Liberals love science - until it proves them wrong.

[rogue06]

Certainly there were individual theologians who were exceptions to this at various times.

But as you point out, by 1971 even the Southern Baptists were pro-abortion.

From here

That article goes on to discuss how subsequently in the US, various forces turned US evangelicals against abortion. However those forces weren't present in other protestant countries (eg my own), so there was never the same level of anti-abortion sentiment here in the 80s as there was in America. Although, of course, pervasive American attitudes still influence the church here today in moderate amounts.

You claimed that until recently "being anti-abortion was considered to be one of those weird catholic things" when in fact it was the exact opposite. Until around 1970 all Christian denominations (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant...) were pro-life and only then did things begin to change. And even today many of those who tolerate abortion only do so under certain conditions, generally when there is a real threat to the mother's health.

Interestingly, the Methodist Church of Great Britain is decidedly more conservative in their views toward abortion than is the United Methodist Church here in the U.S. which runs counter to your statement that it is American churches which are mostly responsible to the resistance to abortion in Protestant churches in the rest of the world. The same with the Church of Scotland and the Anglican Church as compared to the pro-abortion Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) which essentially sees abortion on demand as acceptable.

[rogue06]

It's not just a hobby - it's an adventure!

I was leaning toward lifestyle choice myself

[Sparko]

leo

it is much easier to get grants for pro-agw studies than anti-agw studies.

[lilpixieofterror]

So starlight do you want to continue to maintain that "being anti-abortion was considered to be one of those weird catholic things"?

Of course he does because truth isn't what he cares about, it's about supporting his disgusting agenda. The simple reality is quite simple, if most Christians were not pro life until the 1970's... why were most laws across the west against abortion in almost every case? I know I already proved him wrong on this topic a few months ago. He ignored it and repeats his same refuted errors because he isn't interested in truth. He's interested in spreading his ideology that it should be ok to murder 3 month old babies. No matter how many flat out lies have to be told to support this disgusting ideology.

[lilpixieofterror]

I'll try to find the study done on how on Alaska, but 22% of its power could be supplied from rooftop solar panels. Solar cells still produce quite a bit even when its overcast. Its keeping them from being covered in frost and snow that would be difficult out there. Beyond that there's long distance powerlines.

Sure, but we still need 78% more energy and as you have pointed out, the issue with snow and frost would have to be solved. I suppose we could come up with some sort of way to warm the solar panels, but that would take away energy from the supply. I can assure you that keeping frost and snow off isn't easy. That is an issue that would need to be solved. Long distance powerlines might be a better solution, but you still run into problems there too. Above ground ones are vulnerable to the elements, in peculiar, snow and frost can bring down these lines. Underground ones might work better, but they can be harder to fix and are more limited in their ability to transmit power because you have heat issues you need to deal with. Overall, I'd actually say solar cells would actually work better in the developing world because the developing world is warmer and has more sunny days. However; they would have to become more efficient before hand.

Batteries, I agree, are still a bit limited compared to a gasoline tank. However its gotten a lot better. As Tesla has shown you can make a good electric car that go quite a distance before requiring a thirty minute recharging. And battery technology is improving. Doing an all electric infrastructure would be possible, and would quite likely be better performance wise in the long run. Electric engines have full torque, unlike piston engines who have max torque only at certain rpms, leading to delayed response.

That might work for cars, but you still have trains and trucks and this is even harder to go full electric because of the distance and time involved. Most car trips are usually local, so an electric car would work fine in those cases. However, the US is quite a bit larger than many European countries. I've gone 800+ miles in a single day. Even having to take a 30 minute charge can slow things down a lot and electric cars really are not any cheaper than gas ones. Personally, I think electric cars would only find a major following, in the states, if the cost was to come down below gas ones. People here in the US are far more joined to their cars vs Europe due to lots of reasons (such as the US being so spread out vs Europe). You are correct that that electric motors do have better torque ratios across the performance spectrum vs gas engines, due to traditional reciprocating engines having more parts needing to increase their speed. However; the power source is usually the issue. Gas is pretty fast to fill up vs a battery. One way to solve this is by using a combo system (such as what train engines use), but you have weight and cost problems (due to needing both a gas engine, generator, a large battery, and a motor). Overall, I do think these issues will be solved, but I believe it's going to take many years longer before we do so. A decade or two, would be my guess.

