The problem with never admitting a mistake as President is that it requires others to defend it no matter how indefensible. That is the problem with declaring that “99 percent” of U.S. coronavirus cases are “totally harmless” is that statistics are tricky things that often demand actual proof. Mark Twain once said “facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable,” just not this pliable. Rather than just admit that the President overstated this point, the White House proceeded to try to prove the unprovable with predictably ridiculous results. Even the President’s top health advisers refused to support the statement. It is another example of the expenditure of unnecessary energy and focus to avoid admitting a mistake. One can still maintain that most people exposed to this virus show mild or no symptoms without dying on this statistical hill (with graphs that actually show that the statistical claim is wrong).
I have been critical of the unrelentingly negative coverage of many news outlets over the last three years. There is a loss of objectivity in much of the reporting as we have discussed in prior postings. However, many of these negative pieces are legitimate stories like the President telling the public that 99 percent of virus cases are harmless.
During his July 4 “Salute to America” speech on the South Lawn of the White House, Trump noted that the administration conducted more than 40 million coronavirus tests. That is an impressive figure. However, he added that “by so doing, we show cases, 99 percent of which are totally harmless.”
On its face, the statistic is clearly wrong. It is certainly true that a very high percentage of those who test positive for the virus do not show serious symptoms. However, President Trump elected to put a statistical twist on that fact. As a result, it was immediately ridiculed. The President has been repeatedly criticized (often fairly) for downplaying the threat of the virus or making dangerously ill-informed comments. This is another example of sending a message directly at odds with what his public health officials are trying to convey to the public.
Putting aside the public health dangers for such statements dismissing the threat to individuals, it makes even less sense politically. With the President struggling with dropping polls, it would seem obvious that fighting on this issue would play directly into the hands of his critics. Yet, rather than walk it back, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany defended the statement as factual with two charts illustrating the country’s COVID-19 death rate.
There were two obvious problems. First, just showing a chart of deaths does not show the percentage of harm. Many of those who recover from the virus are experiencing long lasting symptoms. Moreover, even those with “mild cases” report some serious symptoms, including neurological symptoms now being documents even in mild case recoveries.
Second, McEnany’s slides showed a case fatality rate of 4.6 percent, not 1 percent. So even if you are just talking death rather than harm that is almost 500 percent off.
What is intriguing about this latest pile up is that it was again entirely avoidable with a simple correction. This is why “There are three types of lies — lies, damn lies, and statistics.”
John Say is wrong again. Einstein’s work was indeed peer reviewed.
And keeps spouting nonsense regarding climatology.
David, though some say there was a type of peer review since the 18th century, real peer review started after WW2. Until then for the most part only the editors of the journals had any say. The British medical journal Lancet did start peer review until the late 1970’s.
Peer review has some benefits but it can also lead to consensus thinking and a lot of other negatives.
The major problem with peer review is that all other forms of criticism have nearly disappeared.
Contra the warmists here sceince is not and never was by concensus. Science is inherently skeptical
And when science was done properly, i.e before modern peer review, a single paper or a single rebutal drove all scientific change.
“The major problem with peer review is that all other forms of criticism have nearly disappeared.”
John, that is true, but this fear of providing contrary opinion seems to be part of our culture and gaining even more traction. Everyone wants to side with a winner. That, I believe, is a reason mindless people keep arguing how right they are based on the polls. Fear of being wrong or supporting a losing side should not exist. In the US if an individual goes bankrupt he frequently finds people walking away from him when he seeks new investors for a new idea. In Israel if a person goes bankrupt but did everything he could and didn’t demonstrate stupidity people will not walk away and recognize an experienced individual.
In the past a brand name was important and protecting that brand name provided a similar check as does peer review.
Society is fickle and frequently foolishly ruled by consensus. A great example is demonstrated in the history of the bacterium H. Pylori.
Break out the coloring books.
Bug, it is quite apparent that you can insult another but can you think? The answer to that is a definite NO for if you could you would debate with data what I say.
This comment of yours reveals you know little of:
peer review
branding
polls
bankruptcy
H.Pylori
Got me with the H. Pylori, I’ll admit. Let’s try the others…
peer review>>> this is easy, it’s the antithesis (possibly) to the thesis. It literally means your work is reviewed by your knowledgable peers and, for instance, is exactly what your climate change denial abstractions *don’t* have as back up.
branding>>> Aha. This one is easy as well. It roughly translates to niche marketing. And, coincidentally, it’s in part what I do in my work doing coverage for production companies. I read books, do assessments of their market potential and where they’d fit (and why). Then I go back to trading soybean oil futures to fill in the gaps. Actually, if there is an area of competence left in Donald Trump, it’s in his branding skill. Actually, sidebar, it WAS what was left. He’s swinging and missing bigly these days and will be spanked like the regressive infant he is at the polls this November.
polls>,>> An inexact science due to its crude information gathering techniques in the cell phone age and sometimes absurdly broad plus or minus guidelines, although its sister science, marketing algorhythms is its fair haired cousin and is quite adept at making broad brush market predictions.
bankruptcy>>> Easy. This is what our president is indeed expert at. He’s got a lot of them certainly and managed a way to lose a billion dollars of his dad’s money. Not the worst thing though, because his dad was a virulently racist f*&k and left those traits to dear leader like a bad case of stank.
And coloring books are your field of expertise, Allan.
The problem, Bug, is that I can take coloring books and make money off of them. You would have to buy crayons just to mess them up. Sucks to be you.
Peer review – is one method to improve the quality of scientific work. It is NOT a substitute for real world verification.
It is also not meaningful at all regarding criticism.
The failure of a hypothesis does not go away just because the cabal creating the hypothesis will not peer review criticism.
While peer review can be a valuable tool, it as is typical of anything the left is involved with has become a tool to suppress dissent to control thought.
AS noted before Judy Curry left the climate capable when the hacked CRU emails reveal that the peer review process was being used to actively thwart – not just outside dissent but even insiders who produced actual results that deviated even slightly from dogma.
In science you must take things as the come – if your thesis does not match the real world – it is your thesis that is wrong not the world,
And no amount of peer review will change that.
As Mill notes in “On Liberty” – criticism must come from the very people you least want to hear from. Truth is forged in the crucible of criticism by those most strongly opposed to your position.
We suck at finding our own flaws. If we only accept critique from those who love us and agree we will learn nothing, and we will never know whether what we beleive is correct.
Everything John Say states about climatology is wrong.
David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-five citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, and his mental health professional certificate after eighty-three weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. and is suffering from cementia – you are painting with a broad brush, David. Did you get this article peer-reviewed?
Paul owes us all a f….g break.
Anon – blame it on Benson, he is the one not coming up with the cites.
David, there is no absolute proof of any opinion or any opinion along the spectrum. Certain things have been proven wrong and most frequently those are the models that you so strongly believe in. We have also seen intentional lies such as those from Michael Mann and an attempt to control who is considered a climate expert and one that deserves a position at the university.
I won’t say you opinionon climate change is wrong even though I disagree but your statement “Everything John Say states about climatology is wrong.” doesn’t demonstrate someone that should be taken seriously.
“Everything John Say states about climatology is wrong.”
Then you should be able to rebut it with facts – not with consensus oppinions but actual real world facts.
It does not matter – the issue is closed. Warmist predictions are 2.5 std dev off on average – there are only 2 of 102 models that are in the realm of plausible and neither of those predict substantial warming.
You provide claims of consensus or model predictions.
Well the models are WRONG obviously. You noted that the ptolemic model was rejected because observations did not match the model.
Well the Climate models are even farther off. That has been known for nearly a decade, and no adjustment has been made to the models.
Climate “science” is corrupt claptrap – it is a religion not science. It is an albatross arround the neck of the left.
It is proof of the destructive power of ideology in the academy.
Most everyone knows this.
John, you are not smart enough to discuss climate science, nor am I. Just as lay person’s defer to architects and engineers to understand and design for complex forces on a structure, you cannot begin to understand the considerably more complex world climate with innumerable variables. In short, you don’t know anything worth considering on teh subject. The consensus among those who are is not refutable.
“There is currently a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists’ opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations, many of which explicitly agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports.
Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists (97–98%[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[2][3] and the remaining 3% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors.[4] A November 2019 study showed that the consensus among research scientists had grown to 100%, based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles published in the first 7 months of 2019.[5]
The current scientific consensus is that:
Earth’s climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s.[a]
Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause.
Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects.
People and nations can act individually and collectively to slow the pace of global warming, while also preparing for unavoidable climate change and its consequences.
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments, and science can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change. Policy decisions, however, may require value judgements and so are not included in the scientific opinion.[27][28]
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[29] which in 2007[30] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[31] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
An accounting of the scientific organizations and their statements on the subject follow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change
It is a mistake to wall off all science as the exclusive province of scientist priests. Much of it is accessible to ordinary people. The Wright brothers ran a bike shop.
Amateur stargazers are sometimes in the news with discoveries of new comets or other such things.
All the time. Thanks for reminding.
I can assure you I have the intelligence to discuss Climate science.
Frankly, that is an incredibly low bar.
As to comparing engineering to Climate science. Calculating the forces in a structure is tedious (so we let computers do it) but it is not outside the skills of anyone who managed high school calculus.
That said the mathematical and statistical skills of the average climate scientist are worse than those of people who passed high school calculus.
I would further note that – when a building fails – you do not need to be an engineer to note that it has failed.
The climate models have unarguably failed.
You can tell by comparing the model predictions to reality.
Or by opening your front door and going outside.
But I will go one step further – anyone can trivially establish the most fundimental problem with CAGW at home on their own stove.
Plank/Arenhius/SB tell us that the energy needed to raid the temperature of the object increases with the square of the temperature.
This is fundimental physics. It is not limited to temperature increases it also applies to sound and velocity, and many other things.
So so put a pot of water on your stove and heat it to 100F, and then increase the temperature in 20F increments and note how much more heat/time it takes for each increase. It is not linear.
What you have just seen is the Trendberth missing heat problem.
Starting early in the 21st century it became possible to increasingly accurately measure the energy flows to/from the earth from space.
That allowed us to calculate the energy budget of the planet.
This is trivial in comparison to the climate models. Most of the math is simple the equations are simple, and the results are far more accurate than the climate models. From space we get to do something that you can not do elsewhere – measure the actual energy flows.
The results – the energy equations for the earth did not balance for warming. To get them to do so required finding gargantuan amounts of “missing heat”. Trendberth went looking in the oceans – this was stupid, the change in energy content of the ocean is driectly measurable to reasonable accuracy by SLR. SLR has been almost linear for more than 100 years. Therefore the new energy captured by the oceans each year is also linear, and unless there is some exponentially increasing energy being stored elsewhere – the earth will warm each year, but the rate of warming will decline with each year.
This is basic physics. It is not complex. There are very few variables, and it is far more reliable than climate models.
Wikipedia is “owned by warmists” It is impossible to correct misinformation there.
One of the problems with your so called consensus is that it is a guaranteed trap for real science.
Science is not determined by concensus. It is determined by those who break with consensus and challenge it.
When you stiffle opposition you exponentially increase the likelyhood of error, by eliminate the checks on your beleifs.
This is not only scientifically true – and quite obvious in history,
But it applies beyond science.
Go read JS Mill “On Liberty” Free speech – dissent, skepticism, criticism is how we find the truth.
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. ”
You keep ranting concensus, consensus, consensus,
That is meaningless.
It is not an argument.
It is a bad appeal to authority.
I would hope in the past 6 months you got an excellent education in the fallibility of experts in epidemiology.
And that is far easier than Climate.
You do not need the massive political bias in climate science to get error – as we see in epidemiology.
We do not need dishonestly. Experts can sincerely beleive they are right on the science and still be wrong.
And as you should trivially see – often are.
One of the fundimental differences between science and engineering – is engineering is applied science.
Engineers will not accept and take personal responsibility for something until is it absolutely positively rock solid.
You noted calculating the structural loads on buildings. There are many approaches to doing that.
But for a given structure there is only one answer ever for a given load.
if you check a specific load and you get different answers – then you have made a mistake.
Even tiny differences in answers are mistakes.
Engineers do not get to make mistakes, when they do people die.
Scientists are not engineers, and never have been. The development of science is creative. You do not get to sue a scientist if they screw up. They do not have “skin in the game” – and no amount of expertise makes up for having personal serious consequences if you are wrong.
John, the Wikipedia page on Scientific consensus on climate change which I have repeatedly posted – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change – summarizes with footnotes and links the consensus of the entire world’s climate scientists (98%) and every National Academy of Science and relevant scientific organization in the world, the latter with no exceptions, on the subject. You can verify for yourself by following those links that Wikipedia is not falsifying the information to satisfy “warmists” – what a joke. You can then calculate from that your monumental arrogance and therefore ignorance to presume to know what they don’t.
As to engineers and scientists, yes, everyone can tell when a building falls down. That is easy. They may not read early signs of failure in a building, some of which may render it unfit for occupancy while it stands. More importantly, the climate, unlike buildings is always changing, as well as vastly more complex and with innumerable facets which may reflect or not symptoms which may prove problematic for human habitation in our current state. I think we can agree that laymen would have trouble identifying building failure short of collapse and even more trouble with climate approaching change we may not welcome.
As to the latter, in another post you claimed warm weather is good, so no problem if the cljmate is changing without considering that change may come faster than our population of 7 billion humans may be able to adapt to without possibly catastrophic strife – we do have impressive weapons systems now. From changing waterfronts to shifting of arable lands without regard to long standing human habitation patterns and political boundaries and possibly less arable land in total, it’s high risk gamble with no assurance of any gain. We may have to face it, but welcoming it is for fools.
“John, the Wikipedia page on Scientific consensus on climate change which ”
Still selling concensus – still not science.
Still selling wikipedia climate pages – still religion not science.
Young, with better observations it was realized that Ptolemaic epicycles failed to correspond to the observations. Eventually Kepler, using Tycho Brahe’s data for Mars, was able to get it right. Incidentally, Galilo had no use for Kepler.
That is right – science changed because observations failed to match predictions.
When will the high priests of warmendom grasp the obvious – that observations are not matching predictions ?
You can not call it science when you are 2.5 std dev from reality on average.
Unicorns are all the rage right now because we’re living in fantasyland.
Of course, Jonathan Swift even had hard words about ‘scientists’ back in the day.
I don’t think they needed better observations to see problems with the Ptolemaic system. Mars was almost always a problem. I think some other orbits posed problems as well. Those issues did not result in a failure of consensus in the model. instead it was accepted that more work was needed “to save the appearances” as it was put, much as is being done with climate models today–tinkering to make the model fit appearances. At that point a model has reached the limit of its predictive value. Aristarchus, by the way, did have a competing model that put the Sun at the center of the solar system, but that went against the consensus and today he would be branded as a “denier”.
Copernicus and Galileo both believed that orbits were true circles and had to introduce Ptolemaic epicycles to have a working model, just not as many as Ptolemy.
Kepler did not need Brahe’s data to create a model based on the ellipse. It helped when he formed a model that worked within the resolution of earlier observations but Mars was still a problem with Brahe’s very good observations. He reluctantly abandoned a beautiful, but wrong, model saying something like, ” If God has sent us a man like Brahe we must use him.” Kepler could have made his ultimate model with older observations but Brahe alerted him that his earlier model which worked well with older observations still was not good enough.
There is a wonderful quote from his records that reveals the first dawning of the idea that an ellipse would answer and the mathematics of Appolonius would serve. I don’t remember it well enough to recite here, but it is worth a look.
Koestler’s ” The Sleepwalkers” is an interest historical account of these remarkable people.
By the way, Kepler and Newton still could not quite explain the orbit of Mercury. That took Einstein and yet another, newer consensus.
By the way, Copernicus did not use new observations when he created his model. He used the same old observations but applied a new idea. New, that is, if you allow that he borrowed from Aristarchus.
The discussions below on the significance of consensus merits a cautionary note.
The relation of bodily humors to disease enjoyed a wide consensus for more than 2,000 years.
The Ptolemaic description of the universe enjoyed a wide consensus for about 1,300 years.
Both were wrong.
Often science advances by overturning the consensus.
Votes do not create truth.
John Say, take off your blind prejudice blinders. Climatologists predicted:
Growth and decline of ozone hole;
Melting of Greenland ice sheet and other ice formations;
Sea level rise, visit Miami Beach, the Tidal Pool in Washington, DC, and talk to the navy about Norfolk, VA;
Increasing global average temperatures;
Increasing global precipitation;
Much warmer Arctic summers;
Etc. etc.
Absolutely.
The Ozone Hole is a non-problem – it has been with us forever, It is in the souther hemispher for a reason – that is the part of the earth most heavily effected by cosmic rays. It has little or nothing to do with CFC’s.
It did not appear because of CFC’s and it did not disapear because of them.
If you actually bother to look into it there is a lot of real science on the subject, CFC’s can not possibly get from ground level up to the ozone layer without reacting with something first. They can not likely get more than a few thousand feet up without dissipating.
Conversely cosmic rays from the sun will strip Ozone from the upper atmosphere. They will do so most effectively near the south pole because of geometry – that the the place where cosmic rays pass almost entirely through the upper atmosphere.
The Ozone hole shrinks and grows to match the cosmic ray output of the sun. It does not correlate to CFC’s
This is just another case of addled brained leftist pseudo science.
As I am sure you disagree – explain how it is that CFC’s magically get from the norther hemisphere to the southern – this despite the fact that there is very little mixing of atmosphere between the two.
Both CFC’s and additional Ozone are predominately generated in the northern hemisphere. By far the largest proportion of cars air conditioners, etc is in the northern hemisphere.
They do indeed need to react with something (due to their being heavier than air) in order to reach the stratosphere. And that they do. Once in the stratosphere traversing one pole to the other is quite possible.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chlorofluorocarbons-cfcs/
“hey do indeed need to react with something (due to their being heavier than air) in order to reach the stratosphere.”
I was interested in that but then I went to the citation and saw it was 20 years old. The Bug like other aliases does a quick Google search without even looking at the dates. Did he read the article? Probably not but that has been a constant problem with the aliases on this blog. They provide citations that don’t even back up what they say. Bug is one of them and is afraid of us knowing his other aliases (even thoughwe most likely do). That alone demonstrates that what he says is of little or no value.
Lets say you are correct – which you are not.
And reacting with other things makes them heavier and inert, not lighter.
Regardless magically they get into the upper atmosphere – the laws of thermodynamics require them to disperse over time evenly in the atmosphere.
It MIGHT be arguable that the electromagnetic field of the earth would draw them towards the poles – but as nearly all emissions are in the northern hemisphere they would head to the north not south pole.
Regadless the hole in the ozone later (and most leftist scientific claptrap) fails occams razor.
The south pole is on the whole more inclined away from the sun than the north.
That means that cosmic rays coming from the sun are more likely to pass entirely through the upper atmosphere. dramatically increasing their odds of interacting with Ozone. The result – an ozone hole in the southern hemisphere that waxes and wanes with the cosmic ray output of the sun – which exactly matches reality.
Simple explanations that do not require magic are far more probable than complex ones that require impossible behavior.
Agreed on this, John. Which makes the case for relying on accepted science rather than the dance you’re doing here. Example: CFC’s are heavier than air. They need a chemical reaction to rise in that air to stratospheric levels. Once in the stratosphere those CFC’s can disperse through gravity, through the same mechanisms that dust from dust storms, or smoke and ash from volcanos, etc disperses.
Climate science is well established now, at least as established as the science around understanding gravity.
The approach you’re taking relies heavily on abstraction driven by your ideological beliefs being injected into existing science. i have no doubt that in the 2-3% of climate scientists who are climate change deniers that you’re exceedingly well read. But by basing your thesis on this small slice you’re figuratively trying to push a bowling ball through a straw.
Look, I live on an island in the Atlantic and my father was a physicist who worked at NASA and NSF either full time or conjunctively. I’ll grant that I grew up being drilled in climatic science principles from a young age. Amadd to that the relative ease in which it is to objectively notice climate changes in territory so affected by the elements. Climate change effects are easy to see here, you don’t have to look hard for them.
The upshot form that? i don’t have to struggle to make the equation fit my political belief structure as you so clearly are doing right now. i actually feel for you in having to try to do that the way you’re doing it. Must be torture on some level to try to square what’s happening right in front of you in a way that says it doesn’t make a difference. Believe me, there are areas in my own existence where I’ve done the same…
They’re just not around climate science.
You do understand that chemical reactions make HEAVIER molecules ?
“Climate science is well established now, at least as established as the science around understanding gravity.”
Really ?
Climate is not even close to the quality of economics. Which is Far simpler that climate.
“The approach you’re taking relies heavily on abstraction driven by your ideological beliefs being injected into existing science.”
Last I checked the actual global temperatures over the past 20 years were neither abstract nor particularly ideological.
Worked for government – enough said.
And your entire argument can be boiled down to this one abstraction projected on to any supposition you make. Have fun in your world, man.
See, the thing is, you’re coming up with decent antithesis’…, it’s just 40 years too late. Train’s left the station and you missed it.
“See, the thing is, you’re coming up with decent antithesis’…, it’s just 40 years too late. Train’s left the station and you missed it.”
Irrelevant.
We did not know much about cosmic rays 40 years ago.
Mist specifically we were unfamiliar that they were variable.
Part of that was actual ignorance – part was willful blindness.
As I noted before – all malthusian prognostications ultimately prove false.
They must – if earth were so fragile life would not exist.
“And your entire argument can be boiled down to this one abstraction”
Ni abstraction – CAGW does not reflect reality.
That is ALWAYS the first test of all science.
“projected on to any supposition you make. Have fun in your world, man.”
No projection – real world.
“The upshot form that? i don’t have to struggle to make the equation fit my political belief structure “:
No equations involved. Warmist predict based on CAGW hypothesis. Prediction fails.
No ideology, no politics.
If as you claimed you had a rigors education in physics you would be with me.
“as you so clearly are doing right now.”
I am ? I am asking you to follow the actual scientific method – when the hypothesis fails to accurately predict
revise the hypothesis until it does.
If every scientist on the planet agreed I was wrong – but the planet – reality voted against them
I am right.
This is not about politics – unless it is for you.
Though I admit I consider CAGW an IQ test. If you are still buying it today, my understanding is you qualify as a policemen – they will not take people with IQ’s over 100 so I am told.
“i actually feel for you in having to try to do that the way you’re doing it.”
There are no feelings involved. And this is quite easy
Anything that can not be falsified – is religion not science.
If you are still selling CAGW after the past 20 years – you are an alcolyte in a religion, not a scientist,
certainly not someone capable of critical thinking.
“Must be torture on some level to try to square what’s happening right in front of you in a way that says it doesn’t make a difference.”
What is happening right in front of me ? Climate models have failed – the failure gets worse with each year.
The warming trend that still exists is at MOST the same trend as the past 250 years.
Every now and then I argue physics or science. I used to do that alot when things were less clear.
Earth has rejected CAGW – and it gets the final vote. Not Wikipedia, not whatever cadre of scientists you have buffalo’d or misrepresented.
” Believe me, there are areas in my own existence where I’ve done the same”
Try an mirror and this NOW.
Completely ignoring the fact that CAGW has falsified itself.
And ignore the fact that a significant portion of Climate scientists are either marxists or very near marxists – and anyone who is still a marxist in the 21st century is a complete idiot.
Climate science – the actual science itself is fundimentally problematic.
If you want to calculate accelaration – you can do that in your head.
I have enough experience I can intuit whether a beam is sufficient for the load.
But many modern problems even if the can be expressed mathematically, can not be solved directly be humans, and can not be understood intuitively at all.
The “science” part of climate science fits in that catagory.
Benson is busy selling me books. Reading them will not change anything – atleast not reading the math and science and theory.
It is unlikely we disagree on those.
There is only one way that the “science” of Climate become simple enough for a human – that is as a black body viewed from space.
The earth is not a perfect black body in many ways – it has a nuclear core among those. But we can adjust for those relatively simply.
Anyway CAGW failed that almost a decade ago.
Just as the models have failed.
Further Warmism has lost its momentum – Trump may have had the balls to withdraw from the paris accords – but no one was following them. Because people just do not truly beleive this nonsense anymore.
Obama retired and built a home in a location – that according to warmist will be under water soon.
Developers are spending 2.5B to build on the Maldives – which are supposed to be under water in a few years.
You you think people bet $2.5B on a sure loser ?
You can link to Wikipedia and cite consensus – few people beleive you any more.
Just like pinochio.
Many will not admit that to themselves – but they live as if CAGW will not happen
Leaders lead as if it will not happen
Because it is not happening.
“Melting of Greenland ice sheet and other ice formations;”
Net Global Ice is nearly constant over time.
Antartica is adding more than Greenland is losing.
And I am pretty sure the 2019 data for Greenland has it gaining Ice.
Regardless at the rate Greenland was purportedly losing Ice it would take over 200,000 years for it to lose it all.
