Dak
mentat
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...bcb6e6-2277-11ea-a153-dce4b94e4249_story.html
And Repubs get in on the Russian hysteria. Boo.
And Repubs get in on the Russian hysteria. Boo.
The News Thread
- Thread starter Jimmy... Dead.
- Start date
Dak
mentat
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/12/19/21029902/open-access-trump
This would be a good thing. We'll see if it happens. Fuck Elsevier and co.
This would be a good thing. We'll see if it happens. Fuck Elsevier and co.
TechnicalBarbarity
Poser Disposer
Einherjar86
Active Member
Oh, well if the president said so then it must be true. I’m sorry.
President Zelenskyy: “I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.“
The President: “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.“
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf
I haven’t been presenting any “facts” because it’s a waste of my time. Legal scholars have agreed this language qualifies as unethical at best, and an exploitation of his office at worst. You and others have misconstrued this as a situation in which we’re better equipped to decide what happened than are experts who specialize in such matters. It’s not surprising, given that Trump’s success is partially founded on sowing distrust of institutions of knowledge.
He may not have intended it as a quid pro quo; but unfortunately, “I’m sorry officer, I didn’t know the speed limit was only 35” isn’t a legitimate defense.
Yeah you are. You’re psychologizing hard, just trying to convince yourself you’re not.
But it is your profession, so I guess I’ll defer to the expert!
Last edited:
Dak
mentat
Oh, well if the president said so then it must be true. I’m sorry.
President Zelenskyy: “I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.“
The President: “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.“
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf
I haven’t been presenting any “facts” because it’s a waste of my time. Legal scholars have agreed this language qualifies as unethical at best, and an exploitation of his office at worst. You and others have misconstrued this as a situation in which we’re better equipped to decide what happened than are experts who specialize in such matters. It’s not surprising, given that Trump’s success is partially founded on sowing distrust of institutions of knowledge.
He may not have intended it as a quid pro quo; but unfortunately, “I’m sorry officer, I didn’t know the speed limit was only 35” isn’t a legitimate defense.
Yeah you are. You’re psychologizing hard, just trying to convince yourself you’re not.
But it is your profession, so I guess I’ll defer to the expert!
Speed limits are widely known objectively demarcated laws, even if you don't know the specific limit on a given stretch of road. The charges against Trump are based on vagueries and subjective partisan perspective taking.
I've made this point before, but Trump is not having/did not have success through sowing distrust. He's exploiting existing distrust, and the nonstop shrieking since his election is only confirming it. Liberals and progressives in the media and academia and the bugman bureaucracy haven't learned a single lesson from 2016 (as a group, not on the universal individual level). This isn't limited to the US either, as we look at developments in both Europe and South America.
Einherjar86
Active Member
What the hell are you talking about? The charges against Trump are hardly subjective or ill-defined. They’ve been clearly defined by legal scholars.
The false narrative here is that only liberals/progressives should have learned anything from 2016... and no one else.
The future of this country doesn’t rest on leftists/democrats/liberals “learning their lesson.” It rests on the people who voted for Trump pulling their heads out of their asses. If they’re too stubborn to acknowledge that reality is more complex than their backyard, then we’ll all die in lonely indecision.
EternalMetal
Active Member
- Mar 31, 2004
- 1,842
- 674
- 113
I know that I don't really have a part in this debate, but
lmao, so some redneck Trump supporter at their home BBQ somehow seeing the light of the academics is more important than the derangement of people of actual political or influential (be that media or the educated) means? As for the willingness of Trump supporters to exonerate him, it is really no different than what has been going on when the Dems were in power. If the left thinks it is wrong now without admitting that their side was guilty of the same problems it now condemns, then asking Trump supporters to "pull their heads out of their asses" is a farce. It seems to me that the highly educated left is still guilty of the same bias as the uneducated ignorant right. If you somehow suggest that the burden is on the right, only the educated/influential can help this issue, and we all know how easy it is more minorities to overcome majorities. No, this problem is on the left, and since it is ideologically based, it will take generations to resolve. I agree that we might all "die in lonely indecision", but I disagree on where to point the finger.
lmao, so some redneck Trump supporter at their home BBQ somehow seeing the light of the academics is more important than the derangement of people of actual political or influential (be that media or the educated) means? As for the willingness of Trump supporters to exonerate him, it is really no different than what has been going on when the Dems were in power. If the left thinks it is wrong now without admitting that their side was guilty of the same problems it now condemns, then asking Trump supporters to "pull their heads out of their asses" is a farce. It seems to me that the highly educated left is still guilty of the same bias as the uneducated ignorant right. If you somehow suggest that the burden is on the right, only the educated/influential can help this issue, and we all know how easy it is more minorities to overcome majorities. No, this problem is on the left, and since it is ideologically based, it will take generations to resolve. I agree that we might all "die in lonely indecision", but I disagree on where to point the finger.