I agree for long distance air travel you need something with greater battery density than we currently have on the market.

Electric motors would also need greater power to weight ratios too. One reason that aviation chooses to use different types of jet engines (IE turbo-prop, gas turbine, turbo jet, and turbofan's) is due to the greater power to weight ratios. Helicopters, in peculiar, need that high power to weight ratio to work properly. When you add the weight of a battery and a motor, the ratio just doesn't work out. I think the aviation front is going to take years longer vs ground or sea before fossil fuels can be replaced.

Actually if we decided to go all in, we could in principle do the shift now with our current economy. It would just be enormously expensive. I prefer to see it as an industrial change taking place over decades. We should lean in that direction.

We already are developing these things. I think we'll see more tech development on this front in the next decade.

[Sea of red]

You mean the same satellite data that shows no warming for nearly two-decades?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]15995[/ATTACH]
http://www.globalwarming.org/2015/05...past-18-years/

Which is a complete lie.

Firstly, Roy Spencer and John Christy have proven to have messed up their records on multiple occasions - though they are still respected. Back in 1995 Christy produced a study that according to him, showed a cooling trend in the lower troposphere. This was touted by contrarians as evidence that climate change wasn't happening but in the end it was found that Christy and company had not properly adjusted for the orbital decay of the satellites - as well the the onboard sensors. When the correct adjustments were made, the warming trend in the troposphere returned.

Secondly, you have to take into account the El-Nino La-Nina' oscillations that do not actually change long term trends. On the one hand EN tends to warm the Earth while on the other, LA tends to cool it down a bit. This in no way changes the trend, and cherry-picking a starting point to get the results you want, is not good science. Instead, climatology looks at longer term trends over decades, centuries, and even millenniums. So these little burps one way or the other are pointless.

The original paper by Christy: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/...D%3E2.0.CO%3B2

The adjustments by Mears and team: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16141071

The effect of diurnal correction on satellite-derived lower tropospheric temperature.

Satellite-based measurements of decadal-scale temperature change in the lower troposphere have indicated cooling relative to Earth's surface in the tropics. Such measurements need a diurnal correction to prevent drifts in the satellites' measurement time from causing spurious trends. We have derived a diurnal correction that, in the tropics, is of the opposite sign from that previously applied. When we use this correction in the calculation of lower tropospheric temperature from satellite microwave measurements, we find tropical warming consistent with that found at the surface and in our satellite-derived version of middle/upper tropospheric temperature.

Further, Christy acknowledged the warming trend himself, and dismissed notions of no warming back in 2007

Temperature trends in lower troposphere.

Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming... This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.

The graph you linked to comes from Anthony Watts, a known liar that has so much egg on his face I can't believe anybody takes him seriously.

Watts graph looks like this.



I have searched for any journal study that comes even close to looking like that, and was unable to find even one from Christy and Spencer - two skeptics. Watts claimed the graph came from Roy Spencer.

The problem is Spencers graph (with error bars) looks like this.



Remember, Spencer doesn't even believe in AGW - he just accepts the warming trend you dispute. Whom ever did the first graph deliberately moved the axis for the average temperature down two and half centigrade, in order to reduce the reference point for readers. Now that is what I call cooking the books. Seriously, did really trust these idiot blogs you link us to?

But you don't like that data set? Fine, there are plenty more you can choose from. This one has four different agencies with four completely different data sets. Which one do you like most, the Met Office, The Goddard Institute, NOAA, or the Japanese Meteorological Society?



Just for the hell of it, one from Australia.

Michael Mann? You're talking about Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann, correct? The same Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann who's infamous hockey stick graph has been thoroughly debunked?

Yeah, O.K.

Yep, I'm talking about the guy that was cleared of any wrong doing, has been investigated multiple times because of conservative conspiracies, and has been vindicated in several other studies. The reality is that temperature proxies are one part of the climate puzzle: the actual physics involved is what's most important. Even still, the proxies have been done over and over again, with each reconstruction having identical results. The bottom line: temperature are at millennium level highs - likely further. We are the ones driving the majority of this trend. Deal with it.

[Jaecp]

Is Mountain Man going to actually try and out science you? Heh, this should be a treat.