We will have multiple Ice ages durimng that period
“Sea level rise, visit Miami Beach, the Tidal Pool in Washington, DC, and talk to the navy about Norfolk, VA;”
Sea level has been rising for over 250 years. The rate is near constant over time. SLR is the most important PROBLEM for CAGW – the vast majority of the cause for SLR is thermal expanision and the constant rate of SLR proves that the ocean temperatures are rising very very slowly and have been doing so for hundreds of years.
“Increasing global average temperatures;”
As they have been increasing for almost 250 years.
At the time of the american revolution you could ice skate on the thames in winter.
Washington’s winter at valley forge is famous for its bitter cold and snow.
“Increasing global precipitation;”
You like NOAA – they disagree.
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/figure-17.png
Regardless, the CAGW hypothesis requires increasing lower atmosphere cloud cover.
2017 Set records for the amount of Arctic Sea Ice – I presume that was causes by unusually warm Arctic weather ?
John– Also interesting to recall that for most of the history of the Earth there probably were no polar ice caps. Climate changes.
There is literally no point in trying to analytical about Trump: he is a big, fat narcissist. The world revolves around him, just him, and anything or anyone that he perceives detracts from his wonderfulness or provides a factual grounds to criticize him is an enemy so he will attack them and lie about them. So, when the coronavirus pandemic came along and made him look bad because people were getting sick and dying due to his incompetence and trashing of Obama’s pandemic playbook and because it caused the economy that he bragged so much about to crash (he inherited a robust, booming economy from Obama, who turned around the worse economic recession since the Great Depression, and whose economic numbers were better than Trump’s*), he tried to bully and bluster it away, starting with lying about the cause being just one person coming from China**; 15 cases will soon be 0 cases; it will disappear by April; anyone who wants a test can get a test; we’ll have a vaccine very soon; hydroxychloroquine is a “game changer”–what do you have to lose?; suggestions that a light could be put in someone’s body to kill the virus; a suggestion that people could imbibe bleach or Lysol to kill the virus; and now 99% of coronavirus infections are “harmless”. There is not, and has never been, any scientific factual grounds for any of these claims, which, in and of itself, are bad, but they are causing people to get sick and die. No one knows what the long-term effect of a coronavirus infection will be–whether the senses of smell and taste will return–what the extensive lung scarring means long-term–future emphysema, shortness of breath? The only reason the death rate is dropping is because doctors have learned that giving dexamethasone, a corticosteroid, reduces lung inflammation and thereby decreases the need for ventilator support. There is also Remdesivir, an anti-viral drug developed for Ebola, that is helping. Trump is trying to take credit for a lower death rate. We still don’t know what we don’t know about this virus except that it has already mutated once to make it more virulent. Those spikes on the outside of the cell have changed chemical composition to make it easier for the virus to invade your lung cells. It’s also not clear that once infected you become immune.
In March, we started sheltering in place, closing schools and businesses, and this worked to flatten the curve until Trumpy Bear decided to declare victory over the virus for no reason other than he thinks he can force an economic recovery. He claims that there are “hot spots” or “embers” that need to be put out. Just more lies. Once the control measures began being lifted, infection rates began to rise, which was totally predictable. Now, the fat election cheater is actually trying to force schools to re-open for in-person classes, by threatening to withhold federal aid. He is threatening to deport foreign students if there aren’t in-person classes where they attend college. All this despite the fact that Europe has coronavirus under control, and the US is once again seeing daily record numbers of new infections. The new White House message will be: we have to learn to live with it, and we’re not going to shut things down again. So much for the right of states to decide for themselves what’s best for their citizens.
All of the decisions about this pandemic have been made solely for one reason: to appease the big, fat, narcissist, to make him look good, to increase his chances for re-election, all part of his efforts to bully and bluster his way out of this crisis. Coronavirus doesn’t care. Well, we should all understand this by now, but my question is: what the hell is wrong with Republicans? They are not all malignant narcissists, and they took an oath to the American people. Why do they continue to enable him? Why won’t they speak up, or do something to help save Americans from getting sick or dying?
**job growth was higher under Obama; the economy grew more under Kennedy, Obama and even Jimmy Carter; real wages, adjusted for inflation, rose more slowly under Trump than Obama; GDP was the same as Obama; manufacturing was flattening under Turmp before the pandemic struck
*genetic analysis shows that the source was most likely someone coming from Europe.
All politicians are narcissists – so what ?
Does Trump attack people who attack him ? Sure.
Does he lie ? Not so sure about that. Certainly not nearly as much as democrats, the press and the left lie about him.
How has C19 made Trump look bad ?
Is there are nation that has done better ?
The worst parts of this country remain the blue parts ?
Regardless the evidence is that no government policy of anykind anywhere has actually worked.
C19 does not care about government polices.
Trump could have announced that we should all run arround naked to fight C19 – he would have looked incredibly foolish, but the harm would have been less than closing down the economy.
Trashed Obama’s pandemic Playbook ? Really ? Obama and Biden botched Swine Flu. And the used up all the resources Bush left them and did not restore them for Trump. the good news is that free markets actually work – that should be the message of this entire C19 mess – is that free markets work. Whether you need TP or hand sanitizer or Masks or ventaliators, abrupt changes in demand will result in temporary shortages no matter what – but quickly markets will step up.
Honestly there is no Obama pandemic playbook. There is no pandemic playbook. No government has handled this well. No government could have.
Ultimately people are not nearly so stupid as the left presumes.
You can goad them through fear for a short period, but eventually rationality overcomes fear.
People are increasingly aware that the response of government to C19 was a huge mistake.
That as always the best response in a crisis – especially a natural one, is to let people work things out for themselves.
John Say– thank you. I needed that reality shot.
“How has C19 made Trump look bad ?” >> It’s made him look awful in fact. Worst response in the industrialized world. Itet’s not just made him look awful, it’s proven he is awful as president. His failings around super late starts in testing, contact tracing, PPP supply, and heeding the advice of his own medical advisors are the main ways he f’d up. His extortion game with blue state governors is another standard fare Trump failing. His complete lack of preparation and tactics, which consisted first of outright denial, not reading his daily briefings, finally reading something about Sweden and having a Homer Simpson light go off in his head and saying ‘hey, you mean we can just ignore all of this?’…, all of it equaled perfect storm.
“Is there are nation that has done better ?” >> Germany, France, Canada, New Zealand, China, Japan on the top end, even Italy, Spain, Israel on the lower end. Part of it is not Trump’s fault…, Americans are spoiled for the most part and definitely hit pandemic response fatigue quicker than anywhere else, but having an idiot denier as president who actively undermined his own government in its response was just worst case scenario for the U.S.
“The worst parts of this country remain the blue parts ?” >>If as you put forth by unproved assertion that government policies can’t affect C19 why would you think Covid would function politically??? Besides, Florida, Texas, Mississippi and Arizona are way in the red zone right now and all are governed by Repub deniers.
“Regardless the evidence is that no government policy of anykind anywhere has actually worked.
C19 does not care about government polices.” >> Completely demolishing the point you’ve tried to make in your questions above…, and this means you’re arguing just for the sake of arguing. And a false point all the way around as, clearly, some federal governments have had much more success with policy than others. And the countries that have taken the ideological tact you’re advocating here (Trump, early Bojo, Brazil) have been hit the hardest.
The question raised was “How has C19 made Trump look bad ?”
Buglife responds: “It’s made him look awful… Worst response… it’s proven he is awful… His failings around… are the main ways he f’d up.”
Of course no data exists in the reply. If it did one of the first things thought of would be Trump’s travel ban on Chinese tourists along with numerous other things such as permitting private industry to create the testing kits since centralized government failed..
Buglife continues: ” His extortion game… His complete lack of preparation… having a Homer Simpson light go of..,equaled perfect storm.
This lengthy response by Buglife had nothing but empty rhetoric absent of fact, paragraph after paragraph after paragraph. What an absolute bore. Buglife substitutes lengthy replies but says absolutely nothing of value. He will change this alias again.
Italy France and Spain have done better ? Really ?
The death rate per million is higher than the US in all those countries – as well as several other european countries you did not mention.
In the case of Spain it is 50% higher.
And testing matters why ?
If you have symptoms – if you THINK you have symptoms – Quarantine yourself PERIOD.
If those symptoms are severe enough that you think you should go to a hospital – call your doctor.
Testing is a giant red herring.
BTW the CDC has a long history of botching testing going back into the Obama administration.
Contact Tracing is only useful if you live in a totalitarian society like China, or if you start it very very early as a means of preventing the disease from entering the country. Japan may be the only country that succeed in that – or they may have a very high degree of resistance do to diet.
Once the disease has reached sufficient portion of the general population – which failures in China and WHO ensured WORLDWIDE,
Contact Tracing is nearly useless. The resource do not exist to contact trace 10’s of thousands of people – much less millions.
You live in a fantasy world – Or China.
PPP – Really ?
Not only did US free markets rise to the challenge, but when China failed to meet world needs The US stepped in.
I would further note that the Obama administration used up almost the entire PPE strategic reserve fighting Swine Flu and failed to replace it.
Rather than a problem PPE has proved a stunning success – not for Trump, but for the free market, which proved that strategis reserves are not needed. That the market can respond to demand spikes fast enough.
As to the advice of Trump’s medical advisor’s – what advice didn’t he follow ?
Beyond that – what advice have the experts provided that has been right ?
What is it that so called experts even agree on ?
Masks don’t work, they do, maybe they do, maybe they don’t.
C19 lasts on surfaces for days, for hours, for minutes, no you can only get it directly ?
Asymptomaic people can pass it, they can’t.
I can go on and on. The “experts” even disagree with themselves.
According to JHU there are still FEWER global cases than Los Almost predicted US deaths in February.
Before that we were told this could not be spread to humans.
C19 is the poster child for “experts do not know shit”.
Had we followed the normal approaches taken to respiratory viruses over the past century we would be no worse off in terms of deaths and far better off in every other way.
To the extent that Trump is complict in that – he was wrong – BECAUSE he listened to experts.
God forbid Biden had been president. There would be as many or more dead and the resulting recession would last a decade.
The U.S. has the *worst* response of any industrialized country, John. i suppose it’s possible to out worst the worst, but other than a tardy travel ban from China, and a super tardy travel ban on European hot spots, he’s gotten every major decision wrong on CV 19.
Get used to those facts, they’ll become examples of how not to handle a pandemic in the future.
And yes, Italy, France and Spain have turned their curves down, the U.S. is catastrophically headed back up. The spikes in Texas, Florida, Arizona and Mississippi are entering NY in the spring territory.
NY, NJ, Mass, Conn all have deaths per million at 100+ to 1600+
Texas death per million 102
Why would the bug use Texas as an example? Because the bug is ignorant of the facts.
Spain and Italy are in the 600+ range
Why would he use them in comparison at 5X the death rate of Texas? Ignorance, pure ignorance.
That was 1200+ to 1600+ compared to Texas at 102 deaths per million. That is a multiple of 12-16 times demonstrating ignorance of the facts by Bug et al.
Allan comes in thard with the abstraction that shows he can can get a picture of what population density looks like but is completely off base as the effects of CV 19.
Those three democrat states are outliers with respect to the US and all of Europe. It looks intelligence has weight in your body for it isn’t on top. It seems to lie somewhere in the middle or on the bottom. I think they account for 42% of all US deaths.
When you compare NY State to Florida and Texas take note that Florida’s population is bigger than NY and Texas has a substantially bigger population than Florida. The deaths per million in the democrat states was many fold higher than in the Republican states.
When you deal in raw data. The population of NY and NJ is much smaller than Florida and Texas. Total deaths in only NY and NJ democrat states 47,000 Republican states 7,000. One can then compare the nursing home populations between the northern states and Florida. Florida has a significantly greater nursing home population than NY but nursing home deaths in NY were multiples of that in Florida. One can see the same failures in other democrat states.
Bug is afraid of anyone knowing his other aliases said “comes in thard with the abstraction ” yet he is the one that produces no data. My numbers are verifiable so that makes Bug’s comments foolish and vacuous.
You really have a problem with words.
Concrete data from the real world is about as far from an abstraction as you can get.
But this is typical of left wing nuts.
Misuse words as a form of argument – hoping that no one will catch that their is no connection between your argument and reality.
And you wonder why you have no credibility ?
Lets just say that C19 is actually spiking in TX – i suspect there is a very small spike as people come out of lockdown and start enjoying themselves. But lets say the entire increase is real.
And at the same time deaths are flat – and we now have plenty of time for them to have headed back up.
What happens when at the end of this TX has more total cases than NY and yet 1/5 the deaths.
I have been unbeleivably kind to blue states – as the results are predictable by demographics diet and latitude not policy.
But someone is going to note that people in TX were 5 times more likely to live than NY.
Even if Johnny is correct – Blue states look bad. Red states look good.
And who cares how high the number of cases spike if no one dies ?
John, your considerations regarding the difference in death rates such as latitude are good considerations but I believe you left out variables both known and unknown.
One example: Does dose, the amount of virus one is exposed to, effect morbidity and mortality? I think that is an important consideration and might be one of the causes that rates were so high in the NY metropolitan area. The democrat governor and mayor were very late in their concerns over the filth in mass transit where they did nothing for months. There were a lot of reports of an unusually high number of transit workers dying from the disease (I don’t know if that was confirmed) and even then the democrat mayor and governor did nothing to clean up mass transit mess.
A second area of fault for the democratic mayor and democratic governor that comes to mind is the fact that they have permitted overcrowding and substandard care in a number of city hospitals. I believe that may be where the highest number of deaths occurred. This substandard care and over crowding has existed for decades so this has been a chronic condition however like the children being killed in Chicago democrats don’t seem willing to clean up their back yards. They are always spending visible money for programs that don’t work while they permit neighborhoods to rot.
“One example: Does dose, the amount of virus one is exposed to, effect morbidity and mortality?”
Likely – but the study I was referring to was about the policy effects.
“I think that is an important consideration and might be one of the causes that rates were so high in the NY metropolitan area.”
I agree.
“A second area of fault for the democratic mayor and democratic governor”
I think there are many areas where you can find some actual red/blue distinctions.
That is just not where I am fixated.
>>“One example: Does dose, the amount of virus one is exposed to, effect morbidity and mortality?”
>Likely – but the study I was referring to was about the policy effects.”
>”That is just not where I am fixated.”
Dose involves policy. That is why I brought up the transit worker deaths. The City of NY and NY State didn’t do anything until very late in the game to clean up mass transit one of the most likely places to rapidly spread disease. Small enclosed areas, lots of people with tremendous exposure to inhalation and touching the virus leads to high doses of the virus. That is policy. A second policy I brought up was the chronic overcrowding and substandard care in both city and state institutions. If the policy of NY were different I believe the death rate would have been much lower. I can provide other policy failures.
If you consider everything to be static including the virus without any changes in vaccines or treatment then you could say policy has no effect long term. But in reality the situation is not static so policy can have a tremendous effect. The reason I believe what you say to be mostly correct is not because of your belief in the futility of preventing the diseases spread rather the damage we did to human lives and the economy by overtreating the entire nation.
Ridiculous.
“And yes, Italy, France and Spain have turned their curves down, the U.S. is catastrophically headed back up. The spikes in Texas, Florida, Arizona and Mississippi are entering NY in the spring territory.”
The US is a larger country it will take longer to burn out in the country overall, It will also take longer in less populated areas.
There is no spike in TX, FL, …. all you are seeing is factor of 6 increase in testing.
There has been barely an up tick in hospitalizations and the death rate is low and flat.
There is no catastrophe.
JHU says there are 3M confirmed cases in the US – CDC (and pretty much every study done anywhere in the world) says the number is 10x to 20x that.
We already know the average age of those testing positive is 20, and that they are asymptomiatic. We did not test young asymptomatic people in NY or pretty much anywhere until recently.
There are also some testing issues to sort out.
We are now – but not everywhere, doing both antigen and antibody tests. They first says you have C19, the second says you HAD C19.
The results are not being separated out.
You want to worry – or pray for a spike – go ahead.
What I am concerned about it the stupidity of my democratic governor.
” but other than a tardy travel ban from China, and a super tardy travel ban on European hot spots, ”
And yet Biden and the left were beating Trump up – not for acting too slow but for acting too fast.
Regardless., C19 was in the US before anyone could possibly have know.
We Know as a fact it was in CA in the first week of January. But if could have arrived in CA as early as mid November.
It is almost certainly in NYC before we shutdown China.
Regardless if that is you sales pitch – Trump outperformed almost every other world leader.
Only Tiawan, Singapore and Japan handled travel better – and that is because they all have an innate mistrust of China.
The rest of the world did not initiate travel restrictions until AFTER Trump did.
“he’s gotten every major decision wrong on CV 19.”
I agree, but I will bet we entirely disagree on what he should have done.
“Get used to those facts, they’ll become examples of how not to handle a pandemic in the future.”
I agree.
Absent some development in medicine we have not seen todate – we should have done almost nothing.
Exactly as we have done for the flu before we had vaccines.
We should not have shutdown the economy, we should not have burned trillions. We should have kept schools open and closed nursing homes to visitors.
“Once the disease has reached sufficient portion of the general population – which failures in China and WHO ensured WORLDWIDE,
Contact Tracing is nearly useless. The resource do not exist to contact trace 10’s of thousands of people – much less millions.”
Neither the bug nor his aliases are any good at mathematics or statistics.
“If as you put forth by unproved assertion that government policies can’t affect C19 why would you think Covid would function politically???”
With few exceptions – such as sending recovering C19 patients to Nursing Homes – there is no basis for claiming Government polices impacted this.
But YOU beleive they do, therefor YOU need to explain why the red state per capita death rate is overall less than 1/3 that of Blue states ?
I can explain that based on latitude and demographics – but you do not accept those as the statistically significant criteria that explain all differences between nations and states.
As you reject that – you have to explain the difference between Red and Blue states.
“Besides, Florida, Texas, Mississippi and Arizona are way in the red zone right now and all are governed by Repub deniers.”
Of the top 10 states in deaths per capita all of them have democratic governors. All but one are “blue states”.
That is according to WaPo.
Florida’s current Deaths per capita are 1/8 that of NY. (WaPo)
Deaths per Day is flat or declining – far below the almost 4000 peak in Mid April.
There is no red state spike in deaths or hospitalizations
If you are going to play stupid cherry picking games – then I am going to accept your idiotic claims and use the data to prove that democrats have been a C19 catastrophe.
The FACT is that govenrment policies – aside from stupidity like sending infected people into nursing homes, have had no impact on this.
But if I am wrong – then Democrats have murdered tens of thousands of people through bad policy.
And right now you had better hope that people start dying en mass in red states – because you would need to nearly double US deaths just to get red states equal to the death rate of blue states.
No Johnny. Studies done in Europe about 2 weeks ago found that the C19 rates in all countries throughout the world could be completely explained by
Democraphics, Diet, latitude.
That no policy showed any statistically significant correlation to C19 in any way.
We have data from every country in the world, we have data from every state in the US.
Different countries and states have followed different policies. We have more than enough variations throughout the world to determine whether any specific policies had a statistically significant effect.
There is even a statistical process for doing them – it is called regression.
If some government response – such as lockdowns – appears to have worked in one country – for that to be statistically meaningful, it must have worked in all other countries that tried it.
If some lockdown countries did well and some did not, and some non-lockdown countries did well and some did not – then lockdown do not have a statistically significant effect.
That is an over simplification of the process. As a proper regression requires comparing multiple factors recursively to determine if lockdowns might have failed in one country and succeded in another by combinations of policies or as a consequence of other factors.
Regardless the net result of the regressions of policy choices accross the world was NO STATISICALLY SIGNIFICANT BENENFIT of any policy.
You claim to be the big beleiver in Science – guess what Science says no effect.
BTW this should not be surprising. Good computer models – before the idiot models that tried to find some benefit from social distancing. detemined this long ago.
Vaccines WORK.
Some form of Cure works.
Quarantines can work – and infact the necescary degree of quarantine can be calculated from the R0 value of the disease.
Ebola does not spread easily – though the mortality rate is very high – the necescary degree of quarantine effectiveness to stop Ebola is low and easily acheivable.
The R0 value for C19 is about 2.4 – that requires approximately a 98% effective quarantine. If you do not acheive that quarantine rate, you might as well not quarantine at all.
This is also why Social Distancing and even PPE do not truly work.
They MIGHT change which people get the disease. Religious use of PPE when few are using PPE dramatically increase the odds that you end up among the few uninfected that are safe when herd immunity is reached. But the numbers are NOT changed by PPE or social distancing, only the time frame.
This is not merely science and math – but it is science and math that have been known for atleast a century.
The ONE thing Trump and every other world leader failed at that was inside of their powers – was Confining this to China very early on.
WE now know that would have required far more openness from China, and government actions in Dec 2019 or possibly earlier.
That was the last chance to stop a global pandemic.
John Say,
“Studies done in Europe about 2 weeks ago found that the C19 rates in all countries throughout the world could be completely explained by
Democraphics, Diet, latitude.”
Do you have a citation? I’d like to read it.
Actually many months ago latitude and a host of other factors were stated by a non physician and non researcher. Just a normal guy with good mathematical skills. I was referred to him by the Powerline blog but his information was deleted by those who like to determine what people can say. I don’t remember if it was video. I found an alternate site with the information and actually posted it on this blog.
If you want to search, Powerline would be the quickest way. Maybe I will recall the site and post at another time.
Proving yet one more time the depth and breadth of your idiocy.
I reported another’s work and where I saw it because another blogger was interested in certain things. I didn’t even provide opinion and look at your response.
It demonstrates that you do not bother to think before you write and you don’t bother to gather data. All you do is insult which proves except that the idiot is in your corner. It is amazing how little substance there is in your numerous posts.
ad hominem not argument
No mention of diet, but is this it?
Journal of Internal Medicine. 2 July 2020.
Perspective: Vitamin D deficiency and COVID‐19 severity – plausibly linked by latitude, ethnicity, impacts on cytokines, ACE2, and thrombosis (R1)
Jonathan M Rhodes Sreedhar Subramanian Eamon Laird George Griffin Rose Anne Kenny
Not the same study. This was a regression study of policies using the imperial college model with fixes and corrected initial conditions.
They basically used the imperial college model plus known startup conditions to hind cast reality based on policy choices and than regress the results to determine the significance of policies.
The prime goal of the studies was to determine policy impacts.
They determined natural immunity, natural resistance and the other factors for the purpose of being able to compare policy impacts.
They were not an end of their own.
They had to get the impact of the non policy factors correct to hindcast correctly to model policy effects and separate them from non-policy effects.
I wish I could find it for you.
I had already come to the conclusion that nothing government did had any effect by taking an overview of the world.
I think that conclusion is pretty obvious at this point.
There was a video of one of the leads on Youtube. I beleive they were out of netherlands.
Of course Youtube keeps taking down anything that does not confirm the left narative – god forbid scientitsts and doctors should be allowed to speak contra the annointed.
I have tried to find the papers, but not thus far.
They used the Imperial College model – fixing many of the bugs, then used the new data on R0 and other factors and derived a level of natural immunity of 50% and a level of high resistance of about 30% – with some small variation between countries.
After that they used the corrected model to regress data from different countries against each other looking for statistically significant factors.
The found no statistically significant effect on outcome from policy responses anywhere.
They were careful to note that it is still possible that some things like social distancing MIGHT have had an effect.
But the policy factors that MIGHT have had an impact had to be factors that were voluntarily done in countries where they were not policies.
As a result they were unwilling to conclude that social distancing and mask wearing had no effect, but they did find that manditory mask or social distancing policies had no effect.
The factors that did show statistical significance were latitude, diet, and demographics – quality and size of healthcare system age and health of people, race.
They did not regress specifics on diet – so I am not sure what they meant.
The person being interviewed agreed with suggestions that countries that eat lots of certain fish, or where people get lots of sunlight seemed to fare better. But he said that specifics of diet or sunlight or vitamin D or … were not part of their regressions.
He said those were reasonable matters for further investigation but that their work did not regress for those.
I do not know how they reached the conclusion that Singapore, Tiawan, Japan did not have statistically significant policy related outcomes,
But he stuck to the blanket claim that no policies showed significance.
I beleive those 3 countries are the only ones that were very effective at stopping C19 at of shortly after their borders.
“There was a video of one of the leads on Youtube. I beleive they were out of netherlands.”
Bahahahahahahaha.
Rose sought to find the study.
Your laughing does not alter anything.
In fact if the study did not exist – it would not alter anything.
It is self evident at this point that no policy has been effective against C19.
You should be thankful that is the case – otherwise blue state democrats would be murderers.
The rate of Death in NY is almost unparalleled.
You claim to have a foundation in science.
It is possible to use ideology to read differences between countries and states to mean whatever you want – so long as you are not compelled to conform those readings to the real world.
But if you are going to work from observable results, it is crystal clear – C19 has laughed at our efforts to stop it.
It has a pattern of behavior – all infectuous diseases do. That pattern is unfazed by anything we do.
We MIGHT be able to delay the inevitable – but that is all.
No Obama did not turn arround the worst economy since the great depression.
How old are you ? The recession in 1980 was worse. Even worse than that it was atleast partly deliberately caused by the Fed to purge stagflation.
Recovery when it came was stronger.
What Obama did was preside over the worst economic recovery since the great depression.