Dak
mentat
Trump voters need to learn Trump isn't going to do what they want generally speaking, other than piss off the people who piss on them. Liberals need to learn that appealing to vague "complexities" is a copout which can be afforded due to significant privilege, and that the people pushing back on globalism on a global scale have legitimate grievances. Populists are exploiting these grievances (excluding maybe Orban, haven't done due diligence on him, but he has made some interesting policy moves). The irony in all of this is that US progressives are being massive dupes for global corporations, slightly ahead of your average US conservative and centrist Democrat at this point.
Einherjar86
Active Member
This isn’t true of most progressive/liberal voters. The issue of greatest existential concern right now is global warming, and it’s an issue for which we need to divest from fossil fuel companies and shift away from globally distributed corporations. Trump is in the pocket of fossil fuel companies (as are many democrats, but at least there are options now). Trump is unelectable because of his denialism, and he encourages denialism among voters—all of which reinforces the strength of fossil fuel multinationals.
The uneducated won’t listen to the educated though. They believe they know more than those with expertise—how can the educated hope to do anything when they won’t even be listened to?
The obsession with Trump is founded partially on the delusion that anyone can be president, and that we all have the necessary knowledge to solve global issues. But we don’t; most people simply don’t want to be told they don’t understand something.
Last edited:
Dak
mentat
It's interesting that you mention a desire to "shift away from globally distributed corporations", because that's a key "groyper" position! Yet all of the at least nominally progressive persons I know have Apple everything. So not buying that as a broad position held by progressives (which is a shame). As far as AGW goes, climate alarmism is all hype, no substance. I'd call it a religion, but the average alarmist doesn't even "attend church" figuratively speaking. Climatologists are little better than astologists. The predictions continually fail, Florida isn't underwater, and we aren't having a worldwide drought. The "but it's gonna happen any day/year now!" hysteria is basically Alex Jones level behavior. Every storm is evidence of global warming and eminent sea rise, every train shipment of military equipment from base to base is evidence of a global conspiracy and eminent martial law.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/thirty...lobal-warming-predictions-stand-up-1529623442
Education is highly overrated outside of very narrow application, even then its not always useful, and the term "expert" gravely over generalizes.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211368115000388
The whole paper is pretty on point in terms of type of expertise and domain problems, but notice that "legal experts" (judges) fall in the random category (worse than even clinical psychologists, which is saying something). Of course, related to assertions of existential concerns of climate change, you might note that "weather forecasting" does quite well.....except that is not climatology. Weather forecasting is in the domain of meteorology.
Dak
mentat
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/19/opinion/location-tracking-cell-phone.html
The NYT does actual reporting, and it gets put in the "Opinion" section.
The NYT does actual reporting, and it gets put in the "Opinion" section.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
Pete got gangbanged on stage but my favourite bit was from Bernie;
"Joe has received contributions from 44 billionaires, Pete on the other hand is trailing, you only got 39 billionaires contributing."
Einherjar86
Active Member
I don’t know where you’re getting your information from, but this is next-level bullshit Dak. You seriously have little grasp of what climate science actually does if you think this.
When deniers claim that climate predictions fail, that’s because they’re referring to worst-case scenarios, i.e. scenarios in which carbon emissions increase at alarmingly exponential rates. Fortunately, many of these scenarios haven’t come to pass, and so yes: those predictions haven’t come to pass.
Insofar as climate predictions hew close to what actually has happened, they’ve been accurate: coral reefs are dying, species are going extinct at accelerated rates, the global temperature continues to increase, and we are suffering droughts. They’re not worldwide, but no climate scientist has ever claimed we would be suffering worldwide famine and drought. The climate isn’t a “homogeneous suite” (to borrow a term you like), and it affects different areas around the globe at different times and in different ways. To claim this means that nothing is happening as has been predicted is sheer self-delusion; and this is an area you have no experience in. I’d say I don’t either, but I’ve actually attended meetings and seminars with biologists, earth/environment scientists, and ecologists, and I think they know better than you do.
I think you like to take the opportunity to make a political statement about “alarmism” when in fact you really don’t understand a) what climate science shows, b) what scientists are saying should be done, and c) how it impacts people locally. What’s happening is alarming, but it’s not the end of the world. People like you who say that people like me claim it is the end of the world make it more difficult to have a conversation. That’s not on me; that’s on you being unwilling to take the time to understand what’s happening.
I'd direct you here:
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...out-hansens-amazing-global-warming-prediction
Dak
mentat
Yes, they haven't, and those are the scenarios sold (Like in "An Inconvenient Truth"). This is the classic motte-and-bailey move. The changes that have occurred aren't, in fact, alarming.