[RumTumTugger]

You claimed that until recently "being anti-abortion was considered to be one of those weird catholic things" when in fact it was the exact opposite. Until around 1970 all Christian denominations (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant...) were pro-life and only then did things begin to change. And even today many of those who tolerate abortion only do so under certain conditions, generally when there is a real threat to the mother's health.

Interestingly, the Methodist Church of Great Britain is decidedly more conservative in their views toward abortion than is the United Methodist Church here in the U.S. which runs counter to your statement that it is American churches which are mostly responsible to the resistance to abortion in Protestant churches in the rest of the world. The same with the Church of Scotland and the Anglican Church as compared to the pro-abortion Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) which essentially sees abortion on demand as acceptable.

once again Starlight shows he knows nothing about history of any kind.

[Leonhard]

Sure, but we still need 78% more energy

Alaska is a lot bigger than the sum of rooftops.

and as you have pointed out, the issue with snow and frost would have to be solved. I suppose we could come up with some sort of way to warm the solar panels, but that would take away energy from the supply.

Its definitely not straight forward. But there's a bunch of factors that correct for eachother. White snow also reflects a lot of light, so that means the solar panels would produce more. And you wouldn't nescessarily have to run currents through them to heat them up. They tend to absorb the longer waves of light as well, so in many cases they can heat up beneath a snow cover. On an angled rooftop, the snow would slide off, and you end up with mostly uncovered cells. Like an owner showed here.

snowonsolarpanels.jpg

Long distance powerlines might be a better solution, but you still run into problems there too.

Those projects are really expensive and fraught with problems, but building out the backbone of your electrical distribution is a good thing. However it might simple be cheaper for Alaska to focus more on local storage. Storing a weeks worth of power is hard, and can't cost effectively be done with batteries yet. However in Denmark a pilot project to use an air compressor to heat up flyash to 1200F. Fly ash has a huge heat capacity. After a while you can use the heat to produce steam and the compressor can be run as a turbine. They've achieved 50% efficiency in total, which might be enough.

Then again if everyone had a large electric vehicle it could act as battery storage. A typical home at most uses 2-3kwh per person per day. So if you had a 120kwh truck (doesn't exist yet), or two 85kwh cars, you'd have power for quite a few days.

Also I'm not advocating that all countries should be finished at the same time. Arizona is a no-brainer for solar power, which is already competing with coal now. The distribution companies down there are trying to punish the owners with huge tariffs if they put up solar panels, but still use a little bit of the electric grid.

Overall, I'd actually say solar cells would actually work better in the developing world because the developing world is warmer and has more sunny days. However; they would have to become more efficient before hand.

Denmark isn't the greyest country in the world, but we have quite a few overcast days. Still the development of solar panels has taken us by surprise. Our offshore windfarms are now more expensive to build and maintain, than putting up huge amounts of solar panels.

We'll probably end up going for a mix of the two, as they compensate each other quite a bit. On overcast days its typically windy, on windless days the sky is usually clear. I think I saw a study indicating that an 80-20 ratio of solar to wind was ideal.

That might work for cars, but you still have trains and trucks and this is even harder to go full electric because of the distance and time involved.

On the contrary, trains have already had a couple of pilot projects in places where the train grid hasn't been made fully electrical with pylons et al. Denmark is partially covered, so we're using some expensive hybrid electrical, diesel trains, that can switch dynamically depending on whether there's power or not. There was a debate on whether we should go fully electric with the trains, and during this debate one think tank investigated whether we could simple have battery powered trains.

It turned out to be quite feasible, as you could have wagons that were essentially giant batteries. Easily swappable, and would go quite a distance. Or you could simple do quick charging between stations for intercity trains.

Most car trips are usually local, so an electric car would work fine in those cases. However, the US is quite a bit larger than many European countries. I've gone 800+ miles in a single day. Even having to take a 30 minute charge can slow things down a lot and electric cars really are not any cheaper than gas ones. Personally, I think electric cars would only find a major following, in the states, if the cost was to come down below gas ones.

Right now a good performing electrical vehicle is still a bit of a luxury. I mean you've got the Tesla Models S and X, and the Model 3 is still a bit pricey. However its coming down, but I don't expect people to really change, until it becomes cheap enough. For now its less than 0.1% of all cars sold. But if the price of purchase was low, people would change. There's much less . The type of lithium battery they use can last for a decade before needing replacement. And per mile, electricity is a lot cheaper than gas. There would be no more 'petrol price' anxiety, and in terms of driving price it would be more like the fifties had returned.

