as something we should scare people out of, but what if, making different assumptions about the world, it's actually a rational and conscious choice on the part of the woman?
Well, sure, but what trend would you calculate for global average temperature since the 1800s? It certainly isn't exponential...perhaps it's logarithmic, or even better, maybe the trend is strictly stochastic, and any observed warming is simply natural variation.
The bottom line is this, I suppose - the attribution problem is thorny, and claims of attribution today with our large scale measurement networks are tricky enough, much less going back 200 years through dubious and uncertain proxies to make any sort of claim of definitive attribution.
tl;dr - the error bars here are all encompassing
Mann is arguing with settled science!!??
But, but, what about 97% *consensus*???
Black is white. Up is down. Cold is warm. I don't know what to think anymore!
Regardless of coal, wood, or livestock, humanity's global CO2 emissions in the 1800s was minor compared to the 1900s (and more particularly, 1950 on).
If indeed, you want to assert that 1830s level CO2 emissions triggered global warming, and somehow the earth decided to treat 1950s level CO2 emissions differently and warm *less*, I suppose you could try and point to the logarithmic rate of CO2 effect on temperature...but that, of course means that even if CO2 emissions by 2130 are much greater than today, we'll see the same, mild warming we saw beginning in the 1800s.
...even before humans had any significant CO2 output.
Good to know. I'm sure someone out there will find some magical particle humans were emitting in the 1800s at a certain level that didn't scale with the massive growth in population of humanity.
Well, given the option of "force twitter.com (aka twitterleft.com) to allow freedom of speech", or "create an alternative twitterright.com to capture the users censored by twitterleft.com", I'll assert the second one is less burdensome.
That all being said, it could just be time for twitter to die, and some free speech alternative to rise up.
Wishing without work is like fishing without bait. -- Frank Tyger