And prove once again that the worst thing that government can do in a recession is intervene.
The most significant government interventions were to the great depression and the great recession – and those proved to be the weakest and longest recoveries.
We were headed back into recession when Trump was elected, that reversed immediately – and even 8 years out from the bottom of the recession Trump was able to manage almost a full percent greater growth than Obama while continuing to increase employment to unheard of levels. Both of these Obama and the left claimed for 8 years were impossible.
Obama was a failure as a president – in most everyway.
The 2008 crash was a worldwide financial crisis and the worst recession since 1929. The 2 countries which came out quickest and the strongest from it were Germany and the US at about the same rate. Comparing it to lesser recessions and ignoring how the world responded to this particular one is just dumb or attempts at propaganda. John may want to also note that Obama was rated our 12th best president by historians in 2017. One can be fairly certain his hero and leader Trump will not get out of the 40s and will make it to the 50’s in due time.
Rated “12th best president” based on what criteria? Most corrupt fraud?
Like John Say said, “Obama was a failure as a president – in most everyway.” Truth right there.
It’s usually Peter Shill who trots out that bit of stupidity.
The 2008 crash was a worldwide financial crisis and the worst recession since 1929.
No it wasn’t. The most severe economic contraction occurred from the fall of 1929 to the spring of 1933. You had a secondary contraction which ran from the beginning of 1937 to the middle of 1938. Both of these were more severe than the 2008-09 contraction and unemployment rates averaged about 18% (some stashed in alphabet soup agencies) during the period running from 1929 to 1941. You had the reconversion recession from the fall of 1945 to the spring of 1947. Crash in production levels was more severe and you had a spike in unemployment. Because there was a parallel surge in the production of consumer goods and rationing was dismantled, this did not have the effect on well-being that you’d ordinarily expect with the production metrics. The recessions of 1980-82 ran on longer and had higher peak unemployment, but lower declines in production.
As has been noted in other venues, there wasn’t a single therapeutic measure that wasn’t in place when Obama took office, and three of the five officials managing the crisis during the last months of the Bush administration remained in office. The Obama crew offered two addenda: the porkulusm programs (which were wholly unnecessary, just a mess of Democratic Party wishlists stapled together) and the auto industry rescue, which featured secured creditors being raped in order to pay off Democratic Party client groups. Again, Democratic politicians don’t do anything for non–criminal reasons.
“The 2008 crash was a worldwide financial crisis”
Nope!
The 2008 Financial crisis was the inevitable result of the housing bubble bursting.
It was a pretty standard bubble bursting recession.
The truly smart people saw it coming BEFORE the housing bubble burst.
More recognized the mess that was coming after the bubble burst.
The 2008 Recession was only barely deeper than the 1979 recession
We are still trying to get a handle on the Corona Recession – it could rival the great depression for depth.
But the fall and rise are incredibly steep. So steep that even though the peak drop in GDP could be the most we have ever seen over a short period of time – we still may not end up with an actual recession. Because the recession bridged two quarters and the drop and recovery were so fast.
“and the worst recession since 1929. The 2 countries which came out quickest and the strongest from it were Germany and the US at about the same rate.”
Yes, the entire world led by the US followed the same stupid approach as the great depression and got the same bad results.
“Comparing it to lesser recessions and ignoring how the world responded to this particular one is just dumb or attempts at propaganda.”
No, it is called economics.
There was nothing particularly unique about the 2008 recession. It was a bit deeper than a typical business cycle recession – primarly because the Fed was inflating housing sales since 1998, that is 8 years of bubble. The great depression was the result of a similar central bank caused bubble – in that case one in both housing and factory construction. Buy July 1929 the US had more factories producing more goods than americans had any possibility of consuming. again the bubble bursting was inevitable.
But had Hoover responded like Harding/Coolidge did in 1921 the “great depression” would have ended quickly.
Instead Bush and Obama did the same stupid things that Hoover and FDR did with the same results.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
“John may want to also note that Obama was rated our 12th best president by historians in 2017. One can be fairly certain his hero and leader Trump will not get out of the 40s and will make it to the 50’s in due time.”
Why do I care what the idiots who live in the Ivory towers of our universities think ?
Obama was a failure. He was worse than Bush and that is pretty bad.
If the marxists in our universities think Obama ranks highly – all that does it prove how bad our universities are.
The scope of John’s ignorance is impressive. The housing bubble morphed into a financial crisis due to bundling of subprime mortgages into securities, which poisoned the markets and led to the downfall of longstanding WS houses. By itself, the housing bubble was a problem, but not that great, so John gets that part right.. The bundling and market poisoning led to the greatest financial crisis since 1929. Those are facts.
As to the “Marxists” he thinks rated Obama our 12th best president, the same poll placed Reagan our 9th best president.
We can safely pencil Trump in at the bottom.
Any questions John?
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/all-time-best-president-united-states-rankings-235149
“Historians have ranked Barack Obama the 12th best president of all time, the highest rated since President Ronald Reagan, in a new C-SPAN survey released Friday….
Here are the full rankings:
1. Abraham Lincoln
2. George Washington
3. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
4. Teddy Roosevelt
5. Dwight Eisenhower
6. Harry Truman
7. Thomas Jefferson
8. John F. Kennedy
9. Ronald Reagan
10. Lyndon Johnson
11. Woodrow Wilson
12. Barack Obama
13. James Monroe
14. James Polk
15. Bill Clinton
16. William McKinley
17. James Madison
18. Andrew Jackson
19. John Adams
20. George H.W. Bush
21. John Q. Adams
22. Ulysses Grant
23. Grover Cleveland
24. William Taft
25. Gerald Ford
26. Jimmy Carter
27. Calvin Coolidge
28. Richard Nixon
29. James Garfield
30. Benjamin Harrison
31. Zachary Taylor
32. Rutherford Hayes
33. George W. Bush
34. Martin Van Buren
35. Chester Arthur
36. Herbert Hoover
37. Millard Fillmore
38. William Harrison
39. John Tyler
40. Warren Harding
41. Franklin Pierce
42. Andrew Johnson
43. James Buchanan”
As to the “Marxists” he thinks rated Obama our 12th best president, the same poll placed Reagan our 9th best president.
Again, no serious historian would answer such an inquiry, particularly about presidents wherein the archival record is so thing. That’s quite aside from the normative preferences of the American history faculty. You didn’t even ask yourself where this sample of historians came from. (The rating for Kennedy is downright silly).
Isn’t that convenient! But of course absurd will give us the benefit of his always unfounded opinion.
As is the rating for Harding.
Harding was a scoundrel. And a crook. But he had a depression at the start of his presidency. His handling should be text book for other presidents. He cuts spending and taxes and had a depression that was as deep as Hoover’s part of the Great depression but ended in less than a year.
That may not get him on Mt. Rushmore. But it does not put him near the bottom of the barrel.
This list by “historians” ranking presidential “popularity” (not actual accomplishment) is about as useless as the Nobel Peace Prize is now…and all the rest of the prizes and awards. Utterly meaningless.
“The housing bubble morphed into a financial crisis due to bundling of subprime mortgages into securities, which poisoned the markets and led to the downfall of longstanding WS houses.”
Mostly wrong. You are correct that the above is the mechanism by which the destruction of trillions of dollars in value eventually manifested itself in the stock market.
But your claim is that the mechanism is the cause.
A mortgage is a “security”. In fact a variety of financial paper is essentially money. Bundling mortgages fundimentally makes the SAFER,
It is similar to insurance in that it distributes the risk. Regardless, it changes Who gets screwed by the collapse of the housing bubble – securities holders rather than mortgage holders. But it does not change the fact that if Trillions in Mortgages go bad – there will be a recession.
The cause of the 2008 recession was indisputably the housing bubble bursting. Unless you know some magical way for the markets to absorb a sudden loss of Trillions of dollars in value.
“By itself, the housing bubble was a problem, but not that great, so John gets that part right.”
Not only was it A problem – it was THE problem.
You will note nothing has been done about mortgage securitization – because there is nothing wrong with it. It is a GOOD thing, NOT a bad one.
“The bundling and market poisoning led to the greatest financial crisis since 1929. Those are facts.”
The economy was poisoned by the bursting of the housing bubble – Nothing else.
Had the housing bubble not happened – there would have been no recession.
Had mortgages bot be securitized – there still would have been a recession, and it would have been just as bad.
I would note that Dodd frank did nothing to address securitization – it is not a problem.
Frankly Dodd Frank did nothing – because you have had a multi-trillion dollar collapse in value and not expect a recession.
If you did not want the recession – you had to prevent the housing bubble.
“As to the “Marxists” he thinks rated Obama our 12th best president, the same poll placed Reagan our 9th best president.”
So ? They also ranked FDR highly and aside from his handling of WWII he was an absolute disaster.
There was a reason that the great depression lasted so long – First Hoover’s interventions, and then FDR’s.
TR, Eisenhower, and Truman were not horrible, but they do not belong anywhere near the top.
JFK was mediocre too, But LBJ was horrible. Wilson was horrible
Obama was not a fraction as good as Clinton. Carter blew the Iran hostage crisis and though he made otherwise excellent choices as president, He was uninspiring. Nixon belongs near the bottom – but I guess your professors figured out he was a closet socialist.
Really your list is just crap. It appears to be created by people who were clueless about US presidents.
‘
John is a liberterian hence he fundamentally misunderstands both “socialism” and also the instincts and genius of President Nixon
Liberterians are good folks, as I am sure John is, but, mislead by too many idealistic slogans that do not comport with the reality of man’s social nature and the utter relevance of facts and time to our existence.
Nixon accomplishments:
EPA
Wage and Price controls, Twice
Gas Rationing.
Defaulting on US debt by abandoning the Gold Exchange Standard.
Clean Air Act.
OSHA
NEPA
First effort to nationalize health insurance
War on Drugs
Sorry Kurtz – Socialist.
Bees are social animals. Ants are social animals.
Humans are animals who enjoy the company of others sometimes.
They are not “social animals” they are animals with many values one of those many is social interaction.
It is a value not a principle.
Humans tend to do more poorly when that value is not met – just as they do poorly when any of many other values are not met.
Man’s nature is no more social than it is defined by any other human value.
I don’t really care how historians rate them. Obama was not as bad as Republicans remember him. Clinton was worse. Nixon is under rated.
George Bush Sr was a better president than Jr by far if you ask me. The world was a very dangerous place when the USSR collapsed and somehow Bush and his clever team road the crisis to the position where they could it to a massive advantage in the former Warsaw pact for which subsequent presidents claimed the credit. Plus we did not get nuked which was a good outcome that was very possible in the chaos.
Truman should be way down on that list. What a lot of balls he fumbled. I would put JFK above him for sure.
Lyndon Johnson was a destroyer. Awufl president.
He should be waaaaay down the list unless we are just measuring how cunning they were, in which case he’s probably at the top.
PS John also blows it on what the rest of the worldd did. IN fact, much or Europe, and especially the UK followed the “austerity” prescription the GOP insisted on and lagged way behind in their recovery. If he wants he can look this all up. Of course since then the GOP has become bored with “austerity” and approved a rich kid stimulus bill in Trump’s 1st year which gave us a 1 year sugar high – now spent – with middling results, but a bill those MAGA rubes will be paying – we all will – for a decade or more. The chief beneficiaries were Trump’s real base, his pals in Manhattan and Palm Beach.
No nation responded to 2009 with an actual austerity program.
That is schlock.
There are complexities because the US desparately needed – and still needs to cut spending dramatically, but because the Dollar is the world’s reserve currency we are relatively immune to the pressures that would force us to do so – until it is too late, and then we are taking the entire global economy with us.
Regardless – you claim that Obama’s program worked ?
Recovery from a recession is usually dramatic – the reason that 2008 is compared to 1929 is not because it was deep – it was barely as large a drop in GDP as 1979 and not nearly as bad in unemployment. The misery index in 1979 was much higher than in 2008.
The other prime example of a failed recovery is the great depression.
The recovery in 1979 was much steeper with a very long period of sustained growth that had never been seen before.
Average Growth in the 20th century was 3.5%. Average Growth in the 21st has been 2%. Growth under Obama averaged 1.8%.
That sucked. But elect Biden and you can have a sucky economy back again.
You keep confusing me with a republican.
Republicans only want to cut spending when democrats are in power.
Trump’s tax cut was far from perfect, but it was a major improvement over what preceded it.
But again – elect Biden and get rid of it and you can see how horrible it can be if you screw over the economy.
In every system talent, skills, effort all follow a pareto distribution – why would you expect income to be different.
Regardless, the successful invest – that ultimately benefits consumers for more than the wealthy.
The recession in 1980 was worse.
Peak unemployment rates were higher. The decline in the rate at which goods and services were produced was a good deal lower. NB, the recession had two phases, a five month run in 1980 and then an 18 month run from the middle of 1981 to the end of 1982.
We can play games comparing 1980 to 2008.
You can find ways one or the other was worse.
What you can not prove is that 2008 was somehow unique in a much more threatening way, or radically larger,
1980 was in many ways worse. We needed to clean out 3 decades of stagflation. 2008 Only needed to clear 1 decade of damage from bad monetary policy.
Recovery should have been swift and strong.
You do understand that “flattening the curve” serves ONE purpose only – protecting the healthcare system from being overwhelmed.
In all otherways the effects are near universally BAD.
It is economic disaster.
It is psychological disaster.
It can potentially increase the number of deaths and disease. It only lowers deaths and only if it prevents the healthcare system from being overwhelmed.
If you are the slightest informed you know that no epidemiologist even pretends that “flattening the curve” will reduce the total number of infections.
Respiratory viruses will spread relentlessly until:
There is a cure or
through vaccine or infection sufficient population is immune to acheive “herd immunity”.
There is no magic that government can enact that changes that.
Look arround the world – the results in most every country can be predicted by diet, latitude, democraphics – age, race, health – AND NOTHING ELSE.
No government action has worked.
Shutting down schools was a huge mistake. Trying to protect people 45 and under in good health is a mistake.
The fastest route to immunity is to allow those least likely to have serious consequences to get infected and over this as quickly as possible to protect those who are more vulnerable.
If you are under 45 and healthy and wearing a mask right now, you are arguably harming people who are more at risk.
The number of people who can pass through an epidemic without immunity/resistance and without getting infected or dying is small.
Every healthy young person in that set is an older person who is not.
I’d add that flattening the curve buys time for the vulnerable to not get taken out while waiting for a vaccine and/or better therapeutics.
It’s not that we don’t understand your logic, John. It’s more that it just seems to have walked directly out of an Ayn Rand novel or a Neotech manual. I.e. it’s really heavy on the ideology and much lighter on the science. And what you’re putting forth runs directly against what the medical community has experientially learned about how to treat and take public health measures against CV 19.
Covid is a flu-like illness.. It isn’t Ebola, Polio, Mad Cow or Rabies.
The CDC has been reporting for months that the numbers are cooked: they vary from state to state, death certificate to death certificate, some confirmed by lab analysis others on whim by whomever was tending to the sick patient
Go out and lick every door knob, eat off of the floors at nursing homes in Cuomo’s NY Death state, and visit the homes of anyone who had a relative infected. Your goal should be to catch the bug to develop immune resistance not hide like Joe Biden
“I’d add that flattening the curve buys time for the vulnerable to not get taken out while waiting for a vaccine and/or better therapeutics.”
You can only flatten the curve so long. You can not develop a vaccine in that period of time.
Next the longer that time period is the less meaningful “therapeutics” are.
It is oK with you to cause all kinds of damage throughout society – probably more deaths from cancer and other treatable problems, in return for saving a handful of lives that might have died had you not shut everything down ?
“It’s not that we don’t understand your logic, John. It’s more that it just seems to have walked directly out of an Ayn Rand novel or a Neotech manual. I.e. it’s really heavy on the ideology and much lighter on the science.”
Your characterizations are irrlevant.
You say that you understand the logic – if so, then this is done.
In logic when you arrive at truth – you are done – all alternatives are false.
There is only one real world.
Flattening the curve either works or it does not (and the evidence is that it did not).
If it fails, you pay a high price for nothing. Even if it succeeds you may pay a high price for very little.
This is not about Rand. It is not about ideology.
While we have had some horrible experiences with Covid 19 are a result of horribly bad computer models – code written by idiots that is not determinative at tasks that are inherently determinative, Couple with obviously bad data being fed to the model.
Name a single respiratory virus EVER that has had an infection rate greater than 30% of the population.
The spanish flu possibly the worst repiratory epidemic in world history only infected 1/3 of the world.
The first presumption that should be taken with ANY respiratory virus epidemic is that about 2/3 of the population are either immune or highly resistant.
That means that from the start you are more than half way to “herd immunity”
All of the idiot C19 models assumed that 100% of people could get C19 – that has NEVER happened. Nothing close has ever happened.
We should not start a model with assumptions that have never been true in the real world.
“And what you’re putting forth runs directly against what the medical community has experientially learned about how to treat and take public health measures against CV 19.”
Actually it does not. We know a great deal about epidemics. Prior to this nonsense about lockdowns and social distancing – which is a new idea developed from a HS science fair project during the bush administration and converted into policy without any real testing.
Our understanding of the progress of epidemics is very good – we have learned it through centuries.
We actually have fairly simple mathematical models that work extremely well.
But as a result of this “social distancing” nonsense, we developed newer more complex models using really crappy code that any freshmen CS student would get failed for. And we relied on that through this mess. As well as this never before Tried nonsense of lockdown and social distancing.
Using the old reliable simple models – Social Distancing does exactly what you said – it buys you time. That is all.
I would note the BUYS part – what you do not seem to have figured out is that time you BOUGHT has a cost – a cost in money, a cost in lives. If you get little value in return – you have made a mistake.
As to the actual science of epidemics – to beat an epidemic without herd immunity you must reduce R0 to below 1 and you must keep it there for a very long time. The larger the population, the closer to 1 R0 is and the more people infected at the time you start whatever it is that you are doing, the longer it is going to take to burn the virus out – and fail to keep R0 below 1 even for a little – and you essentially start over.
You can lower R0 by quarantine. But the effectiveness of the quarantine must be the inverse of the initial R0
C19 requires atleast a 95% effective quarantine to actually stop the virus at some point before herd immunity (about 80% immune or highly resistant).
Nothing else besides a highly effective quarantine actually works.
Masks, Social Distancing, lockdowns – as noted before “flatten the curve”.
They do not alter the total number of people infected, or who die.
But they do create a pretty vile competition. The more social distancing you do, the more effective your PPE, the more likely you are to be one of the lucky few that is still standing when herd immunity is reached without having been infected.
But instead of running a hunger games competition. we should be choosing to protect those at serious risk and NOT protect those with little risk.
That is the only approach that actually save lives.
So it’s clear how you feel about things. But you seem to traffic in sweeping generalizations when pressed and use information overload to defocus. Actually you do Trump one better in that respect because he tries information overload defocusing but doesn’t read enough to do it effectively.
And, ultimately, there is one ‘truth’. Getting to know it is a different proceses however, one that takes many turns along the way. Science is no stranger to this, on the one hand there is the state of what’s known at any given moment, and this will be filtered through media’s ‘who, what, why, when and how’ method of reporting…, but in a top flight lab for instance the state of research is always more fluid than that. The latest finding is always a point along the continuum, not absolute truth. Viagra was originally a heart drug. Statins turn out to work better due to their anti inflamatory properties than their ability to clean the blood of unhealthy cholesterol. Not the original accepted truth for either of these drug classes originally. Were the realities accepted about each originally not correct? Are the realities accepted about them now absolute truth?
I’m hoping you get the drift here.
It’s only by stepping way, way back from the map as it were that saying things like ‘there is only one truth’ have any weight. True enough, duality can only be split so far before you’re left with just one entity, but that will not be a complete picture of on the ground reality.
What I see with you is the overlaying of ideology and philosophy into your scientific understanding. Take a step closer to the map, talk to someone who works in a hospital which had a heavy influx of covid, etc. You’ll get a much different vision than the one you’re espousing here on this blog.
Bug, I’m not sure John’s posts are properly described as “information”.
ha! Looks like he’s more into the hard sell than in information, certainly.
No one is selling you anything.
You are free to check facts on your own.
I would ask if you are actually able to argue the issues – or are you only capable of faux attacks on style rather than substance.
I have made lots of testable claims. Refute them if they are wrong.
But the constant fallacies are boring and pointless.
Some are some are not.
None of yours are.
Political prognositcation and tea leaf reading is just that. It is an oppinion. It is my view of the information available.
I will freely admit that you could read the same tea leaves and reach different conclusions. Who is right will be determined in November or Before.
I can easily come up with polls etc to reflect a view at odds with what I offer here – that depends on your judgement of what information is meaningful and what is not. In 2016 Polls were wrong. In 2018 they were wrong in very odd ways – Republics did well state races and senate races and came incredibly close to doing miraculously well. But they got slaughtered in the house.
No one accurately predicted both outcomes.
It is pretty much certain that whatever we see about 2020 right now is wrong. what is hard to tell is what is actually right.
As to issues like CAGW – the warming models have failed. That is a fact. it is the only fact that matters. The high priests of warmendom have not gone back and revised their models to accurately reflect reality – until the do they are babbling nonsense.
There is the separate problem that climate is far to complex to model faster than real time. A problem we are unlikely to solve with Silicon based computers. Climate is also a chaos problem – it might not be model-able at all.
Every problem is not solvable by science.
Those observations – as well as many other factual assertions I make – are just that facts.
I have attacked both your credibility and your morality over your fawning beleif in the “collusion delusion”.
Here you have an opportunity to come after my credibility, Prove some factual claim i have made is wrong.
Significant factual errors come at the expense of ones credibility.
But you are unlikely to get to my integrity – I do not make moral claims about others unless I can strongly back them up.
“So it’s clear how you feel about things.”
How I feel is irrelevant.
Stick to data, logic, reason.
“But you seem to traffic in sweeping generalizations”
If that is what I do, AND those generalizations are false it should be trivial to disprove them.
Instead of analyzing the way you think I argue – why not directly address the arguments.
Either they are sound, or you can refute them – with facts, logic reason.
“when pressed and use information overload to defocus.”
Wow! A fallacy I have never seen before.
Honestly, you really want to argue that I am wrong because I have bombarded you with information and you are confused by it ?
“ultimately, there is one ‘truth’.”
Nope! We have processes for discerning the trust where possible.
It is not always possible. Everything is not knowable.
Regardless, if you actually want to learns something about knowledge there are plenty of resources out there.
But you do not get to just make things up as you go and expect them to work.
All assertions are not true,
All ideas and opinions are not equal.
It is possible to establish the probability that something is true.
“Science is no stranger to this”
The foundations of science are unchanged.
“on the one hand there is the state of what’s known at any given moment, and this will be filtered through media’s ‘who, what, why, when and how’ method of reporting…, ”
That has nothing to do with truth.
“but in a top flight lab for instance the state of research is always more fluid than that.”
The state of research can be as fluid as you wish.
What is true is not oppinion. Sugar will not cure cancer – no matter how much you might wish that were so.
“The latest finding is always a point along the continuum, not absolute truth.”
This is not a debate about the existance of absolute truth.
That is a red herring.
AS I said before if you actually want to study the nature of knowledge, or truth there is a whole field of study.
With respect to our debates, it is irrelevant whether some proposition can be established as absolute Truth.
All that matters this that it is consistent with reality, and that it has a high probability of truth.
All things claiming to be true are not equally likely to be true – the overwhelming majority are false.
“Viagra was originally a heart drug. Statins turn out to work better due to their anti inflamatory properties than their ability to clean the blood of unhealthy cholesterol.”
So ?
“Not the original accepted truth for either of these drug classes originally.”
Word mangling nonsense.
The correct word in your sentence is USE, not truth.
The drug is what it is, and it does what it does, That is Truth.
“Were the realities accepted about each originally not correct?”
What does this question even mean ?
“Are the realities accepted about them now absolute truth?”
Again you are misusing words. Again confusing “use” with “truth”.
Debating with leftists is frustrating – you mangle words all the time.
We are free to do as we please – including using bizzarre meanings for words.
But words serve two critical purposes.
They are how we communicate,
and they are how the majority of us think.
When you misuse words, when you use the word “truth” where it does not belong, you destroy communications, and you muddy your own ability to think.
“I’m hoping you get the drift here.”
Yes, that you have no idea at all what true means.
And that you have a relatively large number of words that you use without a real grasp of their meaning.
The rest of your rant is nonsense.
Let me suggest something to you.
Stick to about a 5th grade vocabulary and use words in the way they have meant for over 100 years.
It will vastly improve your ability to communicate, and likely your thinking as well.
A drug is what it is. That is pretty close to absolute truth.
Hypothesises about its uses are not true until they are proven.
A false hypothesis is an error, It is not a changing truth.
Identifying a different use is just that – a new potential use.
It is truth when it is proven effective. Before it is just hypothesis.
Jesus. Diarrhea of the mouth.
Here’s a thought: Start your own blog.
Is that an argument ?
No, it’s a comment in the “comment” section of a blog.
“No, it’s a comment in the “comment” section of a blog.”
Good to know.
Debate turns on arguments.