People here in the US are far more joined to their cars vs Europe due to lots of reasons (such as the US being so spread out vs Europe).

In Denmark we have a special tax, that increases the price of a car between 70% an 180% (depending how large and luxurious it is)... consequence... people buy really cheap cars and keep them for a long time. Some have estimated that the Government would barely have to pay 700 million per year, if it was removed.

We drive the oldest cars in Europe. Definitely not one of the things I'm proud about my country.

Electric motors would also need greater power to weight ratios too.

You can buy a brushless ac motor with the same power to weight ratio as a high-bypass jetengine. 6-8hp/pound. And that's without going crazy and making superconducting engines, as I know some have considered for airplines (and for Navy ships).

The real problem would be the energy density of batteries, which is a lot lower than fuel. Even if you did all the optimisations you could think of, removed the tailfin and used ducted fans for guidance... used the fact that electrical fans can operate at far higher altitudes to go up to where there's little wind resistance... anything you could think of, you still couldn't make a passenger jet that could travel between states with a reasonable amount of passengers.

If we could get a fifty percent improvement in batteries, we might.

Its not something that's a big problem though, as airplanes are only 8% of the CO2 emissions of the transport sector. Most of it comes from cars and trucks. We might make airplanes electric one day, simple due to rising oil prices, or if electrical aircrafts can be better than current turbojets, but we'll see.

Ships aren't easy, depending on how far they have to sail. And recharging them when they arrive at a harbor in reasonable time wouldn't be easy either. Ferries going to islands can be made electric. Ships have quite a bit of gimme, as you can take out the ballast, fuel-system and replace it with batteries, and the electrical engines weigh less than the diesel engines powering them, so in Norway a lot of experiment are being done with that.

Now I feel like working out what it would take to make one of the Triple-E containerships fully electric. We know their speeds and energy consumption, now its just a question of what the longest route they take is.

We already are developing these things. I think we'll see more tech development on this front in the next decade.

Its a long slow, and very interesting revolution.

[Starlight]

Then again if everyone had a large electric vehicle it could act as battery storage. A typical home at most uses 2-3kwh per person per day. So if you had a 120kwh truck (doesn't exist yet), or two 85kwh cars, you'd have power for quite a few days.

LOL, your car powering your house? Never thought about that possibility before. But it's genius.

As you point rightly point out, it should work well given how large an amount of power electric cars need to store in their batteries to run, versus the relatively small amounts of power houses use.

[Leonhard]

LOL, your car powering your house? Never thought about that possibility before. But it's genius.

As you point rightly point out, it should work well given how large an amount of power electric cars need to store in their batteries to run, versus the relatively small amounts of power houses use.

I had to revisit the numbers, they're closer to 6kwh per person per day (in some places more). So for a four member nuclear family, with AC and everything, it'd nap 33% of the cars full charge per day... that's assuming a total blackout case of course. Really the cars are likely just going to act as a buffer of sorts to cancel out the minute to minute, peaks and valleys, of renewable energy production.

[Sparko]

weird how everyone is arguing the various controversies themselves instead of the ACTUAL topic of this thread, how liberals like to call on their "science God" to support them on things like Global Warming, yet toss it aside on issues like when a distinct human being begins or things like what gender a person actually is vs what they imagine they are.

[firstfloor]

weird how everyone is arguing the various controversies themselves instead of the ACTUAL topic of this thread, how liberals like to call on their "science God" to support them on things like Global Warming, yet toss it aside on issues like when a distinct human being begins or things like what gender a person actually is vs what they imagine they are.

[lilpixieofterror]

Sorry it took me awhile to get back to this. Been busy and kinda of forgot about it.

Alaska is a lot bigger than the sum of rooftops.

Sure, but Alaska is known for it's untapped natural wonders and beauty (with most of the state being wilderness). Plus the entire goal of green energy is to lower our environmental footprint. Putting up huge solar farms would kind of put a bit of a damper on this goal.