Correct, the climate is not a homogeneous suite, which is why all of the headlines about a given meteorological phenomena (which affect people locally and at different times and ways!) being an example of AGW are laughable, and they occur with amazing regularity, like in this section of your post. Droughts do happen (AGW or no..may I direct you to the 1930s?), but we have had a global greening in the last couple of decades, not a global drought. Arctic/Antarctic ice levels have not drastically and permanently changed in our lifetimes, and even if they had, ecological systems shift on timescales that dwarf our lifespans. You mistake my disdain for this alarmism for some sort of "scorched earth" position (which, to be fair, is probably the position of many typical conservatives, when all nuance is stripped). I am anti-pollution. On the flip side, you can't claim AGW is an "existential crisis" and then claim I'm straw manning your position about AGW being the end of the world.
rms
Active Member
we could just say the climate change movement has been misdirected anyways. The current warming is scientifically "unstoppable" at this point yet the talk is more prevention than adapting.
Einherjar86
Active Member
If they’re not alarming to you, then you’re not paying attention.
Homogeneous suite =/= complex system
Events can be interconnected, sometimes in ways we don’t understand. In the case of climate change, people experience different regional events and patterns, but these aren’t dissociable from global climate.
Actually, there have been noticeable changes in our lifetimes, ice being one of them:
https://www.climatecentral.org/news/arctic-sea-ice-melt-since-the-80s-21637
You’re right that the climate and planet change at rates that dwarf our lifespans; that’s why we have to see what look to us like like smaller changes as actually significant.
It is an existential crisis if we don’t do anything; but we actually have time to do something. That’s the kicker. You straw man (and reduce) climate arguments, because you force me into saying it’s either “we’re doomed now” or “there’s no problem.” That’s not the case; we aren’t doomed now, but there is a problem that needs to be acknowledged and dealt with. At the very least, people on this planet need to alter their perspective on what it means to live sustainably, which means changing some ways of living.
If your source of info about climate science and models is the WSJ opinion section, then you’re guaranteed to have a warped sense of the problem and its urgency.
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,850
- 113
Economic inconvenience =/= existential crisis
Only the most politically-motivated pretend that climate change threatens human existence.
Only the most politically-motivated pretend that climate change threatens human existence.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Only the most politically-motivated pretend it doesn’t.
There, fixed that.
A lot of people will be able to survive if things get worse—namely, wealthy people. But they’re the only ones who matter anyway, amirite?
There, fixed that.
A lot of people will be able to survive if things get worse—namely, wealthy people. But they’re the only ones who matter anyway, amirite?
Dak
mentat
I pay attention, I'm just a bit more skeptical of academia and journalists. I was also fortunate enough to be trained in academia how to spot bad science reporting, which facilitates noticing the graph in your link uses a classic trick to misrepresent data, manipulating both the Y and X axis:
https://venngage.com/blog/misleading-graphs/
Edit: There's another bit of misinterpretation of that graph included as well, just as a bonus. Either the author doesn't understand how averages work, or is intentionally misrepresenting it. Either way is equally likely.
Also being aware of fact that the Arctic isn't the only repository of ice on the planet earth. Wonder what's happening at the other pole?
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ns-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
I also notice that whenever I read any sort of counter evidence to AGW from any "official source", they also engage in this maneuver:
"I know the data doesn't support our position currently, but just wait!". Just like all of those people still waiting on the rapture.
What else is going on with the poles?
https://phys.org/news/2014-05-earth-magnetic-field-important-climate.html
https://www.sciencealert.com/naviga...ght-up-with-the-mysteriously-north-pole-shift
I don't read the WSJ generally (paywall), but that was a quicker link to refer to the constant failure of alarmist claims than cobbling together separate exhaustive links. Earths climate is a complex system operating on scales that has repeatedly confounded models. Climatologists are responding by trying to force data to comply with their belief system, like the building of a modern type of epicycles. Behold:
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/03/05/climate-change-hurricanes-stronger/
Damn those scientifically rigorous approaches, getting in the way of useful information. Never mind that the question is "is climate change making hurricanes stronger" which already assumes climate change. Sobel is going a step further and discarding the null from the outset. When an Ivy League school is this corrupt and admits it, why should I trust the rest of it?
Who are "the people on this planet"? What is "sustainable living"? I myself think various things need an overhaul; I'm not defending the status quo. But like with defending Trump, I get forced into it by alarmists.
Last edited:
Einherjar86
Active Member
I don’t think you’re paying close enough attention.
You conveniently ignored the Guardian link that demonstrated how the WSJ piece itself is an example of the failure of those who seek to undermine climate “alarmism.” Hansen’s predictions have been almost spot on, yet you perpetuate this nonsense.
If I had time to go through the rest of your complaints I would, but I’m with family. Happy holidays.
Similar threads