If you wish to discuss your cats or conflate fallacy with argument then you are not serious.
“Enter your comment here.” This is what one sees when commenting or replying.
Enter your comment. Comment.
This isn’t a debate forum, as much as you might like it to be and your “comments” bore the hell out of me. So I scroll, but still: They’re boring as boring can be.
“This isn’t a debate forum, as much as you might like it to be and your “comments” bore the hell out of me. So I scroll, but still: They’re boring as boring can be.”
John, that is the type of talk we get from the Brainless Wonder. He scrolls but is too stupid to scroll past what bores him. Anything that requires thinking makes his eyes glaze over.
All public forums are forums for debate.
If your bored – don’t read or go away.
I guess your free to say “I am bored”
But it is pretty pointless.
Anyone with any sense scrolls right past the comments of John Say and Allan. They’re a couple of yahoos. Let them waste their time.
Brainless, you didn’t follow your own advice. Instead you replied to me and John over a dozen times and your responses to me you were arguing a point that had nothing to do with the comments made. That is plainly a stupid thing to do.
And yet you do not.
Rand damaged the social instincts of children who read her books.
Like me. badly., took me a long time to get over that dreck.,
Her political ideas were a bizarre form of right wing anarchist nonsense.
A bizarre hyper-individualistic caricature of John Locke and assorted other Enlightenment hogwash,.
US would have been better off if she stayed in Russia, in obscurity, instead of coming here and preaching her gospel of “selfishness”
“US would have been better off if she stayed in Russia, in obscurity, instead of coming here and preaching her gospel of “selfishness””
Kurtz, I think you become confused when you think of the word selfishness and Ayn Rand in the same sentence. Perhaps you need an adjective like rational selfishness. You might find yourself glowing when you hear the word altruistic but then try and think of all those altruistic people that killed and enslaved others. People seem to want to do things for you own good. I’ll take rational selfishness over altruism. If Joe Smith gives $20 million to the US government you might consider that altruistic but much or all of that money might be wasted. Let Joe invest the 20 million and he will provide jobs and wealth.
To survive man has to be selfish and look after himself. Being selfish doesn’t exclude one from helping another but $20 million Joe did a lot more good by providing people with jobs and others with his goods or services.
Then you should have read Rand as an adult, not a child.
Regardless, Rand did not damage you. You are responsible for yourself.
Further, I am not an objectivist. Rand has a cult following. I am not part of it.
I am perfectly capable of taking from Rand what is valuable and ignoring the rest.
Rand claimed Aristotle, not Locke as her foundation, and while again she has much to offer, she is outside the libertarian tradition.
I doubt she and Locke would have got along. But then she really did not get along with anyone.
Actually I find her gospel of “selfishness” quite interesting.
Who has done more for Mankind ? Mother Theresa or Steve Jobs ?
I think far more people in the world are far better off because of Steve Jobs than Mother Theresa.
Or in a more macro framework – free markets – even just slightly freer markets have done more to benefit the worst off in humanity in the past 40 years than all charity ever combined.
I am not quite ready to join Rand in proclaiming charity to be evil.
But in terms of what has benefited mankind more – she and Smith have that right.
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages”
― Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature & Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Vol 1
Actual Science and logic are not ideological.
Or if they are – then that Ideology is correct on that point.
Reality is not constrained or altered by ideology.
You can not dismiss something that is true by labeling it ideology.
C19 does not ask your ideology before infecting you or killing you.
“All of the decisions about this pandemic have been made solely for one reason: to appease the big, fat, narcissist, to make him look good, to increase his chances for re-election, all part of his efforts to bully and bluster his way out of this crisis”
That certainly has not worked with you – you seem to think that every decision he made was the wrong one.
How does that make Trump look good ?
If you are going to make an argument – the least you could do is make one that makes sense.
Absolutely Trump made decisions through out his presidency based on getting re-elected. Nearly all presidents do.
To get re-elected what you do must be what about 51% of voters want.
And Trump is tracking at roughly 39%.
So ?
No, what 51% “wants” is a vague thing concocted by pollsters and guided by mass media advertorials.
You need to simply turn out a sufficient number of voters in the key districts to secure a sufficient number of corresponding electoral votes.
Right now i am predicting a thing win by Trump, perhaps with an even worse popular vote outcome. I only give him a slight edge.
The nearly equally outcome will be: Kamala VP, Biden wins, for about a year, Biden resigns due to some illness besides his obvious dementia, Kamala is president.
in this scenario, Kamala would probably be an improvement over the doddering old Biden,. Who knows who will be the puppeteer if he wins, eh? Hillary would be a good bet, however. Because she is backing Kamala. And has been a long time. See how this might work? Power is like water, it’s a hydrodynamic force that finds a way in
You keep fixating on C19 as if the answers are obvious – while I think the answers are actually obvious – the obvious answers are NOT what you would likely have done.
So what is it that should have been done differently ?
Trump closed travel to China and then Europe faster than has been done before.
He was criticised by democrats and even Biden for doing so – though aparently now Biden maybe sort or might have acted sooner.
And if you beleive that i have swampland for sale.
And what is Biden’s plan ? To talk more with experts.
So how well have those experts done ?
Is there a single thing that you can tell me that “experts” have not disagreed with themselves over ?
What is increasingly obvious to everyone but you – is that there was nothing that government could do that would truly effect this.
I would love to accuse Cuomo of being a mass murderer – he has the worst C19 record of any developed nation/state in the world.
But aside from sending Recovering C19 patients to nursing homes. gthe outcome in NY was a consequence of the same factors I cited elsewhere – none of which have anything to do with government.
FL and TX might have a bit of a spike at the moment due to more testing and opening up.
But they are NEVER going to come close to the deaths per capita in NY.
That is not because they are red states.
It is because they have lower population denisity, lower latitude, and better demogreaphics.
But if you wish to pretend those are not factors – when are we going to convict Cuomo of Genocide ?
You can not inflation adjust job growth. That is a meaningless concept.
The average economic growth rate under Obama was 1.8%,
The last average I saw for Trump was about 2.6%,
1Q 2020 had 0.35% Growth – 2Q 2020 will likely be about the same.
In otherwords Trump will ultimately not even have an actual recession according to NBER rules.
It is highly likely that Trump will be headed into the election with 4% or greater growth.
And the Job recovery has already begun.
Covid hit the US too early to tank the election.
According to Trading Economics GDP rose 4.4T from the start of 2009 to the end of 2016 that is 550B/year
From 2016 to 2020 so far it rose 2.75T or 757B/year.
“Using the same GDP metric of consumer spending plus business investment adjusted for inventory changes, Obama’s last three years in office had growth rates of at least 2.17% and as high as 3.06%.
For Trump the high point was 2.83% in 2018 when the tax cut seems to have had the largest impact and even fell short of Obama’s 2014 and 2015 growth rates of 3.06% and 3.05%, respectively.
In 2019 the adjusted growth rate was only 1.99%. This is less than Obama’s three last years in office and less than five of his last six years.
I use the timeframe of Obama’s last three years to compare to Trump’s three years since they had similar economic environments and are not distorted by the Great Recession.
The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis released its first estimate for the December quarter and it shows the economy growing at 2.1%. For 2019 GDP growth was 2.3%, which is down from 2.9% in 2018 and just below 2.4% in 2017, Trump’s first year in office.
Over the 12 quarters Trump has been President only four of them have had GDP growth over 3% and six of the quarter’s growth was 2.3% or lower. And for the past three quarters GDP growth has been 2.0%, 2.1% and 2.1%, respectively. This is a far cry from Trump’s claim that the economy could growth 4%, 5% or maybe even 6% when he was President.
Under Trump business investment has turned negative the past three quarters and is negative or essentially flat when the impact of inventory changes are taken into account. Pretty much the only segment of business investment that has been positive the past three quarters is Intellectual Property Products.
Even consumer spending slowed substantially in the December quarter. It went from a 4.6% growth rate in the June quarter to 3.2% in September to 1.8% in the last three months.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2020/02/01/trumps-economic-growth-is-slower-than-obamas-last-3-years/#612dba4c4fed
You can cherry pick the begin and end quarters of some period during Obama’s presidency to get whatever results you want.
Obama’s last quarter was just barely above 0, the one before just barely above 1. The 1st quarter of 2014 was negative as were the first and third quarters of 2012.
Obama had some very good quarters and some very crappy quarters. He has an inconsistent economy, that constantly built up some steam and then collapsed.
Go look on Trading economics. You can see every quarter. The Obama economy was incredibly volatile.
That is as bad as a low average.
It is quite interesting. The Trump presidency – as a result of the ranting and raving of the left has been incredibly politically volatile.
But in terms of economcis, and policy it has been incredibly stable.
While the Obama presidency did not have the political volatility of Trump – but was highly volatile in every other way.
I would note that the volatility of the Trump presidency is YOUR fault – because you are unable to sit back and accept success.
The volatility of the Obama presidency was a failure of Obama.
If you want we can continue the dueling data.
But you and I both know full well that the Obama economy sucked.
Obama should have started hist presidency off with explosive growth. He came into office at the start of a recession.
Except when government intervenes the steeper the downturn the steeper the recovery.
Actually, in proper macroeconomic terms, the recession Obama entered office during began to formally turn the corner in April of ’09.
IS there some reason you wish to quibble over a few days ?
By Oct 2019 the slope of the decline had receded and the bottom of the recession was certain and soon.
It matters very little whether the technical bottom was Nov 2008 or April 2009.
According to BEA the 2Q 2009 GDP was fractionally smaller than 1Q 2009 despite the fact that recover was already under way.
Just as currently 1Q 2020 GDP was higher than 4Q 2019 even though the recession was already started and already pretty deep.
We are starting to see 2Q 2020 numbers. Because recovery is already underway and strong We will likely never see a “formal” recession – 3 consecutive quarters of negative growth. Despite the fact that the decline may have been significantly greater than the “financial crisis”.
Natacha said Trump said…”hydroxychloroquine is a “game changer”–what do you have to lose?”
Trump was right about this but the Dems and the Media will continue to suppress this information in order to prevent giving Trump a win on the issue going into the election. They would rather prevent sick people from accessing an effective and cost effective early treatment and have people actually die….than acknowlege that Trump was right about it. As one doc put it, that is what you call “crimes against humanity”….and it is ethically wrong to politicize an effective treatment just to hurt Trump. That is sick. Truly sick TDS at work.
Meanwhile, Cook Report latest:
“Democrats have 279 electoral votes in the Solid, Likely and Lean
categories and would need 0 electoral votes from the Toss Up
column.
Republicans have 188 electoral votes in the Solid, Likely and Lean
categories and would need 71 (100%) electoral votes from the Toss
Up column plus 11 votes from the Lean Democrat column.
This election is looking more like a Democratic tsunami than simply a Blue wave. President Trump, mired in some of the lowest job approval ratings of his presidency, is trailing Biden by significant margins in key battleground states like Pennsylvania (8 points), Michigan (9 points), and Wisconsin (9 points). He’s even running behind Biden in his firewall states of Florida and North Carolina.
In talking with strategists on both sides this last week, it’s also clear that Trump is dragging Republican congressional candidates with him as well.
Plugged in strategists on both sides tell us that Trump is running behind in districts he easily carried in 2016. As one GOP strategist told us this week, “I’d be surprised if any House GOP challenger is able to outperform Trump — they are tied to him.” Meanwhile, Democratic Senate candidates — even those in second and third-tier races — are pulling in eye-popping second-quarter fundraising totals.
https://cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/new-july-2020-electoral-college-ratings
I love the propaganda. Election over without a vote. Yeah sure. President HIllary totally agrees. LOL
Enjoy. Hey, drawing a royal flush once increases the odds you will again next time.
I think that’s how it works.
Trump did not “beat the odds”, there were no elements of random chance in the 2016 election.
He won by persuading the voters he needed.
He is doing as well in those states today as he was 3 days before the election in 2016.
And he has 4 months to pick up the votes that took him 3 days in 2016.
And he will be doing so on a rising economy, growing democrat hysteria, an unbeleivably weak opponent,
Democrats are only still in the race because of incredible luck.
If you expect to win – you will need alot more luck.
Trump is polling behind in every single state that gave him the the 58k votes to overcome in the EC HRC’s 3 million popular vote lead. And he’s polling behind in another handful of states he won significantly (NC, Fl, Arizona). He might even lose Georgia.
Trump has to hope every single poll is wrong. He’s been shrinking his base from the moment he’s entered office and his present strategy seems to be to hope he taps into this super huge group of racists that are motivated beyond everything that polling data presently shows. He’s like the guy in a poker game that totally read the cards wrong and suddenly realizes only one card can save him.
“Trump is polling behind in every single state that gave him the the 58k votes to overcome in the EC”
1). Trump shifted over 2M votes in the Swing states from 2012 to 2016 – not merely the margin of victory.
2). Swing State polling today is about the same as it was 3 days before the election in 2016.
3). The EC has been the means of deciding elections for 248 years. If you do not like it amend the constitution.
HRC spent much of her campaign running up the popular vote presuming she was going to be elected and pretending that she could get a popular vote mandate. Bill Clunton told her she was screwing up and she did not listen.
4). “And he’s polling behind in another handful of states he won significantly (NC, Fl, Arizona). He might even lose Georgia.”
I guess we find out in November.
“Trump has to hope every single poll is wrong.”
Same as in Nov. 2016.
BTW the people who were right in 2016 are predicting a bigger win for Trump in 2020.
“He’s been shrinking his base from the moment he’s entered office”
He has ? This is a left wing nut claim. There are certainly a tiny number of people who have left Trump.
But there is a long list of people like Dave Rubin who have shifted to Trump from Clinton. Or Joe Rogan who will not vote for Biden.
Or myriads of Bernie supporters who will not vote for Biden.
Trump’s base is larger, and more committed than ever.
Trump did poorly is deep red states in 2016 – Evangelicals and other deep conservatives did not trust him.
Now they do.
You have a candidate that no one his happy with. You have a party that is almost in open warfare with itself.
You are looking at Nixon/McGovern or Reagan/Mondale.
“his present strategy seems to be to hope he taps into this super huge group of racists that are motivated beyond everything that polling data presently shows.”
I am pretty sure that Trump is not taking political strategy advice from you.
” He’s like the guy in a poker game that totally read the cards wrong and suddenly realizes only one card can save him.”
You should hope this is not anything at all like a poker game. Because if it is – your F’d.
Need I remind you that on election night NYT and 538 were predicting a 95% chance of a Clinton victory.
How did that go for you ?
You say Trump has alienated large swaths of the electorate.
How do you expect the 900K police to vote in November ? Their Families ? Their Friends ? Other First responders ? Families ? Freinds ?
The military ?
Trump is getting more of the blue collar vote than in 2016.
The entire country has just watched the democratic debates and primaries – where all the democrats fell over each other to move further left.
In 2012 Republicans were accused of lying for calling democrats socialists – now they openly embrace socialism,
you are betting on an electorate that shows up to protest, to riot, to loot, to burn, to destroy, but has never showed up to vote.
You talk about alienating voters ? Your party has spent the past 4 years alienating the entire electorate.
The difference between 2016 and now is that the voters now really know who Trump is. And to know him is not to love him.
RDKAY, Trump was not my choice in the primaries nor was he my spouses choice. In fact he wasn’t the choice of most of my friends and some of them voted democrat. Today I recognize how wrong I was and now trust Trump more than ever. My spouse feels the same and so do my friends. In fact some friends that voted democrat will be voting for Trump.
Trump lived up to his promises as best he could and didn’t fold when attacked by the bureaucracy, democrats and some Republicans. In fact he survived and has shown that 3+ years of democrat action has led to the country realizing that democrats have lied. Democrats are responsible for many unecessary deaths from Covid and democrats are responsible for violent deaths in our largest cities. Democrats didn’t care for those people who lost their businesses, jobs, homes, money and community because democrats don’t believe in law and order. They don’t even believe that black lives matter.
Allan –
No one can prove what the future holds. But the present sure looks like voters don’t like Trump. And, as I said before, the voters now know who Trump is a lot better than they did in 2016.
You and your wife were Republicans in 2016. So your favoring Trump now is not an indicator that anyone will be switching from their current anti-Trump stance in the coming November election. That’s simply wishful thinking on your part.
RD, I am not really a Republican (I tell that to those that phone for money and support.). I am registered to have a voice and did so when there was a candidate I liked that I couldn’t vote for in the primaries unless I registered. Until the Democrat Party became this crazy my vote was always uncertain and policy based. Now my policy is not to elect anyone from the fascist democrat party.
The democrat party has proven itself fascist upon the election of Donald Trump by trying to illegaly reverse the election while at the same time they have been advocating policies that inhibit free speech. Since then they have become even crazier in their lust for power supporting cities being set ablaze and supporting anarchy to change the political structure.
You can support those types of things. You can wear a hat saying what you seem to believe, however that is something denied to me for fear of physical harm. That is the fascist way you seem to support.
Allan:
I am anti-fascist as well as anti-antifa. If you want to put a label on me, I accept moderate-to-liberal.
I understand what you are saying about the 2016 voting by your wife and you. Nevertheless, in 2016 you and your wife did vote in the R primary and then voted for Trump. Obviously, Romney was too liberal for you, as were all the other R candidates. .
So back to your thesis that the current polls showing that Trump will lose big will turn out to be wrong, just as did the 2016 polls. Again, your wife and you are hardly indicators of how people will vote in less than four months from now. Trump is now a fully known entity (except that we haven’t seen his tax returns). So I believe that the current polls are as accurate as polls can be. Thus, it’s not just wishful thinking on my part that Trump will lose – as it yours that he will win.
BTW, the coming vote probably will be more anti-Trump than it is pro-Biden…because we all know Trump so well now.
RD, if you are truly anti-fascist then you would be focussing on the fascist movement we see in the streets and be wondering why the democratic party was supporting it. You would be horrified at the PC culture being pushed by those on the left side of the aisle and you would be standing up for people to be able to be pro Trump at universities and elsewhere. Additionally you would be supporting a smaller state and more individualism. I haven’t seen these things from you as well as many other things that would be expected. You can call yourself what you want but what you stand up for demonstrates what you are.
As far as the rest of your comments go it appears you have misread what I have written. As it turns out Trump is more liberal than most (classical liberal not today’s liberal), has not siezed power but acted within the law, has been transparent and believes in law and order without PC being attached. My opinions and those of my wife should not surprise you and didn’t surprise me. What did surprise me was those that I know to be solid democrats and supporters of Obama suddenly changing course and indicating a very strong potential to change their votes. I’m not the one doing all the guessing and polling. As you say we are too far away from the election so we can expect a lot of things to enter the picture.
Why should we expect that 2020 will be different from 2016 ?
Why aren’t the people who were indicators in 2016 still good measures in 2020 ?
Why isn’t it wishful thinking that polls that were wrong in 2016 will be right in 2020 ?
I remember election night. When Trump won Florida i knew that the polls were wrong, but I expected a nail biter.
I expected that Trumps road to victory was through NH and NV, but then Trump won PA and I knew the election was over.
Trump was purportedly down 6 in PA, Winning PA was just not in the cards, and yet he had done so.
And Still 538 and NYT were telling us the election was in the bag for Hillary.
I will agree that there are numerous indicators that Trump and republicans could lose – badly.
But you appear to be blind to all indicators that the opposite could well be true.
The only actual head to head Republican/Democrat contests we have had went to the GOP – by double digits, in districts won by democrats in 2018. Those are not polls, those are actual votes.
After the election you fixated on the small number of votes that gave the election to Trump – forgetting that Obama beat Romney by almost 3M votes in those states. Trump did not flip 70K votes – he flipped several million in the rust belt.
I would further note that it is likely that Trump won NH – the vote was incredibly close and there are something just short of 7000 provisional votes in NH – that are almost certainly all college students who were not eligable to vote in NH – they had to vote in their home state, who provided bogus NH addresses. That much more then enough votes to flip the election – it is also likely that Alloyette actually narrowly won the NH senate seat. NV was not as close – but it was within striking distance.
Put simply Trump had more than one way to win. As he does in 2020. Democrats have far too many states that are close that Republicans can afford to lose but democrats can not.
All of that is if the election were held now.
In the next few months C19 moves further back in peoples minds. And the further it recedes like it or not the more Trump looks like a hero.
Crime is spiking in blue states – meaning you are not only going to have to defend alot of governorships and state legislative seats that you would not have otherwise, but in every state that Crime rises Trump’s fortunes rise. Democrats have chosen to own the increase in crime.
But more than just those specific states – rising crime scares soccer mom’s all accross the country.
Further look at the spike in cancel culture at the moment – the big targets are white liberal women. Why in gods name would the left target the most critical demographic they must win.
Not only have the riots scared people but the public humiliations and firings for harmless remarks have terrified people.
Do you honestly think people are admitting to polsters or anyone they are voting for Trump ?
People – not just on the right ESPECIALLY in the middle have their heads down and they are keeping quite.
But they are going to vote – and how may surprise you.
Biden’s support is the weakest of any candidate since that has been polled. It will take little for Biden voters to stay home – they are not inspired, and they do not hate Trump nearly so much as you think.
And we already know all those young Bernie Bro socialists – they protest, they riot, but they do not vote, They did not vote for HRC and they are not likely to vote for Biden.
Flip 5% of the biden vote and you have a landslide for Trump and republicans.
Have 10% of them just stay home – same result.
And I would point out that there is much more going on that Just Trump Biden.
Again Republicans have wone special elections recently by 10pt swings in districts they lost in 2018.
The same districts Trump and republicans must win in 2020.
Most of those wins were expected – but they were supposed to be very close races – and they weren;t
So there is very good reason to beleive that polling is off.
We will find out who is engaged in wishful thinking soon enough.
Amen.
I am registered with any party. I am more likely to vote republicans than democrat. But I vote Libertarian more than either.
Regardless of which major party wins I want both to know that there is a few percent of the electorate that is not happy with either.
If Democrats did not exist – I would vote against republicans almost 100% of the time. But unfortunately democrats do exist and get worse all the time.
Who has not learned from the muderous history of socialism in the 20th century that this is the most disasterous ideology ever.
Who has not learned that aside from being soaked in blood it runs toward poverty.
Democrats are rushing towards the idiotic ideas that cost Europe several decades.
Working class people in the US live better than the middle class in Europe – and the left is trying to sell that too us ?
If you think taxes in the US on the wealthy are too low – you should see taxes in the EU on ordinary people. the vast majority of people in the US pay little in taxes. Many get more back than they pay in. In europe the taxes that working people pay are higher than the Rich in the US.
Who in their right mind would want to adopt the policies of countries with higher taxes and a lower standard of living – not for the rich – but for the poor, the working class, the middle class.
Europe is struggling to escape its own mistakes. Why should the US seek to repeat them.
But that is what democrats have been selling for more than all of my life.
And as life in the US gets better and better, the left becomes more and more insane.
Trump voters are committed – That 40% that you identify is absolutely coming out and voting.
50% of Biden voters are unenthusiastic.
Voters do know who Trump is now better than 2016.
They know he is someone who will do what he promises.
Biden isn’t – that may be the only saving grace for democrats.
Biden voters are not much of an indication either. They all voted for Hillary in 2016.
And are less enthusiastic today than then.
Biden has problem on both Flanks – the far left has fractured the party.
Who knows if anyone will show up for the election.
A substantial portion of Bernie Bros are not showing up – they did not in 2016, and they have already made clear they will not in 2020.
And independents and moderate Dems are very unhappy with their party, and show little interest in showing up either.
Look arround you – you would thing with D’s leading so much in the polls they would be crowing – yet they are behaving like lunatics.
Listen to the crap leading democrats are saying.
This is not just about Biden losing.
Within the past month we have had two special elections CA25 and NY16. Both are Bellweathers. Both went solidly democrat in 2018.
Both experienced a 10+pt flip.
These are not polls, these are actual elections.
BS
Over all, voters in the battleground states who said Bernie Sanders was their top choice for president said they backed Mr. Biden over President Trump, 87 percent to 4 percent. If there was a Bernie-or-Bust movement, it has either faded with the conclusion of the Democratic race, or it never existed in serious numbers in the battleground states.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/upshot/democrats-united-poll-election.html
PS Trump did not build the wall, provide health care, make any “great deals”, balance the budget, pay down the debt, end trade imbalances with China – it’s worse – or provide 4% growth – his 1st 3 years GDPs are slightly worse than Obama’s last 3.
“PS Trump did not build the wall, provide health care, make any “great deals”, balance the budget, pay down the debt, end trade imbalances with China – it’s worse – or provide 4% growth”
The people who get to decide that are not hard left democrats. They are Trump voters and moderates and independents.
You are clueless if you thing that Trump voters give a damn what you think.
As to the wall – No Trump has not built 100’s of miles of new wall. But he has replaced hundred of miles of wall that had been their for decades and was failing. Further the Army ran more than 400Miles of 20′ hight concertina wire that will prove a very effective barrier for several years.
As to HC PPACA is very nearly effectively dead. Most people on the right are happy and those on the left are pretending that the tiny bit remaining is meaningful.
Whether a deal is great is in the eyes of the beholder.