Its definitely not straight forward. But there's a bunch of factors that correct for eachother. White snow also reflects a lot of light, so that means the solar panels would produce more. And you wouldn't nescessarily have to run currents through them to heat them up. They tend to absorb the longer waves of light as well, so in many cases they can heat up beneath a snow cover. On an angled rooftop, the snow would slide off, and you end up with mostly uncovered cells. Like an owner showed here.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]16014[/ATTACH]

True, but I do know solar panels also are not as efficient when covered with snow and ice either. You sill may need to uncover them once in awhile.

Those projects are really expensive and fraught with problems, but building out the backbone of your electrical distribution is a good thing. However it might simple be cheaper for Alaska to focus more on local storage. Storing a weeks worth of power is hard, and can't cost effectively be done with batteries yet. However in Denmark a pilot project to use an air compressor to heat up flyash to 1200F. Fly ash has a huge heat capacity. After a while you can use the heat to produce steam and the compressor can be run as a turbine. They've achieved 50% efficiency in total, which might be enough.

That's the big issue currently holding back the renewable energy sector. The ability to store this energy on excess days and release it on low generation days. Steam or hot oil might help with this problem for sure, but you'd still run into issues where you're going to lose some of that energy in the conversion process or the storage process.

On a side note, I do admit it's kind of funny how early electrical systems started with local distribution networks and seem to be somewhat moving back into this.

Then again if everyone had a large electric vehicle it could act as battery storage. A typical home at most uses 2-3kwh per person per day. So if you had a 120kwh truck (doesn't exist yet), or two 85kwh cars, you'd have power for quite a few days.

Technologically it really is pretty easy to do (we can do that today), but that would also mean losing your ride. Which might not be a big deal for some, but it is for others this isn't an option. My job is considered 'essential personnel' position and I don't have much of a choice on being able not to go in due to bad weather. The same is true for lots of other jobs too. This would not be an option for myself or quite a few others that have jobs considered essential or emergency services.

Also I'm not advocating that all countries should be finished at the same time. Arizona is a no-brainer for solar power, which is already competing with coal now. The distribution companies down there are trying to punish the owners with huge tariffs if they put up solar panels, but still use a little bit of the electric grid.

Much of the US southwest wouldn't be too hard, but we have to consider everywhere.

Denmark isn't the greyest country in the world, but we have quite a few overcast days. Still the development of solar panels has taken us by surprise. Our offshore windfarms are now more expensive to build and maintain, than putting up huge amounts of solar panels.

I've been to England and I know why they set out to conquer the world. They just wanted some sunlight. I'm pretty sure Denmark isn't as bad as England (although the US Pacific Northwest isn't much better).

We'll probably end up going for a mix of the two, as they compensate each other quite a bit. On overcast days its typically windy, on windless days the sky is usually clear. I think I saw a study indicating that an 80-20 ratio of solar to wind was ideal.

In Denmark I'm sure that's true, but in Cali I can remember sunny days where it was so windy that if you jumped you could have ended up in Arizona. The mid-west is also known to be quite windy too, even on sunny days.

On the contrary, trains have already had a couple of pilot projects in places where the train grid hasn't been made fully electrical with pylons et al. Denmark is partially covered, so we're using some expensive hybrid electrical, diesel trains, that can switch dynamically depending on whether there's power or not. There was a debate on whether we should go fully electric with the trains, and during this debate one think tank investigated whether we could simple have battery powered trains.

I'd like to say that train engines have been diesel-electric set ups since the late 1950's and I know Disneyland had their monorail (which has always been fully electric) running since the late 1950's, so I know it's possible. The issue here you have in the US is train lines can be thousands of miles long and be out in the middle of nowhere (you could drive for hours, going 100 KPH and not see a single house in quite a few part of the US).

It turned out to be quite feasible, as you could have wagons that were essentially giant batteries. Easily swappable, and would go quite a distance. Or you could simple do quick charging between stations for intercity trains.

And would this work, in the US, where trains can travel a thousand miles, to their destination? That would cost a lot of money and time to change over the dozens of stations and switch areas over here. Now, I don't work on trains so I can't say too much about it, but I have spent time in the US and Europe. One thing I have learned is that most living in Europe don't view a hundred years as too long of a time, but view 100 kilometers as a huge difference while the opposite is true in the US. How well would this work out in the US, as far apart as we tend to be vs Europe?

