Meetups are now Tuesday, and biweekly!
See you there.
The next weekly meetup is going to be another look at Bayes' theorem, given by our resident statistician.
See you there!
Weekly meetup!
We're going to be doing biased boardgaming, specifically with the game Pandemic. We have two copies, so we should have enough for all members.
See you then!
Weekly meeting of the Montreal LessWrong Meetup group.
We've decided to look into the Science of Winning at Life. You can read the sequence here (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/The_Science_of_Winning_at_Life) if you're interested.
See you there!
Weekly meetup, we'll be discussing emotions, largely based in Paul Ekman's book Emotions Revealed.
We will also be looking at the METT and the SETT to improve our ability to read facial expressions. The Repetition Game may also show up.
See you there!
Bringing in articles and discussing the progress of technology that remains hidden from our normal lives.
It's good to see what sort of progress is being made, and where the future will likely take us!
The next weekly meeting of the Montreal LessWrong group, we're going to be working on improving our Social Resilience.
We will be upstairs at the Cheesecake Factory.
See you then!
You might want to look at Skeptical Science which lists a large number of arguments raised by skeptics of global warming, and what climate science has to say about them. "CO2 lags temperature" is number 11 on the list. Here is the basic response:
CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming. In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase.
This is exactly what I was looking for! Thank you kindly, looking through it as soon as I find time.
Then I heard that the temperature increases preceded the CO2 emissions by about 800 years...
Source?
I have lots of reasons for believing in climate change I could quote at you, but they can mainly be found on the relevant wikipedia pages (so I assume you've already looked at them). So why am I putting more credence on those arguments than you? (Assuming we're both equally rational/sane/intelligent).
What it comes down to when you abstract from individual arguments, is that those who have most domain specific expertise strongly believe it to be true. In general it is best to trust experts in a particular domain unless you have strong reasons to believe that field is flawed. Absent improbable conspiracy theories I have no reason to in this case.
Teacher in a geology class who is decidedly non-rationalist mentioned that 800 years thing, without a source. Something about thickness of a line.
This is the first topic I've found in which I have no idea how to dissect this and figure out what's going on. It appears that there are incredibly powerful arguments for both sides, and mountains of strong evidence both for and against human caused climate change... Which shouldn't be possible. A lot of the skeptics seem to have strong arguments countering many of the "alarmist" ideas...
I'm not a good enough rationalist for this, yet. If it weren't for this community's famous support of global warming, there is no way I'd believe in it, given the data I have. Strange.
I'm not sure it's worth posting sources and the like, counter-counter arguments become difficult to follow, and it could easily cause a kurfuffle that I would rather avoid.
Thank you all greatly!
View more: Next
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
I'm a university student trying to decide between the Torbjorn and an Aeron. Normally I'd just go with the cheaper option, but I'd like to know if there's enough of a difference to justify spending ten times more on the Aeron. I've worked in an Aeron before, and while they're very comfortable, I don't want to drop that kind of money on comfort without long term benefit.
Does anyone have any numbers or anecdotal evidence to help sway my decision in either direction? Thanks!