Nope did not balance the budget or pay down the debt.
I think you will find that Trump voters beleive he has fought vigorously for them for fair trade.
And he has certainly gone head to head with China. ‘
Nope did not reach 4% growth
“his 1st 3 years GDPs are slightly worse than Obama’s last 3.”
Nope. According to Trading economics the mean GDP For Obama’s last 12 quarters is 2.2%, The Mean GDP For Trump’s firs 12 quarters is 2.5%.
To get parity you have to compare 14 quarters and pick up the C19 recession – which TE is currently over estimating
“The difference between 2016 and now is that the voters now really know who Trump is.”
That is correct – and it is why Biden will lose – worse than Hillary.
Trump beat Hillary despite being a wold card, a dangerous risk.
Today he is not a risk.
He has not started a war – the last president that did not start a war was Carter.
He has had a solid stable economy.
He has a vastly improved foreign policy.
He is doing what both Bush and Obama promised and getting out out of stupid wars.
He has done pretty much everything that he promised those who voted for him in 2016 asked.
And he is done what many who did not vote for him in 2016 hoped for but did not beleive.
No one who votes in 2020 will be voting FOR Joe Biden. You will just have a bunch of democrats and neocons voting against Trump.
You claim that Biden is 8pts ahead of Trump – if 1/4 of the Bernie voters sit the election out – as they did in 2016 – and they have said they are doing in 2020 – Biden loses. If Democratic moderates in any significant portion sit the election out – and Biden voters are the least enthusiastic voters pretty much Ever Biden loses.
Calling people on the phone is NOT the same as getting them to go out and vote.
November will be a tough month for you. But hey, the period of November til January will be okay because it will be the biggest example of American corruption on record as Trump and McConnell will see their ballroom days come to a crashing halt and they’ll rush to get every little bit they can before they exit.
” the biggest example of American corruption on record as Trump”
Ha Ha.
You have been looking for corruption related to Trump forever. No one has found it.
Comey and Mueller turned over ever rock and pebble.
The only corruption anyone has found was that in the Obama administration.
When Trump’s presidency comes to an end in 2024. Then you will get to see if Trump is as evil to his successor as Obama and democrats were.
There are moments that I really hope so. But repeating the mistakes of Obama will ultimately destroy the country.
Beliefs die hard, John. Don’t worry, I’m here for ya buddy. Even up odds Trump drops out of the race rather than have to give up his taxes.
“Beliefs die hard,”
I do not deal in beleifs. I deal in facts. Beleifs are for leftists.
“John. Don’t worry, I’m here for ya buddy.”
No your not – nor do I want you, nor need you. Do not make claims that are clearly false
That is just stupid.
In the unlikely event Biden wins – we all get to watch how fast Dems collapse.
Trump has established standards you can not meet.
“Even up odds Trump drops out of the race rather than have to give up his taxes.”
Not a choice. SCOTUS ordered the Taxes to be provided to the NYAG, and not to the house.
I think they were wrong on the NYAG – but it is a close call.
Regardless, if Trump’s taxes leak there will likely be a federal investigation of the NYAG’s office and people will go to jail.
This is not the Obama admin where tax returns can be criminally leaked without consequences.
Frankly I think Trump is baiting you.
His voters do not care.
And should you get his Taxes – while I am sure that you will be able to make political hay with them, they will otherwise prove useless.
First because an army of accountants and lawyers went over Trump’s taxes – all of whom would be liable if anything was wrong.
And 2nd because tax returns do not provide the information to prove the things you are looking for.
I strongly suspect Trump has been waiving a red flag in front of left wing nut bulls goading them on.
If you want to waste your time fixating on Trump’s taxes – go ahead.
When has any political candidate EVER’s tax return proved interesting ?
Ruh roh!
“Over all, voters in the battleground states who said Bernie Sanders was their top choice for president said they backed Mr. Biden over President Trump, 87 percent to 4 percent. If there was a Bernie-or-Bust movement, it has either faded with the conclusion of the Democratic race, or it never existed in serious numbers in the battleground states….”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/upshot/democrats-united-poll-election.html
I have no idea where you get you data I do not care.
Is there a Bernie or bust movement – no. Every pattern of behavior is not a movement.
Frankly there is just a young left wingnut problem. As noted before – they protest, they riot, but they do not vote.
Had they done so in 2016 Hillary would have won.
No one including themselves is expecting 2020 to be any different.
You conflate your personal enthusiasm with that of others.
Pollsters have already documented that Trump voters are rock sold. Trump is going to lose very few and pick up many more.
I beleive it is more than 50% of Biden voters are unenthusiastic. Both moderates and left wing nuts.
There is a reason that the democratic party looks schitzophrenic right now.
Because it is, It has to keep both poles of the party happy – and moderates and left wing nuts do not like each other very much.
In fact right no the single group most targeted by the left as “racist” is liberal white women. Not conservatives, not evangelicals.
The democratic party is full of self loathing. It is busy trying to keep both flanks from revolting and keep them from pissing on each other.
The GOP had this problem post 2008 – Hence the Tea Party. But the GOP is far more politically diverse than democrats, and was ultimately better able to weather its civil war. Democrats are deep into theirs.
There is this claim that the country is polarized right left – and to some extent that is true mostly because the left has been hollowing our their own middle – but you can not win elections that way.
John:
Ponder this. Trump is already broadcasting his “explanation” for the reason he lost (will lose) so badly in the November 2020 election. Simply, it was “foreign fraud.” However, I suppose it also will be due to “domestic fraud.”
Trump cannot ever lose – anything. The election was (will be) stolen from him.
That’s the gospel according to Donald Trump.
Will he be so bold as to refuse to vacate the White House? I hope that he does refuse to leave.. Then he can be frog-marched out of the building. A fitting end for him. But in the end, he is a prototypical bully-coward. He will wimper and moan, but be gone.
Then the prosecutions can begin.
“Will he be so bold as to refuse to vacate the White House? I hope that he does refuse to leave.. Then he can be frog-marched out of the building. A fitting end for him. But in the end, he is a prototypical bully-coward. He will wimper and moan, but be gone.”
That is the left projecting what they want to do should they lose. We already saw proof of it after the 2016 election.
Allan, please provide an interpreter.
“That is the left projecting what they want to do should they lose. We already saw proof of it after the 2016 election.”
“Allan, please provide an interpreter.”
Sure RDKAY. The left will refuse to accept a fair election like they did in 2016 but pretend their opponent is the one that won’t accept a fair election..
That isn’t a difficult concept but I am always glad to make things easier for you.
“prototypical bully coward”
ha, ha, not sure what you mean, but I suspect that’s 99% of America’s leadership, whether political business or whatever
as for what you believe the “prototype” of a bully coward is, just uttering this canard shows that you misunderstand how leadership at these levels works in the first place.
the personality of a leader is what it usually is. not nice, for starters. the main thing is, does your pack have an EFFECTIVE leader? because saints are not what we are looking for if we want to win.
Trump plays his games. You clearly do not understand them.
Most of Trump’s style is not very creative. He simply does to democrats what they do to him.
You spent 4 years selling the collusion delusion – Trump has learned from you.
Trump is not building an excuse for losing, he is giving voters and excuse to vote against Biden.
You spent 4 years trying to connect Trump and his family to Putin – there is already a money Trail to Biden.
I have zero doubt that foreign countries will try to influence US elections. I do not care. Short of actual election fraud – they can try to influence voters all the wish. If China or Russia wants to try to persuade US voters – how is that different from Radio Free Europe of Voice of America ? How is that different from editorials in the Guardian ? How is that different from John Oliver ?
The only real concern i have about election influence is actual election fraud. While there is significant evidence that democrats are far better at voting fraud, it does not matter – the incentives for voter fraud are huge. All the idiots claiming that US voter fraud is a myth are idiots. Post 2000 we retired the mechanical voting machines in the US – I do not think they found a single one that had not been manipulated. Many had teeth filed off them in one election lost to history and were sued for decades after stealing votes for god knows who.
Further the more scared republicans are of voter fraud by democrats – the more likely they are to do so themselves – and visa versa.
What is most disturbing is that voter fraud is relatively easy to reduce to very small numbers. Yet democrats fight tooth an nail at every effort to do so.
The next big problem is many states in response to Covid have implimented broad vote by mail that they never had before.
Even MIT found mail in voter fraud trivial. A very recent election in NJ has 20% of all ballots invalidated for fraud.
Not only is mail in fraud easy – but it is also easy for foreign countries. Further they need not give a crap whether they get caught.
The russians of Chinese could easily Flood the US with counterfeit ballots. Absolutely no one is going to beleive the outcome of the election if we KNOW there are millions of fraudulent ballots.
I voted Absentee in 2018. I had to come to the courthouse, present ID, get a ballot, get a speech on handling the ballot. I was specifically told that if I did anything wrong the ballot would be rejected. I had to fill out the ballot. Seal it in a special envelope, and then seal that in another envolope. I had to sign the outside envolope, and someone at the courthouse had to validate that signature.
Then that was all set aside in a locked box. On election day the ballot boxes are unlocked under observation the FIRST envolope was opened, and the inside envelope dropped into a locked ballot box with obsevers watching. Then later all the ballots were removed from that box on election day for counting. Someone else unsealed the envolopes that now had no identification on them, and then run them through a scanner – under observation .
This was a more thorough and secure process than had I voted in person on election day.
This year I will get a ballot by mail. I will come in my mailbox, anyone can steal it. There are myriads of nonexistant and dead people on the voting rolls – they will get issued ballots too. Who know I might receive several ballots for other people in my mail box.
I can fill out any ballot mailed to me, and then mail it back. There is no witnessing of the handling of ballots as the arrive from the post office.
Country mail handlers can add ballots, remove them. The received ballots are then purportedly verified to see that signatures match.
No actual ID is checked and you can pretty much bet that signature checking is going to be lax. it is even today at most in person polling places. But atleast there they know me. this is a system that is incredibly easy to scam. And if you do so – how are you going to get caught ? What do you expect them to check fingerprints on the envelopes ?
One of the most important obstacles to voter fraud is NOT preventing the fraud – it is detecting and creating high odds that those engaged in it get caught. If either party – or just some individual so predisposed has the means to file alot of fraudulent ballots with no risk of getting caught – why shouldn’t they ?
What we have as we approach 2020 is unbeleivably dangerous. i have little doubt the Trump digression about foreign influence is just an effort to get people to beleive Biden might be getting help from foreign countries.
But lets go a step further.
The Biden or Trump campaign could use the mess that mail in voting creates to cheat and gain fraudulent votes for themselves.
But the opposite alternative is just as useful. What if Trump (or Biden) uses the mess to feed in massive numbers of fraudulent votes for their opponent. If they are really good Most of these get through on election night, but enough are detected to demand an investigation – and then massive fraud is discovered. If Trump feeds tens of thousands of fraudulent votes for Biden – and there is no way to prove that Trump did it – the presumption will be fraud by Biden – or visa versa. And again – this does not require Trump or Biden to do this.
If it is easy enough to do – and it is, you can be absolutely certain that there are some people associated with each campaign – or even not, crooked enough to do something like this.
In person voting fraud is a real person, but it is hard and the number of fraudulent votes you can cast is small, and it requires a large number of people to be complicit, and the likelyhood of being caught is higher the more people involved. Further it is nearly impossible to run the false flag operation on an inperson fraud. All you need is one person to get caught and it will not take long to figure out “whose zooming who”. But mail voter fraud opens a pandora’s box of oportunities – for indviduals, for camapigns for foreign countries.
And the goal needs to be nothing more than to cast the outcome in doubt.
After the 2016 election and the allegations of the left – one would have thought that we could have reached agreement to secure our elections. It is not all that hard to do.
Instead we have allowed C19 to make fraud far easier and far more dangerous.
I suggested that Trump could false flag Bidden. But what if Biden false flags Trump.
Lets say Trump wins again in the electoral college, But 10,000 clealy fraudulent votes for Trump are found in Michigan.
Even if they are not enough to tip the election – we are pretty much assured to have riots and mayhem and supreme court cases.
The left last in 2016 were there was no consequential fraud – and yet you sold the country for years that there was.
What if in 2020 there was evidence indicating that whoever won cheated. But no way to be sure really who actually cheated ?
And remember in elections there are billions at stake. Why does it have to be fraud related to Trump or Biden – why not a house race or a senate race or a governor ?
Make fraud easy and you will get massive amounts of very convoluted fraud.
This is a HUGE mistake.
John, Biden’s biggest problem is the democrat party is sharply divided into left, right and center. Support the center or right and he loses the left. Support the left and he loses the right. A capable presidential candidate would be out and trying to satisfy both sides and dumping the most extremist positions. Biden can’t do that so I think he loses a good portion of democrat votes either through those voters not voting or actually voting for Donald Trump. That is based on the assumption that Biden will be the candidate.
Things look like Biden is the candidate but one doesn’t always know what is happening in the deep sewers of the democrat party. My question is will he be fit enough for the primary when the time comes. The closer he comes to the primary the more certain the future but doubt always exists.
Trump angers a lot of people but will be running on the economy and keeping his promises. The democrats will be running against the economy and probably are scaring a lot of voters with the violence we have seen recently. Again, my fear is that democrats will illegaly try to steal the election. They are proven liars.
That’s wishful thinking and false:
“Over all, voters in the battleground states who said Bernie Sanders was their top choice for president said they backed Mr. Biden over President Trump, 87 percent to 4 percent. If there was a Bernie-or-Bust movement, it has either faded with the conclusion of the Democratic race, or it never existed in serious numbers in the battleground states….”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/upshot/democrats-united-poll-election.html
You do understand that if Trump gets 4% of Bernie Voters – the election is over ?
Or much more likely if 1/3 of Bernie voters stay home.
Bernie supporter to a large extent did not show up in the primaries to support bernie.
Btb writes: “That’s wishful thinking and false:”
Thank you so much. What you say proves I am likely correct because throughout your entire time here on this blog including your other aliases you have almost always been entirely wrong. Thanks.
Democrats are quite literally betting on Trump hatred to win.
We know the level of support of Biden voters. If Democrats expect to win because voters want Joe Biden as president – they are smoking whacky week.
Democrats have made the past 4 years and this election about Trump hatred. That is a weak hand. It can get voters to stay home.
It is not good at getting your own voters to the polls.
The data already shows that Trump voters are solid. Nothing is stopping them from voting.
The two big questions for 2020 are
How many Trump voters who are lying to pollsters are there ?
How many biden voters will actually vote.
Exactly. Add to that Trump failed to learn one of the main lessons from the reality TV industry that saved him from multiple bankruptcies…, that lesson being that the villain always has a pathway to the championship round if they manipulate and back stab enough…, but always suffer a humiliating defeat once they get there and face someone who is not universally hated.
Trump is not the new guy on the block who can win a low turnout election against someone else with low opinion polling against them. Trump misread whatever mandate he thought he’d been given, and the truth is, he himself was shocked he won in the first place. His campaign staff was handing out their business cards to Fox news on the election night party at Trump tower. They were caught by surprise (and behaved accordingly once they had to begin putting an operation together).
There is a better chance of another candidate being on the ticket on election day than there is of Trump winning. The Bernie bros are much more resolute about taking the trash out first and leaning on Biden after he gets in office. Hell, Bernie is giving interviews saying he’s convinced Biden will be the most progressive president ever should he get in (even though he’d not go as far as Bernie himself).
And bottom line, Bernie bros aside, where Dems win is with the black and hispanic communtities. Black women in particular.
you guys think he is a heel huh? “unversally hated” ? universally means everyone. and obviously everyone does not hate him. seems like a solid 40% love the guy according to polls. and did it ever occur to you, pollsters are really just propagandists?
kind of like marketing studies done by …. the advertising specialists. yeah, see, they are not exactly biased, they are already selling before the focus group is even in their seats.
Nate Silver’s blog which found the 2016 election too close to call (within the margin of error) today states that Trump is going to crash in flames in November. Check it out —
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bidens-polling-lead-is-big-and-steady/
John, you didn’t consider the fact that those who were damaged by the riots and lack of police protection are going to be so happy at their own personal devestation that without question they will be voting for Biden and hoping for more of the same. (“/)
Look at the rioters ?
60% white and nearly all under 30.
It is strange. This is a group that you get get out to protest, riot, loot, burn.
But they do not come out to vote.
They did not in the 60’s, they did not in 2016.
They will not in 2020.
I honestly think if the election were tomorow – Trump would win.
I think the odds of him losing in November with a strong economic tailwind, and Covid19 far in the rear view mirror are small.
Personally I am waiting to see what further nonsense the left tries between now and November.
I understand that the polls purportedly have Biden winning. But I think very few people – including democrats actually beleive that.
The left and democrats are disheartened, dispirited, divided, unenthusiastic and in deep trouble.
I am just wondering what they try next ?
Go listen to Sen. Duckworth’s response to the Trump Mt. Rushmore speech.
Duckworth is not supposed to be AOC or Omar. Her remarks were looney and desparate.
Either Duckworth has shifted far to the left or Democrats – not the far left, but ordinary democrats are desparate.
Regardless, this PC hateful, hating, hater thing did not work in 2016. It is going to work worse today
“I honestly think if the election were tomorow – Trump would win.”
I agree. There is a difference between a poll and what the person actually does. You can poll those that are in the middle but come the time to pull the lever don’t expect them to be consistent with how they polled. My fear is the democrats will cheat. They have done so previously (as have a few Republicans) but today’s Democrat has no problems with being unethical as seen with the multiple hoaxes trying to reverse the 2016 election. They are scary and dishonest.
Duckworth has been looking like a fool but democrats like candidates that look like them.
You might be interested in the Thomas Sowell interview on Uncommon Knowledge. It had to do with his new book on the school system. He talks about closing the education gap which likely would reverse many of the problems of minorities. I think he is on the money. The problem is those that are willing to do things to close the education gap will be attacked by democrats who only think politically and never think of the people involved.
The most accurate polsters in 2016 estimated that 2% of voters in wing states voted for Trump but lied to polsters.
The same people are estimating that number is atleast 4% now.
The more the left successfully dominates the media, the more they engage in censorship elsewhere, the more they persuade people to be silent about what they beleive and who they vote for.
But you have not converted someone because you have silenced them.
The left is making all the same mistakes they made in 2016 – on steriods.
They think accusing everyone who is even thinking about voting for Trump of being a liar and hater is the way to win elections.
Trump is purportedly going to lose suburban women.
Rising Crime is going to get women to vote for Biden ?
6.5M guns were sold so far in 2020, 48% of those are first time buyers. 40% of those are women.
I am betting near 100% of those women are voting for Trump. And i am betting many of them did not in 2016.
WE just saw the couple in Mineapolis protect their home from a mob. This couple was Democrats. Now they are being prosecuted for defending their home.
Do you think they are voting democrat in 2020 ?
In Blue state after Blue State, in Blue city after Blue city – the governors and mayors have Botched C19 and they have botched the riots,
Democrats in these states – not just Biden are looking at a rough election.
As crime rises – there prospects get worse.
As the economy rises Democrats problems get worse.
As Covid fades Democrats problems get worse
“6.5M guns were sold so far in 2020, 48% of those are first time buyers. 40% of those are women.
I am betting near 100% of those women are voting for Trump. And i am betting many of them did not in 2016.”
That is the type of thing I am focussing on because I believe that type of thing is vastly pushing the vote towards Trump. It will be these types of things that might cause a landslide for Trump. The same goes for minorities whose homes, jobs, businesses and neighborhoods have been destroyed. The same goes for the families that want their children back in school. One can only use fear for only so long until people become immune to fear and learn to live with it. The democrats stoked fear of Covid but numbers are falling down and the death rate is miniscule when compared to the actual death rate so many are going to wonder why they were imprisoned in their homes.
Again if it weren’t for fraud and the MSM being an arm of the democrat party I would guess the results would lead to the biggest landslide ever. When the left argues that Trump will lose their best arguements are that the left will cheat and the MSM will lie.
Allan – I do not know the answers. We will likely see more clues before November.
But for the moment we have alot of conflicting data.
Where there is a contradiction – there is an error.
While there is SOME speculation in some of my claims – what portion of female 1st time gun buyers are going to vote for Trump ?
100% 90% 60% ?
Some of the claims have no speculation – there was 1 13Pt swing in CA25 and a 20+pt swing in NT16 from 2018.
While Republicans were expected to win those elections – they did so by margins much larger than polls had projected.
There is no speculation in that.
We are left with a simple choice – either nationwide polls are mostly wrong, and likely all for the same reason – as one possible example voters are not telling the truth to pollsters. Which we know happened in 2016 to the tune of about a 2pt error, but that may be larger in 2020.
In CA25 the error was nearly 10pts and in NT16 it was even higher.
Or the alternative is a massive amount of smaller datapoints are wrong or wrongly interpreted.
I will noted that I am many others thought that the polls were wrong in 2018.
And the results were weird – the polls were both right and wrong.
Democrats took the house pretty much consistent with national polling.
But senate and governors races defied the polling and the trends in the house. Further there were a number of razor thing elections lost by democrats that would have made the senate outcome far worse for Dems.
2018 ended up a mixed bag – I was wrong, and the pollsters were wrong, and I was right and the polsters were right.
I am well aware that I could be way off for 2020.
And there are other possibilities – Trump could be relected – but republicans could lose the Senate and sustain bigger losses in the house.
Or the opposite – Biden could win and Republicans could retake the house and senate.
as noted 2018 was NOT a clear win for either party. It was not only messy, but voters were themselves schizophrenic.
I tend to suspect that voters gave democrats the house – because we like divided government and because republicans in the house had failed. I think the GOP held and expanded in the senate because voters are very happy with Trump’s judicial nominees and the Kavanaugh hearings went really badly for dems.
So what does that mean for 2020 ?
John, break down the vote. We know x% will vote for Trump and y% will vote for Biden. That leaves only a small % of votes in doubt plus the get out the vote question. When looking at those numbers alone I am not impressed with any of the polling predictions. I think a good unbiased mind without polling could have the same average success as the average pollster in picking the winner.
Thanks for that prediction Bahgdad John. We’ll catch you in November.
By the way, Hillary was up by 3-4 nationally just before the 2016 election and won by 2 points. If you’re counting on a 77k win across 3 states, you’ll need that royal flush again. Trump is the issue and he’s performing as beautifully as we could have ever expected.
Tell Don Lemon to do more of these.
Terry Crews is a black man that children, women and men can emulate.
Don Lemon? ROFLMAO
“Thanks for that prediction Bahgdad John. We’ll catch you in November.”
If you are going to behave like Trump – then it is hypocritical to criticise him.
“By the way, Hillary was up by 3-4 nationally just before the 2016 election and won by 2 points.”
On the day of the election she was up 3.4pts according to RCP
On Oct 18 she was up by 7.2 points – very close to Biden right now.
The current estimated error in swing states is double 2016.
This is what happens when you rant about Trump for 4 years – you can not expect that voters will respond honestly even to pollsters.
“If you’re counting on a 77k win across 3 states”
No I am expecting an even larger margin than that.
“you’ll need that royal flush again. Trump is the issue and he’s performing as beautifully as we could have ever expected.”
You keep using card analogies – as if luck was involved.
Elections are not a game of luck. You win by persuading the voters that you needs.
Regardless, I am not going to be rioting in the streets should Biden manage to get elected.
That will go worse for Dem’s than Obama.
You do not seem to understand – that the posited Democratic permanent majority is a myth.
The democratic party has fractured and the children have taken over.
You running a candidate in his second childhood within a party run by children.
The worst thing that could happen to democrats is to win – then they would have to actually govern.
Which you can not do.
Trump has done an absolutely amazing job of governing – despite vicious attacks from the left and the press.
What are you going to do if Biden is elected ?
Stand up to China ? Fat chance.
All you need do is just restore Obama’s policies and you will make a mess of the world.
Do you think anyone will tolerate further stupid games in the mideast ?
If you end Trump’s guarantee of energy to the EU – how long do you think it will take before the EU is licking Putin’s boots ?
You can not keep that guarantee and return to Obama’s energy policies.
And how long do you think people will put up with rising energy prices ?
And what happens when GDP drops permanently back to 1.8% growth.
Trump did not even manage to bring back the economic growth of the 20th century, But 2.5% felt stelar compared to the 2% Bush economy or the 1.8% Trump economy.
How long do you think people will tolerate a return to 1.8% growth ?
And then there are all those giveaways you promised. How well do you think that will work ?
You seem to think the economy is magic – you command it and it does what you want.
Regardless, the 2020 election is really bad news for democrats.
If they lose – they are going to have to finally figure out why.
If they win – you will now be measured against Trump.
As I said – The Trump economy was poor compared to that of the 20th century – but neither Bush nor Obama came close.
All the wing nuts were claiming that sub 2% was the new normal. That we really could not do any better.
Now we know that is BS, and you will have to deliver.
“The democratic party has fractured and the children have taken over.
You running a candidate in his second childhood within a party run by children.
The worst thing that could happen to democrats is to win – then they would have to actually govern.
Which you can not do.”
———————->
Truth right there.
Here’s another truth….if Kanye is on the ticket, more folks will vote FOR Kanye than for Joe Demented Biden.