Right now a good performing electrical vehicle is still a bit of a luxury. I mean you've got the Tesla Models S and X, and the Model 3 is still a bit pricey. However its coming down, but I don't expect people to really change, until it becomes cheap enough. For now its less than 0.1% of all cars sold. But if the price of purchase was low, people would change. There's much less . The type of lithium battery they use can last for a decade before needing replacement. And per mile, electricity is a lot cheaper than gas. There would be no more 'petrol price' anxiety, and in terms of driving price it would be more like the fifties had returned.

Most new technology starts off as super expensive and slowly comes down. Remember, a color TV, in the mid 60's, could set you back 500 dollars or more (that would be around 7,000 American dollars today) and that was just the entry level color TV while you could get a top of the line curve, ultra HD smart TV today, for far less. I know electric cars will someday come down in their price, but until that day comes, I expect them to remain toys of the rich much as color TV was to the rich in the 60's. I'm not saying it will never happen, it just will likely take 10-20 years for it to happen.

In Denmark we have a special tax, that increases the price of a car between 70% an 180% (depending how large and luxurious it is)... consequence... people buy really cheap cars and keep them for a long time. Some have estimated that the Government would barely have to pay 700 million per year, if it was removed.

We drive the oldest cars in Europe. Definitely not one of the things I'm proud about my country.

Our average here is 11.5 years, is yours higher than that?

You can buy a brushless ac motor with the same power to weight ratio as a high-bypass jetengine. 6-8hp/pound. And that's without going crazy and making superconducting engines, as I know some have considered for airplines (and for Navy ships).

The real problem would be the energy density of batteries, which is a lot lower than fuel. Even if you did all the optimisations you could think of, removed the tailfin and used ducted fans for guidance... used the fact that electrical fans can operate at far higher altitudes to go up to where there's little wind resistance... anything you could think of, you still couldn't make a passenger jet that could travel between states with a reasonable amount of passengers.

I was counting the engine weight + everything to make it work. I know electric motors are actually not bad and pretty darn efficient at what they do (they are actually usually better than their equivalent gas powered counterparts by almost every possible measure), their only real drawback is the weight of what it takes to power them (IE the batteries or generators needed to power them).

If we could get a fifty percent improvement in batteries, we might.

Yep and there's are hang up. The motors are quite good, but powering them is the issue.

Its not something that's a big problem though, as airplanes are only 8% of the CO2 emissions of the transport sector. Most of it comes from cars and trucks. We might make airplanes electric one day, simple due to rising oil prices, or if electrical aircrafts can be better than current turbojets, but we'll see.

I think aircraft will be among the very last area to be changed over to any sort of electric power plant. This is simply due to aircraft need to be more careful with their weight and need proven and reliable technology before they should become standard (as my crew chief friends are found of saying, there's no parking at 30,000 feet up). Plus, as you said, you need to go a huge distance between charges. Stuff that might take leaps in battery technology or even a whole new power source.

Ships aren't easy, depending on how far they have to sail. And recharging them when they arrive at a harbor in reasonable time wouldn't be easy either. Ferries going to islands can be made electric. Ships have quite a bit of gimme, as you can take out the ballast, fuel-system and replace it with batteries, and the electrical engines weigh less than the diesel engines powering them, so in Norway a lot of experiment are being done with that.

Now I feel like working out what it would take to make one of the Triple-E containerships fully electric. We know their speeds and energy consumption, now its just a question of what the longest route they take is.

I'd say it's a yes and no. Yes, in the sense that a ship isn't as worried about weight vs most other areas of transportation and as you said, you could remove lots of stuff to make more room for battery. No, in the sense a ship needs to go a lot further on a charge vs a truck or car. I'd guess it would be a toss up here. I'm not surprised Norway is doing experiments in this area though. As I recall from my history, they are well known for their merchant ship fleet and having some of the most advanced in the world.

Its a long slow, and very interesting revolution.

One that likely will take much of the first half of the century to really start moving.

[Psychic Missile]

weird how everyone is arguing the various controversies themselves instead of the ACTUAL topic of this thread, how liberals like to call on their "science God" to support them on things like Global Warming, yet toss it aside on issues like when a distinct human being begins or things like what gender a person actually is vs what they imagine they are.

That's because the topic is fallacious. The pro-science liberal has consistent views. Abortion isn't a scientific issue, it's a philosophical issue. Science supports the liberal position on transperson rights.