And Trump will win, again.
The Dems and their Media idiot mouthpieces, including all the blatant Social Media censorship actively going on….all of them know this is true….which is why they are all in hyper-overdrive working against Trump.
They also know that almost anything else is more likely to kill you today than Covid19, but that doesn’t prevent them all from lying like hell about it all just to harm Trump. It’s truly sick what they are doing.
I actually beleive the error in the polls is so great that if the election were held today Trump would win much as he did in 2016.
But by Nov. it will be worse.
Biden is effectively not a factor. Democrats and the left have made the election solely about Trump.
And they are increasingly histrionic. They have had to destroy the economy, and then riot in the hope of defeating Trump.
This election is already over. Trump has already won.
Actually, the election isn’t over and Trump has not already won! We know the Democrats cheat like hell and they are planning to do it in this election. All hands on deck are needed between now and November to get out the vote for Trump. The entire establishment is working against Trump and he needs every vote cast on Nov. 3. Do not sit this one out, people.
Despite my analysis that anticipates Trump winning – I am libertarian, and I am voting for Jo Jorgenson.
I will likely vote for libertarains in every office that I can.
Then I will probably vote against incumbents in most every office I can’t
I still expect Trump to win.
And it will be even worse than the polling signifies. Trump gets taken to the woodshed. Better chance of him not being the candidate on election day than of him having a prayer of winning.
That is what you were saying in 2016 – how did that work out ?
The signs of desperation I see are on the left not the right.
trump is not merely going to win – he is going to win bigger than in 2016.
What I am worried about is YOUR reaction.
You went nuts in 2016.
You went bonkers and became violent over Floyd.
What are you going to do when Trump wins in 2020 ?
What are you going to do when he doesn’t?
Watch as Biden and democrats fail disasterously and are Followed by some approximation of Trump on Steroids.
As Van Jones sort of noted on election night Trump’s election was a backlash against PC, a backlash against the disasterous Obama years.
Nothing will benefit the right more than the left briefly having actual power.
maybe move to a little lake in the country somewhere and take up smoking pot again. I havent’ done it since i was a teenager. obviously it’s stronger and cheaper than ever and maybe it will help this old man’s arthritis….. but I will be damnd if I am going to work hard just to hand it all over in taxes.
I also have my eye on a condo in Nha Trang. Tropics here i come. Great food, nice people. I could lose some weight and surf again. Safer than America by far. And taxes in commie run Vietnam are not even as bad as they are most places in the USA. Or so my preliminary information suggests. oh and i have a feeling they won’t be sending Uncle 1099s if I happen to develop some “investments” there which pay.
one things for sure, not moving to a big American city. they’re going downhill fast now and everyone who can, is hitting the road fast. they’re soon to be … schiessholes
https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-another-exodus-ahead-for-u-s-cities-11592488220
I actually believe the empire is over as well, Kurtz. Began with the Iraq invasion in ’03. A hubris invasion meant to increase the empire’s power that backfires and causes big harm to said empire going forward. Then the obstruction against Obama during his terms. And now the absolute cluelessness and chaos of the king of nepotism now in office.
Solid strategy for the U.S. will involve planning from the #2 or 3 spot while waiting for the chance to take the lead again given the opportunity.
Bug, I disagree. Actively reclaiming our role in world affairs will be more than welcomed by our democratic allies in Europe and Asia. Lost time we can’t afford on climate change is there, but spilt milk.
PS Don’t forget that while a slim majority in Britain voted for Brexit and therefore against the future, it did not vote for Trump in the US. We, the majority, can take limited pride in that.
The UK’s future is not with the EU. It was a poor marraige from the start. UK is an anglo country.
While it is very important for the UK to work out a decent trade deal with the EU – especially in the short run. EU membership was gradually choking the UK. Britain has always been one of the world greatest trading nations. Today almost as much British Trade is outside the EU as within, and outside trade is growing faster than EU trade. Worse still being fully part of the EU has actually constrained Britans foreign trade.
If the UK can not work out a deal with the EU, it will likely very quickly negotiate a free trade deal with the US, CA, AU, NZ, and probably India and other parts of the former British Common wealth. That is likely regardless. While the UK needs good exit terms from the EU to preclude a great deal of short term pain. Britains long term interests are NOT with the EU.
The Channel might be narrow, but it has always separated Britain from Europe. Briton has never been more than marginally a european nation. Hitler conquered all of europe – but not Britain.
Despite the physical proximity Britians natural relations are with the anglosphere and with former commonwealth countries.
As I started – Britian is the worlds foremost trading nation. It has always been. More so than the US. It does not have the natural resources to be otherwise.
There is the separate issue that the EU is probably inherently unstable. It is likely that if the people throughout europe could vote that the while thing would come apart tomorow.
The EU aspired to be a nation – like the US. But cultural and national differences within the EU are too great.
I do not think that the EU is going to collapse – but the idea of it ever becoming a nation like the US is impossible. The central authority in the EU is going to have to weaken after Brexit or the EU will not survive.
“Bug, I disagree. Actively reclaiming our role in world affairs will be more than welcomed by our democratic allies in Europe and Asia. Lost time we can’t afford on climate change is there, but spilt milk.”
BTB – we already have. And we will keep that relationship – so long as Biden is not elected and sells the US out to China to line Hunters pockets.
You and the left are under the delusion that what people say matters. That the rhetoric of crows in the UK or Germany dictate the US relationship to those nations. or that the rhetorical jousting with foreign leaders matters.
What matters is action.
In the past 4 years, the US has guaranteed European energy. While europe still gets its energy from Russia and The mideast – those nations know that the US has backstopped European energy and they can not use energy to blackmail Europe.
The abilty to do this is a consequence of US energy policy. Releasing the Fracken. Converting the US to an energy exporter.
In Europe it means that concerns about Russia are no longer precluding NATO from becoming capable of defending itself.
In return for a US energy guarantee, The US miliary is no longer so tied down in Europe and the mudeast.
The consequence of this has been the shift of US foreign policy to Asia. To containing China. The change in the relationship of the US to the rest of Asia in 4 years is monumental. Tiawan, Japan, Philipines, Australia, Vietnam, India to name a few have gone from some degree of collaboration with China to united in containing China.
While this discussion has been primarily military, the consequences are far broader. All of us have watched the “trade War” with China. That is small potatoes. The objective – as in Europe is something like NATO – to bring all of China’s neighbors together.
The Tarriff’s and threat of tarrifs, as well as numerous other factors have pushed businesses in China to relocate – some back the US, but also to all the rest of Asia. No one cares if China is the strongest economy in Asia. But her ability to use that economic(and military) might to threaten the world is being reigned in. Our internal data on China is poor, but there is good reason to beleive that Xi now owns the weakest chinese economy since Mao died. That china may have massive debt that is posing it a serious problem right now.
Xi consolidated power in China – but that power requires that he deliver on economic growth. If he can not – whether it is Hong Kong or disidents we here less of in China, or just a simple coup. One way or the other China is learning that its ability to throw its weight around is limited. In the end that is likely good for China and good for the world.
And very little of the actual power in the world gives a crap about Climate change anymore. Outside of France which went nuclear, trying to conform to warmist energy policies has proven disasterous and they have mostly been quitely abandoned.
The world is not going to unite to battle CAGW and the consequence will be nothing. Maybe the earth will be .88C warmer by 2100.
Maybe not. Who knows it may be cooler. Just like C19 nature is full of surprises.
You started out fine.
Obama promised to “end the empire” as you say. And yet when elected – more wars, more conflicts, more foreign entanglements, less clarity about our interests.
The same people – right and left pushing endless war.
Now we have Trump trying to actually do what he said and Liz Chenney conspiring with democrats to keep us there.
You do not seem to grasp that Obama was part of the Military Industrial complex you hate.
And Trump who you also hate is its enemy.
It must be hard being a progressive – all the contradictions.
“Solid strategy for the U.S. will involve planning from the #2 or 3 spot while waiting for the chance to take the lead again given the opportunity.”
Really ? Who is it you think is in the #1 spot ?
Russia ? Their navy and airforce is rusting in place. Their only aircraft carrier is a conventional jump carrier and a burnt out shell.
They only thing they have going for them is the worlds largest nuclear stockpile – assuming any of their nukes still work.
When Obama left office Russia was bullying Europe with control of the Energy that Europeans require.
Now Europe has a US guarantee of their energy thanks to Trump and US Frackers. Europe is rebuilding its ability to defend itself, And Russia is surrounded by enemies.
China ? I think they have 2 Carriers – model on that Russian one. Each Chinese carrier has 1/2 the compliment of a US carrier and each plane on the Chinese carrier takes off with Half the payload.
China does not have the capacity to defend its own territory from the two US supper carriers off its coast.
Worse still China has just pissed off the entire world. Almost no one is their friend. Countries that China thought it had over a barrel a year ago are talking about cancelling their debt to China and throwing the Chinese out. Aparently the Chinese go into an actual skirmish with India and did not fare too well.
When Obama left the WhiteHouse China thought it was graduating from regional power to World Superpower – now China is surrounded on all sides by enemies.
Do you understand there are 14 nuclear super carriers in the world – the US has ALL of them – one of which we are trying to figure out how to scrap. In 2005 the USS America a Super Carrier superior to anything any other nation in the world has was deliberately sunk because she was surplus and we wanted to find out what it took to sink a US Carrier so that we could design the Ford Class to the even more unsinkable. It took 2 weeks to Sink the America – and it was not fighting back.
Grow up Johnny – there is no other Super Power in the world. Not even Close, Russia is well past her glory days and is not coming back.
The Europeans are probably capable of defending themselves. They have no ability to project power – not militarily, not economically. Thatcher managed to win the Falklands but that was the very best even the British could do.
India and China are ascendant But it takes a century to build a navy capable of projecting power, and without that you are a regional power at best.
We can debate what the Role of the US in in the world. But it is a fact that for the foreseable future we are the world’s only superpower.
Someday that may change – but not likely in the lifetime of anyone now alive.
I will be happy to discuss how we should best use that power. I will join you in opposing the endless war crowd of the Chenny’s and their democratic Friend’s.
I would further note that Trump – unlike Obama has done an excellent Job of rebuilding our alliances. Europe may not like us, But it is starting to carry its weight in NATO and that is good for all of us, and for the peace and stability of the world.
Obama tried to sell TPP as some kind of Chinese containment. Well Trump is president and nearly all of Asia has joined the US in actually containing China. Taiwan has a better sense they can count on the US, as does Japan, Even Vietnam counts the US as an ally.
Japan is converting an Island in the South China Sea to an unsinkable aircraft carrier to be served jointly by US and Japanese forces.
That land based US aircraft 900km closer to mainland China.
Subic Bay is being reopened to serve US ships which will vastly improve the ability of US Fleets to remain close to the Chinese mainland.
US relations with India are better than they have been in 70 years.
This is your idea of a diminishing superpower ?
Have you paid the slightest attention over the past 4 years ?
A substantial portion of the back story on both the “collusion delusion” and the Ukraine mess, and getting out of the Mideast has been because The US has been shifting its power projection to Asia – and specifically China.
Long before Trump US global power and interest planning shifted to asia. That change has been procerding slowly for decades.
Russia was grasped as devolving to a regional power decades ago.
There is a reason – besides Trump loathing that the Russia and affiliated desks and to a lessor extent the mideastern desks in the IC and FBI were targeting Trump (or whoever the GOP nominee was), and the reason was more than just democratic partisanship.
Obama stalled the policy shift to Asia. He gave China a free hand. He assured the carreer people at the Russia and mideast desks in US policy that the would remain at the pinnacle of US foreign policy prestige. Trump telegraphed from the day he went down the escalator that if elected, US foreign policy would shift HARD towards China – at the expense of Russia and the mideast.
You left wing nuts are clueless – releasing the Fracken – turning the US not merely to energy independence but to a major exporting nation, has allowed us to shift the focus of our power projection to where it belongs – Asia, and specifically China.
But for oil, no one gives a $h!t about the mideast. But for oil and Gas, that Europe must get – either from the mideast or Russia, Russia is a fading power rusting in place.
China is the rising threat to not just the US but the world. Worse still China under Xi is reversing back towards the totalitarian regime it was under Mao – only with alot more power as a result of the Post Mai growth.
You left wing loons are capable of grasping that Russia is not our friend – though she is not inherently our enemy. China too – is neither Friend nor enemy.
Trump has contained China. Ultimately his actions might bring about the fall of Xi, and the restoration of a more western friendly China.
Right now China is a threat to herself and her neighbors and Trump has contained her.
So lets elect Biden so he can sell that out for a couple of Billion for Hunter.
I guess you do not recall 2016 ?
Trump was further behind Clinton, In fact Trump was further behind Clinton 2 days before the election than he is behind Biden today.
Next within the past month republicans have won – by double digits House seats that the lost in 2018.
These are the very districts that will determine the election in 2020.
Further what party is behaving incredible despartately ?
Go listen to Sen. Duckworth’s remarks on Trump’s Mt. Rushmore speech.
We expect desparate schlock out of AOC or Omar – when it is coming from Tammy Duckworth you know that democrats are terrified.
I do think this election is going to be a Tsunami – a red one.
Regardless we will know in November
John,
Your comment reminded me of what I heard today. It is being recommended that Biden doesn’t debate Trump unless certain conditions are met by Trump, like providing several years of tax returns. Apparently they are telling voters, you have to elect Biden as President to find out whether he is up to the demands.
It does not matter.
I know the left thinks they have this in the bag.
I honestly think if the election were tomorow Trump would win, and by November he will win big.
I beleive Biden has committed to 3 debates.
I guess he can back out. But doing so will hurt him.
Regardless, Biden will not survive a debate with Trump.
Half way into the debate Biden will be confused enough to think he is a republican.
And he will not get elected if he does not debate Trump.
People just want the gimp to go. Trump is not a good debater and he’s degenerated to the point he can’t even put a clear sentence together. If the debate lasts more than 10min Trump will slurring his words and doing the mr. sniffy thing. It’ll be pretty ugly for him.
“People just want the gimp to go.”
Pretty much the same people do not want Trump today as in 2016.
Nothing has changed.
“Trump is not a good debater and he’s degenerated to the point he can’t even put a clear sentence together. If the debate lasts more than 10min Trump will slurring his words and doing the mr. sniffy thing. It’ll be pretty ugly for him.”
Then why is Biden unwilling to debate ?
I have seen no evidence of decline in Trump. He is as enthusiastic as ever, he is as articulate as ever.
He also has far more experience than Biden. He spent the past 4 years dealing with the press – mostly daily, mostly personally.\
Trump has dealt with very hostile and capable cross examiners for 4 years, and done quite well. the approval rating of the press has tanked.
Conversely Biden has muffed softballs.
I am not looking forward to the debates.
My father died of vascular dimensia. I do not know exactly what Bidens problem is, but he is clearly in cognative decline. And it is not going to improve.
It is not likely that Biden was ever able to handle a debate with someone like Trump.
He can not today.
It is actually cruel to him that democrats are running him. He should return home and spend whatever time he has left with his family.
But engage in whatever wishful thinking you want.
Likewise, my friend.
Those million people that blew off the Tulsa rally are out there somewhere. Ha.
Bug:
Yeah or the 8-14 million who watched it live. So there!
Yeah, I was one of the TV audience. I don’t turn away from train wrecks.
I watch the speech later.
It was not the gettysburg address but it was sufficient for the moment.
It was what he needed to say.
What it was not was the lunatic speech that the left media claims.
The only possible way you could take it as divisive is if you were a marxist, or someone ignorant of actual US history.
But why should we expect sanity from people who tore down the statutes of that famous racist “fredrick Douglas”
Caught a bit myself, Book. Have to put my time in with my mr. sniffy impressions.
I heard it was the highest rating ever for Fox News on that day of the week.
and 12.5M people who watched it on TV.
How many people watch a Biden basement interview ?
We are not friends.
Do not presume familiarity you do not have.
Trump’s “debating” style: “My lies are truth. Your truths are lies. And you are a terrible person. I’ve heard that somewhere. It should be checked out.”
Only his choir will buy into that.
Is that an actual quote ? If not why did you put it in quotes – if so why didn’t you attribute the quote.
What it looks like is you putting words into other peoples mouths to suit your personal narrative.
I think maybe heads we lose tails we lose
Trump wins, another 4 more years of sedition and sabotage. The tricks they are playing now will get worse.
biden wins: Covid restrictions tell white folks to stay home but blacks can riot freely. Fun stuff like that.
Murder rates spike in chicago so the mayor blames it on people from Indiana. Genius!
Taxes go up bigly, to pay for all the free stuff and stave off financial collapse of the dollar.
I think that all the white folks in the :”blue states” and big shitties who hate Trump and middle american “red hat” people should just get what they are asking for. Let BLM have their “revolution” and see how well you folks do. I will be watching from afar.
I’ve had my patriotism insulted so much over a lifetime, I am not waving old glory anymore. It’s been spat upon by so many people who have benefitted so much from it I seriously wonder why I should care anymore. Maybe if the civil war really heats up I will just skedaddle. I will extract and set up a ratline for my circle to climb out of perdition.
I’ll vote for Trump and maybe hang on if he wins, but otherwise, I am very much planning to expatriate. Maybe Costa Rica, who knows. but I am done busting my bllz for a system that spits on me and my kind every day and blames us constantly for things that happened centuries before we were born, I tell you that.
Republicans are retards when it comes to winning elections. Most of Trump’s success comes from things he does like a Democrat.
They have fumbled so many balls the past decades it’s totally pathetic. John, better get some gold and silver to hedge your bets, and hide it. The chances are inflation is finally coming and who knows maybe a sovereign debt default too. One way or another it looks grim
Still not a republican.
My “analysis” is not some partisan wishful thinking.
While I overall think the country will be better off with 4 more years of Trump than with 4 years of Biden.
I could give a crap about most of the GOP. They are at best the lessor of two evils.
John, check your thesaurus. Unless you mean that the GOP is “leasing” two evils. Actually, under Trump, the GOP is lending out its evils to any fascistic group at hand.
RDKAY is like a lot of liberal moralizers. Total hypocrites, Told us there was no such thing as good and evil, then turned around and served us up a new set of goods and evils on a silver platter, and busy shoving it down our throats every day. Here’s an example: diversity = blacks = good. no diversity = whites = bad.
I take that modern day dogma and wipe my backside with it!
See I learned at university that there was no good and evil, these were religious fictions according to marx, or at best, culturally determined norms that have no objective meaning in a materialistic cosmos
These days I am taking that stuff to heart. Right now, “Beyond good and evil”
“The great periods of our life occur when we gain the courage to rechristen what is bad about us as what is best.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
Actually my response (sort of tongue in cheek) was to John’s statement that he voted for Trump as “the lessor of two evils.” When (I think) he meant the “lesser of two evils.” But who knows what he meant? So far as Kurtz, he’s off on his own tangent into the wild blue yonder.
“John, check your thesaurus. Unless you mean that the GOP is “leasing” two evils. Actually, under Trump, the GOP is lending out its evils to any fascistic group at hand.”
Speak for your self. I said what I meant. Trying to claim I intended something different is deceptive and misrepresentation.
Is it surprising that you are nut trusted ?
Jonathan: Calling out Trump for the misleading statement that “99 percent of COVID-19 cases are totally harmless” is important. But it is doubtful Trump will issue a “simple correction” as you urge the White House. Trump rarely issues corrections unless it’s with his Sharpie pen and involves altering an official weather service report about an impending hurricane. Trump usually doubles down. On Monday Trump’s press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, did just that. She said Trump’s statement was “a factual statement, one that is rooted in science”. So when it comes to Trump your naivete is breathtaking! We know that COVID-19 is not “harmless”. For many who contract the virus it can be debilitating with potential long-term damage to the lungs and other organs. Since early March most of Trump’s statement about COVID-19 have been either false, misleading or even dangerous–like his false claim that hydroxychoroquine and Lysol will prevent or cure the coronavirus. Even Peter Navarro, Trump’s trade advisor, is still promoting hydroxy even though the FDA revoked the use of this anti-malarial drug to treat the coronavirus. Again, Trump and his administration are doubling down.
But it’s much worse than false or misleading statements. Trump has actively worked to obstruct efforts to prevent the spread of the virus. He has fought with state governors over pandemic restrictions; cut funding for the CDC; muzzled medical experts, like Dr. Fauci, from speaking publicly to keep Americans informed; told OSHA not to investigate the thousands of employee complaints who say their employers are not providing COVID-19 protective equipment; called for states to re-open for business prematurely causing an unnecessary spike in coronavirus infections; fights with universities, like Harvard, that plan to move all courses online in the fall. And Trump has just announced he is withdrawing the US from WHO, the UN health agency, that will set back global efforts to track and defeat COVID-19. These are just a few of the things Trump has done to actively obstruct the fight against the coronavirus. If this occurred in the private sector Trump would be charged with criminal negligence because his actions increased unnecessarily COVID-19 infections and deaths.
If Trump were really smart, which he is not, he would keep his mouth shut and not try to obstruct efforts to track and defeat the coronavirus because the longer the virus spreads and is not contained his chances of re-election become more problematic. But, as a narcissist, Trump only thinks in the moment and impulsively strikes out at anything that makes him look bad. Public health be damned! That’s something that can’t be cured with a “simple correction”. Voltaire got it right: “Nothing is more dangerous than ignorance and intolerance armed with power”.
As I understand what trump said: We did more testing. Of that group less than 1% have problems.
Fatality rate has dropped from 0.03% to less than 0.02%
Covid is not Ebola but a DNC opportunity to inflict harm on Americans because they hate us all
If the CDC projection of the total number of infections is correct, the mortailty rate is 0.2% even accounting for people with permanent harm that is still going to result in 99% harmless.
Dennis McIntyre – WHO has admitted they did not track the CCP Virus, nor get reports from China before making the factless claims. BTW, the latest study shows HC is effective.
No, Paul, no “latest study” that is valid shows what you say–this is slop you heard on Fox, which, like Trump, can never admit being wrong. I heard it there, too. The FDA pulled emergency authority to use hydroxychloroquine because it is neither safe nor effective for any conditions other than those for which is was approved after testing for safety and efficacy, which are malaria and rheumatoid arthritis. If there was a valid, controlled study showing otherwise they wouldn’t have done this. And, BTW, the FDA can be very political, so if they no longer allow it to be used for coronavirus, it’s not safe nor effective.
Natacha – the person who is afraid of numbers, like your LSAT, SAT and BMI scores, wants to play the “validity of studies” game. You wouldn’t know a valid study if it jumped up and bit you in your ______.
When you start with confidence in the FDA you have already lost the argument.
In a previous post, John Say the genius has dismissed NOAA in favor of Trump’s opinions, here the FDA in favor of Trump’s opinion, and in another today 98% of the world’s climate scientists, all the National Academies of Science in the world, and all other associations of scientists in the world relevant to climate because he thinks the failure of some other unrelated predictions – not made by these individuals and organizations – must mean they will be wrong on a subject on which they are expert and he is an ignoramus.
Nope, I dismissed the NOAA in favor of the NOAA.
I also noted that ultimately the NOAA is not science.
They are engaged in predicting the unpredicatable.
They are not too bad at it. Though their accuacy improves dramatically as the distance into the future diminishes.
Regaredless Trump did not have an opinion on the Hurricane. As is typical – he as president was the public face of an oppinion by the experts – YOUR experts.
And you made a big deal because they subsequently changed their mind.
You constantly play this bizarre game – especially with Trump.
You endow these experts with theological infalibility and even when they contradict themselves over time.
It is those who repeated what they said who are Dunces.
Have you ever read 1984 ? You are channeling Orwell.
“John Say the genius”
Thank you for the compliment, but my arguments stand on their own.
If they can not then they are wrong – no matter how high my IQ is.
Yes, I trust the facts, reality more than the pontifications of purported experts, who have been repeatedly wrong – and continue to be.
These same people have been shilling for CAGW for 40 years.
Not a single prediction they have made has ever proven true.
Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting Different Results
My views are not driven by Trump.
You, the left are near universally wrong – because you are entirely clueless about the world, about human behavior.
Most of the garbage you sell fails simple logic.
There are several areas I disagree with Trump one.
He is wrong on somethings. That does not make him a liar or immoral merely for disagreeing.
But everything for you is a moral issue.
You do not argue anything. Your response to a position you disagree with is to lob moral handgrenades.
You are right because you are more virtuous that everyone else – in your own mind.
We have briefly debated CAGW here.
All you can muster is “lots of people agree with me”.
So what
argumentum ad verecundiam
and
Argumentum ad populum
are both fallacies.
Ones that worked out well for the third Reich.
Make an argument – using facts, logic, reason and defend it.
If you can not do that – why should anyone listen to you ?’
If you are the authority you claim, or if you learned anything from those authorities – you should be able to do this.
Go actually read JS Mills “On Liberty”
https://heterodoxacademy.org/library/all-minus-one/
One of the most critical reasons for free speech, for argument, for debate, is that
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
JS Mill
It is not enough that you manage to argue among those who share you views.
You must seek out and confront those who disagree.
When you can manage to defeat the arguments of some uneducated dolt THEN you get to climb the ladder to your next best opponent.
Only when you can defeat the best argument of the best person arguing ferverently against you – and do so not merely to convince yourself but to convince others – only then have you prevailed.
This is all critical, because if you are making arguments in a bubble with those who agree with you you are highly prone to error.
Gee, a friend of mine was prescribed HCQ for lupus.
This study says it is not only safe, but it is also effective:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7270792/
The statement is arguably correct.
It is the fact that the media and the left take issue with it that is the problem.
It is certainly far more accurate than
If you like your doctor you can keep them
or
Benghazi was a spontaeous uprising over an internet video.
Are precisely 99% of people mostly unharmed ? I do not know – neither do you.
If the CDC data claiming that 25-54M people have had C19 are correct – then the number is closer to 99.8%
If the number of infections reported as a result of testing are correct – then it is more like 95%.
And we all know that even if the CDC estimate are high the infections by testing are way low.
So my question is why are you and Turley making a big deal about a statement that might not be perfectly accurate,
but falls squarely in the center of the know error bars ?
There is no need to make a retraction.
Any claimed value from 95% to 99.8% is within the current domain.
Dude, you’ve already used up “you can keep your doctor” and “benghazi”, like everyday, and Trump’s on his 5th lie today and it’s not lunch yet.
Why don’t you go back in your basement and continue your research on global warming. We’re all dying to get the results.
“Dude, you’ve already used up “you can keep your doctor” and “benghazi”,”
I have ? 10M minimum – could not keep there insurance. Far more have not been able to keep their doctor.
Those lies had real world significant consequences.
At Benghazi the first US ambassador EVER was murdered by terrorists, and half a dozen others.
A US CIA station critical in the war on terror was over run by terrorists who gain incalculable knowledge as a result.
Who knows how many others have died.
Those BTW are not the only Obama lies or malfeasance.
How about the “we had a scandal free administration” ?
Fast & Furious
IRSGATE
Benghazi.
U1
Spying on the press
Spying on democratic senators
Spying on political opponents.
That is just off the top of my head.
“Like everyday, and Trump’s on his 5th lie today and it’s not lunch yet.”
About what ? the Toothpaste he uses ?
This entire JT article is much ado about nothing.
Trump’s 99% claim is right in the middle of the statistical range. The actual number could be 95% or it could be 99.8%.
And this is your idea of a “lie” ?
Please tell me what are the great “lies” Trump has told that have cost people their jobs, their doctors, their lives, their insurance ?
The great lies of the Trump administration have been told by the LEFT and Democrats and Media.
The whole collusion delusion is a gigantic left wing but lie.
While for the first time in US history EVER we have one president plotting against his successor.
For the first time EVER we have the machinery of govenrment being used against the presidentical campaign of a political opponent.
What We KNOW occured is WORSE THAN WATERGATE.
This is not the Plumbers, this was the CIA, the FBI, the IRS being used to target political enemies.
And you want to rant about Trump ?
You have no integrity or credibility.
Why should anyone trust you or your judgement ? On anything ?
You have lobbed false moral handgrenades, and you have been caught.
You should not be beleived – not about Trump, not about global warming, not about anything.
You have the gaul to accuse ANYONE else of lying ?
A climatology study which seems to have nothing to do with global warming, just fundamental physics:
https://phys.org/news/2020-07-global-atmosphere.html
The atmosphere rings!
So ?
John Say, you are flat-out misled and wrong. Real Climate is run by a band of climatologists who have studied the underlying physics and the instrument records for years. This is as factual as it gets.
By the way, the term CAGW is only used by the denialati.
I have been debating Climate for decades. RC is the propoganda arm of the climate nazi’s.
I am not interested in debating their credentials. While not as you claim, the most important facet is that they have been near universally WRONG.
A real scientist hypothesises, tests and revises based on the real world outcome. Warmists do not.
Every single prediction of the Climate Cabal has proved false.
We are decades past when Hanson claimed we should be post toasties.
We are almost a decade past when the Artic was supposed to be ice free.
Antarctica is gaining ice not losing it.
Even Greenland has recently shown signs of massing up not down.
Even the insanely stupid predications of more frequent violent weather have proven wrong (warming should moderate weather not make it more extreme).
The droughts have not materialized. The Sahara is actually shrinking.
But most importantly there is absolutely no difference between the warming trend from 1979 to the present, than that of the prior 200 years.
The earth has been warming at a rate of about 0.11C/ decade for 250 years. There is no “signal” that Human CO2 has changed anything.
In fact there is no signal that Human CO2 has even changed the atmostpheric CO2 levels.
Yearly human CO2 emissions are rounding error in the enormous amounts of CO2 that are exchanged between the oceans and the atmosphere every year. And we know the half life of CO2 in the atmostphere is about 14 years – not long enough to have a consequential impact.
But finally the killer – almost a decade ago is that the energy budget of the planet does not balance for CAGW.
The vast majority of sea level rise is due to thermal expansion, So we can calculate the total energy increase in the ocean each year – whatever is causing it. And as large as that amount of energy is, it is still many orders of magnitude below that needed for CAGW.
Worse still simple physics disproves CAGW thoroughly – whether you use Arenius or Plank or Stephan-Boltzman. Linear increases in temperature require exponential increases in energy.
This is an absolute law of physics – it requires to temperature – it also applies to other energy related physical phenomena – such as speed and sound.
SLR demonstrates linear increases in energy. Absent an exponential increase in stored energy – Warming will slow – as it has been over the past 4 decades.
There is no CAGW
I do not care whether you do not like the acronym – the words still have meaning.
There is no Catastrophic Anthropgenic Global Warming.
At current Trends it would be surprising to see .5C of warming by 2100. There is good reason to believe we will see much less than that.
What it is near certain we will NOT see is 4C of warming that climate scientists have claimed.
You can give that failure whatever name that you wish – I think CAGW suits fine.
Regardless, the fact is none of your malthusian predictions – not about Climate, not about anything else, have ever come true.
There are no denialists
Your attempts to control language aside.
You and your climate cabal are on the wrong side of the facts and the data.
That makes you propagandists and/or religious zealots.
Anything that requires faith to accept is not science.
Real scientists are capable of proving their case with facts – not inflated credentials and claims to authority.
https://cornwallalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/CMIP5-Models-vs-Observed-temps-Lower-Trop-1024×752.jpg
For those who are interested in learning some climatology:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
🎓
Not from a propaganda site.
Regardless it does not take a scientist to grasp that a hypothesis that has failed to conform to reality is false.
Whether it is the histrionic predictions of the high priests of CAGW on the news or even the more moderate claims of the IPCC – the planet has failed to cooperate.
What am I supposed to beleive – Gaia or some left wing nut CAGW propogandist that has no grasp of statistics, and is unable to tell when a hypothesis has been falsified.
Don’t be an idiot. Believe the overwhelming number of climate scientists and all appropriate scientific associations as well as national academies of science in the f…g world.
You’re a GD architect. Do you question span tables and bearing requirements for beams because Rush Limbaugh said to?
there is a warming trend but over what time?
there is an anthropogenic causal factor but what percentage can be definitively assigned to it? among how many other causal factors and what are their weights?
and over what relevant time period?
and what is the degree of variance in the “consensus” as well as the degree of certainty
what are the verified results of the major climate change models, and their track records for predictive accuracy?
if we can’t have a discussion about the precision of such vague statements without being called “deniers” then we are not having a conversation we are being bullied.
Over the past 2+ centuries the trend has been 0.11C/decade.
Over the past 4 decades the trend has been 0,11C/decade.
There is no difference in the trend before and after Human CO2 purportedly could have been a factor.
There was small evidence prior to 1998 when for two decades the rate of warming was higher than 0.11C/decade and appeared to be increasing.
That increase has ended and the trend has reverted to the norm.
If we built bridges based on theories as weak as those the global warming hysterics push we would never be able to cross the river.
“Don’t be an idiot. Believe the overwhelming number of climate scientists and all appropriate scientific associations as well as national academies of science in the f…g world.”
The overwhelming number of scientists opposed Galileo.
Science is not determined by consensus.
The predictions of the high priests of warmendom have all FAILED.
If you are still selling those – you are a religious zealot not a scientist.
At current trends we will not likely see 0.5C of additional warming by 2100.
If you accept that – then you and I have no argument.
If you are trying to claim numbers like 4C – then you have no evidence to support that.
Worse still fundimental science is against you. It always has been.
Increasining CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere AT BEST will result is linear increases in energy capture with linear increases of CO2 – i say at best, but the physics predicts that higher CO2 concentrations will have diminishing increases in energy capture.
Increasing the planets temperature required EXPONENTIAL increases in energy – see Stephan-Bolztman. Plank, Arrenhius.
We are at the very best seeing linear increases in energy capture. The physics means that will result in an ever diminishing rate of warming.
Which is approximately what we are seeing.
What we have NOT seen is the projected exponential increases in temperature – which would require double exponential increases in energy.
There is a reason that the radical warmist theories predict huge rises in sea level – because the energy required to increase the planet temperature 4C is gargantuan and the SLR just as a result of thermal expansion would be huge.
Warmist continuously forget the earth is a whole – that the evidence of CAGW must be EVERYWHERE or it is not real.
Since the 80’s I doubt I have listened to 1/2 hour of Limbaugh in total. That is less than the amount of NPR I hear in a week.
Why is it that you left wing nuts must presume that people who disagree with you can not think for themselves.
I have been published in science – once A long time ago. Work on the impact of temperature on the output of electrochemical cells – batteries, written during the 70’s while I was in high school. That work won the local science fair twice and got the attention of the air force and navy. While it does not make me a world class scientist – it does qualify me to judge the crap that warmists produce.
The structures information that you cite that architects and engineers relay on is not merely well established science, it has been empirically validated billions of times. You can go to almost any university mechanics lab and you can test the sheer or moment of steel.
You can even validate those attributes of lumber at your home.
I do not trust the information I rely on to build buildings – because some scientist or theory tells me the strength of steel.
I trust it because it has been verified in the real world repeatably – over and over.
I would further note that we have been building from wood, stone and concrete for millenia longer than we have has science to explain their strength. The Parthenon was built 2 millenia before newton.
Meanwhile in the Big Ten, there’s a new leader on campus. Amanda Hoover writes at NJ.com:
Jonathan Holloway, who last week became the first Black president in Rutgers University’s 254 year history, said he has no plans to change the school’s name, which honors a man who owned slaves…
“The reason we’re not going to change the name is that names have value that exceed someone’s existence,” Holloway said.
“If I were to walk around feeling bludgeoned by every name I see, I couldn’t get out of bed… My existence, my humanity, my complexity, cannot be reduced by the fact that Rutgers was a slave owner, that he could not imagine me,” Holloway said. “That’s his problem.”
I’ve said for years that something is not right with John Roberts. Who wants a Chief Justice who has a history of seizures and head injuries on the Court?? He fell AGAIN last month where he passed out?? (do we know if he did or not??) hit his head, required stitches, an overnight hospital stay and they think the cause is that he got lightheaded possibly due to dehydration but they don’t know? Cause of Roberts’ past two seizures with falls on his head were also unknown. We now know more than enough about traumatic Head injuries to know that his brain has been affected. His brain has taken three serious impacts due to unkown “causes”? It is unsettling that this man and his thrice injured brain remains on the Court. He needs to do the right thing and step down or be forced to resign. Get him off the Court.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chief-justice-roberts-injured-head-in-fall-last-month-was-hospitalized
Sure, “get him off the court” because you’re not happy with his positions and votes over the past few years.
That would be my reason.
Sorry, I have to disagree.
We have massively OVERREACTED to C19.
Anyone that doubts that is just an idiot.
If Trump’s attempts to restore sanity are less than perfect – which is not actually established – i can live with that.
You are just defending a form of Gothcha journalism.
This is all symptomatic of the astonishing desire of those those the left – not just to see Trump fail, but to see the country fail.
When Obama was elected I prayed for one of two things.
Either that everything I though I knew would prove false and Obama’s policies would succeed,
Or that stepping into the shows of the President Obama would do what was actually best for the country.
I wanted President Obama to succeed. I wanted this country to succeed.
Even if that meant being wrong about everything I beleived.
Early in Covid a woman in NYC was interviewed and she said that if it took 2M deaths from C19 to purge the country of Trump she was OK with that.
I don’t know that we’ve over-reacted, but the cost allocation has been suboptimal. What would have been better would have been for people under 50 and people under 60 without weight problems to have continued to live roughly normally, at least as soon as PPE was comprehensively available. Put some restrictions on restaurants and bars, debar indoor singing, debar crowded outdoor gatherings (like stupid political demos). We needed to isolate the population at risk. And for pity’s sake work as diligently as possible to keep the hospitals and nursing homes from being disease vectors. Well, all responses dependent on the judgment of human beings are subject to false starts. You change course as the data indicates.
Don’t sweat the small stuff.
President Trump said from the outset that he is not a politician. He is, similarly, not a scientist. From President Trump, you get the idea. You can run but you can’t hide. Covid-19 is going to wash over America. Either Covid-19 will kill us all or Americans will ultimately win and go forth. For the U.S. to listen to the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) and commit economic suicide to diminish their opponent and improve the democrat candidate’s chances in the election is idiotic, nay, madness. Democrats want to cut off America’s nose to spite its face.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Cutting off the nose to spite the face”
“The phrase is known to have been used in the 12th century. It may be associated with the numerous legends of pious women disfiguring themselves in order to protect their virginity.[citation needed] These cases include Saint Eusebia, Saint Ebba, Saint Oda of Hainault and Saint Margaret of Hungary.[2]
“One example of these cases is that of Saint Ebba (sometimes called Æbbe the Younger), the Mother Superior of the monastery of Coldingham Priory. In AD 867, Viking pirates from Zealand and Uppsala landed in Scotland. When news of the raid reached Saint Ebba, she gathered her nuns together and urged them to disfigure themselves, so that they might be unappealing to the Vikings. In this way, they hoped to protect their chastity. She demonstrated this by cutting off her nose and upper lip, and the nuns proceeded to do the same. The Viking raiders were so disgusted that they burned the entire building to the ground with the nuns inside.[3]
“It was not uncommon in the Middle Ages for a person to cut off the nose of another for various reasons, including punishment from the state, or as an act of revenge.[4] Cognitive scientist Steven Pinker notes that the phrase may have originated from this practice, as at this time “cutting off someone’s nose was the prototypical act of spite.”[5]”
– Wiki
In Fly’s studio next to the OK Corral in Tombstone there used to be a photo of an Indian squaw who had her nose cut off for adultery. Probably gone now lest we get the wrong idea about noble savages.
The wisdom has been “Take him seriously but not literally.” So often it turns out that there is at least a sufficient dimension of truth, though not literal truth, in what he says that he’s often in retrospect vindicated for what he says. Not always but often. The dynamic here is political with Trump being a lightning rod for sparking hyper partisanship into a forest fire, where if trees stand for precise accuracy, everything is burning. It’s like the difference between the letter and the spirit of the law, when laws are made in good faith. When seen purely as letter, the good faith law in its bare literality can be an ass. But the spirit of the law either never is or hardly ever is, unless, as noted, the law is simply pernicious. So with Trump, wild swings against him are so often misses, while his ostensible wild swings are so often later rescued by a close look at the context or when the portion of what is accurate comes more clearly to light or when judged by what deleterious absurdity has been brought against him and his policies. What has he said or done that even comes close to the collusion with Russia narrative, which swept in and culminated in, his impeachment? Measured against that, judging his inaccuracies by that, Trump so far gets a relative pass. Or take the Ds’ treatment of Kavanaugh, the lies, the wild allegations, the game playing, the execrable insinuations by Kamala Harris and others, the sheer disingenuousness, bad fait and decimation or the norm of fair play, what has Trump done that comes close to that? Measured by that, the relative pass persists. And one could go almost ad infinitum to mount the examples of the derangement about him that gives him safe harbour for his missteps and misspokenness.
June 17 ahead of his rally in Tulsa: “If you look, the numbers are very minuscule compared to what it was. It’s dying out.”
June 18: “America is better supplied and more prepared to [reopen] than, I would say, just about any other place.”
June 21: “Our Coronavirus testing is so much greater (25 million tests) and so much more advanced, that it makes us look like we have more cases, especially proportionally, than other countries.”
June 25: “So when you do 30 million, you’re going to have a kid with the sniffles, and they’ll say it’s coronavirus — whatever you want to call it. … In some cases, it’s people that didn’t even know they were sick. Maybe they weren’t. But it shows up in a test.”
June 25: “Our Economy is roaring back and will NOT be shut down. ‘Embers’ or flare ups will be put out, as necessary!”
July 1: “I think we are going to be very good with the coronavirus. I think that, at some point, that’s going to sort of just disappear, I hope.”
July 2: “There is a rise in Coronavirus cases because our testing is so massive and so good, far bigger and better than any other country.”
July 4: “By so [so much testing], we show cases — 99 percent of which are totally harmless — results that no other country can show because no other country has testing that we have, not in terms of the numbers or in terms of the quality.”
Now enter Turley, Trump’s champion, to explain all this.
Both the mayor of Chicago and the Mayor of New York blame the surge in killings in their cities on Covid.
Why does Covid make shooters of color more likely to kill than the rest of us?
Funny how they have gone from ‘gun crime’ to ‘Covid crime’ as if no people are involved at all.
I saw that yesterday as well. I always wonder if they really believe what they are saying.
Chances are that they stopped trying to be honest years ago and now they reflexively just say what helps them at the moment.
Lorenzo– I don’t think they really believe that Covid is responsible for the spike in crime. They never take responsibility for what goes wrong and always seize credit for what goes right, although there isn’t much of the latter in their cities. The Orcs have taken over.
A major cause of the spike in crime is New York policy of letting people out immediately after arrest. It is so counter to sense that even some criminals expressed disbelief that they were being let loose. They know better.
Part of this does not surprise me. I expect criminals to commit crimes as soon as they can. What is stupefying is the number of unicorn riding lunatics this country has put in public offices. We are paying dearly for that blunder in Seattle, Minneapolis, New York and LA. Oh yes, and Portland.
Portland, with its less than 6% black population, is the self-loathing capital of the US.
It’s not a ‘self-loathing’ capital. These poseurs don’t hate themselves, they hate you.
Crime prior to protests was DOWN – way down.
After protestors attacked the police both physically and morally – crime has spiked.
The strong correlation is with the protests and attacks on police – not C19
True but apparently unmentionable.
she also says its an illegal gun pipeline from indiana whatever that means; but i think i know what she means. hoosiers! the word is almost synonymous with redneck
the people who have been misusing the guns need to stop killing each other
the truest thing that could be said which is not said, is that most of the killers are black and their victims are too
the mayor’s black too., naturally, she is loathe to state the obvious fact that here we are over a hundreds fifty years past the 13 amendment prohibited slavery and yet black people still are blaming the problems they cause in this lifetime on a social institution that died out generations ago. but for which white folks are perpetually to blame
so this black on black crime wave in chicago? they blame it on crackers from indiana and a virus.
And they blame it on guns. Gins are going around killing people on their own. Apparently they were manufactured racist so they prefer killing blacks.
To claim that the Coronavirus is harmless in less than 1% of the time is a reasonable estimate, given that it cannot be directly measured because most infections are asymptomatic or mild mild, and thus go untested and unreported. Maybe it’s giving the Pres. the benefit of the doubt, but he is generally good with numbers. If the mortality rate (# deaths / # positive test infecteds) is 5%, then you are assuming about 1 : 5 persons who ingest any number of virus buds decide to get tested and test positive. Working backwards from the # US deaths (130,000), the 1% estimate translates into 13,000,000 Americans having contacted the virus, or about 3% of the US population. Given that the Santa Clara County study back in April showed that 2.5-4% of county population had antibodies (proof of exposure), and it’s now 3 months later, it seems reasonable that at least 3% of the US population have been exposed by now. It’s probably several multiples of that, which pushes the mortality rate (deaths / exposures) to a fraction of 1%.
that type of thoughtful analysis doesn’t fit on twitter, so it can’t be true.
CDC estimates that there have been 25-54M actual cases – that is 7-15% of the population.
130K deaths is like 0.2% if those who are seriously harmed is 5 times the death rate that is still only 1%.
then there was the Obama statement that “97 % of scientists believe that climate change is real.” This went through some “edits” – 97% crept up to 98%, and he added “climate” scientists. The point of contention is a peer-reviewed study published last year by Green, a chemistry professor at Michigan Technological University; John Cook, a research fellow at the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland in Australia; and 10 other scientists who blog under the collective name of Skeptical Science. The scientists examined 4,014 abstracts on climate change and found 97.2 percent of the papers assumed humans play a role in global warming (ClimateWire, May 16, 2013)
the statement “x percent of scientists believe climate change is real” is not a validly expressed verifiable statement in the first place.
see, the “scientific method” requires a precisely stated testable hypothesis on which to practice its method of verification.
and yet “statistics” though it is a useful and valid tool of science, is also a tool of that other endeavor, propaganda.
the defining the vague terms “real” and “climate change” — or rather, not defining them– immediately suggests that the propositions are being used like advertising and propaganda in the first place.
I mean, probably 100% of scientists who have seen the weather change from sun to rain, believe in some sort of “climate change.”
So what was that proposition meant to indicate in the first place? A typical “climate change” sort of conversation, so riddled with such vague statements that it’s obviously just herding the sheeple to and fro and not much more.
here’s another one: “humans play a role” in climate change.
sure we do, just by breathing out CO2 and farting out methane! See, look at me Ma, I’m not a climate change denier!
Now let’s zero in one the unstated variables: HOW MUCH OF A FACTOR IS THIS ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE– & OVER WHAT TIME PERIOD?
Is it 50%? 5% or 0.5%? over human existence for 100,000 years or just 100?
Such precision is always evaded.
And why?
There’s an easy explanation: SCIENTISTS HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE PRECISE FACTOR IS FOR ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE
“they” are not a monolithic group for starters, “they” have broad and diverse opinions, and “THEY” have no arrived at a anything more of a “consensus” than saying that the factor is “SIGNIFICANT.”
Well; see if we can define significant. To me, a precise term in statistics, but not so outside of it.
So they essentially want to keep all that obscure so that they can herd the sheep in the desired direction. This is the business of shaping public opinion to arrive at predetermined outcomes, not any sort of “science” just Public Relations, in a nutshell.
and I might add, anthropogenic climate change may very well be a big factor. I suspect for my own part, that it is. But not the only factor. I think the SUN itself is the biggest factor and who knows if its cyclical variations are perhaps the biggest factor, or not. I would not know
But I suspect “scientists” in general do not “know” either. And “Scientists” is a rather large and ill defined group. I would rather listen to those who have a qualified expert opinion in chemistry and hydrodynamics and meteorology, who are a very small percentage of “Scientists” in general, but I suspect, they have a rather more diverse opinion than is usually credited by “activists” who are also in the habit of quoting “Scientists” as if the general opinions of such a large group were relevant to forming a valid expert opinion in the first place. they arent, to sum it up. Only those who know the specifics in question.
Exactly, even more to whit, that likely can be interpreted as, ‘97% of the scientists *we bothered to ask*’ all agree. Surely we are still smarter than YouTube.
princemyshkin, of course climate change is real. The temperature has dramatically changed throughout the ages and such changes are seen today. The question is whether or not humans play a large percentage of the changes and whether or not humans can alter their behavior in such a way that is significant enough to halt the terrible predictions some climate enthusiasts have made.
When you light a match I feel confident that in the most insignificant way you have affected the climate on the earth, but the natural occurring changes so far outweigh the changes due to humans that the significance of the human effect on severe climate change is highly doubtful. In any event nothing that has been suggested by rational beings will lead to any significant change in climate.
And whether the effect of Humans on Climate matters.
The Left constantly claims that a warmer climate is catastophic.
Yet most real data shows that warmer is significantly better than colder.
John, the problem is upsetting the apple cart. The apple cart is the civilization built on political boundaries and established towns and cities which may be affected too rapidly for non-catastrophic adjustment in a world with 7 billion humans. Some arable land may no longer be so while other now non-arable land could transition to agricultural usage. The current established built environment and political boundaries do change over time, but have done so very gradually, and even then not without war, famine, and strife. Just because we have largely avoided all 3 for 75 years now does not mean they are obsolete under all conditions.
The question is, are you feeling lucky punk?
“There is currently a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists’ opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations, many of which explicitly agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports.
Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists (97–98%[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[2][3] and the remaining 3% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors.[4] A November 2019 study showed that the consensus among research scientists had grown to 100%, based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles published in the first 7 months of 2019.[5]
The current scientific consensus is that:
Earth’s climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s.[a]
Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause.
Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects.
People and nations can act individually and collectively to slow the pace of global warming, while also preparing for unavoidable climate change and its consequences.
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments, and science can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change. Policy decisions, however, may require value judgements and so are not included in the scientific opinion.[27][28]
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[29] which in 2007[30] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[31] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change
When one starts getting into the specific details one sees support rapidly falling off. The earth’s climate is cyclical. Mann had to lie in order to prove his point. The models have adjustment factors that seem to keep changing when the results of the modeling go off course. Who do you think does the adjustments? The modellers. What is their basis for changes in the fudge factors? They start off with one belief, the earth is warming so if the model doesn’t show that they find a fudge factor that makes it happen. This is repeated whenever the model doesn’t follow the predetermined path.
If you haven’t learned about modelling from Covid fiasco then you are unable to learn anything.
exactly. we see imprecise and vague statements. such as this which are asserted dogmatically as a “scientific consensus” that we must accept as if it was a din rodef from the Sanhedrin against criminal existence of humans slaying the Earth
as to the imprecision:
the time frame of the stated “warming” is not stated. does that mean a time period of a decade, a century, or a millenium? that may matter quite a bit.
one doubts that caveman farts and breath caused much warming; must we eschew agriculture, or only the industrial revolution? putting aside the fact that doing so would reduce the carrying capacity of civilization by like 90% and how would the necessary global population reduction ever occur soon enough to save the poor spotted owls?
another vague yet important element:
the causal predominance that it is “mainly” caused by human activity (ie human life) is imprecise
— let me break that down. the “mainly” part is a word that is not clear on the face of it, do they mean a majority cause like 51%? Or only a plurality factor, which would be to say, the largest factor among many? so let’s say there are 20 different causal factors in climate change. maybe human activity is 6% and the other 19 may compose the rest of the whole. who knows! THEY DO NOT KNOW is my conclusion having taken a good look at it. the models are complex and of dubious predictive efficacy.
another point about causal mechanisms: conceivably the causal mechanisms of some change, are only valid with a time period. back to point one!
and then perhaps over time, the causal weight of one factor may vary, such as, drum roll please, solar activity.,
now boiling down a complex system into two sentences is not easy especially when the system is not well understood and it is changing over time and they have a clear POLITICAL purpose to their “scientific” edicts
Let me return to the din rodef. this is a Jewish legal idea, related to self defense
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/leading-national-religious-rabbi-rabbis-who-harass-the-chief-rabbinate-have-din-rodef-413710#:~:text=Din%20rodef%20is%20a%20concept,individual%20threatening%20to%20commit%20murder.
I mock the scientific community whose self appointed leaders consider themselves a Sanhedrin, a body of religious authorities.
but i use the din rodef analogy on purpose
the way they articulate this thing, is that humanity itself is a persecutor of the Earth.
and the Earth must be somehow “defended” from human life.
so we get to the point now: the only thing that can drastically reduce “anthropogenic” factors, caused by human activities, which are the activities of life– is to reduce the number of human lives.
So it is implicitly and at time explicitly the position of this “scientific community” that human lives are form of pollution on the Earth that should be reduced.
Am I going to respect these rabbis of science? No, to me they are whitened sepulchres.
I will consider unbiased expert studies related to climate change but if they have even the whiff of this attitude then they are immediately suspect.
See, I think human life should continue and that there is no dire necessity to truncate the world’s population down to less than half its size. and you can bet that much would be necessary in the minds of some of these prognosticators. i may understate that. I saw one influential voice say that the carrying capacity of earth for an industrialized population was 1/7 the current size, essentially, no more than a billion.
These people have murder in their minds, let’s face it. not just birth control, not even abortion, not just euthanazia; yes all those things and more. scientists? technocrats actually, just that.
You’re a f…g clown.
Yeah, I KNOW, THE FOLLOWING ARE NOT AS SMART AS YOU AND RUSH AND ARE ALSO PART OF A CONSPIRACY TO GET TRUMP.
“There is currently a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists’ opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations, many of which explicitly agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports.
Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists (97–98%[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[2][3] and the remaining 3% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors.[4] A November 2019 study showed that the consensus among research scientists had grown to 100%, based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles published in the first 7 months of 2019.[5]
The current scientific consensus is that:
Earth’s climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s.[a]
Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause.
Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects.
People and nations can act individually and collectively to slow the pace of global warming, while also preparing for unavoidable climate change and its consequences.
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments, and science can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change. Policy decisions, however, may require value judgements and so are not included in the scientific opinion.[27][28]
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[29] which in 2007[30] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[31] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions….”
The site lists all scientific associations with their positions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change
Book says: You’re a f…g clown.
*****
What does that add to your argument?
““There is currently a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities.”
This has to be about as stupid a sentence as could be made. It demonstrates how stupid one has to be to rely on Wikipedia for this type of information. If the sun disappeared earth would freeze no matter how much warming humans caused. If man completely disappeared the earth would continue to go through warming and cooling cycles.
Pretty sure they factor in the sun.
But that is not what their comment said. They didn’t factor in a lot of things in their statements. I am not siding with one side or the other as to global warming. We don’t know enough to have a definitive answer so instead I ask questions where the answers can be better understood and more likely to have proof.
The possibilities:
1)No significant warming due to human activity
2)Significant warming due to human activity long term
3)Significant warming due to human activity short term that will destroy or significantly alter human life
If #1 nothing need to be done
If #2 we have planty of time to figure things out and the discussion turns to the amount of effort to put into the problem
If #3
We have a crisis where global warming will destroy or significantly alter human life
I believe #1 and #2 are significant considerations. #3 is a very distant outlier and is the only one that must be managed effectively today.
The question that remains is whether or not what we are doing is effective. What we are doing today is a political bandage that is covering up a fatal abcess if #3 is true. The policies are counterproductive to the solution for #2.
You let us know how your research goes Allan. Your opinion will get all due consideration.
BTB, all you are doing with replies like you just made is demonstrating your inability to deal logically. I even broke the logic down for you and left the door open for you to respond in an intelligent way. Instead you chose junk. Once logic and fact hit the door you know you are in trouble. It’s good that you used your hands to earn a living. You didn’t have a good alternative.
The logic of this doesn’t square because, through inaction, you guarantee outcome #3. Plans driven by ingnorance invariably reach near worst case scenarios unless, though sheer luck and gambling theory, the outcome is slightly less catostrophic than originally thought. Basically it’s shortsighted enough to work the interests of survival into something akin to needing to hit a single number in one spin in a game of roulette.
“The logic of this doesn’t square because, through inaction, you guarantee outcome #3.”
Reread the three alternatives. I didn’t advocate action or inaction in my comments above. Acting precipitously on #3 removes resources from #2 and resources for other grave problems that could be faced.
What I did that escaped your mindset was to provide three potential possibilities. You needed to more carefully read what was written before replying.
Regardless Johnny Buglife errored when he presumed that a planned response was necescary. That is a false assumption.
There is no reason to beleive that regardless of what is true about Global Warming that a government response is necescary.
I don’t believe in climate hysteria but if one is going to argue for doing things about it they should at least recognize when things don’t work.
Do you mean these 3 reactions to the alternatives?
“If #1 nothing need to be done
If #2 we have planty of time to figure things out and the discussion turns to the amount of effort to put into the problem”
I’m reading your suggestions for action to vary between “nothing to be done” and “we have planty (sic) of time to figure things out…”
Neither of these is true because it’s already been established scientifically (as much as anything, ever has been established scientifically in fact) that a) much has to be done, and b) there is not plenty of time (basically there is a 10 year window). Hell, when my dad worked at NASA he and his cohorts knew this in the late ’70’s.
Train left the station on doubting the existing research and sitting around with a thumb up the butt years ago.
Moreover, there is a *direct* pathway from your ‘doing nothing’ to overt catastrophy. And taking time to reinvent the wheel will be the scenic route to overt catastrophe.
Perhaps, you could think your thesis points through before accusing others of having poor reading comprehension because your thinking on the matter presently resides in the very shallow end of the pool, my friend.
“Do you mean these 3 reactions”
They are alternatives to consider. If you have more you can add them.
“I’m reading your suggestions for action to vary between “nothing to be done” and “we have planty (sic) of time to figure things out…””
I was not determining anything. I was just writing down where the logic takes us.
“(basically there is a 10 year window)”
Without proof you have stated with certainty what will happen in 10 years. We have already spanned one ten year prediction that turned out to be as wrong as I believe you are. Some people benefit greatly from the hysterical thinking of others and they create a fictional way out that benefits themselves and nothing else. What they are satisfying is not science. They are satisfying emotional feelings that they have created.
In any event you are choosing alternative #3 as a certainty. That is a bit off the wall but you are welcome to your choice. “The question that remains is whether or not what we are doing is effective.” What is being done today wouldn’t significantly alter the world’s temperature even if we accept the pseudoscience that is being utilized. That means prepare for your doom in 10 years.
What have you accomplished? Nothng. You lost the game.
And as far as “acting precipitously” on #3, rather than removing resources it actually will be what creates the world economy moving forward.
Not that this has to argued over now, it’s established protocal and has been such for years. Economic interests can fight over this, but not scientific ones.
“it actually will be what creates the world economy moving forward.”
Does that mean you are in favor of wasting resources and impoverishing various groups in society while making billionaires out of others?
The real world is not defined by protocols.
I would further note that Climate science is not only not a hard science it is FAR WORSE in quality than economics.
Finally scientific interests can fight over anything that has not been proven with absolute certainty.
That is a central tenant of actual science.
Science is not governed by protocols either.
In science you PROVE a contention – using facts, logic, math. Not consensus. Not protocols.
“In science you PROVE a contention – using facts, logic, math. Not consensus. Not protocols.” Proof is only available in math.
In physics you compare your math with reality. If it doesn’t agree with reality it is wrong.
In engineering you test your math with reality. Cautiously.
There are many fields which don’t use science. The actual practice of medicine is not merely using facts, logic and math. They read the news and react to it. The Lancet fraud killed an unknown number. It stopped trials too.
First do no harm. That one is easy. It is a long-used drug with side-effects and their frequencies in the PDR. Any M.D. can prescribe an approved drug for a novel use. Easy to tell if it is safe for this patient. The anecdotal reports say it works. Can’t hurt (known contraindications), might help.
The science of epidemiology involves both effectiveness and efficacy. The first is “it works” we don’t care about the details. That known protocol worked. ‘Nuff said. The epidemiologist wants efficacy. This means “it works” and these doses do this much and side effects occur this much and starting early has this effect and late has that and so on.
If a life-saving protocol with known side effects is available, cheap and effective, and you insist on double blind: it would be like having a double-blind study with half the parachutes made of tissue before allowing any parachute use. People are not to be put to death in the name of the scientific method.
“The logic of this doesn’t square because, through inaction, you guarantee outcome #3.”
Assertion not supported by facts.
“Plans driven by ingnorance invariably reach near worst case scenarios”
You have a very odd view of the world.
There is very little effective central planning.
We have know for a long time – and if you did not learn that from the 20th century you are incapable of learning, that the value of central planning is extremely limited, that beyond those limits it fails disasterously.
The enlightenment was not planned, the industrial revolution was not planned, none of the great world advances were planned – atleast not in the sense you use planned.
“unless, though sheer luck and gambling theory, the outcome is slightly less catostrophic than originally thought. Basically it’s shortsighted enough to work the interests of survival into something akin to needing to hit a single number in one spin in a game of roulette.”
You are so obviously wrong. If the life required the constant fine tuning you demand all life would have ceased billions of years ago.
The natural balance MUST heavily favor not just the preservation of life, but its constant improvement – or that would not happen.
The fact is that doing nothing – or more accurately – no one at the top imposing a plan by force on all of us pretty much always produces the best outcome.
Malthus was wrong, no malthusian prognostication EVER has proved true.
CAGW is just another husk to toss on the pile of failure.
This reflects a broad outline of where the scientific mainstream resides re window of time to withstand climate change. I suspect highly both of you guys will reject it out of hand by taking the tact saying that nothing can be proven until it actually happens, which on an elementary level is actually true but wildly disregards the place of science and planning for the future in general.
Guess what? I trust them over you.
“This reflects a broad outline of where the scientific mainstream resides re window of time to withstand climate change.”
And yet that window of time has from 1980 forward been shifting as reality happens, and fails to conform to the “scientific consensus”,
The only adjustments to the idiocy of CAGW that has occured over time – is changes in language – typical of the left, when reality does not conform change the meaning of words, and constantly shifting the window foreward.
Here is James Hanson’s 1988 predictions compared to reality
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/evans-david/hansen-1988-a-b-c-scenarios.gif
“I suspect highly both of you guys will reject it”
Yes, I reject unproven thesis.
I reject thesis that fail to accurately predict.
“out of hand by taking the tact saying that nothing can be proven”
CAGW is not unproven. It has been FALSIFIED.
It has failed to accurately predict the past 32 years.
It is now off by 2.5 std dev.
“Guess what? I trust them over you.”
I trust people who tell the truth. I trust people who have a track record of being right.
Warmists have neither.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/03/climate-change-model-warns-of-difficult-future/
I don’t give much credence to those pushing significant global warming in the near future. I also do not believe that anything that has been done over the past 10 years or we are doing today is having much of an effect. I do, however, pay attention to pollution which can run parallel to some people’s idea of global warming.
The article talks about what people have been thinking about. I mentioned at least one of those ideas quite awhile back. If I was afraid of my #3 (I’m not) then I would have taken all the money wasted by the hysterics and put it into those types of ideas which could have a cooling effect on the earth. S02 in the atmosphere is known (or thought to be known ) to have the ability to reduce the earth’s temperature. It would have a stronger effect if it were in the statosphere. Potentially it could be a fast solution and controllable. Wasting money doesn’t help get to your objective.
Too many substitute feelies for productive thinking. That is why I tried to make things easy by pointing out the 3 logical things that could be considered possibly true, but apparently feelies interfere with such logic.
Why are you trying to sell models ?
We know that nearly all the models are running hot – by 2.5std dev average – that is alot.
They are useless.
There is not a reason to read an article that is based on model preductions.
It might as well be based on a Ouija board.
You think??? Lol.
They do, but no model yet factors in cosmic rays – which have now been determined to be critical to both cloud formation and the height at which clouds form. All the CIMP models use very primative modeling of clouds which we know are incorrect.
While Clouds are one of the bigger problems – the fact tis that the computer models that are the foundation of CAGW are not merely deeply flawed – but must be. The computational power does not exist to model the climate of the earth in significantly faster than real time, that is necescary to forecast 100 years in advance.
Forecasting climate – even with the greatest supercomputers in existance requires massive over simplification of the processes involved.
Not only can’t the models manage the already known science of clouds, the grid size is atleast 20 times larger them the minimum required to reliably model climate.
Absent quantum computing we will never be able to model climate significantly in advance.
And BTW Cosmic rays are merely one Solar factor.
Climate models assume that the sole source of energy transfer from the Sun to earth is a fraction of the radiation spectrum – mostly visible.
Climate models completely ignore other energy transfers such as gravity.
We have tides from the sun and the moon everyday. We have tides not only in the ocean but in the plastic mantle of the earth.
We know as an example that earthquakes and volcanoes follow solar cycles – but we have no idea how, and yet the energy involved must be massive.
Do you understand how much energy is involved in gravity ?
John Say – Clouds? You have clouds where you live? Here they are an urban myth.
What proportion of the cause is attributed to the sun?
I must have missed it
They can’t hang a specific answer on “HOW MUCH DOES MAN CAUSE” BECAUSE THEY DONT KNOW
you can even establish if the “main” cause is a majority cause like 51% or if it is a plurality cause among many
can you even come up with a list of the top five factors of warming?
And again, be sure to specify over what time frame, because, of couse, man has just been here for a small microsecond of geologic time, in which the surface temperature has varied quite a bit
I realize these questions are pesky. Should I just recite the mantras that the “scientific” Sanhedrin has dictated to me?
Sorry for thinking — i guess that what makes me a f’n clown. thinking instead of just believing
Insult is not argument.
Claims of consensus are just a bad appeal to authority.
The claimed consensus has been rebutted many times,
and is irrelevant regardless,
Neither science nor reality are determined by consensus.
Science is established by hypothesis and experiment.
Where the outcome does not confirm the hypothesis real science revises the hypothesis and tries again.
There is no real world data to support a warming trend greater than 0.11C/decade over the long run.
There is also no science to support ANY claim about warming or cooling. The 0.11C/decade existing trend is purely empiracle.
We assume it will continue – because it has for almost 250 years. We have no other scientific foundation
Any claims of greater warming in the future are guesses without any real science to support them.
I have pointed out in other posts that there is no evidence of the required energy capture. This is Trendberth’s so called “missing heat” problem. Scientists spent years looking in the ocean for that missing heat – failing to grasp the basic physics that if the heat was in the ocean at all SLR would have to be accelerating – and it is not.
When you can show that the earth is storing the vast quantities of additional heat from the sun that would be necessary for the energy budget of the planet to balance for significant warming – then we can return to a scientific discussion.
Actually taking of science as just consisting of hypothesis and experiment is only two legs of the triangle. A more realistic description always comes down to dialectics, i.e. thesis + antithesis = synthesis.
Rinse and repeat.
It’s how the scientific method works.
Sounds like philosophers will be building bridges and making all the new scientific discoveries from now on.
Maybe. But only if they’re practicing scientific method as well.
“It’s how the scientific method works.” is the way you characterized what you said but if you now want a retreat to the scientific method that is fine.
By the way, why did you change your alias?
Got kicked off for suggesting a part of your anatomy fits well inside part of trump’s.
Which alias was that. So many aliases seem to run together. I’ll bet you could post under that name right now. But what you said wasn’t polite nor did it add to the discussion. Take note. I have had only one alias. I haven’t needed several.
“Got kicked off for suggesting a part of your anatomy fits well inside part of trump’s.”
As you should.
Insult is not argument.
By the way, your sentence makes no sense.
It is hard to put the broken parts of what you said into terms that make more sense. Your statement wasn’t properly related to the scientific method.
The scientific method is completely related to philosophy. Ever wonder why a grad student (in whatever discipline) presents and defends their ‘thesis’? Why peer reviewing acts as an antithesis in order to reach synthesis?
Related is not the same as.
Johnny Buglife, don’t forget to let us know your prior aliases unless of course those aliases constitute an embarrassment.
“Related is not the same as.” — The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an entry: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/
Your point?
You are clearly clueless.
You have this marxist dialetic nonsense on the brain.
The scientific method greatly precedes Hegel.
It precedes most western philosophy.
It is not rooted in thesis/antithesis.
It is not rooted in argument.
It is rooted in actual experimental testing in reality.
A hypothesis is tested against reality and is succeeds of fails.
Peer review is a modern creation – none of Einsteins work was peer reviewed.
Peer review works badly, and it does not work at all as you describe.
Even today the ONLY real test of a hypothesis is reproducing results of your experiments by third parties.
That is not how peer review works
We are in the midst of having massive amounts of pseudo science stripped, because for decades we have mostly failed to test the works of others by reproducing them.
Psychology is tossing some of the most famous work of the past 70 years – because it does not reproduce.
On physics they just gave a Nobel in Physics to an Israeli physicist who has been considered a wing nut for almost 50 years – because he challenged the core physics of crystals – 50 years ago and it has taken that long for physicists to verify his work and grasp that the foundations of crystalography have been wrong for decades.
We are seeing similar things in Antropology, as well as medicine and nutrition.
Economics has been trying to save Keynes for decades to no avail.
The retreat from advancing science by reproducabe experiment has had disasterous results accross the feild of science.
You are still trying to sell CAGW based on climate models that everyone knows have failed.
What will it take – and ice age for you to come to your senses and grasp that you can not talk your way through science.
If your work does not reproduceably reflect reality – IT IS NOT SCIENCE – it is religion.
Johnny, we don’t need no stinkin’ scientific method! We got Trump! He knows medicine, predicts hurricanes and can look into the sun without special glasses.
That would be more meaningful – if you were not constantly selling pseudo science that has nothing to do with the scientific method – like CAGW.
Those Hegelian bridges worked out quite well in the USSR I understand.
🙂
You are correct that there is more steps to the scientific method.
After hypothesis and experiment, you are supposed to evaluate and revise.
But Science is NOT a dialectic. It is neither Hegelian nor Marxist.
Science exists in the part of epistemology where certainty is less than mathematics and logic but much greater than philosophy
Atleast real science does.
Save your dialetics for philosophy where MAYBE it belongs – certainly not science.
as I mentioned yesterday, a hypothesis has to frame a proposition with enough certainty that it is testable or at least falsifiable.
vague and imprecise statements which eliminate complexities for political and social advocacy purposes are not theories they are slogans
i am old enough to understand the difference between science and marketing. does anybody in the climate change advocacy crows want to admit the extent of “selling” that’s really happening?
I know there are; and the climate “doomers” are even better at pointing out this hypocrisy than the “deniers” are
here we are in another yet another arena of dialogue where the “moderates” are staking out an oversimplified position that oversimplifies and reduces the necessary complexity of reality. why ? because they are hand in glove with Democrat party leadership, which has specific goals, and the pack of dogs all yap in unison to achieve them.
this is not science it is politics. it’s a form of lysenkoism, perhaps not as wrong as lysenkoism was, but a similar dynamic
here’s a wild question.
to what extent does the magnetic core of the earth and the magnetosphere, retain the gaseous atmosphere?
https://science.nasa.gov/heliophysics/focus-areas/magnetosphere-ionosphere#:~:text=The%20magnetosphere%20shields%20our%20home,particles%20streaming%20off%20the%20sun.
now obviously, if it’s the significant factor retaining atmospheric gases in the first place, then, maybe it’s holding in the atmospheric heat, too, hmmm?
now if so, and the magnetosphere is changing over time as the molten iron core of the earth fluctuates, how can we identify the extent of the effect, and its variance over some time frame?
Can we at least get a specific baseline read on that over a long geologic time frame so that the “anthropogenic” cause can be framed against a certain baseline? Feel free to look that up in the “scientific consensus” and let me know. Put Benson on it if you can’t access the articles!
oh wait, you tell me that maybe don’t know or can’t supply a number for that?
Because if they can’t answer a baseline question like that, how could they answer a more complicated systemic change problem?
but here’s this consensus. i tell you what the consensus is. it’s a made up super oversimplification for political purposes. what they really agree on is the need to fool people into “doing something” they all want
kind of like how they told us “oh you dont need to wear masks” but then six months later they admitted masks help stop spread of covid– they just LIED to the public because they had a shortage of masks for medical workers and wanted to discourage hoarding
this is your “scientific authority”– full of pompous arrogance when it comes to communicating with “the public” that it holds in low esteem.
There is virtually nothing about CAGW “Science” that would meet any real scientific standards.
Even sociology and economic establish patterns to more rigid standards that Climate.
Further much of this is pseudo science.
While there is an element of physics and fluid dynamics that is used to create a patina of science to the modern climate religion, ultimately that hits a dead end. You can not get from fundimental physics to climate without going through a chaos systems that can not be predicted using science.
So most of climate science works the opposite way – like sociology and economics by attempting to derive a model from the data.
Hayek established long ago – and even Paul Romer has confirmed in the last decade that you can not derive a model directly from data.
Or more correctly – you can derive an infinite number of models from data proving whatever you want and hind casting perfectly, but with no meaning in forecasting.
If you have enough equations and enough uncertain coefficients you can not overcome confirmation bias.
This – and the fact that so called “climate scientists” are mostly those who could not manage the mathematical rigor of physics and are fundamentally mathematically and statistically inept, thoroughly undermine climate science.
Despite a patina of “hard science” – ultimately climate science is foundationally no different from sociology or economics – except that it is less statistically rigorous.
The best test is that of 102 Climate models – there are only two that are close to what has actually occured. The average of all climate models is 2.5 std dev away from reality. This means the average model has about a 2% chance of being valid.
If you take the same data that Cook used and examine it to determine the portion of scientists that believe that Anthropogenic Climate change is a very serious problem – a plurality do not.
Beyond climate science. We have been making the same fundimental error since Malthus.
Please tell me which malthusian claim EVER has proven true ?
the popuplation bomb ?
The destruction of the rainforest ?
The melting of glaciers ?
The ozone hole ?
Peak oil ?
….
The world is not going to hell.
2 fallacies: Only the opinion of scientific specialists matter in highly specialized and technical field science.
Predicting a unique possibility based on the failure of others to predict other unique possibilities is …….. never mind.
Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists (97–98%[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[2][3] and the remaining 3% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors.[4] A November 2019 study showed that the consensus among research scientists had grown to 100%, based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles published in the first 7 months of 2019.[5]
The current scientific consensus is that:
Earth’s climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s.[a]
Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause.
Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects.
People and nations can act individually and collectively to slow the pace of global warming, while also preparing for unavoidable climate change and its consequences.
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments, and science can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change. Policy decisions, however, may require value judgements and so are not included in the scientific opinion.[27][28]
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[29] which in 2007[30] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[31] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change
Using Wiki is not scientific nor a scholarly source
mentioning “scientific consensus” a dozen times does not make it scientific never mind a consensus
The page is well-sourced, with links to a plethora of “scholarly” articles, but it’s easier to simply dismiss it out of hand.
Ni amount of scientific articles or oponions alters the fact that like every maltusian prognostication since …. Malthus – reality has falsified it.
There was also a scientific consensus of the Ptolemaic description of the universe. In fact it worked pretty well except for one or two glitches like the Sun being in the wrong place.